10 Apr 2002 Legislative Assembly 743

WEDNESDAY, 10 APRIL 2002

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

PETITIONS Woopen Creek Mr Pitt from 89 petitioners requesting the House to consider registering the name Woopen Creek in the Register of Place Names as a separate locality.

Recreational Fishing, Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Strait Miss Elisa Roberts from 2,116 petitioners requesting the House to amend the Fisheries Regulations to declare the southern part of Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait a recreational only fishing area.

Caloundra Hospital Mrs Sheldon from 1,870 petitioners requesting the House to (a) ensure both Caloundra City Hospital theatres are fully operational, (b) ensure all hospital beds are fully functional, (c) the new quick recovery wards are fully staffed and equipped, (d) provide funding for staff and equipment to service the 16 bed Rehabilitation Unit, (e) ensure sufficient specialists, GP and medical staff are permanently employed to allow this hospital to make available to patients a seven day, twenty-four hour, Outpatients and Emergency Service, (f) reinstate the Outpatients Physiotherapy Clinic, (g) place additional financial resources into the Caloundra City Hospital Dental Clinic and (h) employ more dentists to reduce the extended waiting time that patients must endure waiting for dental treatment.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian War Graves Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: There is much concern in the Returned & Services League and among the families of diggers who lost their lives in the First World War about a French government plan to bulldoze an area where a number of Australian soldiers were buried during the war. The French government plans to build a new airport on the site. I have written a letter to Jacques Chirac, the French President, on behalf of all Queenslanders to urge him to reconsider the siting of the airport. I told Mr Chirac in a letter that on behalf of the people of Queensland I was writing to protest at the desecration of this sacred site. The soldiers who lost their lives on this site were fighting for the liberty of the Allies, including the citizens of France. They died for our freedom and their graves should be preserved to honour their ultimate sacrifice. I told President Chirac that the Queensland descendants of those buried near Chaulnes were extremely distressed to hear of the proposal. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the letter that I have written to the President. I will also circulate a copy to all members. Leave granted. Monsieur Jacques Chirac President de la Republique Palais de I'Elysee 55, rue du faubourg Saint-Honore 75008 Paris Monsieur le President C'est avec une grande inquietude que j'ai appris le projet du Gouvernement francais de construire un nouvel aeroport sur le site ou un certain nombre de soldats australiens furent enterres au cours de la premiere guerre mondiale pres de Chaulnes. Au nom de tous les Queenslandais, je vous ecris pour protester contre la desacration de ce site sacre. Les soldats qui ont perdu leur vie sur ce site se battaient pour la liberte des Allies, y compris des citoyens francais. Ils sont morts pour notre liberte et leurs tombes devraient etre preservees afin d'honorer leur sacrifice ultime. Les descendants Queenslandais de ceux qui sont enterres pres de Chaulnes se sentent blesses et peines d'apprendre ce projet et je vous conjure de considerer un site alternatif pour l'aeroport international. Laissons nos heros reposer en paix. Je vous prie d'agreer, Monsieur le President, l'assurance de mes sentiments les plus respectueux. PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER MINISTRE DU QUEENSLAND ET MINISTRE DU COMMERCE 744 Ministerial Statement 10 Apr 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Overseas Visit Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: In order to expand and grow our economy, Queensland—with only 3.6 million people—must continue to undertake strongly focused international campaigns to attract business and investment to this state. We have to develop a broader export culture and be aggressive in exporting to the world. A prime focus of our attention must be the United States—not exclusively, but significantly—to which I led a trade mission from 9 March to 22 March 2002 to further our objectives and to foster interest in new investment and business development in the Smart State of Australia. The chief aims of the visit were to promote Queensland as an attractive trade and investment destination, particularly in our emerging Smart State industries such as biotechnology, information and communications technology, education, film and television, and our traditionally strong industries, including tourism; to develop closer commercial and collaborative research links between Queensland and US institutions, organisations and governments; to develop high-level business and government networks in New York, South Carolina, that is, Charleston and Columbia, Texas, that is, Dallas and Austin, and California, that is, Los Angeles; and to generally strengthen economic and cultural ties with the US, in particular with our sister state of South Carolina. I table for the information of the House two copies of that report together with additional material that is associated with it. Mr Speaker, because of the importance of the next matter that I want to raise, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. I found in the United States a profound sense of sorrow at what had happened to their nation on September 11th, but a growing determination and sense of hope for the future. On every day of our visit, we saw reminders of what the September 11th attack had done to American society, but also experienced many expressions of gratitude for what Australia had done in the aftermath and of the close bond which has existed for many years between our two countries. I am confident that the new initiatives we announced for our movie and tourism industries will provide strong results for Queensland against this background and I found great interest in our plans to restore General Macarthur's Headquarters here in Brisbane as a monument to that relationship and as a key attraction for visitors to our State. I will report separately on our Sister State Agreement with South Carolina which is providing healthy results for both States and particularly now in business opportunities. One key announcement has been the $250,000 contract signed in South Carolina by Ballandean Estate Wines from Queensland which will also provide a base for their expansion through the United States. It is a fantastic result, directly from the Sister State Agreement, and a credit to Ballandean and to all those involved in both States. Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina has indicated that he plans to lead a major business delegation here, possibly as early as December this year, which should give a further boost to the relationship. The Governor was also delighted with the Smart State number plates which I presented him with during my visit. And in relation to Smart State initiatives, my delegation found great opportunities in nanotechnology at the University of South Carolina and also in IT and biotechnology in the State of Texas. Those opportunities in South Carolina and Texas were so impressive that I announced at the time that I will be sending our Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, the Honourable Paul Lucas, to Texas and South Carolina in June, prior to Bio2002 in Toronto, to continue on with the discussions which I had during my mission. I have established a good rapport with Governor Rick Perry of Texas and I am pleased to advise that he also has accepted an invitation to visit Queensland including taking up a suggestion that he visit the town of Texas in our State, after I handed him a letter from the Mayor of Inglewood Shire, Cr Trevor Gray.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cape York Justice Study Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.), by leave: In July last year, on behalf of the Queensland government, I asked Justice Tony Fitzgerald to lead a review that became known as the Cape York Justice Study. My action and the action of the government was prompted by growing concerns for the future of the people of Cape York, particularly the children and the women. I tabled Justice Fitzgerald's three-volume Cape York Justice Study in the parliament in November. Beginning in last November, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Judy Spence, and the Cape York Justice Study team began consultations that ultimately involved 10 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 745 almost 700 people, most of them from the Cape York Peninsula—and I underline the extent of that consultation: almost 700 people. I thank all of those people who were concerned and took the trouble to make a contribution. The government has considered the Cape York Justice Study in light of those consultations with that community and we have now responded with practical policies and a clear course of action. For about 200 years, indigenous policies in Australia have failed. The evidence of those failures is obvious in Queensland today. In some communities children are born with foetal alcohol syndrome. Children are being bashed. Women are being bashed and physically impaired for life. They are being raped. No government can ignore those problems any longer. Our strategies are designed to tackle these problems head on, in particular the issue of alcohol abuse. These are outlined in the document that I am tabling today on behalf of my government called Meeting challenges, making choices. I am tabling that document, and all members will receive a copy. I am also tabling on behalf of the government the community consultation summary responses. Not all of those responses will agree with the government's position, but all of those responses have been considered in preparing the government's position. The choices that the government has made have not been easy and not everyone will be happy with our decisions. But if the answers to these problems were simple, we would have found them a long time ago. Alcoholism and violence plague some communities, with alcohol related death rates more than 21 times higher than those in the rest of Queensland. Rates of homicide and violence are more than 18 times the state average. A real life tragedy lies behind each of these statistics and we cannot stand by while the toll of tragedy continues to rise. I want to draw everyone's attention to a couple of matters in the government's response, which as I said I have just tabled. Firstly, in the introduction from Judy Spence and me we have written the following words— Governments have grappled for years with the problems afflicting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Our quests for solutions have almost invariably failed. By the start of the 21st century, after a term in Government, it has become clear to us that action was needed to secure the future of Indigenous children born into remote communities. As a Government we could not afford to continue down the established policy road, knowing these children would probably experience violence and addiction, risk imprisonment, and die 20 years younger than their non- Indigenous peers. We had to say enough is enough—and resolve to change direction. I stress again—and this is also repeated in the introduction—that after completion of the report the government undertook three months of consultation. In other words, we did not rush it; we went out and talked to the people who were concerned. Up to 700 people took part in public meetings in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. They sought practical responses which would yield tangible results. Over the page—and I refer members to this—one sees the tragedy of the problem and why we have to act. It states— Levels of health, education, life expectancy and employment for Indigenous people are significantly lower than for other Queensland communities. For example, Indigenous people on Cape York have some of the poorest health profiles in Australia. I repeat— Indigenous people on Cape York have some of the poorest health profiles in Australia: Mortality rates 2-3 times higher than that of Queensland's population over all Median age at death at least 20 years below that of non-Indigenous people Suicide rates among Aboriginal males in remote communities over six times higher than that of Queensland's population over all The highest prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in Queensland Alcohol-related death rates are over 21 times the general Queensland rate, and for homicide and violence (much of it alcohol-related) 18 times higher This is a time when we need to bring all the communities together, we need bipartisan support and we need to work with the Commonwealth. This is not a time for cheap politics, division, vanity, self-interest or ego; this is a time for action. We will not see the results of this, perhaps, even in the terms of my government, but we need to start now. That is what this document is all about. That is what this action plan we are revealing today is all about. I mention in passing that there has been some criticism from the Aboriginal Coordinating Council that I have not met them. I want to make the point that at the community cabinet 746 Ministerial Statement 10 Apr 2002 meeting on Sunday, 16 September I met a deputation including Councillor Thomas Hudson, the chairperson of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council, Councillor Alfred Lacey, and Peter Opio-otim and Ted Wymara from that council. I move now to what we intend to do. Amongst the reforms are these: we will transfer liquor licenses from councils to community based boards. Importantly, this will cut elected indigenous councils—the only councils in Queensland with liquor licences—out of canteen management. In other words, we are breaking the nexus between the councils running the canteens and the councils obtaining the profits from the canteens. That is an important nexus which needs to be broken. Shortly, the minister will deal with the process at some length. The minister will appoint three people from that community—so there is, in fact, self-determination, but they will be supported by a government representative—to run the canteens; importantly, in consultation with community justice groups. I will leave it to the minister to spell that out in more detail. Secondly, we will strengthen and expand community justice groups, as I mentioned, giving them the power and protection of legislation for the first time. This is about empowering communities to take control of this problem and to solve it together with the government. This is recognition by the government of the essential role played by the elders and respected community members who are the backbone of these justice groups. We will work with the communities to exploit economic development opportunities. For example, we will support three community business hubs, a digital broadband network, an indigenous business planning service and a bakery at Hope Vale. Remote indigenous communities have every right to access employment and Smart State opportunities, especially given the links between boredom and unemployment and alcohol and substance abuse. We will work harder to address the symptoms of alcohol and substance abuse; for example, through the establishment of a rehabilitation service hub in the northern peninsula area. We will also focus anew on environmental health, with a $500,000 investment in a program that will employ indigenous people as environmental health officers. We will intensify the war against sly grog by tightening up teamwork between communities, police and liquor licensing, and by investing in an awareness campaign about sly grog and responsible drinking. We will specifically address child health issues which contribute to absence from school, and we will work with communities to revive their sense of the value of education. As members can see, our response to the Cape York Justice Study is wide-ranging and has required commitment from across government. I thank my ministers for the united and determined way in which they have handled this matter. I particularly congratulate Judy Spence on the leadership she has demonstrated on this issue. I thank Steve Bredhauer, the local member and a minister, who, during our cabinet discussion on this matter some months ago at Albion Park, made one of the most significant contributions in any cabinet debate on any issue. I thank him for that. I make no apologies for demanding that the Public Service dig deep to come up with strategies that will deliver meaningful improvements to communities. I expect the Public Service to deliver government policy and I will not accept anything but that. It would be senseless to deny that some communities have almost lost a generation to addiction and despair. Sadly, adults who are essentially lost to ill-health or to the criminal justice system cannot reclaim their youth or childhood. It is the babies, the children and the young adults who will benefit the most from the actions the government and the communities are going to take. You need only glance at the breathtaking paintings of the Lockhart River Art Gang, or read about a young athlete training with the AFL, to realise the potential of the youth of this region. They are very talented and gifted people. They just need a chance, and that is what the government is trying to give them. Their present and future are the focus of our reforms. I do not pretend that the government can do this alone; I do not pretend that we have a magic wand. However, we do have a determination to work with these communities to improve their plight. Fortunately, there are many adults in the communities who have not given up. They are already fighting to make a difference. We extend the hand of partnership to them, for they have realised that the livelihood of their communities depends upon immediate action by both themselves and government. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Judy Spence, and I will write to the Prime Minister, the Federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, and the 10 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 747 chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission encouraging them to stand beside us in this endeavour. I report to the House that at COAG last Friday, when the issue of reconciliation was discussed, I put these imminent reforms on the table. I indicated to the Prime Minister in a general sense what our direction would be. I am happy to report to the parliament that the Prime Minister indicated his support. I intend to pursue those matters with the Prime Minister and his relevant ministers because we want to resolve this together. As I have said, this is not a time for politics, this is a time for partnership. Let us all work together for the future of indigenous Queenslanders. I say up front that I know there will be criticism from certain sections of the community, but no-one should underestimate our determination to tackle the problems of alcohol head on. I do not expect—and no-one should realistically expect otherwise—to see the results of this plan, in terms of improved indigenous lives, for some years. It will take that long. However, we have to make a start and that is what this plan is about. I say to all Queenslanders and, in particular, to all indigenous leaders that we must make this plan work. No-one has an excuse not to work with this plan. We have a moral obligation to change the tragedy that is currently affecting too many indigenous people. We may have already lost a generation as a result of past policies. Hopefully, today is the beginning of significant change. I urge all leaders to give this plan a chance to work. I ask them to put aside their pride, any vanity they may have, their self-interest and to think about the children and the next generation of indigenous people. I appeal to their better sides to work with us. No- one is more important than the children. Before I hand over to Judy Spence, I draw the attention of honourable members to a couple of points. The document notes that, while a number of key ministers will be involved in this—principally Judy, supported by Stephen—there is a cabinet committee chaired by me and including the Deputy Premier, Terry Mackenroth, Ministers Spence and Bredhauer, that will oversee the implementation of the Queensland government's response. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Judy Spence, will provide a progress report on the immediate reforms to state cabinet. In other words, we have the two most senior ministers in the state government, together with two other ministers, to oversee the implementation of this plan. This is a plan that we are determined to see work. I should also emphasise again our commitment to the community justice programs. I will table and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three releases that will go with this document today. I do that only because of its importance. Leave granted. Beattie Government pledges to meet challenges of Cape communities The Queensland Government will transfer liquor licences from Indigenous councils and intensify the war against "sly grog", as part of a broad-based response to Justice Tony Fitzgerald's report on Cape York, Premier Peter Beattie announced today. Mr Beattie tabled in Parliament Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, the Government's response to the Cape York Justice Study by Justice Fitzgerald, pledging reforms to legislation and policy that will address alcoholism and violence in Indigenous communities. "Since releasing Justice Fitzgerald's study in November 2001, the Government has consulted with up to 700 people—most of them from Cape York Peninsula," Mr Beattie said. "We have adopted a new approach that will include an intensified campaign against the causes and symptoms of alcoholism. "The choices the Government has made have not been easy. "If the answers to these problems were simple, we would have found them long ago," Mr Beattie said. Mr Beattie and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Judy Spence, said Facing Challenges, Making Choices adopts the bulk of Tony Fitzgerald's recommendations, while a number had been modified after consideration of community responses. The new approach includes: Transferring liquor licences from councils to community-based boards—cutting Councils out of canteen management Imposing strict conditions on hotels and roadhouses near Indigenous communities—including no alcohol sales to taxi drivers, no licensees to hold a patron's bank access cards, no liquor sold in 4 litre (or larger) containers, restrictions on the time of day that take-away liquor is sold Strengthening and expanding community justice groups, giving them the power and protection of legislation for the first time Working smarter with the communities to exploit economic development opportunities 748 Ministerial Statement 10 Apr 2002

Working harder to address the symptoms of alcohol and substance abuse, for example through the establishment of a rehabilitation service hub in the Northern Peninsula Area; and Intensifying the war against sly grog, by tightening up teamwork between communities, police and liquor licensing. Mr Beattie said: "Indigenous people on Cape York have some of the poorest health profiles in Australia. "Average life expectancy is about 20 years younger than non-Indigenous people, and suicide rates of young men in remote Aboriginal communities are more than six times higher than for the overall Queensland population. "Alcohol-related death rates are more than 21 times higher than the Queensland average. "To tackle these issues, we have honed in on alcohol abuse." Ms Spence said some of the most dramatic reforms relate to council run alcohol "canteens". "New legislation, the Indigenous Communities Liquor Licensing Bill 2002, as well as amendments to the Community Services Acts, will allow the transfer of licences from Aboriginal and Island Councils and Shires to community- based boards, if this is considered necessary for the safety and well-being of the community. "By transferring the liquor licences from councils we will end the potential for a conflict of interest between councils running and managing canteens and their responsibilities relating to welfare and law and order," she said. "Any profits from the sale of alcohol will stay with the council to be used for the benefit of the community. Canteen profits will be audited separately from councils' consolidated revenue. "Based on the Fitzgerald Report and available data, State Cabinet has decided that the legislation will apply to the following communities: Aurukun, Bamaga, Injinoo, Kowanyama, Lockhart River, Napranum, Pormpuraaw, Mornington Island, Palm Island, Woorabinda and Yarrabah. Ms Spence said that while Injinoo and Woorabinda were not currently trading, their licences would be transferred if trading resumed. Mr Beattie and Ms Spence said while the focus was initially on Cape York Peninsula, the Government's response reflects the strong evidence that the issues on the Cape effect other Aboriginal communities. "Our response takes into account ground-breaking work already undertaken—by Tony Fitzgerald and previously by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence, the Cape York Partnerships Plan and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ten Year Partnership," they said. Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, is available on the website www.thepremier.qld.gov.au, or by phoning 3224 5885. Media Contact: Premier's Office 3406 7306, Minister's Office 3224 7081 10 April 2002

Cape York response aims for job creation Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said today the Government would target economic development and employment opportunities for Indigenous people in Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, the State Government's response to the Cape York Justice Study. "We will work in partnership with Indigenous people and open up opportunities that will realise the economic potential of their communities," Mr Beattie said. The Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Judy Spence said a desire for strong economic development and jobs was one of the constant and recurring themes to emerge from the community consultations. The Cape York Justice Strategy consultation team travelled to remote Indigenous communities on Cape York and other Indigenous communities throughout the state, and talked to up to 700 people. "The Cape York Justice Study recommendations centred on breaking the welfare cycle and enhancing economic security in Indigenous communities," the Premier and the Minister said. The Queensland Government will work with communities to help them reach their full economic potential by providing funding and support for the following initiatives: Community Business Hubs at Weipa, Cooktown and Coen-Lockhart River to drive local business enterprises An Indigenous business planning service for Balkanu—the Cape York Development Corporation A bakery at Hopevale with training and business support—in one of the first community-based businesses established through Cape York Partnerships Planning and implementing the Cape York Digital Network—a multi million dollar broadband system for the Cape with an opportunity for Indigenous enterprise and employment. "Remote Indigenous communities have every right to access employment and Smart State opportunities—especially given the links between boredom and unemployment, and alcohol and substance abuse," Mr Beattie. Mr Beattie tabled Facing Challenges, Making Choices in State Parliament today. 10 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 749

The Government will also explore opportunities to support a number of economic development initiatives that have been identified through the Premier's Weipa Business Summit in August 2000 and ongoing consultations with Indigenous communities and groups. A range of exciting projects in Indigenous communities throughout the State has also been identified as having economic development potential. They include a sponge farm on Palm Island, a meat processing project at Cherbourg, a cattle mustering venture in the north west, an organic tea tree industry in Central Queensland and a fossil-selling project. The Premier and the Minister said the Government would draw on the flexibility of the State Purchasing Policy to give Indigenous businesses the opportunity to successfully bid for tenders for infrastructure work to be carried out in their communities. "The State Government recognises the fact that Indigenous economic development is different and initially more difficult, than non-Indigenous business enterprises," they said. "We'll be taking positive actions and practical steps—some immediate, some long-term—to give opportunities to young people—to train them for jobs and to help them retain their jobs." Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, is available on the website www.thepremier.qld.gov.au, or by phoning 3224 5885. Media Contact: Premier's Office 3224 5299, Minister's Office 3224 7081 10 April 2002

Government faces up to challenges for the children Premier Peter Beattie said today children and youth would benefit most from the Government's reforms in response to the Cape York Justice Study. Mr Beattie today tabled in Parliament Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, saying it was written largely with babies, children and young people in mind. "We simply could not afford to continue down the established policy road, knowing these children would probably experience violence and in addition, risk imprisonment, and die 20 years younger than non-Indigenous children," Mr Beattie said. The Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Judy Spence said the Government's new approach would help Indigenous children grow old in healthy and safe environments. "We will take steps to protect children, women and Elders from sickness, suffering and fear," Ms Spence said. The Government's reforms include: Stronger links between local health workers, schools and police Protocols to further strengthen child protection strategies Child protection teams (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect, SCAN teams) to work closely with the community to ensure the safety and well-being of women and children Stronger links between Remote Area Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Child Care (RAATSIC) workers, schools and police Greater efforts to increase children's school attendance. Mr Beattie said the Government will also expand and develop innovative youth programs such as State Emergency Service cadets, the Croc Eisteddfod and alternative Indigenous festivals to instil in young people a sense of pride, leadership and community spirit. "We will also tailor a range of sporting and recreational programs specifically for young people. These will include: An Indigenous Community Development Program for sport and recreation activities and education and training courses Funding for state sporting organisations such as the Queensland Australian Football League, Basketball Queensland, Hockey Queensland and the Queensland Rugby League to conduct activities in Indigenous communities Better access to Queensland Academy of Sport (QAS) programs and activities for Indigenous communities Funding for sport and recreation organisations and community councils to develop sports facilities and infrastructure in Indigenous communities. The Premier and the Minister said women's groups, men's groups and Elders would be encouraged and supported to work together on strategies to strengthen family and social structures in their communities and to restore the traditional respect for the moral authority of Elders. "Sport and recreation officers will be employed through the Indigenous Community Development Program to work with young people and help them in their sporting endeavours," they said. Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, is available on the website www.thepremier.qld.gov.au, or by phoning 3224 5885. Media Contact: Premier's Office 3224 5299, Minister's Office 3224 7081 10 April 2002 750 Ministerial Statement 10 Apr 2002

Mr BEATTIE: Finally, let me say this: I know this is a very difficult issue. It is a tough issue. Because it is so difficult and tough we have failed in the past. I appeal to everybody for one thing: just give it a go.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cape York Justice Study Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services) (9.51 a.m.), by leave: The Premier has just tabled our government's response to the Cape York Justice Study. Let there be no illusion about what this means. It is more than a statement of intent, more than a message of support to those in Aboriginal communities grappling with the results of alcohol induced violence; it is a landmark statement that separates the past from the future. It is the line in the sand where we as a government say that we are not going to tolerate violence, sexual assault and child abuse, and we will effect structural changes in these communities. While Justice Fitzgerald focused his report on the Cape York communities, anyone who has a knowledge of Aboriginal communities outside the cape would be well aware that the levels of violence, alcoholism, sexual assault and school truancy are just as alarming in other communities. These issues affect Indigenous communities throughout Queensland. They go far beyond the cape. In our deliberations on Justice Fitzgerald's study, the Premier and I, along with the local members who represent these communities, were determined that this government had an obligation to improve the lives of Indigenous communities throughout the whole state. At the heart of the violence is alcohol. It is on the issue of alcohol more than any other that Justice Fitzgerald challenged this government to act—and we are determined to act. The government will introduce new legislation into this House—the Indigenous Communities Liquor Licensing Bill 2002—and will amend the community services acts to bring about changes in alcohol management and its impact on communities. We will create changes to the law that will give, for the first time, legislative backing and protection to community justice groups which will be established in each Indigenous community. Laws will be changed to enable the transfer of canteen licences from the councils to community based boards. These community canteen management boards will be empowered through legislation to bring about change at a community level. They will also be afforded protection under legislation. In light of Tony Fitzgerald's report and by drawing on available data, state cabinet has decided that the legislation will apply to the following communities: Aurukun, Bamaga, Injinoo, Kowanyama, Lockhart River, Napranum, Pormpuraaw, Mornington Island, Palm Island, Woorabinda and Yarrabah. The licence transfer will end the potential for a conflict of interest between councils running and managing canteens and their responsibilities relating to welfare and law and order. Any profits from the sale of alcohol will stay with the council to be used for the benefit of the community. Canteen profits will be audited separately from councils' consolidated revenue. Canteens will also be subject to strict new licensing conditions. If they comply with these conditions, no-one but the community will make the decision to close them down. Communities such as Doomadgee, Hope Vale and Wujal Wujal that do not have canteens will also develop alcohol management plans through their community justice groups. Among other reforms, zones will be declared around Indigenous communities and restrictions will apply to the quantity and type of alcohol allowed to be carried into the community to stem the sly grog trade in Indigenous communities. Conditions will also be imposed on licensed premises near communities to clamp down on alcohol abuse—for example, no alcohol sales to taxi drivers, no licensee to hold a patron's bank access cards, a ban on liquor sold in four-litre or larger containers, and restrictions on the time of day that takeaway liquor can be sold. We will do whatever is within our power as a government to turn around those depressing statistics from Tony Fitzgerald's report and others that have preceded it, notably, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence report. I have seen the human face of those statistics on Cape York, but I have also seen the face of triumph—girls and boys who have won recognition for academic and sporting achievement, women who have held their families together when the odds were stacked against them, and elders who have dealt with contemporary issues in the traditional way. I have met many remarkable people from many Indigenous communities since I became Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy in 10 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 751 the first term of the Beattie government, and they alone provide compelling reasons for government to take urgent action to address the complex issues that confront us. Change will not occur without controversy or difficulty. It will require government and the communities to work together. We will draw on the wealth of goodwill that exists between Indigenous people and this government. Change will also be driven from the grassroots through community justice groups, through community action plans and through alcohol management plans—all developed by the community for the community. Collectively, they will underpin the success of the reforms proposed by government. They will recognise the rights of the local community—their rights to country, culture, safety and security, education and health. The government has met the intent of the majority of Tony Fitzgerald's recommendations. A new Cairns based partnerships unit will be established. It will provide support to communities in facilitating negotiating tables and will be able to directly respond to community needs through the concept of regional budgeting. This new unit will break down the government silos by allowing communities to directly negotiate with government to redirect resources to areas of greatest need. The Cape York Partnerships Unit will work closely with Indigenous partners as well as individual communities. There will be an integration of state government resources, policies and programs to deliver a holistic response to community needs. The state government will negotiate with the Commonwealth, ATSIC and non-government organisations to achieve a global joining up of resources, policies and programs to directly respond to Indigenous communities. For communities outside the cape, regional managers forums will perform this function. There will be an integration of state government resources, policies and programs to deliver this holistic response. What we are delivering to Indigenous communities in Queensland, for the first time, is a simple, streamlined system of governance. We will provide a framework for the future. We will mount an intensified campaign against the causes and effects of alcohol abuse and we will be prepared to stand up and be judged on our efforts. But above all, we will work with Indigenous communities in the true spirit of partnerships, so that together we can pave the way for a better future. I thank my colleagues for the hard work that they have put into this report, and particularly the Premier, whose determination to make a difference in Indigenous communities in this state has been at the forefront of the changes that we are proposing today.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Cape York Justice Study Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.00 a.m.), by leave: The Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy have today launched a package that demonstrates our government's determination to deal with basic quality of life issues for Aborigines in Queensland, but particularly in Cape York. As Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads, I have been appointed by the Premier to chair the Chief Executive Officers Committee which is delivering on our government's agenda to develop partnerships between government and Aborigines in Cape York. As the member for Cook, it has been my privilege to represent Cape York in this parliament for nearly 13 years. More than any other member of this House, I am acutely aware of the hardship and suffering endured by thousands of Aborigines on Cape York on a daily basis. This is due in no small part to the problems associated with alcohol and substance abuse. I know that a number of these reforms are likely to be controversial and in fact have drawn criticism from a number of individuals and interest groups. My plea to all members of this House, and to the critics of this government's efforts to find solutions to problems which have existed in Cape York for many years, is to put aside sectional or political interests and join with this government in our genuine efforts to make a difference to people's lives in Cape York. I have spoken in this parliament on a number of occasions about my relationships with Aboriginal people in Cape York and the difficulties they endure in undertaking the most routine of daily tasks in the circumstances in which they live. The fact of life is that many adult Aborigines are alcoholic, and the outcome of persistent alcohol abuse can be see in the high levels of violent crime, especially crimes against women, and in the abuse of children. Many children in Cape York are growing up in alcoholic families where they themselves begin to consume alcohol at a very early age. The real threat of foetal alcohol syndrome potentially 752 Ministerial Statement 10 Apr 2002 impacting on the next generation of Aborigines in Cape York is something that no government can tolerate. Our response must be united. It will require courage, but it is imperative that we persevere. Many people have advanced the proposition that the government's decision to remove licences to sell alcohol from Aboriginal councils is paternalistic, if not racist. No local government in Queensland runs licensed liquor outlets other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils, and if the government is to be accused of paternalism for grasping the nettle in seeking solutions to the ravages of alcohol abuse in Cape York communities, then so be it. A person's right to buy and consume alcohol must be measured against the rights of men, women and children in Cape York to lead lives that are free from abuse and violence. Our government has no illusions about the size of the challenge which we are undertaking, but we are determined to make a difference in the way government relates with Aboriginal communities in Cape York in order to achieve tangible improvements to quality of life. At 44 years of age, were I an Aboriginal male in a community in Cape York I would have reached my life expectancy. My peers, my friends on Cape York, are dying. On a visit to a Cape York community last year, I paid a visit to an old friend of mine—a woman nearing 80 years of age who was dying of cancer. She spoke to me of her full life and of her love for her family. I left her sitting on a bed underneath her house—in some sadness, knowing that it was the last time we would meet. I learned a little while later that day that two days previously she had been bashed by her drunken son. I say to the ACC and those journalists who accuse us of paternalism, and all our other critics, that this has to stop. It is not their way. We can no longer tolerate a situation which goes against humanity. We must find solutions and we must make them work. No more excuses. In the final analysis, all the arguments about who is right and who is wrong do not involve the people who have the most at stake—the Aborigines of Cape York Peninsula.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland School Drug Education Strategy Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: One of the most important challenges for the education system today and, importantly, for society as a whole, is tackling drug use by young people. I am pleased to announce today a range of initiatives that the state government is embarking on, in association with the Commonwealth government, to make a real and practical effort to improve drug education in schools and the wider community. School drug summits and increased teacher support are among the initiatives that form the core of the Queensland school drug education strategy implementation program. The program is part of the three-year national school drug education strategy. This is a cross-sector initiative developed to tackle the growing drug problem in Australian schools and the wider community. Education Queensland is working with the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and the Association of Independent Schools Queensland to implement the program. The Commonwealth Government is providing $2.8 million to implement the three-year program in Queensland. This supports the state government's multi-million dollar whole-of-government response to drug education in schools each year. The Beattie government's response includes drug and self- esteem education embedded in the Queensland years 1-10 health and physical education syllabus; 118 specially trained school based youth health nurses as the first point of contact for students on issues such as drugs; and state wide prevention campaigns aimed at students including Rave Safe, 100 Per Cent In Control Croc Festival, DrinkSmart and schoolies week. The Commonwealth government, the state government and the private sector are working in partnership to achieve real advances in drug education and prevention. The focus of the activities is on giving schools—as well as the community—the support and tools to help educate young people about drugs and to deal with drug incidents at schools. Schools alone cannot reduce drug use, but they can help in the fight by educating students about good health and smart life choices. They can help give students the knowledge and confidence to say no. This is one part of a broader effort that must be made by the entire community to tackle drug problems. The school drug summits will draw together teachers, parents, police, health workers, social services and others at the local level to develop community-wide responses that work. The 10 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 753 summits will be held among school communities throughout Queensland, whether they are in Cape York or the Gold Coast, recognising that there are different needs in different communities. The summits will be supported by other resources, including a drug education web site and the quarterly Reaching Out newsletter available to both teachers and the community. Individual schools, or clusters of nearby schools, who are interested in running a drug summit can apply for funding through the web site. The drug education web site is already live and the first newsletter will be distributed this week to teachers, P&Cs and other relevant community members. The focus of the Queensland school drug education strategy centres on the teacher working with students in the classroom as the best way to deliver drug education in schools. It is recognised that the smartest approach for schools is to educate students to build strong social relationships and to nurture their self-worth. This will give them the knowledge and confidence to say no to drugs and avoid the terrible impact they can have on their lives. I encourage all members to familiarise themselves with the strategy and the related materials that will be distributed in the House this morning, and to work with their school communities to give young Queenslanders their best chance to turn their backs on drugs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Illicit Market Scan Project Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: I would like to inform the parliament about some important work that is being done on the Gold Coast in the area of drug detection. I have often stated my personal determination, and that of this government, to be tough on drugs, to attack the problem of drug dealership and hunt down people who supply these evil substances. In this Smart State, we recognise the need for smart policing. This is not just a catchy slogan but something that is evolving in our increasingly complex policing methods every single day. The modern criminal is employing more and more sophisticated techniques and we need to be mindful of this. An important part of drug enforcement is accurate information. These days, drug dealers are not just hanging about on the street corner; they are highly organised and highly informed. To combat this, we must employ increasingly complex research and technology. Part of this is the Beattie government's illicit market scan project. Data for an illicit market scan has recently been collected on the Gold Coast and is now being analysed. The Beattie government provided funding of $300,000 in this year's budget for the illicit market scans program, along with additional funding for drug detection machines and police sniffer dogs. The illicit market scan methodology was developed by the Queensland Police Service to accurately assess drug markets, mainly heroin and amphetamines. Illicit market scans aim to gather information on specific drug markets and problems, which in turn assists police investigating drug crimes. Scans have already been successfully undertaken on the Sunshine Coast and in Ipswich. Numerous interstate and international agencies or groups, including the Belgian federal police, have expressed an interest in the market scan methodology which was developed by Queensland police. The Gold Coast is a large city and, as such, faces problems with drugs. Our police are already doing significant work investigating drugs on the Gold Coast, but this research will provide valuable data about the nature of the local drug market. The illicit market scans are just one element of ongoing and innovative efforts by this government to tackle drugs in our state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Legal Aid Queensland; National Youth Week Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.09 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to advise the House of an outstanding initiative by Legal Aid Queensland as part of National Youth Week this week. Today young people throughout Queensland are being given access to free legal advice by email. It is an initiative that responds to the concerns of young people and recognises that many young people are not sure where to turn when confronted by difficult legal situations. In reaching out to young Queenslanders, Legal Aid is making smart use of available technology. It recognises that young people use email as a 754 Ministerial Statement 10 Apr 2002 preferred way to communicate, particularly when they want to discuss sensitive and confidential issues. This great service started at 8 o'clock this morning and will continue until 8 o'clock tomorrow morning—a 24-hour period. Young people under the age of 18 can email experienced solicitors about their legal problems and receive free advice on a broad range of youth issues including work disputes, problems with police or discrimination. The email address is [email protected]. A specialist team of solicitors is waiting on line to answer any questions, providing fast, relevant and confidential advice. This on-line service to young people was trialled two years ago as part of Youth Law Day, and there were many inquiries from under 18s who were experiencing a range of legal problems. The emails received at the time covered many different issues, including some that were extremely serious and required immediate attention. But the kinds of problems young people come to Legal Aid with most frequently are to do with issues at work, home or school, or consumer issues such as mobile phone contracts or purchasing their first car. Legal Aid Queensland has a specialist youth legal aid team that provides legal information, advice and in certain circumstances representation for people under 18 years. A series of fact sheets are available through the Legal Aid web site on issues that concern young people including banking, buying a car, signing contracts, paying bills and employment issues. Late last year Legal Aid and the Youth Advocacy Centre joined forces to provide a series of workshops for youth workers. These workshops covered issues that affect young people, including the criminal justice system, employment, discrimination and consumer complaints. The workshops were throughout Queensland and are likely to be held again this year. Our government believes that all Queenslanders must have the opportunity to access the legal system, and the innovative and proactive work of Legal Aid Queensland is creating further opportunities for this to occur.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT State Library of Queensland Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: This is a momentous year for the State Library of Queensland. In fact, April 2002 marks a significant milestone in the development of this treasury of Queensland reference and research material. Just two days ago the Premier and I unveiled a new landmark design concept by a Queensland architectural team which will breathe new life into the State Library of Queensland in a redevelopment which will double the size of the building. The architectural consortium of Donovan Hill and Peddle Thorp has been selected to design the State Library redevelopment. Construction is due to start early next year, with completion due in 2005. The design proposal boasts a spectacular glass river room, which will open the library up to the Brisbane River. It capitalises on the library's existing structure while creating strong links with a new public plaza and the river. New facilities in the redeveloped library will include a flexible exhibition gallery to showcase unique Queensland collections; a discovery centre, which will use emerging multimedia technology to present collection based materials; an Internet cafe; and a range of well-resourced meeting rooms for community use. Significantly, all of this is happening in the centenary year of the State Library of Queensland. On 29 April the State Library of Queensland officially celebrates 100 years of providing free and equitable access to information for Queensland communities. The public library of Queensland in William Street first opened its doors to the people of Brisbane in 1902, providing access to reference and research material including newspapers, importantly poetry, philosophy, science, sociology and the useful arts and trades. It operated on a grant from the government of around 500 pounds. In its first year it had 250 visitors. Today the State Library can proudly lay claim to providing not only the people of Brisbane but also the people of Queensland access to the state's major public reference and research collections, including the unique resources of the John Oxley Library of Queensland History. It provides access to these resources in partnership with local governments via a network of 326 public libraries throughout the state. This year Queenslanders will make approximately 21.4 million visits to the state and public libraries and collectively borrow more than 36 million books, CD- ROMs, videos and magazines. Seventy-five thousand of these loans will be to Queenslanders who speak a language other than English. 10 Apr 2002 Ministerial Statement 755

While it may be that there are still those in a privileged position who frequent the corridors of the State Library, it is equally likely that there will be a whole range of State Library visitors at any one time including, for example, a woman from the local Turrabul community using the Internet free of charge to view digital images from the John Oxley collection; a retired couple from Toowoomba visiting for the day to peruse family history records; a group of international students researching and discussing their current TAFE assignment in the reference reading area; or young people attending a film program during their school holidays. This centenary is a time to reflect on and acknowledge the outstanding service that the State Library has provided and continues to provide to the people of Queensland, particularly those living in regional, rural and remote parts of the state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Science and Technology Research and Development Strategy Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (10.16 a.m.), by leave: Four years ago Queensland led the rest of the country when the Premier earmarked biotechnology as a future driver of the Australian economy. The Commonwealth and other states followed Queensland's lead to the point where Australia's capacity in biotechnology is now recognised internationally. What Queensland did was turn the traditional Australian law and order auction into a science auction. I am announcing to the House this morning what this government is doing to maintain our national leadership in science, innovation and technology. Our next important step in the Smart State is to develop a comprehensive research and development strategy for science and technology. We need a strategy that will help Queensland to identify further niche areas where it already has a competitive advantage. We want a comprehensive, systematic and long-term framework that coordinates and prioritises the government's investment in R&D so that R&D activity contributes to the development of Queensland as the Smart State. Already the Smart State has the second highest level of state government R&D expenditure at $232 million, just behind New South Wales, which spends $250 million. Based on these figures Queensland is spending $64 per person, compared to $38 per person in New South Wales. Our Victorian counterparts are well behind, spending $162 million or $33 per person. What I am announcing this morning is the Queensland R&D strategy issues paper, an important document that will be developed over the course of this year with input from industry and the public, with a final report due back to cabinet in December 2002. I table the issues paper, which is available from today at my department's web site. From its launch today, this government will begin a state-wide consultation process—I say 'state wide' because the Smart State does not end at Brisbane—involving key R&D figures in Queensland, key industry and community representatives and government agencies. I will host a leaders workshop on 21 May at Brisbane's Customs House, which will be attended by industry, science and technology leaders and innovators from all over Australia. At this workshop we want to hear about ideas and directions that can ensure this strategy will reflect the needs of the R&D sector, industry and the broader community for years to come. Quite simply, we want this issues paper to get the creative thoughts and ideas flowing in the Smart State about maintaining our edge in research and development in emerging technologies. We want to identify ways to increase the levels of Commonwealth government and business investment in R&D. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr LUCAS: That is dead right. The member for Gregory points out the appalling level of Commonwealth expenditure. While the state government spends more per capita on research and development than any other state in Australia, we are let down by the Commonwealth government. I welcome the commitment from members of the opposition to get in there and tell the Commonwealth not to leave us behind. We want to guide investment in R&D so that it improves the quality and effectiveness of government services, enhances the state's traditional industries and develops and sustains new high-value industries. Our future in biotechnology, science and innovation is crucial to the growth of the Smart State. In the past year, this government has continued to build upon the state's strong foundations, investing in cutting-edge technologies such as the Institute for Bioengineering 756 Private Members' Statements 10 Apr 2002 and Nanotechnology at the University of Queensland and the Centre for Excellence in Fibre Composites at USQ, a centre which the Opposition Leader would do well to take a good look at. This strategy will ensure this growth continues. Already we are two years into a 10-year plan, a 10-year plan where we are spending $270 million on this vital industry. We are only a fraction down this path and already we have seen a 67 per cent growth in biotechnology jobs, a 317 per cent increase in research and development spending, and a 248 per cent increase in funds raised by this sector. This strategy will incorporate the ideas of those who are at the coalface of our scientific, innovative and emerging technologies. This document will enhance the growth of the whole state, because the Smart State is not just about Brisbane. It is not just about the south east; it is about all of Queensland. We will be working closely with the Commonwealth government because we want our blueprint to develop complementary state and national goals for R&D.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.21 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the House will continue to meet past 7.30 p.m. this day. The House can break for dinner at 7 p.m. and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. The order of business shall then be general business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.

OVERSEAS VISIT Report Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): Pursuant to the provisions of section 2.3.2 of the Members' Entitlements Handbook, I table a report on my recent trip to China accompanying the Hervey Bay City Council mayoral delegation on its visit to our sister city of Leshan. I also wish to acknowledge the great support and assistance I received from the Minister for Education, Anna Bligh, and the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, Paul Lucas, in preparing for the trip, which helped to obtain the best possible results for my city of Hervey Bay.

NOTICE OF MOTION Crime Statistics Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.22 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That this Parliament believes the community should be able to access data on crime rates in their local areas and therefore calls on the Minister for Police to reverse his decision yesterday that ended the practice of providing Members of Parliament with crime statistics for individual police divisions which now means suburban breakdowns will not be available to the public.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Mr W.T. D'Arcy; Sexual Abuse Victim Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 a.m.): The victim of a former Labor member of parliament, Mr D'Arcy, came to the opposition for help after she was refused that help by the Premier. Yesterday we saw the Premier come into this House and use the flimsy excuse of the separation of powers to cover up his failure and neglect with regard to this particular constituent of his. I have never seen anything so disgraceful. This had nothing to do with the separation of powers. This was all about helping a constituent who wanted to talk to the Premier about the victim support service and the trauma she was put through in going through the court system. This victim went to the Premier in March. D'Arcy had been sentenced to jail the preceding November. This had nothing to do with the separation of powers; it was all about care and consideration of a constituent. The Premier has put politics before his constituents. Mr D'Arcy got every advantage. Mr D'Arcy sat here for 14 months. He collected the extra salary as Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker. He left this parliament after 14 months at his own time. The Premier had a special meeting with Mr D'Arcy and his solicitor in August 1998 and then at the end of it all Mr D'Arcy was able to collect his superannuation. He was given every possible advantage and assistance. But what happened to the victim who wanted to see her local member of parliament? 10 Apr 2002 Private Members' Statements 757

Absolutely nothing. She got the cold shoulder. She was neglected. Politics and Labor mates were put well ahead of proper care and consideration of this particular victim. For the Premier to come into this parliament and try to hide behind the curtain of the separation of powers just shows how neglectful he was of his constituent. Time expired.

Immigration Detention Centre, Meeandah Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (10.24 a.m.): It has recently been announced by Mr Ruddock, the federal Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, that Pinkenba—or, more correctly, Meeandah—is the preferred site of a new immigration detention centre. At a public meeting at Pinkenba on the weekend, local residents in the surrounding area made it very clear that they do not want this detention centre built. The reasons for opposition were diverse and divergent, but the collective resolve of the community is clear: they will not accept a detention centre in their community. The minister has indicated that this centre will be used as a holding facility for visa overstayers and will not house asylum seekers who have entered the country without documentation, yet the minister has also indicated that the centre will have 200 beds. The simple fact is that the centre will have far more beds than are required for the number of people in Queensland who overstay their visas. What concerns me is not that this facility may be used to house asylum seekers but that the federal government is not being honest with the community. As the Australian people have seen over the past couple of months, the federal government has been less than forthright with the Australian population. The residents and I have every reason to be sceptical about this facility and the numbers planned for it. I call on Mr Ruddock to take the community into his confidence about the real numbers and his government's real plans for this site at Meeandah and not take the residents for granted.

Rural Fire Brigade; Smog Busters Campaign Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.26 a.m.): On 8 November last year I asked the Minister for Emergency Services if there were any avenues available to members of the Queensland volunteer rural fire brigade to be able to claim a nominal amount of money by way of compensation for loss of income they incurred when they were called to fight fires outside of their local brigade areas. The minister invited me to forward a submission to him on this matter. I have received numerous verbal and written submissions from volunteer rural fire brigade members in my electorate. I table for the benefit of the minister and all honourable members copies of written submissions I have received from the Maroochy River Rural Fire Brigade, the Valdora-Yandina Creek Rural Fire Brigade, the Image Flat-Cooloolabin Rural Fire Brigade, the Dulong Rural Fire Brigade, the Obi Obi Rural Fire Brigade and Jim Hooper from Montville. The Dulong Rural Fire Brigade submitted that volunteer rural firefighters do not expect wages for their efforts in an emergency outside of their own areas, but possibly some form of minimal compensation could be considered in certain circumstances. Members of the Maroochy River brigade took the issue further by suggesting that if volunteers continued fighting fires outside of their brigade areas for two days or more then there may be justification for some type of compensation. The Image Flat-Cooloolabin brigade members advised that debate on this issue was divided and agreed that the matter should be debated further. The Valdora-Yandina Creek Rural Fire Brigade expressed concern that the brigade volunteers were increasingly being called on to provide a service at little or no cost to the government. I urge the minister to consult with more Queensland rural fire brigades on this issue. I also take this opportunity to inform honourable members of the successful Smog Busters campaign held at the Nambour Railway Station on Wednesday, 20 March. John Nolan and his daughters, Sally and Bonnie, Cate Molloy, the member for Noosa, and I presented hundreds of Sunshine Coast residents using our trains with free tube stock native trees and shrubs. Water bottles and brochures were also presented as a means of promoting community awareness of the role we can all individually play in reducing smog in our great state of Queensland. Staff at the station were great in allowing many travellers to leave their free plants at the station until their return to Nambour in the afternoon. I take this opportunity to again remind the Minister for Transport of the great benefits to be gained by continuing the duplication of the train line to Nambour, the heart of the Sunshine Coast. 758 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002

Mamu Smoking Ceremony Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): A sacred smoking ceremony held on Sunday, 24 March at Warima Lakes, Innisfail, sealed an historic agreement of future management intent over Wooroonooran National Park. For the past two years the Mamu Aboriginal Corporation has been working with the community, the Johnstone Shire Council and a range of government agencies to investigate options for the construction of a canopy walk in the region. Part of this project has been the development of a heads of agreement between the Mamu people, the North Queensland Land Council, the Wet Tropics Management Authority, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the Johnstone Shire Council. This document aims to ensure that the rights and aspirations of the park's traditional owners will not be diminished in the construction and operation of a proposed canopy walk at Crawfords Lookout on the North Johnstone River adjacent to the Palmerston Highway. Using funds provided by the Queensland Heritage Trails Network, a local project steering group has agreed on a preferred location, purchased land to host supporting infrastructure, including car parks and a visitor centre, and has held a competition for the design of a proposed walkway. As Victor Maunds, Chair of the Mamu Corporation, said— ... when this project was originally proposed the traditional owners of the park, the Mamu people, had some reservations about it. We were concerned it may impact on sacred sites or damage the area's fragile environment. We also had some problems with a commercial project operating on our land and we wanted to know who would operate it and what benefits would flow to the Mamu people. We brought these and other concerns to the project steering committee which then worked through them with us.The past two years has been hard work, and while we have had a few full, frank and fearless discussions, the general good faith between all members of the steering committee has prevailed to get us to this stage. The signing of this document provides formalisation of the good faith between the various organisations and demonstrates the Mamu people's support for the project. This ceremony is a significant step forward towards cooperative management of our national parks. It shows that if the traditional owners are included in the management process and shown respect as equal partners, great things can be achieved.

Racing Industry Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (10.29 a.m.): The Queensland racing industry is in revolt. The thoroughbred racing industry is facing financial crisis because of the inadequate financial package forced on the racing industry by the privatisation of the TAB. In Queensland we race for $23,000 per metropolitan meeting. In New South Wales it is $57,000 and in Victoria it is $66,000. Trainers, jockeys and horses are leaving Queensland for southern states. The Minister for Racing has done nothing to address these major issues and has done more to divide the industry than anyone else in this state. There have been four different administrations in two years. The appointed chairman was not acceptable to the whole industry, a point recognised by the original selection panel, and was not even on the reserve list. The appointment of a chairman onto a second secret panel- Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr HOBBS:—which breached the ministerial review of the thoroughbred racing code. It sets out those who are eligible for appointment if they are a member of a race club, a harness club, a greyhound club or a racing association, an association created to promote the interest of one or more participants in the thoroughbred racing industry. Clearly, the TAB— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The time for private member's statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr W. T. D'Arcy; Sexual Abuse Victim Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer to the Premier's reliance yesterday on legal reasons as the basis or excuse for his not meeting with the victim of convicted child rapist Mr D'Arcy and I ask: why were these legal reasons not provided to this victim when she contacted the Premier's office on 9, 10 and 23 March 2001, on 30 April and on 2 May 2001? Why was this victim of Mr D'Arcy repeatedly given the excuse by the Premier's staff that 'there was just no point in meeting with 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 759 you'? Why has the Premier hidden behind his self-confessed legal expertise when in the Sunday Mail on 16 September last year in relation to victims of paedophilia the Premier said— Sometimes we get put into political straitjackets by the lawyers. It happens to all of us. But there are times when we have to break out of that and put the victims first. Why has the Premier put himself in a political straitjacket in hiding behind legal excuses to neglect this victim of Mr D'Arcy? Mr BEATTIE: Let me deal with a number of matters. I have quite correctly raised certain issues in relation to the behaviour of the Governor-General. I stand by everything I have said. The issues here are very different. As we know, when the Governor-General was Archbishop of Brisbane he had the responsibility to administer schools and a number of matters within the Anglican church; in other words, he was the person responsible. At the time the allegations and, indeed, the transgressions were committed by Bill D'Arcy, I was in high school. Therefore, I did not have responsibility for the administration of these matters. That is the first and very important point. Secondly, the matters pertain to— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will listen to the answer. I will be issuing warnings shortly. We will hear the answer to this question. Mr BEATTIE: I hope we can maintain my time on this, because I want to give a detailed answer. As I indicated in my ministerial statement, the matters before the Anglican church and the archbishop at the time were civil matters. There were no criminal matters pertaining to the Anglican church at that time, because the major perpetrator had committed suicide. Tragically, that matter was not determined by the criminal court. The matters to which I referred were criminal matters, and Mr D'Arcy was on criminal charges. As I have indicated to the parliament, the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that I should have intervened in a way that could have lead to the aborting of a trial and Bill D'Arcy walking free. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the Premier of the day act in a way that could lead to the aborting of a trial and Bill— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that I act in a way that could lead to the aborting of a trial and Bill D'Arcy walking free. Mr Horan: The trial was over. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the Premier of the day should intervene in a way that would lead to the possible aborting of a trial. There is no way that I would do that. Bill D'Arcy is in jail because I made certain that there was— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego, that is my final warning. Mr BEATTIE: I insisted on due process, because I believed that those matters needed to be determined by a court. Bill D'Arcy is now in jail because we followed due process. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory! Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition has not informed the parliament nor the people that the lady concerned has commenced proceedings against the state of Queensland and against Mr D'Arcy and that there are matters on appeal before the High Court. It was imperative that the Leader of the Opposition inform the House of that matter.

Mr W. T. D'Arcy; Sexual Abuse Victim Mr HORAN: I refer to the Premier's statement in the House yesterday where he indicated that the separation of powers between the Executive and the courts was the basis of his decision not to meet with the victim of his former Labor colleague Mr D'Arcy. Why did the Premier choose to meet with Mr D'Arcy and his lawyer in August 1998? Why did Mr D'Arcy get special access when the Premier refused to meet one of Mr D'Arcy's victims after the trial finished and the court handed down its sentence on 17 November 2000, considering that this victim did not contact the 760 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002

Premier's office requesting a meeting with the Premier until March the next year? What is the Premier's excuse today? Mr BEATTIE: I met with Mr D'Arcy for one very good reason—I wanted him out of parliament. I said so at the time. I was attacked by the Leader of the Opposition's predecessor, Rob Borbidge, for doing it. What an absolute, pathetic joke. I met with Bill D'Arcy to force him out— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: I would like the opportunity to try and answer these questions. They are issues which I am quite happy to respond to, but it makes it very difficult if I am not given that opportunity. I have indicated that Paul Braddy and I met with Mr D'Arcy and his lawyer. I have reported to the House on this before; there is nothing new in this. I met with them because I wanted to force Mr D'Arcy out of parliament. I make no apology for that. As Mr Borbidge indicated in public comments that I tabled yesterday in the parliament, he lamented that I had succeeded. Mr Borbidge attacked me for denying him natural justice. Let me make it clear—I stand by everything I did to force Mr D'Arcy out of this parliament. I make no apology for it, and I supported due process. Members opposite have selective memories. If I recall correctly, I offered a pair arrangement to Mr Borbidge so that Mr D'Arcy would not be in this parliament, and Mr Borbidge denied it. Mr Horan: So you could hang on to a government with a vote of one. Mr BEATTIE: No. I indicated at the time— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, this parliament is turning into a farce. I am not being given an opportunity to respond. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! We will hear the answer to this question. Mr BEATTIE: I was prepared—and I said so at the time— Opposition members interjected. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do not come in here with your tactical lies. I said at the time that I was prepared to go back to— Mr HORAN: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find that comment offensive. We are here acting on behalf of a constituent trying to get a hearing from her local MP. I find that comment offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: The Premier did not actually name anyone. Mr HORAN: I ask it to be withdrawn, and I ask the member for Rockhampton to withdraw his comment as well. The member is accusing me of a tactical lie. Get up and have the courage to take— Mr SCHWARTEN: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I did not say that. If the cap fits, wear it. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I did not say that at all, Mr Speaker. I did not refer to the honourable member at all in that respect. I said that members opposite are guilty of tactical lies—and they are. Mr HORAN: I ask the Premier and the member for Rockhampton to withdraw—I heard what was said. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I made a ruling that there was no specific person mentioned—and there was not. A member can only raise a point of order and ask that a comment be withdrawn if it is directed at the member personally. That is in the standing orders. Mr HORAN: Mr Speaker, with due respect to you, he said, 'Don't come in here with your tactical lies.' 'Your' means me and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr BEATTIE: In the interests of trying to get some response from me, I am happy to withdraw. I just simply want to give an answer to the people on this matter and I am happy to do it. I will go back to where I was. At the time I indicated—and I am going on my memory now—that we were prepared to go back into minority government. I sought to get from Mr Borbidge a pair 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 761 arrangement so that Mr D'Arcy was not here. I forced Mr D'Arcy out of this parliament and I stand by everything that I did. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The opposition is not interested in hearing an answer. I have sought legal advice as to the position because, as members would appreciate, I think that it is important that we establish the facts. The first piece of legal advice that I have received indicates that the person concerned has commenced civil proceedings in the District Court against the state of Queensland. The matter is now before the High Court. The person concerned has applied for special leave— Mr Seeney: Not when she was trying to see you. Mr BEATTIE: I have tried to answer this question. My time has run out. It is quite clear to me that opposition members want to throw mud; they do not want answers.

Beef Industry Ms BARRY: My question is to the Premier. The government has made enormous efforts to open up new markets for Queensland's beef industry. I ask: can the Premier advise how successful Queensland has been in selling beef overseas and if there are any fresh initiatives that could further increase beef sales? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Aspley for the question. It is good to talk about things that matter to people's lives in terms of jobs and opportunities. Queensland beef exports— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide! Mr BEATTIE: As I said, it is good to talk about things that matter to people's lives in terms of jobs and opportunities. It is not a reflection on any questions that were asked before. What is the matter with you guys? It is not a reflection on what was said before. Spare me! I would have thought that, when it comes to Queensland beef exports, both sides of the House would have been delighted that this is improving the lives of Queenslanders. Last financial year, Queensland beef exports increased to more than $2 billion—an increase of more than $500 million on the export levels recorded in 1998 when Labor came to power. The Queensland government has not only enhanced trading links with existing overseas markets but also it has expanded into new markets such as Vietnam, China, Egypt and Mexico. Members might recall that one of my objectives in visiting Mexico during a trade mission last year was to pave the way for beef initiatives in that country. Today, seven Queensland cattle producers, a representative of the Primary Industries Bank of Australia, a federal government quarantine representative, and a representative from DPI left on a follow-up live beef mission to both the United States and Mexico. The mission has been organised under my government's global beef alliance program—one of our 2001 election issues. Mexico has been identified as having strong potential for developing a cattle market. The DPI mission will explore these opportunities further. It is looking particularly at developing a marketing network. Some years ago sales of live cattle to Mexico were closed by restrictions placed by the North American Food and Trade Agreement—NAFTA—which I have reported on previously. But it is time to promote the current disease-free status of our cattle and reopen this trade. If we are successful in chasing this market, it could be worth millions of dollars a year to Queensland farmers. That means more jobs to Queenslanders. Members will recall our successes over the past year or two in opening up beef markets in Egypt and Vietnam. Now we are making a significant drive into the Mexican market. While we are doing everything that we can to promote beef sales, the federal government is not doing its bit to support our farmers, and I am concerned about that. I share the concern expressed by the beef industry that the federal government has failed to fully allocate the export quota for Australian beef to the European Union—something which undermines the industry's push for greater access to the European market. It also beggars belief that federal agriculture minister Warren Truss did not ensure that the 7,000 tonne per annum EU quota was filled. There is also a lot of industry concern about Mr Truss's handling of the much larger 378,000 tonne United States quota. 762 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002

The Queensland government will continue to do its best for Queensland farmers. We can only hope that the Howard government lifts its game and gives our farmers the support that they deserve. I also want to thank former Premier Mike Ahern—a National Party Premier—for assisting in these beef exports. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Gregory, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from the Birkdale South State School in the electorate of Capalaba. Welcome.

Cape York Justice Study Mr JOHNSON: My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to his answer to my question yesterday as to why his government failed to properly consult with indigenous communities in relation to the Fitzgerald report, in particular his failure to meet with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council, the elected representatives of these communities. The ACC informs me that when the Premier was in opposition, he was prepared to meet with them all the time. Now that he is Premier, he is too busy. I quote the Premier's answer yesterday— I cannot meet physically with every group. I perhaps have a longer schedule than any Premier in recent history. ... It is not physically possible for me to meet with every group. This morning the Premier made reference to a meeting that he had with delegates of the ACC at a community cabinet. The ACC informs me that the Premier was forced into this meeting but that he was too busy to talk to them properly there as well. I ask: why is it that the Premier has had plenty of time to have lengthy meetings with Noel Pearson, who is not an elected representative of these communities, but refused repeated written and verbal requests from the ACC to meet with him? A member of the ACC is again in the public gallery today, and there was a greater presence yesterday. Why did neither the Premier, his Minister Spence or any of their respective staff approach any of these ACC members yesterday? How does the Premier expect indigenous Queenslanders to believe in meaningful partnership with his government when he so readily and repeatedly ignores their peak representative body? Mr BEATTIE: Let me answer this question and let me start at the beginning. They were here as the member's guests. He approached neither my office nor me to meet them, and nor did they. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am not a mind-reader. I did not know they were here until the member mentioned it. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Come on! Get serious! Mr Johnson: I am serious all right. Mr BEATTIE: If the member wants to do anything other than play stupid— Mr Johnson: I have already told you— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory! Mr BEATTIE: The reality is that we did not know that that group was coming. They did not let us know, nor did the member. The reality of all of this is that at that community cabinet meeting a number of my ministers met with them—the Minister for Health, the Minister for State Development, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Primary Industries, the minister for Aboriginal policy and me. Now, that is not bad. They met about one-third of the cabinet. I reiterate to the member that he made a false allegation—and I do not say that he did it deliberately. I did meet them. The member said that I had not met with those people in recent times. I met with them on 16 September last year as part of the normal community cabinet process. They are on my diary for the day, which means that they were organised as part of the preparation. If people just turn up, their names would not be in my diary. They are on my diary sheet, which means that it was organised before the meeting. Can I make this point: I know that there are going to be people on Cape York who will have opposition to this plan. I said that this morning. This is not going to end up in one big love-in where everybody agrees. But I know that the Aboriginal Coordinating Council and every other group has had an opportunity to be consulted. This consultation went out for three months. Around 700 people were consulted. I have already said that. Every one of these people had a 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 763 chance to be consulted. The minister went to a meeting with them. That does not mean that everybody is going to agree. There are clearly people who do not share our view on alcohol. I have said that at the outset. I do not expect them all to agree. But it is not right to say that we have not met them; it is not right to say that we have not consulted them. In November I came into this parliament and tabled the three documents from Fitzgerald and then I said that there would be consultation. We were attacked from some corners because we said there would be another three months or more of consultation. Why did we do that? Because we wanted every one of these people to have an input! We went out and consulted for months and they had an input. They were consulted by Fitzgerald's people, then there was a report, and then there was consultation for three more months when they could have had their say. What we have here are people who do not agree with the outcomes. I respect their right to disagree with the outcomes, but let me make something clear: this government will fight alcoholism and it will not allow vested interests or self-interest to stand in the way of improving the lives of young indigenous Queenslanders and the women on the cape who deserve a fair go. They will get a fair go! I will not compromise when it comes to tackling alcohol head-on. I have bad news for those who support the current system of alcohol licensing: things will change, and they are changing from today!

Immigration Detention Centre, Meeandah Ms LIDDY CLARK: I refer the Premier to the controversy about the federal government's plans to site a detention centre within the Brisbane City Council boundary at Meeandah and I ask the Premier: what consultation did he have with the federal government over such a sensitive issue and is he aware of the local reaction to the announcement? Mr BEATTIE: The bottom line is that there was no consultation. I was in Canberra attending a meeting of trade ministers when Phillip Ruddock tracked me down. I spoke to him in the afternoon and he indicated to me what the plan was. In other words, there was no consultation. I understand that the local member, Liddy Clark, attended a meeting of unhappy people on Sunday. I understand that Barb and Jack Gorrie, locals from Pinkenba who are concerned about this proposal, are present in the gallery. I have tried to work with the Commonwealth on this. Tony McGrady was in the process of renegotiating our ongoing agreement with the Commonwealth which deals with people who arrive illegally at airports or who overstay their visas. Yes, we have a responsibility to resolve that with the Commonwealth and we will. However, we have ended up with a proposal to establish a 200- bed facility initially. When my people were briefed, they were told there was the possibility of an extension to 550 beds and medium security. That is a Woomera-style detention centre! And where is it? It is only eight kilometres from the CBD and about a kilometre or so from the suburbs of Pinkenba, Hendra, Ascot and Hamilton. We are talking about the heart of Brisbane here. We will possibly end up with a 500-bed, medium-security, Woomera-type centre with razor wire only eight kilometres from the CBD. It is little wonder we opposed it! I was stunned to learn that the Leader of the Opposition supports it—he thinks it is wonderful—and that the Leader of the Liberal Party supports it. At the next election, I hope the local member reminds her constituents that the leaders of both the Liberal and National Parties want a 550-bed jail right in the middle of their neighbourhood. I hope she reminds every single one of the people of Hamilton, Ascot, Clayfield, Hendra and Nundah that Mr Horan and Mr Quinn wanted a jail next-door. I ask Mr Horan and Mr Quinn: do you want a jail next-door to you? Come on, come out and say publicly today that you want it in the heart of Toowoomba. Come out and say today that you want it in the heart of Robina. Come on, courageous men; come out and say that you want it in downtown Toowoomba. Of course you won't! I would not support it in Toowoomba and I would not support it in Robina. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Members opposite would do anything to stop Santo Santoro coming back into this parliament. This is an anti-Santoro strategy! There is no doubt Bob Quinn wants Santoro out. He would rather have Liddy Clark back as the member for Clayfield, and on that matter I would have agree with Bob Quinn: we want Liddy back as well. Absolutely! Let it be known from today that Liddy will fight the jail, but that Bob Quinn is in favour of it—let there be no doubt. I applaud Tim Nicholls, the local Liberal councillor, who is now on side with us on this issue. 764 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002

South Pacific Petroleum, Emissions Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question to the Premier relates to things that matter to people's lives. The Premier and the Minister for State Development, the Hon. Tom Barton, have both publicly supported in very strong terms the operations of SPP/CPM in my electorate, including their environmental compliance. While jobs are important, the Premier is aware there are members of the communities of Yarwun and Targinni who have been detrimentally affected by emissions from this plant and are seeking government assistance for their situation. Will the Premier commit the government to extending the same level of support to families detrimentally affected, particularly in terms of the Yarwun/Targinni Fruit and Vegetable Growers' report provided to ministers of his government some time ago? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question and I accept the spirit in which she has asked it, because it is about people's lives and the quality of their lives. Under this government, we have seen unprecedented development in Gladstone and in that region. Mr Schwarten: And in Rockhampton. Mr BEATTIE: I was about to come to that—and in Rockhampton and central Queensland. Never before in the history of this state have we seen so many projects. We have seen light metals, AMC, Stanwell, Comalco, LG chemicals and a string of other proposals which are on the drawing board. This proposal has been around for some time. I have said publicly—and this has been supported by the minister—that this plant and proposal have to comply with environmental standards and health standards. Work is being done by the Minister for State Development, as the member would be aware, at the moment, supported by the Health Minister, to guarantee that appropriate health standards and safeguards are in place. That involves the local community. The Queensland government wants to see all the environmental issues resolved. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines will continue to closely monitor the environmental performance of the operations to ensure the project remains within the company's commitment under its environmental management program and within the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act. In a nutshell, we expect this project to meet the environmental standards that this government sets. We also expect this project to meet the health standards that are required. We will not compromise on those matters. We expect both of those standards to be met, and that is what these ministers will be doing. We will not compromise on that. However, we do know that there have been some organisations, including Greenpeace, which have sought to target this project. I made a comment on this on the way to COAG recently; there are some ongoing discussions now between the company and the federal government in relation to exporting oil into the Singapore market, if I recall correctly. I have spoken to John Anderson, the Deputy Prime Minister, about that and he has indicated his support for that project and for that expansion. I have also indicated to him my support for the export of that oil to the Singapore market. What has happened is there have been some picket lines placed on Caltex service stations in Sydney and there has been opposition to this project that has made it difficult for them to sell their oil. The bottom line is this: the community has been involved in detailed consultation and we will continue to support that. I say to the local member: obviously we want to see this project go ahead. If she has opposition to the project going ahead and communicates that to us, then obviously we are prepared to consider that. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I rise to a point of order. My question was not in opposition to the project; it was to give people there who are detrimentally affected an exit strategy. Mr BEATTIE: As I have indicated—and the honourable member is aware of this—we have had ongoing discussions on a repeated basis with the local community. There is no point in the member shaking her head. We have done that and we will continue to do that. If the member is prepared to come forward with other proposals, we are prepared to look at them, but I am indicating to her that this proposal will meet the guidelines and we will continue to work with the local community. 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 765

Abstudy Payments, Delays Mr PITT: I direct my question to the Minister for Education. According to recent media reports, indigenous children living in remote Cape York communities have missed up to a term of their schooling because of delays in Commonwealth Abstudy payments. Would the minister enlighten the House in respect of this situation? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I regret to inform the House that my department has confirmed the truth of these disturbing reports. In light of the response tabled this morning by our government to the Cape York Justice Study, which identifies that many areas have to come together and work together and the importance of education and training, but also the importance of integrated government responses and cooperation between government departments and different levels of government, I have to say I cannot immediately think of a worse example in my portfolio of the failure of the Commonwealth to work hand in hand with the state to meet the Commonwealth's responsibilities. I am advised that children living in the remote Cape York communities have missed up to an entire term of their schooling because their Abstudy claim forms have not been processed. This has denied them the funds necessary to fly them from their isolated communities to schools. These are communities that do not have high schools. Abstudy is a system that pays for indigenous children's education in remote areas, including board, travel to and from school and other expenses, such as textbooks. This is just one of a number of Commonwealth schemes to ensure that all children get the best chance no matter where they live. Clearly, there are entrenched problems with the Commonwealth government's Centrelink and Abstudy funding processes. Following contact with schools in remote communities of the Cape York and Torres Strait region, Education Queensland can report that 71 young Queenslanders are affected by this issue. Forty-nine of these students are from the cape region and 22 from the Torres Strait. This is a Commonwealth administered program and the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Science and Training must take some of the responsibility. The new education minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, has identified the education of indigenous children as one of his personal priorities as federal education minister. He should start by making sure that these children can actually get to school. As I said, this is a processing problem. We are not talking about 7,000 applications. Seventy-one should be manageable. These children should not have missed a whole term of school. The injustice is continuing. Evidence from officers within my department shows that, while they have continued to pursue Centrelink on this issue, there has been no real progress. The form that has to be filled out is 27 pages long. The principals of my schools have indicated that they would find some difficulty with the complexity of some of the questions. Nevertheless, at Pormpuraaw, Western Cape College, Kowanyama and Lockhart, Education Queensland provided specific staff over the Christmas vacation to work with parents and communities to fill in the form, in one case with a Centrelink consultant working directly with the parents. However, none of the travel arrangements have yet been organised. In the case of Lockhart, in late February the school provided two four-wheel-drive vehicles, at the expense of the school, to physically move students to Cairns for the beginning of that term. A number of representations from principals and parents have been made, again to no avail. Today I will be contacting in writing the federal minister. Children in Queensland deserve education no matter where they live.

Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board; Mr B. Bentley Mr HOBBS: I refer the Minister for Racing to her personal appointment of Mr Bob Bentley as Chairman of the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board, even though he was not on the reserve list selected by the original independent selection panel, and I ask: can she confirm that the TAB is conducting legal action against the Queensland Turf Club, the Brisbane Turf Club and the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board to stop casino sponsorship of race meetings—jeopardising the sponsorship of race carnivals from Cairns to the Gold Coast? Given that Mr Bentley is also a member of the TAB board, does he not have a conflict of interest as chairman of the TRB? Mrs ROSE: Firstly, again, I state that there was no personal appointment of Bob Bentley. The ARB would not tolerate that to start with. The ARB does not have a problem with the process. 766 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002

That, seriously, is really the end of it. As far as any action that the TAB board is taking, that is a matter for it. It is not a matter for the Minister for Racing. Mr Hobbs: Conflict of interest. Mrs ROSE: There is no conflict of interest. If there was a conflict— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mrs ROSE: This is clearly a matter for the TAB board. It is not a matter for the Minister for Racing. I would imagine that at times members of any board, if there are any conflicts of interest, would have to step aside. But that is a matter for the TAB board. It is not a matter for the Minister for Racing. I started to say yesterday that I was curious as to why there was so much opposition to Bob Bentley's appointment as chair. I know very little about the fellow. When there was a lot of criticism of him by Bart Sinclair in his column I had to wonder why. Anyway, last Saturday all was revealed in Bart Sinclair's column. He is well known for espousing the views of critics in the racing industry, particularly from the QTC. He mentioned a long-running dispute between Bob Bentley's company and Ian Baxter, who is the chair of the BTC. That is what it was all about. Who was the person who organised the convening of a public meeting on Sunday? Baxter! That is who it was. This all goes back to his relationship with Bob Bentley. This is all about a personal vendetta. This has to stop. We have people from the QTC, such as Phil Sullivan and Bill Sexton, who continue at every turn to criticise any change in the racing industry. Mr Hobbs: That is untrue. Mrs ROSE: It is not untrue. Mr Hobbs: You are just using that as an excuse. Mrs ROSE: No. The members of the old boys club continue to use their schoolyard bullyboy tactics every time they feel they are losing control of how the racing industry is run. They spread rumours and misinformation. This all comes down to previous relationships and personal vendettas. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mrs ROSE: That is ridiculous. If the Australian Racing Board and the TAB board do not have a problem, why should the member have a problem?

Tobacco Legislation Mr ENGLISH: As a local member with a high personal commitment to health promotion, I ask the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy: what progress has been made in the implementation of the Beattie Labor government's tobacco legislation? Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for the question and I acknowledge his influence in this area and support for the new legislation. As members would be aware—or I hope that they are aware—the Beattie Labor government's widely supported tobacco legislation is due to come into force on World No Tobacco Day on 31 May. But today is another milestone. Today, members might be interested to know, is National Youth Tobacco Free Day. I am drawing this to honourable members' attention, because our new legislation specifically protects young people by tightening up restrictions on access to tobacco products. The Beattie government recognises that youth smoking is a serious problem in Queensland, with research showing that, in the year 2000, 28 per cent of students in years 7 to 12 were smokers. It is also generally accepted that people take up smoking before they are 18. If they have not taken it up before the age of 18, they are very unlikely to, which is one of the reasons we are targeting that age group. This legislation increases significantly the fines for sales of tobacco products to anyone under 18. Penalties have gone up five-fold to $5,250 for a first offence for retailers. For a second offence the penalty has been further doubled to $10,500. For repeat offenders the court has an option of banning the retailer from selling tobacco products for up to a year if the retailer reoffends within a two-year period. Prohibition signs warning about the penalties imposed for the sale to people under 18 are required to be displayed at all retail outlets, and excuses such as they are buying cigarettes for their parents or older friends will no longer be accepted. We have also made it easier to get the evidence to prosecute—something that was very difficult under the previous legislation. 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 767

Another major feature in the new legislation is the focus on banning smoking in licensed public areas where and when food is served, including in restaurants and clubs. Late last month, I announced that Queensland Health was sending information kits regarding the new legislation to restaurants, licensed clubs and retailers. The Tobacco Hotline has been set up to field questions from the public. The number for the Tobacco Hotline is 1800 005998. I acknowledge the support of all the stakeholders—people from restaurants and clubs, hoteliers and retailers—who turned up at the launch of that number. The information kits outline the changes to the laws and responsibilities of owners and staff. Queensland's new tobacco laws are the most significant tobacco reforms ever embarked on by any Queensland government and the first step towards a smoke free future. I thank all honourable members for their support in getting them going.

General Agreement on Trade in Services Ms LEE LONG: I thank the Premier and Minister for Trade for his written response to my previous question without notice in relation to GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, in which he confirmed that further negotiations are proceeding, and I ask: does this mean that Queensland services such as health, police, transport, education, corrective services, forestry and so on could progressively come up for international tender and that, should the tender be won by a foreign multinational, it could take control and could then employ its own workers? Would the foreign companies have to abide by our workplace health and safety regulations and relevant awards regardless of where their employees were living? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledgment. As I promised, I wrote her a detailed letter because I know that her interest in this matter is very genuine. May I deal with the specific issue of what happens in terms of workplace health requirements? I leave aside for the moment the issue of whether companies can come here or not. This is similar to the question that was asked of me earlier by the member for Gladstone. If anyone operates here they have to comply with our environmental laws, they have to comply with our health requirements and, obviously, with any industrial laws and any other arrangements that exist in Australia. That would apply to Australian companies as well as to overseas companies or partnerships. In terms of the detail of the debate, I think what I need to do is keep the honourable member informed. Last Thursday I attended a meeting of trade ministers which Mark Vaile convened. I have to say that I am quite impressed with Mark Vaile, the federal trade minister. I think he is doing a very good job. He is not of my political persuasion but I think he is doing a very good job in relation to trade. He conducted a very sound meeting, out of which came a number of initiatives. There will be ongoing consultation in relation to treaties and agreements. The honourable member might have noticed that yesterday I tabled in the House some correspondence and documents in relation to that matter. I could have simply done that through Mr Speaker but I did it in the House because of the issues raised by the honourable member. I am happy to keep those matters in mind when we do become involved in discussions. A lot of this work is done at an officer level but I am prepared to continue to pursue it. May I make a suggestion to the honourable member? It would be very useful if she wrote directly to Mark Vaile. As I said, whilst there are political and philosophical differences between Mark Vaile and my government, the issue of trade is a non-political area—it is quite bipartisan. Mark Vaile adopts that bipartisan role at any meetings we have. All trade ministers—of whom there are eight and all of whom are Labor—were quite impressed with the way in which Mark Vaile conducted himself. Whilst he plays a non-political role to advance trade for this country we will work with him. I suggest that the honourable member writes to him. I give the honourable member an undertaking that I will keep her abreast of these matters. If she continues to write to me, I will continue to do that. The honourable member has previously raised with me matters in relation to native title law. I have written to the honourable member on this subject. I have here a matter dealing with native title laws which I would like to incorporate in Hansard. I know the honourable member is particularly interested in what is happening in that area at the moment. She has raised the 768 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002 question of the Queensland regime with me in the past. I will seek approval to have that incorporated in Hansard and the honourable member can read it. If she wants to follow up this matter with me, she may do so. I know that both of these issues raised by the honourable member are important to her. I seek leave to incorporate this document. Leave granted. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT—NATIVE TITLE LAWS Mr Speaker I wish to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of all Members the reference in the recent report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism to Queensland's alternative State provisions for mining and native title. Queensland's alternative State provisions, which replace the Commonwealth Right to Negotiate, commenced on 18 September 2000, after an extensive consultation process with indigenous parties, in particular the Queensland Indigenous Working Group, the Commonwealth and the Queensland Mining Council. The Central Queensland Land Council Aboriginal Corporation then began its action in the Federal Court in early 2001, for judicial review of the decisions of the Commonwealth Attorney-General that allow the alternative State provisions to operate. The Central Queensland Land Council was partially successful. As Members will be aware, Justice Wilcox found that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's section 43 determinations that support the State's procedures for the grant of high impact exploration and mining tenements were invalid on a technical ground relating to the commencement of the legislation. I immediately wrote to the Commonwealth Attorney-General and requested that he remake the four determinations pursuant to section 43 of the Native Title Act 1993, which would address the technical issue, identified by Justice Wilcox. I also wrote to the leaders of all the Federal political parties seeking their commitment to the expedited passage through the Federal Parliament of the new section 43 determinations. I subsequently decided that the State would join with the Commonwealth and appeal Justice Wilcox's decision. This was done with the knowledge of the views of indigenous leaders, and in particular the Queensland Indigenous Working Group. The State and Commonwealth appeals, if successful, will restore legitimacy to the considerable negotiation efforts of all parties in a large number of high impact exploration and mining production applications, under the widely accepted section 43 processes. The Queensland Indigenous Working Group, in correspondence and at meetings, continues to put forward a number of propositions. I maintain my position that the State's schemes for low impact exploration and prospecting, as amended following Senate consideration, fully meet my commitment that the Queensland scheme deliver no less favourable treatment to indigenous interests than does the New South Wales scheme. I am happy to report to this House that the United Nations has now acknowledged this position. The United Nation's recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur on racism, at paragraph 70 states, and I quote "whilst some differences remain between the New South Wales and the Queensland schemes in relation to the "low impact" exploration processes, Premier Beattie substantially complied with his undertaking to amend the Queensland alternative provisions upon the enactment of the Native Title Resolution Act 2000". This United Nations endorsement, that I have met my commitment, should be the end of the debate by the Queensland Indigenous Working Group on this issue. Beyond this point I have indicated to the Queensland Indigenous Working Group that the State would examine the options for seeking conditional determinations for the State's low impact exploration and prospecting schemes. I acknowledge that the Queensland Mining Council will not support this. So as to progress this matter, with minimal confusion, it is necessary in my view, that a minor technical amendment be made to the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. On 28 February 2002, I requested the Commonwealth Attorney-General urgently make this amendment to the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 so Queensland could obtain a subsequent conditional determination for an act that has already been determined. I am disappointed that in response to the Commonwealth and State appeals, the Central Queensland Land Council has chosen to up the stakes and has cross appealed Justice Wilcox's finding of validity regarding the Commonwealth Attorney-General's determinations that support the State's grants of low impact exploration tenements and prospecting. The State does not accept the Queensland Indigenous Work Group's proposition that native title holders are in a more disadvantageous position under the current Mineral Resources Act than are freeholders. The Native Title Act 1993 requires the State to provide rights and opportunities for consultation and/or negotiation in any alternative State provision. These requirements for consultation and negotiation have been met, and exceeded, under the Queensland scheme. Members opposite may be interested in enquiring of the Commonwealth Attorney-General what progress he has made on my request to remake the determinations. To the best of my knowledge he is yet to have the courtesy of acknowledging my letter. Whilst this level of responsiveness may be the standard we can only expect from the Howard Government it flies in the face of the Howard Government's election commitment, and I quote from page 17 of the Coalition Parties election commitment of 2001, entitled, "Better Law, More Options", which contained the following statement. "We encourage the States and Territories to develop their own alternative native title regimes and to pursue the successful passage of those regimes through the parliamentary process". This becomes a very hollow policy when you can't even get the Commonwealth Attorney-General to acknowledge your request. 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 769

I recognise the difficult position that the State and the mining industry have been put in by the Federal Court decision and I am working to re-establish the alternative State regime in full. I remain committed to the ability to process high impact exploration and mining production tenements under alternative State provisions so that indigenous people can share in the benefits of a commonsense, workable and integrative native title mining scheme that delivers mining development and jobs all for Queenslanders.

Rail Services, Disability Access Mr McNAMARA: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. I refer the minister to the issue of access to rail services for people with a disability, and I ask: can the minister please advise the House what action the government is taking to improve disability access, including possible improvements in rolling stock design, and what steps are being undertaken to inform people with disabilities of available services and initiatives? Mr BREDHAUER: The honourable member has made numerous representations to my office—particularly in recent times—in relation to services for people with disabilities in Hervey Bay. He has taken a very strong interest in this area. One of the issues for Queensland Rail is that most of the railway stations were designed over the last 100 years. The rolling stock on our Traveltrain services, for example, has an average age of 50 years. That infrastructure was designed at a time when not as much attention was paid to access issues; in fact, one could argue that no attention was paid to access issues for people with disabilities. A year or so ago, I announced that QR would spend $45 million over seven years upgrading infrastructure on both our Citytrain network and on the Traveltrain network. We have so far spent $12.1 million on station upgrades for the Citytrain network. We have now reached the stage where all our new rolling stock is appropriately designed to improve access for people with disabilities and for other people for whom access is an issue. Last year, the Minister for Families and I were at Roma Street Railway Station for Disability Access Week and we saw the new whiz- bang train carriages which have all of the latest features to assist people with disabilities. Starting this year, we will spend $10 million on upgrading the Traveltrain network. Our tilt trains which are currently operating between Brisbane and Rockhampton are disability accessible. The lead carriage has a special compartment area that can accommodate up to three wheel chairs. Our new tilt trains which will operate between Brisbane and Cairns will obviously be designed with similar features. They have other improvements such as toilet facilities and such things. Progressively, between now and 2006, we will spend almost a further $27 million in addition to the $10 million that we have spent on Traveltrain on further improvements for access to railway stations and rolling stock for people with disabilities and for people for whom access is an issue. In addition to that, we have training which is being undertaken by all QR staff. I have received a number of letters from grateful customers of QR about the service they have received from our staff. We are encouraging all our staff to undergo training so that they know how to appropriately deal with the needs of people for whom access is difficult on our existing rolling stock and railway stations. We are also in the final stages of producing a brochure, which we will make available to people who have a disability or for whom access is an issue, so that they know what services are available and how they can go about securing those services when they want to be a customer of QR.

Fire Station Closures Mr MALONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. At a community meeting in Tewantin last night—a meeting which was supported by Adrian Williams, officer in charge of the Tewantin Fire Station—it was noted that closure of the station will leave the Tewantin area exposed. The Noosa Fire Station, with a lack of sufficient back-up, will no longer be able to respond to fires in under the required 14 minute response time due to the extended travel time. This was evident in the recent Noosa Bubs fire. A similar situation exists for many firefighters in the Brisbane region with the closure of the Balmoral Fire Station. I ask: what is the proposed date of closure of Balmoral and Tewantin fire stations? Is this the new direction of the government—to deprive the people of Queensland of services? Mr REYNOLDS: I will deal firstly with the question of the Tewantin Fire Station. The opposition had a shadow cabinet meeting in that area and I know that the shadow minister 770 Questions Without Notice 10 Apr 2002 looked at the facilities, and I was pleased to be able to facilitate that for him. A key reason for advocating the closure of the Tewantin Fire Station is that the Tewantin area can be adequately serviced from the current Noosa Fire Station. Currently, there is a duplication of fire services occurring in that area. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service management is keen to minimise unnecessary duplication of services in the interests of maximising fire services. Tewantin auxiliary staff will be given the option to redeploy, with very favourable conditions, to the nearby Noosa Fire Station. There will be no forced redundancies, thereby effectively meeting government employment policy. The Tewantin Fire Station building will be sold. We have seen a very large increase in the numbers of staff at the Noosa Fire Station. This is planned on fire risk strategy. The government is looking at the duplication of services in a very responsible manner. May I now refer to the Balmoral Fire Station? I made some public comments on this matter last night after some comments had been made by the United Firefighters Union. From time to time, stations become due for closure for a number of reasons, but the most common reason is useful life. In the late 1920s a group of four stations were opened in Brisbane, namely Albion, Alderley, Balmoral and South Brisbane. Three of the four have closed, leaving Balmoral as the oldest remaining fire station in Brisbane. It will eventually be closed. The Department of Emergency Services is currently consulting with the residents of Bulimba about this matter. Pat Purcell, the local member, has been very much involved in that work. We have been consulting with residents regarding the need for, and the timing of, this closure. We have heard a number of comments about closure of other Brisbane stations. There are no other plans before me as the Minister for Emergency Services in that regard. In regard to the work that we as a fire and rescue service do, we will be putting the needs of our residents first and foremost, irrespective of which part of Queensland they live in. We need to be efficient and we need to ensure that there is not duplication, but at all times we will be making sure that Queenslanders are well served.

Australian Airlines, Business Opportunities Ms BOYLE: Will the Minister for State Development please outline how the Beattie government is capitalising on business opportunities presented by recent airline and tourism announcements? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question. Just last week the Premier and I announced a new airline action plan to ensure that Cairns businesses and workers get the maximum benefit from Qantas's decision to set up Australian Airlines operations in north Queensland and particularly in Cairns. The plan was prepared by the state government, in close cooperation with the member for Cairns, who takes a particular interest in this area, and key private sector groups in Cairns and north Queensland. It is designed to enhance opportunities for Cairns businesses to benefit from new Asian tourism markets. In short, this action plan will boost business and will create jobs in Cairns. This government is serious about making the most of Qantas's investment in Cairns and helping local businesses to make the most out of this great new airline, Australian Airlines, which will take to the skies in October. It builds on the government's existing work in Cairns and concentrates on new activities, particularly in the area of cultural awareness, to welcome the expected 350,000 new Asian tourists and visitors who will come with this new airline operation. The establishment of Australian Airlines is expected to create about 350 new jobs in aviation in Queensland, but there is also potential to create thousands of new jobs in support industries. The airline action plan is a working document. We will be seeking cooperation from all relevant state government departments to ensure the success of this strategy. This is the culmination of intensive work by several government agencies and key representatives from the Cairns business community and is being coordinated by the State Development Centre in Cairns, again in close cooperation with the member for Cairns, who has been working with me and my team to make sure that local businesses in Cairns realise the potential presented by the markets that will be created by these hundreds of thousands of new tourists. The quick response by my Department of State Development in driving the preparation of this action plan means that Cairns businesses will be better positioned to take up these opportunities when Australian Airlines starts flying into Cairns in October. The action plan has two key focal points: recognising the business opportunities presented by increased tourists from Asia, particularly the new markets of Korea and mainland China; and the expanded airfreight capacity 10 Apr 2002 Questions Without Notice 771 provided by Australian Airlines and the development of infrastructure to maintain this increased airfreight capacity. The spirit of cooperation that has prevailed between government and business in preparing this action plan can only be an indication of the positives to be realised from this great relationship. The commitment by Australia's national carrier, Qantas, to set up this airline out of Cairns secures Queensland's reputation as a growing hub for the Asia-Pacific in the aviation sector.

Fire Station Closures Mr QUINN: I refer the Minister for Emergency Services to his previous answer. I also refer to the fact that he has made the decision to close Balmoral and Tewantin stations and to speculation about a number of other fire stations across Brisbane, such as Roma Street, Mount Ommaney, Enoggera and Wynnum. What guarantee can the minister give that response times will not increase past 10 minutes, which is the accepted maximum? Mr REYNOLDS: It sounds like the Liberal Party is proposing that all of the fire stations in Brisbane are going to be closed! I adequately answered the question as asked by the shadow minister. I actually answered the question the member is now asking— Mr Quinn: Response times. Mr REYNOLDS: I answered the question in regard to other Brisbane stations. I assure the House that there is no other plan before me as Minister for Emergency Services to close any of the stations the member has mentioned today. I am very pleased to say that the response time we set as a benchmark is 14 minutes—from the time the call is accepted at our communication station until we actually arrive at the fire. I am very proud to say that in the Brisbane south region—we were talking about the Balmoral station—our response times for structural fires are less than six minutes. Our response times for structural fires for the whole of the Brisbane south region are less than six minutes. I assure members today, in particular the member for Robina, that at all times as minister I wish to ensure that our response times for fire services are the very best we can achieve. That is why the Beattie government has been ploughing money into fire and ambulance services in the way that it has over the last four years. The moneys that have gone into the Department of Emergency Services, particularly in regard to ambulance and fire, are absolutely unprecedented. As minister, I will be ensuring that the money we have in those areas will continue to flow to the station level itself. If we have to get rid of duplication and if we need to be more efficient, so be it. We will be doing that in a very responsible way because, at the end of the day, those efficiencies need to be felt most at the station level so that our fire and ambulance men and women can respond in the very best way they can.

Employment Assistance, Former Ansett Workers Mr FENLON: My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth. I refer the minister to the large number of Ansett workers who faced difficulty after being retrenched. Indeed, some of those are from the Greenslopes electorate. What assistance has the Queensland government been able to offer the displaced Ansett workers in this state? Mr FOLEY: We are giving them a hand to get a job. The collapse of Ansett has spelled tragedy for many Queensland workers and their families. As far back as 1999, inside our first year in office, the Beattie government put in place the Worker Assistance Program to provide assistance to working people who found themselves in this kind of tragic situation. Experience teaches us that we need to move quickly. A little bit of help at that initial point of crisis, where there has been a sudden and dramatic job loss, is worth a lot of help months and months down the track. The Worker Assistance Program is an early intervention labour market program that aims to assist workers displaced by large-scale retrenchments to make the transition to alternative employment. I can inform the House that more than 650 retrenched Ansett Airlines staff have so far responded to an offer of employment assistance from the state government. Under this program, up to $5,000 in employment and training assistance is available to Queenslanders who 772 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002 lost their jobs when Ansett collapsed. This assistance includes funding for job search training, employment assistance, wage subsidies for new employers and relocation assistance. The first Ansett closure in September and the recent failure of the Tesna deal affected approximately 1,650 Queensland based workers. The program offered by the Beattie government is an effective incentive to help these people get back into work and prevent them from falling into long-term unemployment. We are committed to making sure that the Ansett workers are not abandoned. The Department of Employment and Training is now working with the retrenched Ansett workers who have responded to the government's offer to see how on an individual basis the program can provide assistance. Since its inception in 1998 the Worker Assistance Program has assisted no fewer than 2,298 retrenched workers from a number of company closures including the South Johnstone Sugar Mill in Innisfail and Gate Gourmet in Brisbane. This program is just another element of the Beattie government's $470 million Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative, which aims to create more than 56,000 jobs over six years. Wouldn't it be good if the Commonwealth government got involved in labour market programs the way it did under a federal Labor government and did something to help the long-term unemployed and those affected by large-scale retrenchments?

Resignation of First-Year Teachers Mr LINGARD: I refer the Minister for Education to recent reports that after four years of studying approximately 20 per cent of teachers are resigning in their first year of teaching. I ask: why are young teachers resigning in such high numbers from her department? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Given the complexity of the information that he is asking for, I am happy to provide him with an answer on notice. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

LAND PROTECTION (PEST AND STOCK ROUTE MANAGEMENT) BILL Second Reading Resumed from 9 April (see p. 735). Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (11.30 a.m.): In rising to the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill, I have but one major question, and I ask: is the government allocating sufficient funds to the men and women who work on government owned land to ensure that they can adhere to this legislation and, in so doing, stop the abuse this government has subjected on every private property owner surrounding them? That abuse is the current situation because these property owners have to combat the mismanagement through neglect perpetrated by this government. The current practices of shutting up large areas of land and forest has been described by some as one of the greatest disasters to affect our land, and time is proving that to be very true. Property owners whose properties abut state owned land have complained bitterly that previous rulings by government have made it impossible to keep their land free of pests and weeds. Any farmer with the welfare of his land and livestock at heart has pursued pest and weed control in the past, and continues to do so. It is an affront by this government to impose fines on private land-holders who have weeds, et cetera, on their land when it itself should look at state owned infested land. This is often where the weeds come from in the first place. Many bills have been brought before this House which have impacted heavily on rural land- holders, and this will impact most heavily on the rural land-holder's pocket. Very few people would object to the principles for which this bill is striving, and in fact land-holders themselves would be the most strident supporters of such a bill which endeavoured to protect their land from pests and weeds. But this bill, although trying, does not address this fairly or appropriately. In some ways, this is almost a laughable bill if it were not going to have such a serious impact on rural land- holders. The regulation sets out the terms and obligations for land-holders to erect and maintain stock-proof and pest-proof fences to eradiate animal and weed pests on their properties. As I stated before, it was this government that introduced the Vegetation Management Act which forced land-holders to dedicate so much land to stands of native vegetation and trees to allow a corridor for native animals to traverse. These corridors, along with the closed forest areas, provide a wonderful protective area for our native wildlife, but they also provide a safe harbour for many of the animal pests this government is endeavouring to eradicate. It seems a bit ludicrous that the 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 773 property owners once encouraged to provide these habitats are now the very same land-holders who will be charged with offences if their natural habitats protect the pest. It is the same for weeds. The carrying of weed seeds from one property to another may occur in the fur of animals or the wind from one of the many neglected areas of government owned land. They can even be carried from infested areas along riverbanks to clean areas. Is the government offering to allow owners subjected to the neglect of neighbouring property owners an opening to sue? Can they in fact sue the government if it is not a good neighbour as well? This legislation is placing an unfair onus on property owners when I cannot see an equal obligation in the bill for the government to do the right thing when it comes to state owned land. A greater number of dingoes and crossbred wild dogs are losing their fear of people. These crossbred animals are often larger and more aggressive than any typical purebred dingo. There are incidences of packs of these animals approaching people who are walking alone on their property or kids on quad bikes having fun in the back blocks of that property. This shows how environmental protection can add to the issues surrounding the dog problem. Doggers are an essential part of our landscape and must be ensured practical ways to achieve their aims to control this pest. Many members have mentioned baiting with 1080 and the use of steel traps instead of the more humane plastic jawed traps, which have been known to fail. Any life threatened or lost is too many and serious measures must be used to eradicate pests in these areas. Often the time taken to obtain the permits to use 1080 is far too long and any effort to speed up the process is essential. Just about every clause in the bill indicates an offence has been committed if a land-holder does not meet the requirements of the bill. I argue that, in many ways, the bill itself is an offence. Because of the failure of government to ensure jobs are available in rural areas through placement of industries inland rather than on the coastal strip, our children are forced to relocate to cities to have any possibility of gaining employment. The continual decline of many sectors of primary industry for various reasons forces the children who once worked with dad on the land not to do so any longer. Not only can't dad afford to employ them—or anyone else for that matter—but there is now a trend to discourage our young from what is seen as an incredibly hard way to make a living on the land. Many would see this as a consequence of government policy and the findings by those governments that supplying services to rural areas is costly and a burden on government coffers. These children would once work for board and a little cash, but primarily because they were seen as the future owner. However, with bad seasons and national competition policy and its effects, these land-holders are struggling to stay on the land for little or no income. These people find it difficult to compete with a government intent on importing produce from counties with lower wages. Often the imported produce has been exposed to the very pests we are trying to ensure are eradicated here. Black sigatoka in bananas is just one example. The bill asks land-holders to spend considerable time checking and maintaining kilometres of fence line or else they again face the possibility of penalties. If they cannot afford this penalty, do they get a holiday courtesy of the government? We are not talking about a suburban block here but kilometres of fencing. While talking about suburban land-holders, these house blocks are often the starting point for potential weed pests or, as is now apparent, are areas infested with fire ants. Isn't the movement of vehicles from metropolitan areas to rural areas a source of spreading these pests? Shall we expect to see fire ants in rural areas soon as the tourist industry entices our city counterparts to come explore the wonders of rural Queensland? What measures have been put in place to ensure that residents in fire ant infested areas are not carrying little passengers? Fire ants travelled to Australia, and I am pretty sure that they are not adverse to hopping in a car and going to the country. I would suggest that the environment is more at risk from the metropolitan pest and weed problem and pollution than from the rural sector. We must remember that weed pests such as mother-of-millions and many others were in fact brought here to enhance gardens. Are city people whose properties are infested with fire ants picking up the cost of eradicating them from their land? I think not. Government is picking up the tab, but I do not see the government offering to assist rural land-holders in eradicating the pests this legislation is targeting. It appears that the government continually lays the blame for land degradation, forest clearing and water and air pollution exclusively at the feet of rural communities. It is about time that the truth was brought out and proper consultation undertaken with rural groups. I know the government claims that consultation was entered into, but I have yet to meet a single land-holder who was asked a single question. It does not surprise me. It would appear that minority groups 774 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002 have the ears of the minister when it comes to formulating legislation and not the people it ultimately affects. Special interest groups appear to press the buttons which make their ill- informed lobbying suddenly appear as proposed legislation. I have to admit that their ideas are worth listening to, but it takes input from all sides to be truly representative and effective. Doesn't the government yet recognise that the vast majority of the population is sympathetic to the environment? It does not express that sympathy by picking up placards and marching the streets of cities but by acting on them and changing their lifestyles to be more environmentally friendly. Unlike the often paid protesters, who continue to discard rubbish into the gutters which ends up in the drains which flow into the rivers and eventually the sea, protection of the environment is not a trendy issue for land-holders; their very survival depends on it. They know they must, and many have already, repair the damage caused by previous generations obeying their government who legislated that they 'clear it or lose it'. I now move to the point in the bill where power is given to local government. It is stated that council has the power to declare a plant or animal which is not already a declared pest to be declared a pest. Does this mean that a council can declare a protected species that develops in plague proportions and extensively damages crops a pest? Power is also given to local government that it can issue land-holders with a notice stating that they must build a stock-proof fence on freehold land adjoining the stock route network at the land-holder's expense. Urban land-holders share the cost of fence building between the abutting neighbours. Is government prepared to be a good neighbour and share that expense also? Why is it so hard for government to offer fair legislation to rural land-holders? The big catch here is that the local government can erect the fence itself and charge the land-holder the full price, including labour. If the land-holder cannot afford to pay, interest will be charged. If necessary, local governments can recoup their costs by selling the property. What a gem of an idea! This bill places a greater emphasis on local government, and I ask again: will more funds be allocated to council, which will virtually be shouldering government responsibilities? It is all right to say that government will do the research and put forward the legislation, but funds must be made available to make it workable. The rocket scientists who dreamt up this legislation have no idea what they are doing to primary industry. Once again, our primary production sector will bear the brunt of legislation which will succeed to force another percentage from the land, people this state cannot really afford to lose. Didn't politicians say fairly recently that Australia is an importing country and that we do not need our farmers anymore? If ever a time existed when the words 'shame, shame, shame' should have been expressed, that should have been when those words were uttered. Although the intent of the bill is to protect our lands, something with which no-one would disagree, the bill needs a lot of work. I ask the government to forget the greenies' vote, to converse with land-holders properly to get a balanced idea of what needs to be done, what is practical and what is achievable and then to put forward legislation totally acceptable to all parties. We must stop the evident bias being exhibited against the rural sector because it is not understood by government. This surely must be a phobia of some kind. No-one expects people who lack real experience in an area to know everything about it, but it is expected that people who do understand the effects are offered the chance to share their knowledge. This legislation will pass due to government numbers in this parliament, but without major amendments I would prefer it to be thrown in the bin or at least withdrawn and redrafted. That is unlikely to happen. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.43 a.m.): This is a very important bill, because one of the major environmental issues facing us is the control of noxious weeds and pests. It is something that does not get the environmental focus it certainly deserves, because it is not seen as a trendy green issue. But it is one of the major issues facing the environmental health of our state and our country. It is something that will continue to need to attract large sums of money. Other members have given different estimates on how much to date it costs us to control these issues. All landowners must do their part, and to date the vast majority do their part. A lot of money has already been spent by private land-holders on maintaining their own properties, but there is also a responsibility on the state to do its part to make sure that the very large amounts of land tied up under state ownership are properly looked after and do not harbour pests and noxious weeds to the point where they grow in plague proportions and become an incursion across the state. As we have seen, once many pests get a foothold there is no way in the world to control them. Not only can one not control them but one cannot contain them, so eradication is completely out of the question. It is something for which every land-holder in the 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 775 state must take responsibility, and that does put a major onus on the state as a large land-holder as well. Perhaps this is even more incumbent on the state government, given the nature of its properties—be it forestry land, national parks or whatever—and the fact that largely they are tracts of land locked up with very little use and supervision as opposed to private land-holdings used and maintained on a daily basis. The potential for those state owned lands to become major breeding grounds for all sorts of pests is certainly there and is something we have seen in the past and that we see today. Weeds are one of the worst threats that we can see, whether they are listed as noxious weeds or weeds that may be only an isolated or a local problem. I refer to weeds such as lantana, parthenium, rubber vine and prickly acacia. Right across the state we have seen the sorts of problems that they cause. Parthenium is spreading ever southward and really is a huge concern to all those agricultural areas into which it is expanding. Anyone who has been to central Queensland and seen what effect it has had there will be aware of the problems caused by parthenium, let alone rubber vine, prickly acacia and all those other sorts of things in different parts of the state. There is giant rat-tail grass, hymenachne—the list is absolutely endless. It is something on which we really must keep a huge focus. To date, I do not think there has been enough focus on it. There are other weeds that are a local problem which may not get any focus at all either from the national strategy or the state strategy. We should not take our eyes off that problem. We should recognise that there are local problems. For example, the Toowoomba City Council has undertaken a major program to try to eradicate privet within its boundaries. So a major city is trying to do what it can to eradicate a noxious weed. This problem applies not only to rural land- holders but to cities and metropolitan areas. As the member for Nanango said, a lot of these pests have been introduced as ornamental plants in metropolitan areas. It is something that we have to make sure we keep an eye on. I well remember a number of years ago going to a friend's place in Brisbane wherein the lady had been to her local nursery and had a beautiful mother-of-millions in a pot plant on the veranda. That sort of thing is still happening and is something of which we must be aware. Yesterday, the member for Fitzroy mentioned the area around Wandoan and the problem with mother-of-millions there. It is a huge problem, but it started as an ornamental plant, as did lantana and however many other weeds that are causing economic and environmental damage across the state. A number of members who have spoken in this debate have lamented the lack of coordination, and perhaps even the lack of commitment, by some local councils to play their part. I must say that the councils within the Cunningham electorate have been very proactive and are doing their best to address some of these issues. We have some large tracts of forestry land, for example in the Millmerran and Cecil Plains areas. They are huge areas that have certainly experienced dingo and wild dogs. We cannot forget that there are two problems. It is not just dingoes; it is also feral dogs. They have needed a particular focus on that and have employed doggers and have increased the bounty for scalps to try to address this growing problem. But it is not only in those large forestry areas that those problems occur. In the more closely settled areas, for example in the north of the electorate right into the boundary of the city of Toowoomba, there are still problems. It is something of which we need to be aware. Mr Purcell: A few chickens have been taken. Mr COPELAND: A few chickens, a few sheep, a few goats—all sorts of things are being taken, and not just by dingoes. There is also the feral dog problem. Pigs are a huge problem in north Queensland, but in my electorate in fairly closely settled areas they are a problem as well. There are foxes, feral cats and all sorts of things. Feral cats are incredibly bad and absolutely devastating on our natural bird and wildlife and on natural fauna and are not something on which there has been much focus. This tends to be forgotten among the dingo and wild dog problem, but foxes, feral cats and pigs are all major problems. With the use of management techniques, whether in combination with 1080, trapping or shooting, it can be effective. Where it has been effective and where there has been a targeted 1080 program, we have seen such benefits. With the proliferation of ground dwelling birds, for example the plain turkeys, et cetera, and with a sustained, controlled program in place over a number of years, there are environmental benefits to our natural fauna such that they are recovering to levels not seen in perhaps 100 or 150 years. It is certainly a legitimate program that we should be considering, maintaining and in fact developing and expanding. 776 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

The rangelands of Toowoomba to Cunningham's Gap have a major, ongoing lantana problem. I know that not just in our electorate but right across the state lantana is a major problem. To be honest, it is a dreadful thing to try to get rid of. It typifies the ongoing problem that will be there and the amount of money that will be required to address all of these issues. Regardless of the weed, the pest or where in the state it is, it will take a major amount of money and a lot of manpower to control it. We need to ensure that the state recognises its need to play its part in providing that money and the manpower in coordination with national strategies, local governments and private land- holders so that there is that coordinated, expanded approach. At the moment, the large amounts of land owned by the state are not being managed correctly. The resources are not being placed there to manage them correctly. I am afraid that the state is not fulfilling its good neighbour policy. Mr Purcell: Hear, hear! Mr COPELAND: I take the interjection from the member for Bulimba. He agrees with me that the state is not coordinating that approach. He is right. I do not think that anyone on either side of this House could say that the government is spending adequate amounts of money and providing adequate manpower on the ground to manage the large amounts of land that we see tied up as state lands, whether they are forestry leases or national parks. Over the past 15 years, a large amount of land has been locked up by the government for one reason or the other. Some people will argue that it has been legitimate; some people will argue that it has not. Regardless of the arguments, the fact is that the area of those lands has been increased dramatically. They are now state owned. I do not think that the increase in manpower has been commensurate with the requirements on the state to maintain those lands. There are many concerns about this bill which the shadow minister, the member for Callide, has gone through in detail. I know that there are concerns in the community about some aspects of the bill. We must all acknowledge that there has to be a focus on this issue, but most importantly we have to acknowledge that the state must play its part in providing adequate protection for our land, not only for environmental reasons but also for economic reasons. We must also acknowledge that the cities, the metropolitan areas and the local councils have a part to play. We cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening in the nurseries and the gardens throughout our state. Who knows how many weeds that are being grown in backyards across Queensland may turn into weeds that are hard to eradicate such as prickly pear or lantana. I hope that the minister will commit to increasing the funding and the manpower that is required to manage this very serious and important problem. An opposition member: How many stock routes has Bulimba got? Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (11.51 a.m.): I would like to make a few comments about the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill. One of my colleagues across the chamber asked how many stock routes Bulimba has. I can tell him that Bulimba had the largest meatworks in the country apart from the one at Homebush in Sydney. When I was a kid working on properties, at lunchtime the ABC would give the Cannon Hill and Homebush stock reports and people would listen for the prices and make decisions—decisions with very serious financial implications—about what they were going to do with their stock and when they would put them to sale. In and around the Cannon Hill, Morningside, Bulimba, Balmoral, Hawthorne and Norman Park areas and over the Story Bridge big mobs of cattle used to be brought to the meatworks. In those days, they were stock routes. Cattle had right of way and cars would have to give way to them. I have a lot of old stock routes in my area, and as a result of my upbringing in the scrub I also have an affinity with this bill. At the outset, I indicate that I might say a few things that the minister may not agree with. Having said that, I might also say that this bill is very much needed and long overdue and I congratulate him on introducing it. Work on this bill started in 1994. For the minister to let the many players in our regions have their say, to get contributions from them and to try to accommodate all of their interests in the bill—and I know it is impossible to please everybody—is an enormous job and the minister and his staff are to be congratulated. The bill replaces the Rural Lands Protection Act 1985. A planning framework is proposed for the management of pests and stock routes on state controlled lands. On another occasion in this chamber I had to fill in a bit of time when we found a gap in the speaking list. I had to talk for a while. I spoke about stock routes and lanes and long paddocks, and I said some things that my cousins across the chamber got very upset about. However, I believe that the things that I said 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 777 then still apply now. I think it is a pity that some of the city based members were not on the minister's consultation committee, because some of us could have made a contribution. As we know, self-interest is a big factor. Stock routes have been an important and integral part of the management of stock for the people on the land in Australia since the country was settled. I have been on a lot of stock routes. I have seen sheep on stock routes on the Queensland side of the Texas border that were in too poor a state to dip and take across the border. I have walked cattle and sheep—mainly sheep—on those stock routes. I know how bad those stock routes were then and the pests that were found on them. We would have western Queensland wethers that could hardly stand. They had been sold into New South Wales, but we had to walk them around the stock routes for 28 days so that the ticks would fall off before we took them across the border. I can tell members that those stock routes were a disgrace. There was no water. I had to borrow a bit of water from a dam when a fence fell over after I leaned on it! Those stock routes were full of galvanised burr, Noogoora burr and Bathurst burr. The sheep would come down clean, but by the time we had walked them for 28 days they had burrs all over them. I pity the poor shearers who had to shear them because they were nearly full wool. I had 7,000 wethers in one mob and five dogs, and I can tell members that the dogs were smarter than all the sheep. I pity the poor shearers who had to shear those sheep, because when I was finished with them they were covered in burrs. I think that the stock routes need to be managed, and managed fairly strictly. I do not think that the Department of Natural Resources has the funds to manage every stock route. It has a large portfolio of forests and so forth to manage. I think that self-interest is an important consideration. We should look at leasing stock routes to those people who want to use them. Stock routes are a very important asset to this country and have been for many, many years. If people took out long-term leases on stock routes, they could harvest timber off them and clean them up. These days, old felled timber is taken off the stock routes and recycled. I have two beautiful sets of tables and chairs at home. It took eight of us to lift the table and put it up on the patio. The timber that the setting was made from came off stock routes. Old timber on stock routes is an asset that can be used. It gets very cold out west, and on some old stock routes there is timber that can be used for fires. With very little encouragement from the Department of Natural Resources, people who lease stock routes would plant trees and grasses on them. We know that salinity is a problem. Mr Cummins: Lemon grass? Mr PURCELL: Possibly at the camp sites. Some of our best country has enormous stock routes. Just because an area is a stock route, that does not say anything about the quality of the country. The land has been degraded because it has not been looked after. Sometimes there is very little grass on the stock routes when it is needed to provide fodder for stock. As I said yesterday during the speech by the member for Gregory, probably some of the worst offenders of misusing stock routes are those people who live near the stock routes or on the boundary of the stock routes. They seem to think that they own the stock route. In good times they take all the grass. They just open the gate and let their cattle or sheep out to graze on it. When the stock routes are needed to move stock out of drought-affected areas, there is no grass on them. If that farming land was able to be leased out on a long-term basis and there was money to be made, then people would do it. The government should provide as much assistance as it possibly can. The DPI can advise on how to best manage the land with regard to grasses and what to put on it. I would love to have access to some of those Queensland stock routes. For various reasons, I have been out to the scrub three times this year. After all, it is the Year of the Outback! I can tell members that from this side of Roma out to Charleville, Cunnamulla, through Bollon—a shearing town of only 100 people but a great place—and out to St George they have had good rain and the country is looking the best I have seen it look in 30 years. It is beautiful! If a person had a stock route and could say 'That is mine,' they just would not be able to buy enough cattle or sheep to hold the grass on it. In Toowoomba about three weeks ago, lambs were selling at enormous prices—a pen of lambs sold for $150 a head. Imagine having a few thousand of them grazing on that good country around Roma, where the grass is nearly as high as the fence. That is the sort of land management which needs to be undertaken because it takes the burden off governments. To be honest, sometimes governments are not the best 778 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002 managers of assets such as these. If the government can obtain help through a lease arrangement, then it should do so. There are stock routes throughout the natural forests of Queensland. I have been on the National Trail at O'Reilly's and on a few others out there and the lantana, as the member for Cunningham has said, is a real problem. You cannot ride a horse through it. It will tear your clothes and skin off you. It is a really, really bad problem. It is very hard for the Department of Natural Resources to manage the lantana problem because it grows around every creek and gully. At the first sign of rain, it spreads even further. In the past, some of those areas were leased for grazing in order to keep the grasses and so forth down. I do not know whether that is still done, but perhaps the conditions of such a lease should be to improve the land and get rid of the lantana and other pests—not only the plant pests, of course, but also the animal pests. Queensland has huge areas of state forest—one of our many great natural assets—and the government needs the help of citizens to manage them. As members would be aware, all the timber used in this building was grown in the Brisbane Valley. All the timber we see here in the beautiful furniture was cut out of the Brisbane Valley. There is none left. It would have been great if our forefathers had planted two trees for every tree they cut down. What a great asset that would have been. That should become a policy in relation to taking timber from publicly owned forests and stock routes. I turn now to the explanatory notes and some matters for which the minister and his department should be congratulated. In relation to 'powers of entry—vehicles' and so forth, it is very easy for members, particularly those opposite, to criticise the government for not doing what they think should be done with regard to controlling pests. However, if officers do not have the power to pull up vehicles and inspect them to see what they are carrying as they move from area to area, it limits their ability to control these pests. When I was a much younger man, I worked on a property which would get the first release seeds from the CSIRO. Those seeds had been developed over a period of time—in those days it took 10 to 12 years, or possibly more—and they were given to growers to multiply. We would put them in what we called 'mother seed' areas. We would always take seeds to multiply from those mother seed areas, and we looked after them. We did not want any grass or any other contaminants in that mother seed area. It was very important that it be kept true to type, with no cross pollination, if possible, and no rye grasses, for example, growing there. We had demeter tall fescue, cocksfoot and phalaris. They were developed back in the sixties. They are very important pasture grasses, particularly in New South Wales. However, those areas had to be kept pure. We used to wash out our header and its tyres before we took it from one paddock to another. When machinery or vehicles are being moved from an area where there are certain grasses and noxious weeds that you do not want moved—for example, parthenium, rat-tail or galvanised burr—that is the sort of thing that has to be done. This is why it is necessary for the minister to give officers of the Department of Natural Resources the power to inspect vehicles and to stop them moving from one area to another unless they are cleaned down and washed out. I imagine there would be certain penalties if they did not do that. Also, that would probably stop the spread of other types of grain crops along stock routes or roads where it is picked up by cattle and birds and continued to be brought into areas where people do not want it. I will quickly mention the major problem of feral animals. When I was in Texas—actually, right on the river near Texas on the New South Wales side of the border—one of our major problems was feral dogs. It was not dingoes but feral dogs. There were packs of 20 and 30 dogs getting in amongst our sheep. Not too many people had sheep there, except Texas Station, which had oodles and nearly went broke with the buggers, but we did not have oodles and we had to look after our sheep and keep the dogs out of them. Texas Station had jackaroos looking after its sheep. The only thing the jackaroos were interested in was what was going on that night. We had to take measures to sort those dogs out. A little bit of lead about half an inch long fixes them, but you have to be there when they are around. Mr Schwarten: And you've got to be able to direct it. Mr PURCELL: As the member for Rockhampton says, you have got to be able to direct it correctly to the animal that you want to hit. Sometimes you would feel like going into town and sorting out some of the owners, too—you would not be able to use a bit of lead on them, you would use something else—because of how irresponsible they were in letting their dogs roam. I have come across sheep with their throats torn out or their ears torn off and pregnant ewes that have a lamb half hanging out of them. Of course, the lamb is dead and they are going septic and 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 779 about to die, and the dogs are chewing at them because they cannot lie down to lamb. Those sorts of problems have to be sorted out. Foxes are also a problem. We did have a problem there with crows, but we sorted that out. There used to be a bounty on crows. I once built a crow trap when the water was up on the Dumaresq and I could not get home. I was stuck in the pub at Texas. To fill in my time I built a rectangular crow trap out of water pipe. It had netting, with a hole in the centre, bag skewers hanging down and a dead lamb in it. The crows would fly in and the skewers would stop them from getting out. It could trap thousands of crows. I know how to get rid of the crows in Brisbane, if there is a problem with crows. Wildlife officers could release them at another location. There was once a bounty on them. My uncle's kids used to belt them with a bit of rubber hose to kill them, put them in a bag and collect the bounty. It was good fun. In those days we could get a quid for rabbits and fox skins. There was a good quid to be made out of it. What I am saying is that we need to control anything that is a pest. At that time, crows were a pest. There were thousands of them. Ewes could not lamb without having crows taking out their eyes. Once they took out their eyes they would be at the mercy of the crows. Feral cats are also a problem. Anyone who says they are not ought to try running into one in the scrub. We have all seen the big cats on the wildlife shows in Africa. These feral cats grow big—bigger than a domestic cat. These killers of wildlife are ferocious and prolific. Before I conclude, I wish to speak about rabbits. I suggest to DPI that we legalise the farming of rabbits. The member for Logan is nodding his head in agreement. We were at Inglewood not so long ago looking at how to create employment in Texas and those smaller communities to keep people in the bush. The farming of rabbits could provide a very good income for those people. They could be slaughtered at a small abattoir. However, the big meat producers do not want them. In every other state in the Commonwealth rabbits can be farmed. The beef, mutton and lamb producers do not want them. We should farm rabbits in Queensland. At the moment, a little fat bunny costs $16 in a butcher's shop in Hawthorne. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (12.12 p.m.): My learned colleague is a hard act to follow. I wish to make some comments about the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill. It is good to see that we are getting down to the things that matter. From my perspective as a farmer and grazier, land protection is very important. I could tell some horrific stories about pests on farm land and, given Pat Purcell's contribution, perhaps I should do so. I am probably one of the few members in this place who has humped knapsacks up hills chasing rat's-tail or sicklepod, as it was in those days. Unfortunately, it is still there. Members have mentioned the different pests in their areas. Importantly, I will touch on some of the pests affecting my electorate and those surrounding the Mackay district. One of the big problems is sicklepod, which grows to about four or five feet high. When it seeds it comes up in prolific numbers. Once seeded, that plant will regenerate out of the soil for at least 10 years and probably 20 years. It is a fairly difficult plant to kill once it reaches maturity. The chemical needed to kill it, Tordon, is quite expensive. Land-holders in my district are spending between $20,000 and $40,000 a year trying to control sicklepod. Interestingly, a CSIRO report suggests that we could probably use sicklepod as a crop. Gum arabic can be extracted from sicklepod. Perhaps the department needs to look at making it a commercial crop. I am not sure how to cultivate some of the places where sicklepod is growing in my electorate—on the tops of hills, in forestry and national park land. As I said, it is becoming a real worry for graziers and farmers. It is even coming onto cane farms. It appears to me that birds are carrying that seed around. The weed is surfacing in places we have not seen it previously. One assumes that the only way that seed is getting there is through birds, pigs or whatever carrying it from one place to another. As I said, it is a very difficult plant to kill unless it is managed at an early stage. Sometimes it has to be sprayed two or three times. A lot of farmers are now using four-wheeled motorbikes. But that becomes a fairly difficult and dangerous operation on the side of hills. I have taken a couple of tumbles down hillsides, with the motorbike following me down. It is not a lot of fun. I am not sure whether my parliamentary superannuation would be paid out under those circumstances. We will probably find out one day. It is an enlightening experience. The other plant that is becoming a real pest in the area is giant rat's-tail. It is fairly extensive throughout central Queensland. Interestingly, giant rat's-tail covers the ground totally. I have seen properties in central Queensland completely covered with giant rat's-tail. That property is totally useless and could not run a single head of stock. The problem is that the seed falls, is carried 780 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002 down the creeks and spreads to the next-door neighbour's property and creates a problem for him. It is also in forestry areas. It is very difficult to control. The only way that most people are controlling it now is through starting again by wiping out the country with, say, Roundup and replanting pasture. That is fine on areas that can be cultivated, but it is fairly difficult on a hillside. Unless we get a handle on giant rat's-tail, it will render a large portion of our countryside unusable, unproductive and, even worse, expensive to manage. In my area, in common with a lot of other areas around the state, the management of pigs, wild dogs and dingoes is a grave concern. I am not sure that many honourable members know what happens when a mob of pigs goes through a cane paddock. They make a hell of a mess, chewing up great amounts of the sweet cane. I heard John Kingston speaking about this last night. They can cause huge economic losses for canefarmers. We hire people with dogs to try to remove pigs, but they are very difficult to remove from big cane. Carrying rifles in cane is a problem because of the danger of tripping over sticks of cane. When the pigs get bailed up in the cane they attack either the dogs or their handlers. They can get into real strife. Piggers have argued that they should be allowed to carry semiautomatic rifles. I support that, because quite often they cannot be stopped on the first shot; it takes three or four shots in quick succession to take out a big boar. Mr Schwarten: A pump-action shotgun's not a bad thing. Mr MALONE: Yes, they are handy, but an automatic shotgun would be even better. Mr Purcell: As long as you blokes don't bring them in here. Mr MALONE: Sometimes we might want to. I am pleased to see a recognition of the huge difference between dingoes and feral dogs. The piggers sometimes lose dogs, which end up with the wild dogs. Pig dogs cross with dingoes and other wild dogs to produce a dog about a half a metre high weighing about 100 kilos. They are a far bigger menace to the cattle or sheep population than the dingoes ever were. They hunt in packs and, in some ways, are probably even more cunning than the dingo ever was. They are creating huge problems. Stories about their pulling down fully grown cattle are not exaggerated. In my area, a lot of properties in the Pioneer Valley in particular border forestry and, in some places, national park. Dogs, dingoes and pigs are living in either the forestry or the national parks and moving out at night-time. They are becoming very difficult to manage. I have had occasion where I have had to go out to bat for a guy who needed a licence to use a semiautomatic weapon. He is contracted to his neighbours. He shoots on their behalf and he is able to retain a licence for a semiautomatic centre fire weapon. At least we have been able to move somewhat in that direction. Under the weapons licensing regulations he had to fulfil certain conditions in order to be able to use the weapon. I move on to the issue of fire management. This is an issue that is not addressed to any great extent in the bill. I want to refer to this issue as it relates to national parks and forest areas. In my electorate I have a recently acquired national park named Homevale National Park. It was formerly an operating cattle station of about 80,000 acres, of which only 2,000 or 3,000 acres were of much significance. The land had been cleared and extensive native pastures had been ripped out and artificial pastures were put in. When it became a national park the cattle were taken from the station. Consequently, the pasture grew and created a huge issue in terms of fire management. The minister and I received letters from the Nebo branch of Agforce in relation to ensuring that the national park was well protected and that pre-emptive burns took place in order to minimise the threat to neighbours. In the last year we had almost 100 volunteer firefighters either trying to keep fire from entering the national park or extinguishing a fire that was blazing in the national park—fires ignited in the national park as a result of lightning strikes. It was touch and go whether the old homestead, the stables and other areas of significance could be saved. I have a letter from the former minister in that regard in which he states that the department tried its best. I acknowledge that. Unfortunately, that was not good enough. As the member for Bulimba said, we have to recognise that governments cannot do all they should do in terms of land management. My view is that a good deal of the Homevale National Park has little historic or cultural value and it should be leased back to surrounding land-holders so that they can grow cattle on it. In that way, the state would gain some benefit from the property. The park's neighbours would also receive a benefit in not having an overgrown area alongside them. 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 781

In some ways, land management in Queensland—and this bill goes a long way towards it—needs to be approached with commonsense. We need to preserve areas of significance. As the member for Bulimba said, some of our stock routes could be leased to agencies or to near neighbours. We must recognise that stock routes are a very integral part of rural Queensland. We must ensure that the necessary stock routes are maintained and are pest free. Most of the issues surrounding this legislation have already been canvassed. I compliment all the speakers who have contributed to this debate so far. Unusually, there was some commonsense from the other side of the House in respect of this matter. In his speech, the shadow minister referred to a lot of the important issues. One of the biggest issues in this respect is lantana. With all the biological weapons we have at our disposal, I am surprised that we have not yet been able to put in place a biological control for lantana. It is truly one of the major pests in this state. Lantana covers an unbelievable amount of land in Queensland. If we were able to put in place a biological control for lantana it would have a huge impact on the availability of land. The unfortunate thing about lantana is that it will grow in competition with other vegetation. Under the Vegetation Management Act it is possible to have areas on a farm where lantana is growing through trees and it cannot be controlled because it is either pink or it is covered by some type of protocol. Supposedly, the only way to deal with lantana is to attack it with a mattock or a cane knife. That is ridiculous. Commonsense has to prevail sooner or later. Lantana is getting out of hand because of the Vegetation Management Act and the inability of people to be able to deal with this pest because of the protocols contained within the act. I commend the bill to the House. I congratulate the shadow minister for his contribution to the debate. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (12.26 p.m.): In speaking to the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill, I wish to refer briefly to part 4 of the bill which deals with the issue of local government management areas. I support this section because I think it is pretty important that local governments prepare local area pest management plans. It is something that we have been doing in Moggill for some time. I have spoken to the minister on this subject and he is aware that the issue of feral dogs has plagued the Moggill area for some time. I have been working with the local councillor and with the former Department of Environment and Natural Resources, DNR, for the last two years. As early as March 2000 I wrote to Rod Welford when he was the minister and he responded. Later that year I wrote to him again on the issue of funding. Briefly, what I wrote to the minister was as follows— As you are aware, there has been an on-going program in place to remove these animals. Mr Scott O'Keefe from your Department has been working closely with residents to try to resolve this issue and my constituents have been very pleased with Mr O'Keefe's handling of the whole process. However, I have been informed that Mr O'Keefe will be leaving the Department at the end of the year and, naturally, my constituents are very concerned about what will happen to this program once Mr O'Keefe has left the Department. This is not an issue which will be resolved quickly and my constituents would like an assurance from you that this program will continue in order that a solution can eventually be reached. The minister at the time responded in a positive fashion. I will quote from his letter because it is important that we understand that I have received a very good response from the department every time I raised the issue. The minister wrote— My Department of Natural Resources, through Mr O'Keefe, has been developing the necessary skills within the community in the Woodcrest Estate area to enable the ongoing control of feral dogs in the area. My Department's strategy has been to properly inform the local community about the options available and how to implement effective control mechanisms. Mr O'Keefe's work also included gaining Brisbane City Council's support in the control of these feral dogs. Brisbane City Council has offered to provide administrative support to the community in their on-going efforts to control the feral dogs. From my Department's perspective, we will continue to provide on-going support through the involvement of Land Protection Officer support to the community group to provide technical advice and skills that may be required from time to time to maintain the control strategy. Predominantly my Department will assist in the coordination of the long-term strategy involving both Brisbane City Council and the community group. I share your concern about the impact feral dogs may have in an urban environment and I will continue to support the action of the community. My Department will continue to provide advice and assistance where necessary, to ensure a sustainable control program is delivered in the area. Right from the word go there has been an attempt by both the Department and myself to address this problem in a practical and bipartisan fashion. I raised this issue of feral dogs with the 782 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

minister after that tragic affair on Fraser Island. I have been very pleased with the response I have received from the current minister and the director-general of the department. In a moment I will address the issue of the long-term employment of Mr Scott O'Keefe. He is contracted only to May. Continual short-term contracting is a management issue I will come back to after I say what we have done. During the last two years in the area we have had a series of public meetings. Scott O'Keefe has been very instrumental in organising them and making sure they work. Secondly, in conjunction with the local community we developed a culling procedure. The department employed a professional shooter to come in and actually cull the dogs. Unfortunately, on the day of the cull one of the other environmental groups in the area went out to plant and water trees right across the area in which the cull was to take place. Of course that constrained the shooter, so that did not actually work particularly well. Since then we have developed a local area management plan. I have had a number of meetings with Scott O'Keefe, Councillor de Wit and the leaders of some community groups. I understand that that local area management plan has now gone to the Brisbane City Council. The council has indicated that it is willing to put six officers in for training. Part of the plan was to train local government officers to go out and do things. With the help of the department we put out a pamphlet on preventing wild dog problems. That was distributed from my electorate office. The minister may not have seen it, but the information came from the department. I worked with the department on it, and we actually got material out into the electorate in an effort to control the issue. We are trying to get people to act in a responsible fashion and inform them of a whole lot of things they should or should not do. Mr Robertson: But your name is on it. Dr WATSON: There are no names on it. Quite clearly, the people to contact are DNR and the city council. All I did was provide the resources as a community service. Mr Robertson: As you do. Dr WATSON: As you do. The issue that keeps coming up is continuity with respect to Scott O'Keefe's contract. I do not know the details, but I believe he has had two or three contracts, all of three to five months duration. No-one knows whether he will be around for a longer period. Having worked with him I can say that he is knowledgeable, courteous and hardworking. I suggest, if it is possible, that he be retained on a two- to five-year contract so that there is some continuity so that people know he will be there. One of the problems in getting council officers trained is that Scott cannot make a commitment that he will be available for training in three or four months time. Instead of retaining him on contracts of two, three, five or six months, I ask the minister for some continuity. The second issue that has arisen recently—it has arisen partly because the Brisbane City Council has the plan and it is prepared to put in some officers—is that the procedures relating to what is acceptable in terms of trapping have gone from the RSPCA to the Department of Primary Industries. DPI has decided in relation to some of the trapping procedures agreed to by the RSPCA that it wants to look at its own protocols and procedures. The department is going back and investigating all of these procedures which have been deemed acceptable by the RSPCA for quite some time. I have no problem in theory with the Department of Primary Industries saying that it wants to make sure. The problem is that it is taking months. Until those issues are resolved, training of Brisbane City Council officers on trapping procedures cannot take place. These are just a couple of practical issues. We fully support what the department seeks to do. We appreciate the cooperation we have seen from DNR and we appreciate the funding, but in order to progress the issue as far as possible we need some continuity with respect to the funding and resolution of some of the bureaucratic issues involving the department of one of the minister's colleagues. If those issues were addressed we could have a positive impact, not only in Moggill but right around south-east Queensland and right up to Caboolture. I know that Scott O'Keefe is doing things up there with some of the other members. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (12.35 p.m.): I, too, would like to participate in debate on the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill, because some issues covered in this bill are relevant in my own electorate. Obviously the bill is about land protection. As the minister said in his second reading speech, pest plants and animals cost Queenslanders over $600 million annually in lost production and in control costs. That is certainly a substantial impact on the state. Further, the minister spoke about state strategies being developed for weeds and for pest animals. He also spoke about the issue of planning. 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 783

The bill requires that state strategies for weeds, pest animals and the stock route network be developed after consultation with key stakeholders and the broader community and that there be collaborative partnerships formed. It speaks about a lot of the issues of local councils. It also mentions that state agencies hold a lot of crown land. Indeed, they do. Those agencies are the departments of Natural Resources and Mines, Primary Industries and Main Roads and the Environmental Protection Authority in the main. This issue has been raised before, but I know that it is of concern to my own local council. That is, the bill also enshrines responsibility for local councils to ensure that pest plants and animals are controlled on private lands and lands under council control. It says that these plans and their implementation are to be funded directly under the normal budget processes of local government. It says that there should be input from state government agencies concerning the management of pests on lands that they manage. The bill states that its intention is that all of Queensland will be covered by pest management plans developed by local governments. That is fine, but unless local governments have the money to implement these strategies then the bill is nothing but a lot of hot air. The electorate I represented formerly, known as Landsborough, took in a lot of country areas. My current electorate is now quite an urban one. Some of the problems are the same. A lot of pest management, particularly relating to weeds, is beyond local council budgets to control. It is okay to devolve responsibility, but funds have to be devolved for it to be done. Even in an urban area such as my electorate currently is—there is a lot of parkland and a lot of land that fronts on to waterways—there are pest plants such as groundsel, morning glory, pepper trees and umbrella trees. There are all sorts of things growing—most of them are self- propagating—and more management than is currently occurring is required. The council says, 'We do not have the funds to adequately patrol all of this.' I would like a reassurance from the minister that funding will flow to local councils. As he would be well aware, their money comes from the federal government, from the state government by grants or from rates. With the new valuations, all of the rates in those areas are going up because of a general increase in land value. That does not necessarily mean to say that there is an increase in the value of particular properties, but there has been a general rate increase. This is a major concern in an area where there are a lot of self-funded retirees and pensioners living on fixed incomes who have to meet the increases in these rates. Is this going to be yet another imposition on ratepayers—that is, they have to pay more money in order to cover pest management? Do not get me wrong: I really believe that we need adequate pest management. I have just indicated that plant pest management—and I will get to animal pest management shortly—is not sufficient as it currently stands. As a result, this destroys a lot of our natural beauty and environment. It becomes a bit of a concentric circle when complaining to the council. To give the House an example, I live by the sea and there is a big problem in that an open drain needs to be filled because it runs to the sea. However, when one complains about it, the Department of Primary Industries or the council maintain that there are fish fingerlings growing there. If there are, they sure would be contaminated fish fingerlings because there is mosquito larvae there. Despite this, the Department of Primary Industries says that it cannot be touched. Interestingly enough, the Health Department has been nowhere near it. Mr Mickel interjected. Mrs SHELDON: It is actually, member for Logan, if one happens to live there. It may not be important for Logan, but it is for Caloundra. The Health Department has not been near it and does not seem to be particularly interested, although it is a health issue. It is certainly an environmental issue, because there is a stench, it is brackish water and it backs up. It is something that needs to be looked at, but the council says that there are three government departments saying that nothing can be done. Throw in the Beach Protection Authority, as it was, and it has its two bobs worth as well. If the government is going to devolve responsibility to the councils, it should be up to the council to decide what should happen in situations like this. This is not a one-off. I am just describing a local situation. There is also a problem with the management of feral cats. I know a lot has been said about feral dogs but, domestically, feral cats are a major problem to our wildlife, particularly birds, and other small animals that are attacked by feral cats. Again, the same situation arises. The council knows they are there and sets certain traps but then says that it does not have enough money to adequately control it. This is just a microcosm of what happens right across the state, certainly in areas that have a worse pest and animal control situation than Caloundra. 784 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

I reiterate my call to the minister to spell out the increased funding councils will get and whether there will be any checking up as to whether the councils are performing their duties. After all, most of this is all government land. As members would know, councils act as trustees for the government. It is their responsibility as trustees of that crown land—which, of course, is in turn owned by the people—that adequate care and consideration be given to the land. It is not happening at the moment, and there is no guarantee in this bill that it will happen in the future. Unless the legislation has some real teeth in that it can impose penalties and states a time for review—and I did not see that in the bill either—then there is a real problem. Again, there should not be more cost responsibility on ratepayers to ensure that the work that governments, local councils and local governments should be doing is done. I turn now to landcare. There was a very good landcare group, and still is, in Barung LandCare in Maleny. It covered the areas of vegetation management and replenishment, but its focus was particularly in areas where there was erosion and it continued replanting. We are now being told that in an urban area like Caloundra landcare should be done by local communities free of charge cleaning up parks fronting onto the seaway. I think, frankly, that that is a nonsense, because people are already paying big rates and now they are supposed to do the work of cleaning up our parks as well. If this is put into place, again it only places more responsibility back on local individuals to do the work that governments either cannot or will not do. While the thrust of the bill is good and we will be supporting it, there are real concerns. If the government is going to devolve responsibilities without providing adequate capital for local councils to put in place strategies and plans to manage, then there is a real problem. There is one final point I want to raise. It does not really have anything to do with my electorate, but much has been said about the shooting of wild pigs and boars. I understand that there is a company on the Gold Coast that processes this meat, particularly from animals which come from areas with grain fields and things like that, and this meat is then exported. If one travels to Italy, wild boar meats, salamis, sausages, et cetera, are regarded as a delicacy and sell for a lot of money. It would be a good idea if in fact we could look at somehow using this resource so that this meat could be sold in Australia—and I must say that I do not know why it is all exported—because there are a lot of Italian delis and so forth. The minister may like to comment on this, because it is a situation I have recently heard about. I do not know if we can sell wild boar meat in Queensland, but instead of only exporting it we could use the product. When one speaks to Italians running delicatessens, they say that they cannot import boar meat. Furthermore, because of restrictions, they cannot import salamis, sausages, et cetera, which contain boar meat. We should look at promoting any industry we can. I would certainly like to hear the minister's comments on that. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (12.46 p.m.), in reply: First of all, I thank all members who have participated in this long debate. A government member interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: And for those members behind me who did not participate. As I understand it, there is general support from the opposition for this bill, but there are a number of amendments that it will seek to move in the committee stage. But, nonetheless, there is general support for the bill as I understand it. If that is the case, I thank the opposition for that. There are a number of issues that I obviously need to respond to. I want to make a few opening remarks. This bill marks an important step for pest and stock route management in Queensland and incorporates modern pest and stock route management priorities, responsibilities and obligations and provides a framework for the future. A consultative planning approach and partnerships with local government, industry bodies, community groups and individuals ensures the new legislation meets the needs of all Queenslanders. More effective management of Queensland's pest animals and plants and stock routes will protect the resources of the state. Many members have made a point of noting that pest animals and plants cost Queensland over $600 million annually in lost production and in management costs. Pest plants and animals are serious imposts on the state's primary production capacity and their effects need to be reduced. These pests also threaten the environment, impact adversely on recreational amenity and ecotourism and can affect human health. For example, the feral pig is a carrier of diseases which affect humans, including leptospirosis, and is a potential carrier of the animal disease foot- and-mouth disease, if it were to arrive on our shores. Pests affect the whole community and the 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 785

long-term consequences of not managing them effectively will harm every one of us in many ways. This bill replaces the current Rural Lands Protection Act 1985, which was subjected to a detailed review which commenced in 1994. The member for Nanango raised questions about the level of consultation that had been undertaken. She was not aware of any involvement by her constituents in the review process. I cannot explain why that may have been the case, but I am assured that across governments—and this consultation process occurred through the changeover of three governments—there has been exhaustive consultation, principally with major bodies such as Agforce, the QFF and my own Rural Lands Protection Council, which has a wide-ranging membership of rural interests. I do not think that a complaint can be sustained about a lack of consultation in the lead-up to this bill. The review that has been undertaken highlighted the need for a contemporary legislative approach to pest and stock route management consistent with the requirements and expectations of the Queensland public in the 21st century. Such an approach would take advantage of modern consultative planning, approaches and partnerships and provide sound guidance for communities, industries, and state and local governments within Queensland. The new act will recognise all economic, environmental and social impacts of pests. The existing legislation is restricted to declared pests which affect primary production. Importantly, the bill recognises that social, environmental and economic impacts are all relevant and important to Queenslanders in the 21st century. The original Rural Lands Protection Act recognised the economic cost of pest plants to primary production but not the environmental impacts, so the new bill introduces a broader approach and gives recognition to the impact that weeds may have in areas outside those used for agriculture. It is as a result of that that some members opposite suggested that the environmental considerations of the impact of weeds and pests are being brought to the forefront at the expense of economic considerations. That is not the case. What this bill does is simply provide balance in how we respond across the spectrum of issues when it comes to the management of animal and plant pests. The bill seeks to adopt a world's best practice process for environmental pests through a site management approach for environmentally significant areas. Under this process, all pests impacting the site are addressed and action is not taken against just a single species. Of course, I am cognisant of the current significant concern in rural Queensland about the apparent growth in the wild dog population. In my travels around the state, particularly over the last couple of months, many land-holders spoke to me about this issue. Recently, in Queensland Country Life and in other rural based newspapers significant attention has been paid to this issue. It concerns me that some people are alleging that the wool industry in this state is being put at some risk by the rise in wild dog numbers as graziers are deciding to move away from sheep into cattle principally because of the impact that wild dogs have on their animals. If that were the case, it would be appropriate for a listening and concerned government to respond. As a result of those concerns—and I met with Agforce on Monday evening to discuss this and a number of other issues—we announced a special one-off amount of money to fund a wild dog baiting program. This is in addition to the normal baiting programs undertaken by local government. My department will put up some $50,000. The EPA will be coming on board because of the concerns about state owned land. So rather than just going out and doing our own thing, we are going to ensure that these additional resources for this one-off special campaign are targeted to achieve maximum results. I understand that this is the time of year when we should be concentrating our efforts on wild dog management as we lead into both the lambing season and the breeding season for the dogs. I am confident that with this additional measure we can respond positively to the concerns of land-holders in many parts of the state. I will read into the record more details of what is envisaged. This one-off baiting campaign on state lands will be directed at those areas of Queensland which the experts, including local land-holders and rural industry bodies, conclude will achieve the best long-term control of currently unusual levels of dog predation. It will involve the aerial distribution of 1080 baits, and this will provide an effective way of reducing the wild dog populations living on state owned land, much of which is inaccessible for effective ground distribution of baits. Taking on board comments from both sides of the House, namely, that often it is difficult to access areas where dogs are breeding because of the nature of the topography of the land, we will be using an aerial baiting program involving 1080. I will return to the issue of 1080 later. We will be using only aircraft fitted with modern GPS navigation technology so that there will be a 786 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

high level of confidence in the accuracy of bait placement. However, the success of the one-off baiting campaign on state lands will depend heavily on the cooperation and support of adjoining land-holders, rural industry organisations and local councils. Obviously we do not want to go out there and do our own thing, and this is stressed in the provisions of the bill. Any campaign must be done in a cooperative and collaborative fashion. We certainly will not be doing something that will lessen the impact of this campaign. Mr Seeney: Are the national parks part of it? Mr ROBERTSON: I have said state owned lands. I have said that it will involve the EPA. Mr Seeney: Was that a 'yes'? Mr ROBERTSON: Yes. I am always happy to help the honourable member. We believe that that is a positive measure. Certainly, when I discussed this measure with Agforce on Monday evening its representatives were pleased— Mr Mickel: They should be with you. They shook their heads at the opposition. Mr ROBERTSON: Indeed, but its representatives were pleased that we were responding to the concerns of many of its members. I need to discuss in some detail the provisions of the bill with respect to pest management on state land. I do not want to do that before lunch, because it is something that I believe needs detailed attention in order to try to satisfy the concerns of a number of members. During his contribution the member for Callide said that the eradication and containment of any weed is out of the question. I find the member for Callide's attitude disappointing and in some respects very defeatist. We all acknowledge the size of the problem we face due to the large range of weeds, but we also need to acknowledge the significant amount of work being done and the success being achieved with many of the existing weed eradication programs. In fact, just last week I was at Thargomindah and Quilpie. Just south of Quilpie, a major campaign dealing with mesquite has been under way for a number of years. I visited a sheep property managed by Michael White and Henry Harkin just south of Quilpie. We went through the property and looked at how they, in cooperation with my department, are dealing with mesquite. I have to say that it was my first experience of that weed, and it is a nasty weed. The impact on the landscape should it escape into the broader environment would be immense. Interestingly enough, it was introduced into Queensland by someone who thought it would be a good plant to stick in their yard for shade. It quickly escaped and has now become a major environmental pest. For the benefit of the member for Callide, my point is that if we continue with the program to eradicate this weed in that part of Queensland—and it is mainly located in that region; there are only a few little outbreaks in other parts of the state—in cooperation with the local land-holders, in years to come we could see the complete eradication of mesquite from our landscape. That would be a major victory for us all. I ask the member for Callide not to take such a defeatist view about the weed eradication program. It will take a long time and, as I discovered in Quilpie, a lot of money to deal with that particular environmental pest. Nonetheless, with continuing commitment by government and land-holders, we can get on top of it to the point at which it can be eradicated from our landscape. Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr ROBERTSON: Before the luncheon adjournment I was responding to a number of issues raised by members opposite. Before going into detail in relation to a number of issues raised by the member for Callide, I want to respond to two issues raised by the member for Southern Downs. He raised concerns about the effectiveness of the 1080 poison that is used in wild dog baiting campaigns. In fact, a number of members have mentioned 1080 baiting and have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the bait. I am pleased to assure the House that my department ensures that the quality of 1080 remains effective. My department tests every tin of 1080 powder that is issued. Even if the tins vary slightly in concentration, each batch of solution is made up to its full strength. In relation to the current review by the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, I inform the House that recently they announced that a decision had been made to reconsider the registration of the vertebrate pesticide 1080 due to increasing concerns about the accidental poisoning of non-target animals. I am pleased to assure the House that my department is providing the national registration authority with detailed information on toxicity, persistence, non-target exposure, use patterns and regulations for 1080 use in Queensland in 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 787

support of the continued registration of 1080 for pest animal control in Queensland and in Australia. The member for Southern Downs also brought up the issue of the appearance of harrisia cactus and tree pears along the highway into Goondiwindi. In my travels to Goondiwindi over the past year or so I have noticed them as well. I am pleased to advise the member for Southern Downs that I will contact my colleague the Minister for Transport and alert him to that particular issue so that action can be taken. The member for Gladstone mentioned the apparent proliferation of committees dealing with the problem of weeds and/or pest management. In many respects it is a double-edged sword. Because we concentrate so much on the participation of land-holders and local governments in pest management control and because of the need for the cooperation of many land-holders in any campaign—whether that be wild dog baiting or plant pest eradication measures—we necessarily have to form committees to oversight those campaigns. Without that participation and that feedback from individual land-holders through some process, I do not believe that the effectiveness of our current campaigns would be maintained into the future. I understand what the member is saying. Sometimes every child gets a prize. But in relation to how we address plant and animal pest management, I think that these committees are a necessary part of that process. The member for Hinchinbrook raised the issue of the responsibilities of government owned corporations. He mentioned Q-Rail and SunWater. This bill will apply to its fullest extent to government owned corporations. I will use the example of SunWater, because it is in a transition phase. The basis for the legislation to have power over these government owned corporations is by virtue of their ownership or leasing of land. In the case of SunWater, currently—as of today—it does not hold the lease over the land that comes under its jurisdictions, but that is changing. It is just going through the process. In the case of these government owned corporations, if they are the leaseholder of the land, then the full provisions of the legislation, including the serving of notices—which I will come to in a minute—will apply to government owned corporations. Currently, SunWater is in a transition phase in that it is not the leaseholder of the land on which it operates its business, but that will change in the next couple of months. I will now address perhaps the most fundamental issue that was raised by members opposite, and that is the belief that the full powers contained in this bill do not apply to state government departments. The fundamental problem is that the government cannot serve a notice on itself. That is what the opposition would be seeking in terms of the amendment that it will move. For example, a department cannot serve a notice on another department and then prosecute that department. This applies throughout government and between levels of government. As a basic principle, state governments do not prosecute the federal government, the federal government does not prosecute state governments, state governments do not prosecute local authorities and vice versa. During the lunchbreak the example was cited of a council worker leaving the sprinklers on while watering a council park. That worker would be in breach of that local government's own regulation. But can the local government prosecute that worker for breaching its own laws? No, it cannot. Other action would be taken. That is why that provision exists. One state government department does not serve a notice on another state government department or local authority. However, to the fullest extent of the other provisions of the bill, state government departments have new responsibilities with respect to pest management on their land. First of all, each of the four major land-holding departments—my own, DPI, EPA, and the Department of Transport and the Department of Main Roads—will be required to formulate pest management plans. They will form the State Land Pest Management Committee. That committee will oversee each of those departments' pest management plans and will provide performance reports to the new Land Protection Council, which will be made up of departmental representatives and representatives from major agri-political groups, such as Agforce and QFF. As I mentioned before lunch, I met with Agforce in relation to this and a number of other issues on Monday evening. I listened to their concerns, particularly with respect to the issue of transparency so that there is some public oversight of how departments are implementing their pest management plans. I indicated to them that I would be expecting the State Land Pest Management Committee to receive regular reports from state government departments on how they are implementing their plans. I expect the committee to provide a high level of public oversight of the progress of departments. 788 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

Concerns were expressed that there may be some officers who will be particularly zealous in their view of incursions of weeds or pests from land-holders' property into environmentally sensitive areas. I indicated to Agforce that I would instruct my department to prepare a standard operating procedure. The reasonableness test which is outlined in the bill will be articulated in an SOP so that all government agencies and all officers engaged in animal and plant pest management control will understand that when addressing problems of pest incursions into environmentally sensitive areas, we are emphasising cooperation rather than prosecution. Those couple of comments met some of the concerns expressed by Agforce. They were still reluctant to fully endorse those particular assurances, but I believe they were prepared to give it a go over the next 12 to 18 months and if there were problems, to address them at that time. Therefore, we will not be accepting the amendments to be put forward by the member for Callide. We believe that the provisions in the bill are sufficient to bind state government agencies to perform as a good neighbour in relation to pest management control on state government land. The point which prevents us from supporting the proposed deletion of section 78 is the fundamental principle that state government agencies do not serve notices or seek to prosecute other state government agencies. Throughout this bill there is an emphasis on the importance of cooperation and collaboration. The additional commitment to oversee the performance of state government departments in terms of their pest control management plans, we believe, should provide opposition members with the certainty they are seeking that state government agencies will do the right thing. I thank all members from both sides of the House for their participation in this debate. I thank particularly the member for Bulimba for his very spirited contribution. He mentioned the issue of rabbits. He believes that opportunities exists for the commercial farming of rabbits. This issue arises regularly, in terms of people thinking there are opportunities to make a dollar out of the commercial harvesting of rabbits. To date, I have followed the recommendation of the Rural Lands Protection Board to take a precautionary approach with respect to the introduction of commercial rabbit farming. The Rural Lands Protection Board does not believe that there is sufficient security to stop the unintended but nevertheless quite devastating release of new species of rabbit into the environment. I am of a mind to continue to accept that advice. The Rural Lands Protection Board is constituted by some pretty wise and experienced individuals when it comes to land management issues. I am not of a mind to overturn their continuous recommendations in relation to this matter. Over a number of years, governments on all sides of politics have grappled with this issue. To date, there is a consensus across the political divide that the risks are just too high to go down the path of allowing the introduction of commercial rabbit farming. Nevertheless, I appreciate the contribution by the member for Bulimba. I think that is all I can say in summing-up this debate. Once again, I thank all members for their contributions. 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 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr ROWELL (2.46 p.m.): This clause refers to the relationship between the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Forestry Act 1959. These particular acts appear to provide that— A person who lawfully does an act authorised under this Act that would, but for this subsection, constitute an offence under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 or the Forestry Act 1959 is taken not to commit the offence only because of doing the act. I am not absolutely clear on what that means. Does it mean, for instance, that if an area on a person's property comes under the Nature Conservation Act that person can treat a particular pest in that area? Is that the intention? Also, if pests such as flying foxes, for instance, are coming out of nature conservation areas or national parks and invading crops, what does that actually mean as far as this bill is concerned, because it is a major problem. I do not refer to the 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 789

spectacle bat but to flying foxes in general, although the spectacle bat may come out of a world heritage area. We have been through a scenario in the northern sector of the state where people have been denied the opportunity to deal with a pest. What does this section of the bill mean with respect to that type of thing, particularly if a person has on their property a nature conservation area in which they need to treat a pest? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Clause 6 allows a person to take a lawful action against a declared pest to meet an obligation for declared pest control under this bill when the person might otherwise be assumed to commit an offence under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 or the Forestry Act 1959. These acts of parliament necessarily contain broad provisions about protecting all forms of wildlife and forest products, for the state as owner. This can relate to indigenous or non-indigenous species. As I understand it, this provision currently exists in the Nature Conservation Act 1992, so there is a similarity between the provisions across these two acts. In the case of national parks, for instance, it is about giving the authority to the EPA, as the owner of that national park, to conduct pest management activities that might otherwise be deemed not to be actions taken by an owner of property to protect the integrity of that national park for conservation purposes. Mr Rowell: But you didn't respond to a person who has got an area that is on his own property that is conserved under a nature conservation plan. Mr ROBERTSON: There is a requirement on a person in that case to not act in a way that would damage the integrity of the areas set aside for nature conservation. For example, where lantana has crept up a tree it would not be appropriate to cut down the tree in terms of treating the lantana. Mr ROWELL: Lantana does not creep up a tree, it grows up itself. I do not want to be pedantic about it. Mr Robertson: But you know what I mean. Mr ROWELL: I understand what the minister is getting at. In the event that pests and so on are coming onto people's property from a conservation area, even though it might be on their own property, what entitlements do people have to deal with that situation, particularly if that pest is invading a crop or is a problem weed? If the source of a weed is a conservation area, what are people entitled to do in respect of dealing with that pest? Do we have the right to do nothing if a private property is being invaded by a pest, say, pigs, coming from a nature conservation area? Mr ROBERTSON: I think I understand the point that the member is trying to make, but I do not think the matter is within the province of this clause. I am happy to answer that now or later on under the appropriate clause. Mr Rowell: Answer it now. Mr ROBERTSON: We get into the area of pest management plans. Using the example of pigs coming out of national parks onto neighbouring cropped land—for example, sugarcane—part of the pest management plan drawn up by the EPA would require it to control pigs on its land. An opposition member: That would be a real change. Mr ROBERTSON: This is the new era that we are entering into as a result of this bill—requiring state government agencies, the EPA included, to draw up pest management plans to address pest problems on their land. That pest management plan, as I have just explained in my summation, is available for public inspection, and the performance of that person will be subject to reporting requirements to the new Land Protection Council. I should say also in relation to how we address, say, wild pigs, that if the EPA were to conduct a baiting campaign on that land to control pigs there would be an expectation that it would do so not unilaterally but in cooperation with adjoining land-holders and probably through the local government pest management committee, which would coordinate those sorts of activities. One of the bases of this bill is bringing state government agencies into the fold more so than they have ever been before so as to adopt—they already do; we can argue about their effectiveness—good neighbour policies and be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Mr ROWELL: If a crop is being eaten by a species coming out of a national park, how would people deal with that? Flying foxes are a relevant example. Recently, as the minister would be aware, there has been a lot of controversy over this issue. Property owners have been invaded by flying foxes that have destroyed their crops. They are no longer afforded the protection of 790 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

electric grids or other things. There are pest mitigation permits to deal with that situation. The point I am getting at is that the problem should not exist, because if the national parks were addressing flying foxes people would not have to worry about pest mitigation permits, electric grids or other devices to deal with that situation. What provision is there in this bill to deal with that situation? Mr ROBERTSON: Perhaps the flying fox example is not a good one, because flying foxes are not a declared pest under this bill. Mr Rowell: But they are coming from areas— Mr ROBERTSON: I appreciate that, but they are not a declared pest. Mr Rowell: If we declare them, it would be okay; you would deal with them? Surely that must apply to anything? Mr ROBERTSON: I am reminded that because flying foxes are an indigenous species they are covered by the Nature Conservation Act. We would have to go to the Nature Conservation Act to see how to manage flying foxes. However, in the case of wild pigs, for example, that are coming in from national parks or any other state land, land-holders have the right to deal with them if they cause any destruction on their land. Mr Rowell: But you can't attack the source. That's the problem. They are in a national park. Mr ROBERTSON: A land-holder can deal with it to the extent that, if there is a problem, the local manager could be consulted about what is being done to manage pests in, say, the national park. That is how it would be dealt with. If pigs are coming from Jeff Seeney's property onto the member for Hinchinbrook's property, he would see Jeff and say, 'I've got a problem with how you are managing your land.' Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17— Mr SEENEY (2.57 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1— 1. Clause 17 At page 24, line 24, 'under the plan'— omit, insert— ', under the plan, for managing declared pests on the land managed by the department in each local government area'. The first three amendments all deal with the planning process that the minister has spoken about both in his second reading speech and in his summation of the debate. Perhaps the most important amendment is the last one, which we will get to in due course. The minister has indicated that he is not going to accept the principles of the final amendment, amendment No. 6. The fact that the minister will not accept the principles of amendment No. 6 makes it even more critical that these first three amendments which deal with the planning process are accepted by the minister and the government. These first three amendments deal with the planning process. If we are not going to have a proper resolution of the situation that relates to the enforcement mechanism of this piece of legislation, which is the pest control notices that the last amendment refers to—and it is obvious from the minister's comments that we are not going to have that resolved in an appropriate manner—this planning process becomes very important, because it is the only mechanism, guarantee or assurance that land-holders have that all of the rhetoric that we have heard so far in this debate from the minister and the government side is going to mean anything at all. I might say at the beginning of the consideration of these amendments—and I do not say this in a derogatory manner—that once again we are in a situation with natural resource legislation that we have been in a number of times before. We have a piece of legislation before the House which, by its wording and by the way it is drawn up, causes some concern to those of us who understand the practical situation and the scenarios that can arise in the real business of managing natural resources. Every time we debate this type of legislation in the House we have a situation where the minister comes in here and gives us assurances that are different from what is written in the legislation. We are given promises and we hear statements such as 'don't you worry about that', 'that wasn't our intention' and 'I'll make sure that doesn't happen'. That happens every time we debate this type of natural resource legislation. What the minister said in his reply to the second 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 791

reading debate concerning the planning process is not what is written in the legislation. If that is the government's intent, then put it in the legislation—write the legislation that way. I cannot avoid the conclusion that, once again, the minister has been sold a pup. I concede that the minister is doing his best to understand the legislation, but I believe that there are elements in his department who have a totally different view of this legislation from the one that the minister is putting before this parliament. No doubt this afternoon we will have recorded in Hansard the minister's response to the concerns of myself and others on this side of the House. These concerns have been echoed by industry groups. This legislation is going to be around for a long time after this parliamentary debate has been forgotten. All we are going to have to rely on to avoid these types of horrendous scenarios that are possible under this legislation is what the minister said in the committee stage of this bill, because those assurances are not reflected in the way the bill is written. My first amendment is directed towards giving the people who will be charged with administering Queensland's natural resources in the years and decades ahead something more than a Hansard record of what the minister said in the committee stage of the consideration of this bill. I want to amend the legislation to reflect what the minister was saying. If the minister is serious and believes what he was saying—even if he understands what he was saying—then he should support my first three amendments. These amendments will give substance to the rhetoric that has been prepared for the minister in order to allow him to defend this legislation in the face of the concerns that have been raised by people who understand the scenarios. My first amendment seeks to extend the planning process. Clause 17 deals with a plan for managing pests on state-controlled land. As I said, this is the only mechanism that Queensland land-holders are going to have. The requirements of the plan are set out in subclauses (1) and (2). My amendment requires that those plans be more detailed and contain a lot more substance than is currently the case. Currently, the plan is drawn up by a committee that consists of one representative from each of the four departments to which the minister earlier referred. Subclause (2) states— 'The plan must include a provision for the following— (a) achievable objectives under the plan;' That is what it says. So, we have a statewide plan with statewide objectives that will have to be, by their very nature, extremely broad. The objectives will be all of those motherhood statements that we have heard the Labor backbenchers repeat during this debate—all the feel-good type issues with which we all agree but which essentially mean nothing in terms of achieving a better management regime out there on the ground in the individual situations. This amendment requires the addition of the following words— ', under the plan, for managing declared pests on the land managed by the department in each local government area.' The most important words are 'in each local government area'. That will mean that the state plans will have to contain sufficient detail to deal with particular state situations in each local government area—and so it should be. In each local government area across the state the objectives will be very different. The pests will be very different and the achievable objectives for each of those particular pests will be very different. If the planning is done on a shire by shire basis instead of a whole-of-state basis, a lot of that detail will have to be put in the plans. They will move some way towards being meaningful and having some integrity. This will enable people to make some judgments about whether the state is meeting its commitments. As I said in my second reading speech, the way it is proposed in this legislation simply amounts to a mechanism for the state to meet its obligations under the federal National Weed Strategy so that the state government can obtain whatever federal funding is available. There is no intent in this legislation to do the types of things that the minister talked about. If that is the minister's real intent, he should put this in the legislation to ensure that the planning process, on which he is basing his whole defence of this legislation, has some integrity and has some substance and is detailed enough to provide land-holders with a measure against which they can consider the state's performance—not on a whole-of-state basis but a shire-by-shire basis, which is the same basis upon which private land-holders will plan their assault on plant and animal pests across the state. 792 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

This amendment reflects what the minister has been saying. If the minister is serious about what he says is his intent with this legislation, I see no reason why he cannot support it. It will simply ensure that what the minister has said is going to happen will happen—not just next year, and not just while he is the minister, but for as long as this legislation is in place. When this debate is forgotten and the Hansard record of what occurred here this afternoon has long since disappeared, we will still have some guarantees. Mr ROBERTSON: Before dealing with the actual provisions of this particular clause I feel compelled to respond to the honourable member's preamble because, quite frankly, I am getting a bit tired of the way that the honourable member insults not just me but officers of my department. Somehow, unless one wears an Akubra hat and laughing-side boots into this place, according to the member opposite one is immediately disqualified from any debate and any sensible understanding of the issues that affect rural Queensland. On behalf of my department, may I say that I take umbrage at that level of agrarian arrogance that the honourable member continues to display in any preamble to any amendment that he puts forward in this place. Having said that, I am now compelled to once again place on record my disappointment about the complete lack of understanding of this no-hoper opposite who continually refuses to attend briefings on this legislation despite repeated invitations from my office. I find it a bit sad that the time of this House is wasted by virtue of this member's lack of commitment to detail and to hard yakka in terms of understanding the provisions of any bill that is brought into this place. That is my preamble in response to the member for Callide. I will continue to do so while the honourable member continues to display his particular type of agrarian arrogance that he brings to this place. That might just be part of the tactical dishonesty that the member has become renowned for throughout the state. I will deal with the provision in some detail, because this probably does expose the lack of understanding by the member opposite about how natural resource management actually works on the ground for the people he claims to represent. Not everything we do in natural resources is based on local government boundaries. The suggestion that every pest management plan constructed by a state government department should confine itself to a local government boundary displays the complete and utter lack of understanding of, for example, catchment-wide issues. The CHAIRMAN: That is the next amendment, Minister Robertson. That is not the amendment we are debating now. Mr ROBERTSON: We are debating the amendment to clause 17. Mr SEENEY: Mr Fouras, he is right. Mr ROBERTSON: The member has moved an amendment to clause 17, which talks about confining state management planning to local government boundaries. I am saying that that would unnecessarily confine pest management planning to a local government boundary, whereas we actually want to construct a plan that takes into account a complete catchment—similar to what we do in terms of water resource planning processes, vegetation management processes, salinity and a whole range of other integrated natural resource management issues. Coming back from my position of being somewhat frustrated with the member for Callide, I nevertheless understand where he is coming from. The reason we cannot accept the amendment is that it would unnecessarily limit how we view the landscape to local government boundaries when in fact it may be much better to take a catchment-wide approach or a regional approach. How can we limit, for example, the Department of Main Roads to a local government approach when that main road could go through half a dozen or more shires? Clearly, a different kind of approach would need to be taken for the Department of Main Roads. How would the EPA deal with a local government boundary approach when a national park goes across a number of local government areas? While I appreciate what the member is arguing, the amendment is impractical for the purposes of constructing pest management plans on an integrated natural resource management basis that takes a landscape approach rather than confines itself to artificial or man-made boundaries. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I seek clarification of something I may have misunderstood. The second part of clause 17 states— 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 793

The plan must include provisions for the following— (a) achievable objectives under the plan; This amendment further qualifies that clause. My concern is that the term 'achievable objectives' may be a watering down of the obligation on the state, compared to the obligation on either the local authority or the private landowner for the eradication of pest weeds or other declared pests on their lands. I will give an example. Rubber vine is a declared noxious weed. On private land it has to be eradicated or managed where there are major infestations. On local authority land it has to be completely eradicated or managed where there are major infestations. Does this plan, because it says 'achievable objectives', mean that because there may be some limitation to the department's budget the state government will not have to eradicate it but the achievable objective is to maintain control, to the best of the department's ability, of declared noxious weeds? It appeared to me that the amendment placed some equality of obligation on the department by reflecting in the plan similar responsibilities and obligations as faced by the rest of us. Does that term 'achievable objectives' reduce the level of obligation on the state government compared to other landowners? Mr ROBERTSON: The particular wording used there I guess reflects the nature of the land- holdings the state has. We keep concentrating on national parks, but I guess it is a good example. Some of the national parks we have contain significant areas that are just not accessible by humans or machinery. It would be unrealistic to say that we are going to completely eradicate rubber vine, for example, from a national park when we cannot in fact access all areas of the national park. 'Achievable objectives' is used in that context. It is not a watering down; it just reflects the diversity of the landscape that the state has under its control. That is purely the intention. We will not create unrealistic expectations that we will completely eradicate rubber vine because it has been declared and we are going to have a particular campaign to eradicate it from, for example, the Lamington National Park. I am particularly familiar with that park. There are areas of that national park that no person has ever been to. Complete eradication is an unrealistic expectation in that particular case. The exercise we would embark upon in terms of fighting rubber vine in Lamington National Park would be about containment, not eradication. Mr SEENEY: First I will respond to a couple of sideswipes I got from the minister when he started to respond to the amendment I have moved. The CHAIRMAN: I will allow your response. May I suggest that you do it briefly, or my patience will wear very thin. Mr SEENEY: I do not mind what sorts of boots and hats the minister wears when he comes in here. I am more concerned about his level of understanding of the legislation. That was the context of my comments. I am concerned about the minister's level of understanding of the legislation. This is the latest in a whole series of pieces of legislation about natural resources and natural resource management about which the minister's understanding has not been what it could have been. That is the point I make. The points I made earlier about the differences between the things the minister says in this House and how the legislation is actually written are very valid. They are there for everybody to see. People can look at what is said in this House and, more pertinently, what is said in the media and compare that with what is actually contained in the legislation. The same thing applies to the comment the minister made about my attending the briefings. After attending some of the minister's briefings, I think that they are put on to find out what I think about the legislation so that the staff can prepare speech notes for the minister. It is more a case of finding out what the shadow minister thinks so the minister can be prepared for the debate. That is what it is about. Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. I place on record the ongoing invitation to the shadow minister to attend briefings offered by my office for the purposes of informing him, not for the purposes of trying to trick him up. If I want to know what the honourable member has to say about a bill, I just need to read the local papers. Mr SEENEY: The minister will get his chance in a minute. I turn to the substance of the amendment. The arguments against the amendment put by the minister certainly did not convince me. I fail to see the validity of them. The minister spoke about the fact that this planning needed to be done on a state-wide basis because it could not be limited. There are no limitations placed on a planning process 794 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

simply because it includes enough detail to deal with a situation on a district-by-district basis. However we split the state up into a number of districts is really irrelevant. Whatever planning mechanism is used for this particular purpose, it has to be flexible and coordinated enough to be effective across those boundaries, whatever they are, because the animal and plant pests that this legislation deals with recognise no boundaries, however they are drawn. The point I am making is that this planning process as it is written in this legislation is on a state-wide basis. There is nothing in this legislation that requires any level of detail. I invite the minister to point out to me where it is if I have missed it. Where is it in this particular part of the legislation that deals with the planning process? Let us deal with the hypothetical minister who might come into this position next year or in three years time or six years time. Where is there in this legislation any requirement for that planning process to involve any level of detail at all? There is none. This legislation requires this committee made up of one bureaucrat from each of the four departments to draw up a plan which has objectives for the whole state. That is almost worthless in terms of providing any guarantee or any security or any surety to the land-holding community of Queensland that that hypothetical minister who will come along in three years, six years or 10 years time will provide the level of detail for this process that is necessary for it to be effective. That is the point. I would be interested to hear whether the minister can find anything in here that he believes binds him to ensuring that that planning process has some detail and credibility. Mr ROBERTSON: Very briefly, I have just been reminded that there will be 125 local government pest management plans. In that regard, the state government and whatever agency that has an interest in that local government area will give input into the construction of that local government pest management plan. So that is where the level of detail that the honourable member opposite seeks would be put into it. The state government agencies that have land in a particular local government area will participate in the construction or development of a local government pest management plan. For the purposes of a particular department's pest management plan, that is necessarily developed across a much larger landscape than a local government boundary. So you get the best of both worlds. Mr SEENEY: I am trying hard not to get so frustrated this early in the debate, but the minister's response surely illustrates better than I ever could his lack of understanding of the legislation. Honestly, Minister! The amendments we are going to move later are simply aimed at doing what he just said. Let us start from the beginning. There is no requirement for the state plan to be in accordance or in agreement with the local government plan. That is the context of my next amendment. I wish it were not necessary. I wish it were in the legislation that this level of detail was dealt with, this level of detail for state land. That is the difference. For local government plans, there is a requirement for this level of detail to be in the planning process because they are done on an individual area basis. For state land, there is no requirement for that planning process to be detailed in the way that it should be. The link between the two is very tenuous, and we will get to that later as we move through the other amendments. For the minister to suggest that there does not have to be detail in the state's planning process because the local authority planning process which deals with private land has that detail is twisted logic indeed. If what the minister said was correct and the local planning process included state land and state land was bound by that local planning process, then we would not be here debating this. I would have agreed to it and just about all of my amendments would not be necessary, because that is the way it should be. That is the way it should be—that is, state land in each local authority area should be part and parcel of the local planning process. The detail necessary for the people of Queensland to have confidence that the state is going to manage its land properly should be in the planning process somewhere. The minister said in his summing-up that he was not going to accept my amendment which would have made state land part of the local planning process by making it subject to the enforcement mechanism of a pest control notice. If he had, this amendment would not have been necessary. I accept that we are not going to be successful with that amendment—that is, amendment No. 6. So this amendment seeks to achieve something of what we are trying to achieve by another method by requiring the state planning process to deal with the management plans for state land in some detail. How incredible is it for the minister to stand up and say, 'You don't have to deal with it in detail because it's going to be dealt with in the local government planning process,' which the state land is not part of? State land in a local authority area is not bound by the local planning process because it is not subject to the enforcement mechanism of a pest control notice. That is the crux of the whole argument. 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 795

Once again, the minister makes it very difficult for any of us to have too much confidence in his level of knowledge when he comes back with a response like that. The minister is pinning his defence of this legislation on the state planning process. He is saying that the state is going to meet its obligations with regard to managing animal and plant pests on state controlled land by this state planning process, by these plans. Okay, I accept that that is going to be the mechanism. Let us make the mechanism sufficiently strong and have enough substance to deal with the problem on a region-by-region basis. If the government does not agree with the local authority area, it can come up with something else, but anything is better than a whole-of-the-state basis. Anything is better than a broad-brush, motherhood-type planning process that achieves nothing and which gives no-one any surety and confidence that the state is going to meet its obligations in terms of managing plant and animal pests on state land. That is certainly not going to be achieved by the local government planning process because of those six words at the end of clause 78, which say, for the purposes of the enforcement mechanism which clause 78 represents, the definition of 'owner does not include the state'. The state is not subject to those local plans. The state is not subject to the enforcement mechanism, and the minister's arguments are ridiculous. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I heard the minister's response to my earlier comments. I understand that the state government could not be expected and would not be able to control infestations of noxious weeds or pests in inaccessible areas. The reality is that nobody would know that they were even in existence. The frustration that has been expressed to me by landowners both previously during my career in local government and now is that, in many instances, the same requirements are not placed on the state as on private landowners. As soon as those landowners are detected to have a small infestation of any declared weeds, they are required to clear them. In some instances where it is a significant growth of, say, rubber vine, they are required to manage it. However, in many instances, an adjoining property, which may be state owned land, may also have a small manageable outbreak of a declared weed but the department may either not respond or be tardy to respond. As a result, the private land is again infected but the same requirement is not placed on the state as it is on private landowners. I am not saying that every piece of noxious weed can be controlled in every piece of state land, as is the case in inaccessible land, but I am concerned by what may be seen by private landowners as a double standard in that visible and accessible areas of state land may have infestations of weed but that land does not appear to have the same careful and critical examination placed on it and the requirement to remediate as is placed by the state on private landowners. I am looking for equity in that issue. Mr ROBERTSON: That is why we are going down the path we are going with this new bill. We are requiring a much greater level of performance of all state government agencies that own land than ever before. That is why we are now requiring pest management plans to be developed by the state government agencies. That is why there will be that level of transparency in terms of reporting back to the pest management council to ensure that government departments are doing the right thing in respect of the management of pests on their lands. Dr KINGSTON: I want to reduce the equity question to a very simple question. If we take my electorate, we have about 100,000 acres of forestry and national parks all in one bunch. If Fraser Island is added to that, that area can be tripled. There is very, very severe infestation with groundsel, which is an air-born seed, and with lantana. For 20 years the private land-holders who adjoin those areas have annually spent considerable amounts of money to keep their properties free of, let us say, groundsel. For as long as the forestry and the national parks have groundsel, that will be a cost imposed on them by virtue of national parks and forestry being very, very heavily infested. I accept the minister's intentions that government departments will improve their performance. That would be tremendous. However, I worry where those government departments are going to get the funding. For instance, I would hazard a guess that the 100,000 acres of forestry alone lying directly south of my property would cost in the vicinity of $10 million to clear of groundsel. Is the minister going to provide the funding for Forestry to tackle groundsel in a fair dinkum manner that is going to allow graziers such as I to relax? Mr ROBERTSON: I did not think that graziers relaxed at all. The money certainly will not be coming from my department. Each government agency is treated just as we treat every other land-holder. It is the responsibility of all owners of land to control pests on their land. I cannot help the member with respect to where the EPA, the DPI, or the Department of Main Roads is 796 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

going to find the kind of money that the member is talking about. That is going to have to be a matter for them. The reality is that, at the end of the day, we expect a better performance from state government agencies than has occurred in the past. I would expect that the member would be able to monitor not just what he sees day to day in terms of what is happening over the boundaries of his property but also that the member would be able to monitor the performance locally of state government agencies in the control of pests by virtue of their performance under the local government pest management plan, which a state government representative from the agencies involved would be invited by the local government to be involved in in terms of the development of those local plans. So one would expect there would be much greater cooperation across levels of government and across different classes of land-holders as a result of a much more integrated management approach through local government based planning. Dr KINGSTON: I am willing to accept the good intentions of this legislation and I am willing to accept that the minister believes honestly that the performance of land-holders of state owned land will improve. But more and more it appears to me that the minister is trying to pass legislation for which there is no allowance for funding. I accept that the funding for forestry is not a responsibility of the minister's department. But as a representative of graziers and farmers, can I go back to my electorate and give them some sort of assurance that in the next budget there is going to be increased funding to Forestry, to National Parks and to the EPA so that those infested areas of land can be cleaned up? Mr ROBERTSON: I am afraid that I cannot give the member that assurance. That is not my role. He would have to ask the Treasurer that question. The member would have to have a good look at the next budget to determine whether or not he is going to be satisfied by whatever provisions have been made to whatever departments. I am not trying to avoid the issue; it is just that I honestly cannot help the member with that issue. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 61—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Hollis, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr SEENEY (3.42 p.m.): I move amendment No. 2— 2. Clause 18 At page 25, after line 11— insert— '(d) the pest management plan for the local government area in which the land is situated.'. This amendment seeks to amend clause 18 which, like the previous amendment, deals with the planning process. I will not repeat all of the comments I made in relation to the previous amendment. Suffice it to say that they are all pertinent to this amendment. Those comments related to the necessity to ensure that the planning process has integrity and gives people confidence, and that the minister's words have substance and some backing. The CHAIRMAN: You said that you would not repeat them. Mr SEENEY: I will not repeat them. That is a summation of what I will not say. This amendment seeks to insert a new section into clause 18 to ensure that the planning process has substance and integrity. Clause 18 requires that state plans must be consistent with the principles of pest management, with the state's pest management strategies and with the guidelines for pest management. If there was ever a collection of motherhood statements, that is it! Clause 18 does not really say anything at all. Everybody would agree that those three requirements should be consistent; that the plans should be consistent with those three things. It begs the question: why is the planning process conducted by the state not required to be consistent with the planning process conducted on a regional basis? In this legislation it is done mostly by local government areas, although there is provision for the planning process to be 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 797

conducted by other entities. There is a statutory requirement that every local government conduct a planning process in its local government area. Would it not have been sensible to include a mechanism requiring consistency between that planning process and the state's planning process? That consistency would have been achieved by the previous amendment, which has been rejected. The minister made some quite foolish comments, as he sought to justify the rejection of that amendment, which indicated that he probably agreed with the intent of the amendment. I find that a bit confusing. The minister stated that he agreed with the intent of the amendment. He then said that he would oppose it, and he did oppose it, yet he agreed with its intent. That is a bit hard to understand. The intent of the current and previous amendment is simply to ensure that there is integrity and substance in the state's planning process. I know the government will reject this amendment, too. So I ask quite genuinely that the minister place on record where in this section of the bill dealing with the state's planning process he believes it ensures that a hypothetical minister in years to come will be bound by this legislation to ensure that the state planning process— The CHAIRMAN: Can I remind the member for Callide of standing order 141. You referred to this in relation to the previous amendment. You made exactly the same statements then. The standing orders state that you must not be repetitious. Mr SEENEY: I am not being repetitious. I want the minister to respond to some questions. Where in this legislation does it provide that substance in the planning process? Amendment No. 2 proposes that the state's planning process must be consistent with—as well as those other three things—the pest management plan for the local government area in which the land is situated. Clearly, the minister will reject that. I would like the minister to place on record what he believes there is in the legislation that makes that unnecessary? Mr ROBERTSON: The honourable member is trying to subordinate state management plans to local government plans. Mr SEENEY: No, no, no. Mr ROBERTSON: Oh, will you just shut up. There are 125 local governments. Now, across the full scope of local governments there will be different outcomes on how to treat a particular weed. For example, a particularly wealthy local government may choose to fight or eradicate a particular weed—a water weed, for example— Mr Rowell: Hymenachne. Mr ROBERTSON: Hymenachne—the member for Hinchinbrook's favourite! Mr Rowell: No, it is not my favourite. I do not like it. Mr ROBERTSON: That is probably not a good example. However, a local government may choose to use mechanical means to eradicate it because it has the money to buy a harvester. Down the road there is a different and much less well-resourced local government which cannot afford to use a harvester and has to use traditional means, perhaps the use of herbicides or manual extraction. Across local governments there will be different provisions on how to fight that particular weed according to the resources at their disposal. You cannot have—and I am exaggerating—125 councils each coming up with their own response to hymenachne. The state cannot wait for all of that work to go on and then, when it is dealing with the state pest management strategy on how to deal with hymenachne, reflect on the differences that will naturally occur between 125 different councils. That is the effect of what the member for Callide is seeking. Mr Seeney: It is not. It is totally wrong. Mr ROBERTSON: That is the practical effect of what would be created as a result of this amendment. I am trying not to be rude or offensive to the member opposite, but he was a tad provocative when he said that we do not understand our own legislation, because I tend to think it might well be the other way around. That is one practical example of why the state pest management plan cannot reflect 125 responses by local authorities. There would be many examples of that. In a sense, the state management plan will necessarily be general so that we can respond to the 125 different approaches taken by local authorities. That is not to say that our response is in any way diluted. That does not suggest for one moment that our state pest 798 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

management plans would be contradictory. Rather, it reflects the diversity of local governments and the landscape across Queensland and the need for the state to be flexible to meet the demands of 125 local governments. That is why that clause is constructed the way it is. That is why we cannot accept the amendments. I appreciate that the member might be well meaning in terms of what he is trying to do. However, the effect of his amendment makes it impractical. That is why we object. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Before calling the member for Callide, I suggest that both the shadow minister and the minister not be derogatory. The minister finished on a fine note saying that he was not going to be, but earlier he told somebody to shut up. I suggest that the language from both the shadow minister and the minister not be derogatory, because I will not allow it. Mr SEENEY: Mr Chairman, I would never tell anyone to shut up. The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is funny. Mr SEENEY: It was unfair. I withdraw. It is obvious that the minister and I will never agree on this. I put on record that the minister has deliberately, I believe, misrepresented my intent in moving both of these amendments, but especially this amendment. The intent of this amendment is clearly the exact opposite of what the minister suggests it is. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that there is a coordinated approach. The example the minister used was that if we are going to control hymenachne in a particular area it is controlled by the local planning process, and on state land it is covered by the state planning process. To take a more realistic example, let us talk about dingoes and wild dogs. We cannot have a situation in which in the local planning process the local community decides to have a control program for dingoes and wild dogs and yet the national park area that occupies a third of the shire area is excluded from that control program. Those are the types of things happening now because of the philosophy of the people who are managing these national park areas. Dr Kingston interjected. Mr SEENEY: As the member for Maryborough says, the philosophy is to protect the dingoes in the national parks. That is a contrasting and completely opposite approach to that being taken by the land-holders, graziers and farmers who own land immediately bordering national parks. There has to be this type of coordination. If we are not going to have the state subject to the control mechanisms that I will deal with in my last amendment, the only way to ensure this type of coordination is by strengthening up the planning process. I want it on the record that I have never, as the minister indicated I had, tried to subordinate one over the other. I am trying to ensure that there is coordination. Dr Kingston interjected. Mr SEENEY: I will keep saying it over and over again until the minister understands it. The difficulty is that the minister does not understand it. We can write it in big letters and draw pictures, yet the minister makes ridiculous comments indicating that he does not understand. Mr Cummins interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Kawana will cease interjecting and the shadow minister will get back to this amendment. Mr SEENEY: I do not often take interjections, but I was tempted. The CHAIRMAN: But you often repeat yourself. Mr SEENEY: I will not repeat myself any further. I have put on record the fact that the minister's representation of my intent in this matter is the complete opposite of the reality. I am seeking a coordinated approach, and I think I have made that pretty clear. Amendment negatived. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Mr ROWELL (3.55 p.m.): In relation to the duration of the state plan, this clause states— ... of no more than 5 years, stated in it. (2) The plan ceases to have effect at the end of the stated period. 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 799

The situation is different for a local government plan. A local government's pest management plan will be renewed before the end of the stated period. There are some differences between the plans of the LGAs and the state plan. This legislation is saying that after five years there is no need for a plan for the state. It states clearly that the plan ceases to have effect at the end of the stated period of five years. In other words, what the government is doing is setting up an initial plan that will not be renewed. That is of concern. I do not know whether I am misinterpreting the legislation. The plan hinges very much on what the state is doing. If there is no plan at state level for state authorities to abide by, we will have mayhem. The local authorities will have a commitment to review their plans before the end of the financial year or whatever, but the state will not have the same obligation in relation to renewal. Yes, they will have to ensure that once a year something is done about reviewing the plan. I understand that. However, after the five-year period or within the five-year period there is no commitment to renew the plan. I cannot find a provision in the legislation that says otherwise. If the minister can enlighten me on this I would be very pleased. There is some concern about the whole essence of what is being sought to be achieved with this legislation. Mr ROBERTSON: I appreciate what the honourable member is saying. In relation to clause 17(1), the advice that we received from Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the first sentence—'Each of the following departments must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this part, have a plan for managing declared pests on State-controlled land'—was that that requires continuity of a plan. A plan might have a life of five years, but that does not mean that at the end of five years it is abandoned and not replaced. There must always be a plan in place. However, the plans have a life of five years. The renewal process occurs every five years, but there is no suggestion that there will be a case where there is no plan in existence. Mr ROWELL: I hear what the minister is saying; we have different departments that have obligations under the plan. Why did he include a renewal process for the LGAs? I am comparing the commitment that LGAs have to make with what the state is doing. I hear what the minister is saying; yes, there are four different departments all together. The minister's is one of them; DNR is one of them. Then we have the likes of DPI, EPA, Main Roads and so on. During his summing-up, the minister mentioned other types of organisations—GOCs, or government owned corporations. They might have an easement through a person's property. I am not sure what their commitment is as far as that is concerned. It is not something that they own. They are using something that belongs to another person and which is required to be committed under a plan that deals with the cooperation necessary to eradicate pests. It probably will be weeds, but it could be dingoes, wild pigs and all of those other pests. Although we are dealing with one sector of government that is clearly specified, we are certainly not dealing with groups that are government owned corporations, of which the shareholding ministers—generally two, the Treasurer and whoever else; perhaps even the minister if we are talking about SunWater— Mr Robertson interjected. Mr ROWELL: The Minister for Primary Industries is very helpful, because he understands a lot of the problems that we have dealing with pests. Maybe the Minister for Primary Industries needs to brief this minister because he is well aware of dealing with black sigatoka, the papaya fruit fly and all those types of pests. Perhaps the Minister for Primary Industries should take over. A government member interjected. Mr ROWELL: No, we want to get away from all that. The point that I am making is that there are different groups apart from those which are specified here that are government owned corporations which do not necessarily cross government land but someone else's land. It is probably something of the nature of an easement. It could be a powerline or it could even be SunWater. It could be a case where the department has to deal with dam water. Very often the tributaries are on adjoining land. Those government owned corporations have a certain responsibility. I cannot see the five-year plan being extended. The legislation does not specify when the plan has to come in as far as the government is concerned. Local authorities have a certain period within which they must implement the plan. The same condition does not apply to the state as far as this legislation is concerned. Mr ROBERTSON: I will try to help the honourable member here. I apologise for not answering the second part of his question the first time around. There is a difference in the life of 800 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

a plan as regards the state and local authorities. I think the honourable member should read this provision in conjunction with clause 30(3) with regard to reviewing and renewing a plan. There has been long consultation in the lead-up to this bill. Obviously the LGAQ supports the bill. That indicates that local government is happy with the provisions of this bill. However, a couple of points need to be made. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: I will get on to GOCs in a minute. May I say that the state strategies for weeds, pest animals and stock routes provide the strategic direction for pest and stock route management for all stakeholders in Queensland. So, a duration of five years is commonly accepted across government for this type of plan. The local government pest and stock route management plans are focused at a lower order of planning—I guess a more or less operationally driven level where somewhat more frequent reviews are required. A duration of four years was chosen to align with the local government election cycle. That is the life of the local government plan. We then get into— Mr Seeney: You have to review them every year. Mr ROBERTSON: Yes. That would be part of the budgetary process that local government would need to engage in. Local government would be allocating appropriate resources to implement the plan or have the plan amended. That is what it is all about. It is a way of ensuring that the plan is operating effectively. That is the reason for the differences between cycles. There is nothing sinister there. GOCs have the status of a land-holder, so all the provisions that apply to a land-holder under this bill would apply to a GOC. Does that answer the question? Mr ROWELL: In other words, we have a situation where those four departments—the minister's own department, EPA, DPI and Main Roads—are not subject to clause 78. However, where the minister and the Treasurer are shareholders in a government owned corporation, clause 78 applies. Clause 78 applies to some forms of government but not to others. That is what the minister is saying. Mr Robertson: Is the honourable member referring to clause 78? Mr ROWELL: It is important because clause 78 relates to issues— Mr Robertson: I accept that. Mr ROWELL: There seem to be some inconsistencies with regard to the obligations of some sections of the government. A minister who is involved with a government owned corporation could have different obligations under this legislation from those of this minister. For instance, let us take SunWater. We could have a situation where there is an infestation of salvinia weed or hymenachne or something of that nature on a dam. The DNR has no obligation as far as pest control notices are concerned. However, in the case of SunWater there are obligations. That is what the minister is saying to me. Once it becomes a government owned corporation, SunWater can certainly have a notice issued on it as far as the cleaning up of pests is concerned. There is some inconsistency there. I am not particularly satisfied with this issue concerning a period of five years. I can understand about the cycle of four years with local government. I can understand that they have to have a review every year. But as far as the state is concerned, the matter has to be looked at every year during the five-year period. It is not as if it is something that is exclusive as far as the LGAs are concerned. The state is virtually doing the same thing. There is no period of time provided for when the state plan has to be implemented. A specific time is not mentioned in the legislation. However, a specific time is provided for the LGAs. I am at a loss at understanding the essence of what we are trying to achieve here. There seems to be a whole bundle of inconsistencies. I would be happy if the minister could respond to that because I am at a loss. Probably what was intended in the first place is not going to be achieved. Mr ROBERTSON: No doubt we will explore this in some detail when we come to clause 78, but I will explain the difference. The Department of Natural Resources does not own land. Nor do the Department of Health, the Department of Education and so on. To use the old language, the Crown owns the land. It used to be called crown land; it is now called state land. The difference with GOCs is that a GOC either owns land freehold or leases it from the state, similar to what a grazier would. So the GOC becomes the land-holder and, as such, has responsibilities under the act, just as a grazier with leasehold or freehold property has. That is the distinction. We will 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 801

explore this issue of crown land or state land probably under clause 78, but that is the distinction. That is why there is that difference. Getting back to these plans, there is a responsibility on those four departments, my own included. When this bill is proclaimed—subject to the parliament passing it we are expecting it to be proclaimed by around September—the state agencies, because we would be bringing in regulations at the same time, will have the strategies in place. The bill requires the state to have its pest management plans in place. This bill gives one year's grace to local government for them to tool up and prepare their own plans. Their plans then exist for four years after that. One year's grace plus four years' operation equals five years, which brings them into line with the five-year cycle of state pest management plans. So there is no difference between how we treat the state and local governments. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: There is. The plans start at the proclamation of this act for the state. The legislation states 'the state must have'. If we did not have it, we would be in breach of our own act. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Mr SEENEY (4.12 p.m.): I move amendment No. 3— 3. Clause 23— At page 26, line 14, after 'consist of'— omit, insert— '— (a) at least 1 representative of each department mentioned in section 17(1); and (b) 2 persons, appointed by the Minister, who the Minister reasonably believes will represent community interests; and (c) 2 other persons appointed by the Minister and nominated by entities, prescribed under a regulation, that represent the interests of persons engaged in agricultural production.'. This is another amendment aimed at strengthening the planning process. As I have said before, this is the only chance we have to ensure the state meets its responsibilities. Here we are seeking to broaden the base of the committee that will undertake this planning process on behalf of the state. Clause 21 of the bill allows for the establishment of a pest management committee which will consist of one representative from each department mentioned in clause 17. I am suggesting that the committee should be a lot broader than that in an attempt to ensure that the planning process has some integrity. The real fear for everyone involved in this whole area is that these plans for state government land will end up being prepared by September or whenever the act is gazetted but that they will be a glossy publication that will be put on a shelf somewhere and nothing will change in respect of the management of plant and animal pests on state land. The current situation is untenable. It is untenable for people who own land near or neighbouring the areas of state land that at the moment act as harbours and refuges for all sorts of plant and animal pests. The situation has been getting progressively worse as the years have gone on. It has gotten progressively worse during the term of this government as the philosophies of this government find their way into the policies of the department. The CHAIRMAN: I suggest, so I can actually be advised, that you bring your presentation here to the impact of these extra appointments to the committee. Mr SEENEY: Fair go, Mr Chairman. I am explaining why we are seeking to amend this clause. With respect, I think my argument is very relevant in this case. Sometimes I do transgress, but in this case I think my comments are very relevant. I want to explain why we believe it is necessary to broaden the membership of this committee, because the situation at the moment is untenable. The situation is getting worse. It is getting worse because of the philosophies of the government which find their way into the policies of the department. Under this clause it is those departments that will make up this committee. 802 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

I think there was a good example during the second reading debate of how far off line some of those philosophies can be and why this committee needs to have a broad representation rather than be just a body that reflects the government's philosophy. I think it was the member for Cairns who said in the second reading debate that she believed the solution to the feral pig problem was to introduce some type of birth control for feral pigs. We are talking about putting feral pigs on the pill, as though that is a solution! Those of us who know the reality know that we already have a very good birth control mechanism for feral pigs— Ms BOYLE: Mr Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think I was just mentioned erroneously in dispatches. As it is erroneous, I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SEENEY: I am sorry if it was not the member for Cairns. It was one of the Labor members. Mr Rowell: Barron River. Mr SEENEY: Barron River, was it? I know that I cannot quote from the transcript. That is an example of the philosophies of the government that will find their way into this committee. It is a reason this committee needs to be broadened. There is already a good birth control mechanism for feral pigs. It is called 1080. All we have to do is convince government departments to use it. Mr Rowell: In national parks. Mr SEENEY: In national parks, where the problem is. That is exactly right. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is broad representation on this committee. We are seeking to have at least one representative from each department, as is the case now, but broaden membership of the committee to include two persons appointed by the minister who the minister believes will represent community interests. We also seek to have two other persons, appointed by the minister and nominated by entities prescribed under a regulation, who represent the agricultural production industries. That will ensure that this committee, which will have responsibility for this planning process, does actually have some integrity and substance and is not totally driven by the government's budgetary processes. I cannot say too many times that that is what we are trying to ensure. The real danger is that we will end up with a plan and no resources to implement the plan or, alternatively, that we will end up with a plan that is built around the fact that the government refuses to or is unable to allocate resources to implement any sort of creditable plan. That is the danger we face if the committee is left with only three or four representatives, one from each department. The real danger is that the planning process will be made to fit the resources that have been made available under the budgetary process. It will not be a case of making the resources available to do the job that is necessary for all of the reasons that we spoke about in the second reading debate. It will be a case of making the plan to fit the resources that are available—doing the planning to fit the action rather than acting in accordance with the plan that has identified the necessary actions. That is why I am suggesting there needs to be input from this wide range of people who are stakeholders. The minister said in his reply to the second reading debate that somehow this committee, whose structure I am trying to change, had a reporting role to the other entity that is being formed by this bill and that does have that representation. I ask the minister to point to where that role is defined in the bill. I think that is a knee-jerk response by the minister to the criticism that has been raised about this committee and the powers it will have over the government planning process. I am sorry if the thought and the prospect is painful for the minister, but we have to ensure that this planning process has some integrity and credibility and that this government and future governments are bound by this legislation to do something about this problem, that is, to make sure that they do something more than just produce a plan. We have to put a mechanism in this planning process which ensures that the planning process has integrity and the necessary resources and that it is carried out. It is no good coming in here and saying, 'We've got good intentions. We'll do it.' It is not happening at the moment. Mr Robertson: Isn't it? Mr SEENEY: It is not happening at the moment. Ask any land-holder. Ask any land-holder who neighbours a national park. Go up to north Queensland and ask the canefarmers who have to put up with feral pigs harvesting three-quarters of their crop. Go out to the central west and talk to the people involved in the wool industry suffering enormous losses because of dingoes and wild dogs. Go and talk to the people who spend a large chunk of their resources fighting things 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 803

like lantana, sicklepod, rubber vine and all the other things that encroach on their land from national parks and other state land. It is not happening at the moment. I am not here because I have nothing else to do this afternoon, I am here because this is important. It is critically important not only to stop the encroachment of these plant and animal pests and recognise the problems that these areas of state land cause to a great many Queenslanders who, through no fault of their own, find themselves to be neighbours or near neighbours; we must also ensure that future governments do something about it. To that end, we have to make sure that this planning process has the credibility and the substance that I have been talking about all afternoon. Those opposite rejected my first two proposals as mechanisms to ensure that this happens. This is my last chance to ensure that this happens, otherwise we will end up with a planning process that will produce glossy publications that sit on the shelf gathering dust but do nothing in terms of legislation that will help to fix the problem that currently exists. That would be a wasted opportunity in this parliament. Mr Lawlor: What do you think about that tirade? Mr ROBERTSON: I could almost weep. If only the member opposite would attend the briefings that are offered in relation to these bills. If he did, he would find out that this clause that he is seeking to amend is not an exclusive clause. What it does is require each of the departments to have at least one representative on the State Pest Management Committee. That is not an exclusive membership. In fact, had the member come along to the briefing, he could have said, 'What about bringing in other representatives to sit on this committee?' Does the member for Callide know what the answer would have been? The answer would have been, 'We've already got them there.' That provision—and this is where I get so frustrated with him—he has read wrongly, as he reads wrongly most clauses in the bills that come before this place. What he is suggesting is that that clause provides for an exclusive membership. It does not. In fact, the committee is up and running already with representatives from each of the four departments and— Mr Seeney: Why didn't you put it in the legislation? Why not? Mr ROBERTSON: I really do like the member opposite. Does he know why? He reminds me of myself when I was young and stupid. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will withdraw. Mr ROBERTSON: I will withdraw. You are right, Mr Chairman: I was never young and stupid. This group in fact does not just have four members. It currently operates with LGAQ involvement. It currently operates with the chair of the Rural Lands Protection Board, David Cory. It also has Q-Rail involvement. If we go down the path of this amendment, which says that we need to list all these other representatives, the problem is that we actually set up an exclusive committee. The practice has always been that we coopt people to provide advice based on their expertise and based on the question before us. If we start demanding that a committee such as this must have a representative from Agforce and a representative from blah, blah, blah, the problem is that we will always leave someone out. By practice and precedent, we establish these committees and force the four departments to send along a representative and coopt people as required. The other problem with the path that the member for Callide wants to go down is that it would end up setting up a committee which duplicates the work of the existing Rural Lands Protection Board, which is to be replaced by the Rural Lands Protection Council under this new act. It actually duplicates the effort. As I have said, once the plans are finalised by the State Pest Management Committee one of the things that we will do—and we do not need to do this by legislation, because it just makes commonsense—is refer them to the state council with that wider industry representation of Agforce, QFF, Canegrowers and other interested parties, as has occurred in the past. That kind of involvement, consultation and transparency will continue into the future. It is a nonsense to go down the path that the member for Callide wants to go down. If he would only attend briefings offered by my office and the department, he would understand the current situation. This amendment and the speech that he just made demonstrate the level of his ignorance about how the existing set-up works, because he has been caught out. He said that that committee is made up of four people and four people only, yet it is in existence now and it already has on it the chair of the Rural Lands Protection Board—a very distinguished and former National Party member of this House, David Cory, someone who is respected by all sides of politics in this state. 804 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

Mr Seeney: So it should. Mr ROBERTSON: He is a tremendous fellow. I love spending time with him. I learn so much from David. We could not have a wiser head on that committee than David Cory. When it comes time for David to retire, I have to say that we will all be a lot worse off. We will have lost someone with so much experience and so much to contribute. Nevertheless, David is there now. So is a representative from LGAQ. It is not an exclusive committee. Going down the path that the member opposite wants to go down establishes exclusivity by starting to nominate who will actually sit on a state government committee—a committee that will have reporting requirements to a much broader community-based pest management council. That is why we are rejecting the amendment that the member is seeking. Mr SEENEY: Once again, the minister has reinforced my arguments. If that is the case, why isn't it in the legislation? Why aren't there clauses in this legislation that not only allow the committee by omission to coopt the type of expertise it needs but also require the committee or minister to coopt onto that committee the type of expertise it needs? If that is being done at the moment—and I take the minister's word for it that all of that is happening—then that is the right thing. That is the way it should be. That is what should happen. This legislation does not require this minister or any other future minister to do what I agree is the right thing, and it should. If this legislation is going to give the people who rely on it the security and confidence that the state will manage its lands properly, then this legislation should require that to happen and not just rely upon the goodwill of the minister. I think he inherited the situation anyway, if I am not mistaken, and that has been the case for quite some time. Under this legislation, there is no requirement for that to continue. I remind the minister of his comments in relation to the requirement for this committee to report to the larger committee, the Rural Lands Protection Council, which will replace the current board. The minister has said that that is some sort of a safeguard that should allay the fears of people who are concerned that this whole planning process will become a bureaucratic exercise that produces plans that sit on the shelf but do not have the resources allocated to them and, as a result, are not carried through and do not produce any results. That is the fear. The minister has been saying, in an attempt to allay that fear, that there is this committee. The CHAIRMAN: The member is being repetitive. Mr SEENEY: Well, he did not answer the first time, Mr Fouras. I am reminding the minister of the request I made for him to point to where in the bill that reporting requirement is, because I cannot find it. I have heard and read in the media of the minister pointing to that as something that should allay the fears of people concerned about this. The minister did not do that when he first replied to this amendment. I would like to hear the minister respond to that and to my question about why the composition of this committee cannot be included. Why can it not be included, because my amendment is broad enough to allow those types of people whom the minister says are already serving on that committee to continue to do so? For example, the person the minister spoke about in such glowing terms—and I agree with the minister—could easily be one of the persons appointed under section (c) of my amendment who serves as two other persons appointed by the minister, or even (b) wherein 'two persons appointed by the minister who the minister reasonably believes', et cetera. There is provision within my amendment to encompass the current situation, but where my amendment differs from the legislation is that under my amendment the current situation is obliged to continue. For it not to continue would be in breach of the act. Under the current act, it continues only at the whim of the minister, whether it is this minister or some future minister. That is the difference. Because of the way that the whole philosophy of managing these state owned land areas has been progressing, these mechanisms need to be in the legislation to give people confidence, rather than having it at the whim of a particular minister. Mr ROWELL: There seems to be some particular mention of certain groups within this clause, but there is no reference to the DPI. I am concerned about that, because the bulk of the issues with which we are dealing—cleaning up pests on land and so on—really are related to primary industry people. That group is probably the most affected, but clause 17(1) refers to the Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act. The rest of the clause does not seem to include that. Then, in relation to roads, the clause refers to state controlled roads and yet there are national highways as well. Is the federal government also involved? It is not, yet it has thousands of kilometres of national highway in the state. Should it not be included in the planning process? That is what I am getting at. We are dealing with a degree of exclusivity. With the EPA, we are dealing only with the Nature Conservation Act. 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 805

The CHAIRMAN: Are you addressing the membership of the committee? Mr ROWELL: Mr Fouras, the membership of the committee is addressed in 17(1) and I need to address that to address the issues. I hope the minister understands what I am getting at. We are addressing mines at this point. It is a very broad spectrum as far as the minister's department is concerned but it is not a very broad spectrum in terms of the other two, which are very vital components. One is an issue with the Nature Conservation Act that we have been very concerned about with national parks, and the other one is the group that represents land- holders, the Department of Primary Industries. Well, I would hope it would represent land-holders; but that department certainly deals with the major issues that we deal with in this bill, that is, the eradication of pests from people's land-holdings. My point is that, when one takes the leasehold land and the freehold land into consideration, this is probably the biggest group of people who farm and graze those areas. When we look at the state issue of, say, timber and at the state issue of national parks, we find that they represent about seven per cent of the state's area. The biggest proportion this bill affects is those groups of people who have either leasehold or freehold properties. But all we are dealing with here is the department under which the Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act 1987 is administered. There just seems to be a bit of a lack of understanding in the nomination of this group to the membership of this committee. That is what the clause we are presently discussing really refers to. Why is there a degree of exclusivity in terms of the nomination of those departments and specific acts? Mr ROBERTSON: This is the foundation membership of the State Pest Management Committee, which is about constructing pest management plans for those departments that have responsibility for the largest land-holdings across government. What we have done has been done deliberately. The forestry reserves come about as a result of the provisions of that act to which the member referred. They do not come about through the existence of a Department of Primary Industries. One day, a new government may decide to move forestry out of primary industries and into a new department of forestry, for argument's sake. So, this relates to coming back and amending the bill at some later stage to delete 'Department of Primary Industries' and insert 'Department of Forestry'. The member referred to the act of parliament that covers forestry reserves, which currently are with DPI, and as a result a representative of the DPI will sit on that committee. Next year it could be a Department of Forestry. So one would bring in a representative from the Department of Forestry. This has been constructed to provide that flexibility. As we have seen over the last 10 years with changes of governments and new ways of governance, there has been significant interchange between departments of certain responsibilities. In fact, about 10 years ago there was not an animal called the Department of Natural Resources—it was still the Department of Lands. All we are providing for is the circumstance where in the future there may be new departments or structures created that will have responsibility for these large land-holdings. That is all. Mr ROWELL: Thank you, Mr Fouras. I am grateful for your perseverance; it is great. The minister has reinforced my concern even more, because he said that there is a likelihood of moving timber— Mr Robertson interjected. Mr ROWELL: The minister said exactly that. The minister said that there is a prospect sometime in the future wherein this act regarding timber could be moved from the Department of Primary Industries to another department. The minister did say that hopefully the Department of Primary Industries will stay there. We are talking about a department that represents and deals with the greatest amount of land-holdings in this state. There is no designated reason for that department being in this portfolio other than being for this timber act that we are talking about. Basically, the minister is saying to me, 'In the grace of what we are doing, not in legislation, but we would hope in the future.' The minister is preserving the timber industry for the future. That is fine. But as far as primary industries is concerned—'Well, we would expect that they would stay there.' There is no designated reason in this legislation why they would stay there. The minister said exactly that. I am not trying to misinterpret what the minister said and I would be pleased if he would respond to it. Mr ROBERTSON: Under normal circumstances I would not respond, but I think that I need to put on record that I was giving, by way of example, something that may occur. Can I say that 806 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

there is no intention on my part and there is certainly no intention from anything that I have heard about the creation of a department of forestry. It was simply by way of an example of something that could happen. For all I know, it could actually be National Party policy to do that. So the member should not put words in my mouth that what I said will occur, because there is no suggestion that that is, in fact, the case. I am sorry to waste the time of the chamber on this, but I need to place on the record that should, for tactical, dishonest reasons, it go out into the community, there will be some changes afoot. Mr SEENEY: I am not trying to put words into the minister's— Mr Robertson interjected. Mr Rowell: You reinforced my concerns. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr Rowell: What did you say? Did you call me a fool? Did you say that? The CHAIRMAN: Order! I did not hear any such thing. I cannot respond to something that I did not hear. Mr SEENEY: I am not trying to put words in the minister's mouth; I am trying to get words out of the minister's mouth. I have asked the minister twice to indicate in this legislation the connection between this committee that we are trying to amend and the rural lands protection committee. The minister has referred to that in the media in an attempt to allay concerns that have been raised. I want to put it on the record that in this chamber I have asked twice for the minister to point to the legislation where that requirement is and twice the minister has refused to do so. I am not going to ask again. I just want to put it on the record. The CHAIRMAN: I suggest to the member for Callide that the minister has given a response. Mr ROBERTSON: I will give a very quick response. Mr SEENEY: He has not responded. That is the point. Mr ROBERTSON: I can give the member a very quick response. It is not contained in the act. It is a commitment that I gave to Agforce on Monday evening. I will be following up that commitment with a letter to Agforce about a reporting requirement from the state pest management committee to the new state pest— Mr Seeney: It's the same story. It's not in the act. We've got to take your word for it. The same story—it has been happening all day. It is not in the act. We have to take your word for it. Why don't you put it in the act? That is what the act is for. That is why we have an act. Mr ROBERTSON: I have just indicated that this was something that I thought would provide some certainty for the concerns raised by Agforce. They seemed satisfied with that suggestion that I put forward to them. As a result, I indicated to them that I would write to them that there would be such a reporting requirement. The reality is this: unless, of course, the National Party has a different policy, it would be foolish for any minister who comes after me to restrict a line of consultation that has been established by practice. If the National Party is suggesting that that is going to be part of their policy if it comes to government, it should say so now. Should the darkness ever return to Queensland, if the National Party is going to commit itself to retain that level of consultation, then it should say so now. Mr SEENEY: I make the point that we would put it in the act. We are responding to the minister. We would put it in the act where it should be. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has spoken three times to this clause. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 20—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 61—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bell, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Hollis, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 76, as read, agreed to. 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 807

Clause 77— Mr SEENEY (4.51 p.m.): I move amendment No. 4— 4. Clause 77— At page 50, lines 1 and 2— omit. Amendment No. 4 relates to clause 77, which sets out the obligations of landowners. There are five obligations listed in the bill. On my first reading of it, some of them caused me a little concern. I have had quite wide-ranging consultation with a number of people about the five obligations listed in clause 77. This amendment seeks to omit subclause (c). Clause 77 sets out the obligations of landowners with regard to taking reasonable steps to keep certain land free of class 1 and class 2 pests. The first is '(a) the owner's land'. That is fair enough. There is no question that that is the whole intent of the legislation. The second is '(b) unfenced land comprising part of a road or stock route that adjoins or is within the owner's land'. I had some concerns about this, especially with regard to the provisions of the bill relating to stock routes and some of the things that have been said about the future of the stock route network. I was prepared to accept it because it contains the key word 'unfenced'. Where stock route or road land is unfenced and is part of the land used by the landowner, the responsibility can appropriately be shifted from the state—the owner of that land—to the landowner. I can accept that. However, it is worthy of note in this debate that the responsibility is being shifted from the state to the private land-holder. The third is '(c) other land that is fenced in with the owner's land'. The same logic applies in that instance. Initially I had difficulty with this as well, but the same logic applies. Again, it is worthy of note in this debate that subclause (c) shifts responsibility for that land from the state—which presumably, and for all practical purposes, would be the owner—to the private landowner. That can be justified if the private landowner has the use of that land. Grey areas arise when the use of that land is restricted in some way. There are other provisions in the bill relating to stock routes that restrict the use of that land in that particular situation. I will not take up the time of the House by going through them all, otherwise we would end up in detailed discussion about the use of land in the situation where it is fenced in with other private land. It is suffice to say that in this situation the transfer of responsibility from the state to the private landowner is acceptable. The fourth is '(d) the bed, banks and water of a watercourse on the owner's land'. Once again, we are moving into some very difficult areas. This legislation is shifting responsibility, and it deals with the whole question of ownership—who owns what, what do you actually own when you are a landowner or a land-holder? A series of Natural Resources legislation has challenged the long-accepted norms of what a land-holder actually owns. Subclause (d) covers areas where it is easy to think of scenarios which could cause major problems for a land-holder caught in the situation of not knowing where his ownership begins and ends. I am also prepared to accept (d) as being appropriate because the same logic applies. Although it is not stated in (d), it is assumed and implied that the landowner has the unrestricted use of the bed, banks and water of a watercourse on the owner's land which he is being required to take responsibility for. If that is not the case—and I see the minister is shaking his head—then the minister is obliged to say so. That is the reason I have chosen not to seek to delete those first four subclauses. The last subclause, (e), is another matter altogether. It relates to 'the bed, banks and water to the centre-line of a watercourse forming a boundary, or part of a boundary, of the owner's land'. Those members who have been involved in land management issues know that this has been a much-debated topic for a long period of time. The argument about the actual boundary of a riparian landowner's land has, to my mind, never been satisfactorily resolved. The minister has an obligation to speak at length on this particular issue. The way this legislation is framed, that riparian land-holder—the land-holder who owns land of which the watercourse forms a boundary—has a responsibility to the centre-line of that watercourse, even if that watercourse is dry. The wording is 'bed, banks and water', so he has a responsibility for the water as well. In practical terms, that is a pretty big call, given that watercourses are probably the most effective transporter of weed pests and, to some extent, animal pests. Certainly watercourses are a great transporter of weed pests. If a landowner is being required to take responsibility for such a watercourse on the boundary of their land, then they really are taking a responsibility for 808 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

everything that happens in that watercourse. In fact, they are at the mercy of everything that happens further up the catchment, because the watercourse will invariably transport all of the problems from further up the catchment down to the particular area for which they are being given responsibility under this subclause. I believe that until this issue of exactly where a riparian land-holder's boundaries are is resolved subclause (e) is untenable. I do not believe that, on the one hand, we can have people arguing that a riparian land-holder does not have the right to the area between the high-water mark, for example, and the centre-line, which I have heard some people argue. I have heard other people argue that a riparian land-holder does not have the right to use the land from the high bank to the centre-line, however the high bank is described. There are other people who argue that they do not have the right of access between the low-water mark and the centre-line. However, under this legislation they are being required to take responsibility for plant and animal pests in that area. The minister has not been able to adequately describe who the owner of that land is and what rights a riparian land-holder has. It is one thing to accept the first four sections of this clause, which is what I have done in this amendment. I have sought to amend only the last section. It is the general understanding and the generally accepted norm now that the land- holder has an unfettered right to use those areas. That is under pressure in some instances, but I am prepared to let that go, because the land-holders in all of those cases have an unfettered right to use that area of land, be it on a stock route, an unfenced road or wherever. With respect to subclause (e), 'the bed, banks and water to the centre-line of a watercourse forming a boundary, or part of a boundary, of the owner's land' we are talking about a different situation. All toing-and-froing aside, there is a real obligation on the minister today to make sure that this issue is clearly explained to the parliament. Mr JOHNSON: I, too, wish to raise an issue with the minister in relation to clause 77, 'Obligation of landowners'. I draw the minister's attention, as the shadow minister has, to clause 77(1)(b), 'unfenced land comprising part of a road or stock route that adjoins or is within the owner's land'. I mentioned this yesterday in relation to national parks and stock routes. It seems that the owner adjoining that unfenced land will have to face up to the responsibility for eliminating pests in those area. Subclause (b), 'within the owner's land', and subclause (c), 'other land that is fenced in with the owner's land', seem contradictory. To me it seems that there are two subclauses covering one issue. Mr ROBERTSON: I might ask for further clarification of the point made by the member for Gregory. I will deal with the query of the member for Callide first, if the member for Gregory does not mind, and allow him to explain his later. The member for Callide raised the issue—as he has in relation to a previous act—of beds, banks and watercourses and asks where the authority comes from with respect to a land-holder's responsibilities for pest management in a watercourse. The authority comes from the Rural Lands Protection Act 1985. Nothing has changed in terms of the new act. Perhaps I can help the honourable member understand an act that has been in place since 1985. As a land-holder, I thought he probably would have read it. Section 80 states that the occupier of any private land who fails to control declared plants and animals on that land commits an offence against the act. Section 8 of the same act states that, for the purposes of part 5 division 2 subdivision 4, which is actually clause 80, the bed and banks to the centre-line of and the water to the centre-line of any non-tidal watercourse or, as the case may be, that part of the non-tidal watercourse as comprises any part of the boundaries of private land shall be deemed to be included in and to form part of such private land and shall be regarded as being owned and occupied as the case may be by the owner or occupier of the private land. That is where the authority comes from. Mr SEENEY: All toing-and-froing aside, as I said, this issue deserves something more than that flippant response. The minister knows as well as I do— Mr Robertson: This is the existing act. Mr SEENEY: I know that that act gives land-holders particular responsibilities. What I said before—and I apologise, Mr Chairman, for having to repeat it—and what the minister and his departmental officers know to be true is that the concept of ownership and unrestricted use of the area of land along a riparian watercourse is under challenge from a whole range of different points of view. If we are going to arrive at a situation where a riparian land-holder does not have the unrestricted use of that watercourse corridor, there will have to be a reconsideration of the act that the minister quoted from and a reconsideration of this clause if the minister carries this bill in 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 809

its current form. Even the minister could not argue that a land-holder should be responsible for the control of animal and weed pests on an area of land to which he does not have unrestricted and sole right of access. That is the concept I am asking the minister to consider. I will ask the question: does the minister believe that subclause (e), which I am trying to strike out of this clause, will ever put that responsibility on a land-holder such that a land-holder will be responsible for the control of animal and plant pests on an area of land in the riparian corridor to which he does not have unrestricted access and to which he does not have the sole right of access? It is a concept that the minister's department has to consider and come up with an answer to. Until he does that, I do not think he has any right to put up legislation like this, which does not address an issue that is out there. If the minister can give me an assurance that every riparian land-holder with a watercourse forming a boundary has an unrestricted and sole right of access to the centre line of the watercourse, I think this legislation is written in its correct form. But I do not think the minister can do that. If the legislation is to be carried in this form, there is an obligation on him to stand up in this parliament and either do that or explain to us why he cannot. This situation deserves a better response than the type of flippancy the minister just demonstrated. I am not trying to be smart or create a bit of toing-and-froing in the parliament. There is a time and a place for that, and it is not over this incredibly important issue to irrigators who rely on access to watercourses. This is an incredibly important issue to a range of groups, for example, groups of people who believe they should be public corridors and therefore should be open to access by the general public as recreation areas or whatever. It is an issue that has to be resolved. It should have been resolved for the purposes of this legislation. It deserves a better response. Mr ROBERTSON: I reiterate that what we have done is carry over the existing provisions that have been in place since 1985 in the former Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 into the current act which has been through an exhaustive public consultation process and, as a result of that, the existing provisions continue over. If the member wants to take a different policy position from that of the government, he is entitled to do so, but the decision made by the government has been to maintain the current responsibilities outlined in the 1985 act into the 2001 bill. Mr JOHNSON: I understand the minister was not quite clear on the issue I raised previously. The last part of clause 77(b) reads 'or is within the owner's land'. Subclause (c) states 'other land that is fenced in with the owner's land'. It seems to me to be a technicality, but both of those issues are within the owner's land. The property is inside a fenced area, anyway. Whether it is a stock route, a reserve, a special lease or whatever, it is still within the owner's land. It seems to me that there should be no need for subclause (c) and that it should be eliminated. Mr ROBERTSON: I am advised that the reason for having (b) and (c) is that (c) captures other land that is within the fenced area of a person's property. I am sure the honourable member is aware that there are occasions when land-holders, when constructing a fence, may be perhaps a little bit more liberal than the survey pegs may have allowed. As a result, some other land—it might be unallocated state land or it might be part of a road reserve—is captured within a fence. Mr Johnson: Are you talking about give and take? Mr ROBERTSON: If a farmer puts up a fence and it captures other land which, in normal circumstances he may not be entitled to, this section provides that he has a responsibility to look after that land. Mr Johnson: What they call give and take. Mr ROBERTSON: Yes. That is the differentiation as I understand it. Mr ROWELL: I would like to raise a couple of issues. We have been talking about stock routes. There is a responsibility on a person whose land adjoins an unfenced stock route to control weeds, pests and that sort of thing on that stock route. Would I be correct there? That is one question I want to ask. In the event that a person treats those pests—and there are very often some withholding periods for some of the chemicals that are used to treat weeds—and somebody happens to come through and use the stock route and there were some adverse effects on his stock, whose responsibility would that be? That is one issue. The next issue I want to raise concerns riparian areas along rivers, creeks and that type of thing. It is not quite clear exactly whose responsibility it is to clean up, say, salvinia weed, 810 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

hyacinth, hymenachne or something else in that creek. I am assuming that the creek acts as the boundary to two properties. Who determines whose responsibility it is to clean that up? If the creek comes from a timber reserve, a national park or something of that nature, and some of these pests are coming out of that area, is it the responsibility of the riparian landowner who may have a boundary adjoining another property to clean that up? The person involved may be the owner of both sides of the creek. Whose responsibility is it? Shortly we are going to go on to clause 78 and discuss the issue of the state's responsibilities. I am sure the minister is familiar with what we intend to talk about there. However, this is an important issue. If we have a non-conforming owner upstream—and I have to call him non-conforming for want of a better word—how do we go about dealing with that particular issue? Very often we could have a pest which is not a designated pest, such as panicum grass. We have silt islands building in creeks and, as a result, we have build-ups in creeks because of that grass growing there. As a result, we have a continual rise in the level of the bed of the creek or river. This type of situation has occurred in the Herbert River. Indeed, I have written letters to the minister about this particular issue. We have rivers which are now having major problems because of low flow capacity in relation to drainage. These sand islands have trees growing on them. Small trees become bigger trees. In one place in the Herbert River there is an island that covers probably about 70 acres. The growth on the island started as saplings and panicum grass, but then silt built up and the trees grew. We now have a major problem with this stream diverting as a result. These issues are very important. I have heard what the minister said about the previous act. He has taken a section from that act and dumped it into this one. I am not trying to hold the minister to something he has said. All I am saying is that that is what has happened. In the best interests of dealing with the problems that I have talked about, maybe there needs to be a more constructive mechanism of dealing with the problem. I do not believe we have done that. I believe that these issues are very important as far as clause 77 is concerned. Mr ROBERTSON: In the case of the extensive problem in the Herbert River to which the honourable member referred, I do not believe that the solution lies in this legislation because this is a complex set of actions which has occurred. If we went back to the start of the initial problem, this legislation gives us the ability to deal with it in terms of the initial weed infestation that causes the silting which causes the trees to grow. That problem has probably gone across a number of acts to the extent that the solution does not rely on serving land-holders, whoever they may be, with certain requirements to do things. It seems to me that the solution requires a cross-agency/cross-government/local government/land-holder collective to come together and come up with a solution to that particular problem. This legislation is not going to allow the honourable member to go back to Hinchinbrook and say, 'As a result of this, the river will now be cleaned up.' I believe the honourable member appreciates that. With regard to what exists in the current act in terms of where one draws a boundary in a watercourse and having it carried over to the current act, I do not want to particularly debate this because there is a philosophical discussion, I guess, to be had here if we want to change what has been past practice. I remember some months ago I was up in the member for Burnett's electorate and we were looking at one of the creeks that had been infested by water hyacinth. The issue that was brought to my attention there was that in fact the hyacinth can move. Depending upon which way the wind is blowing, the water hyacinth can appear on my bank on one day and my neighbour could say, 'Get DNR or the local government to come out and serve a notice on him to clean it out.' By the time they came out the wind could have changed and the water hyacinth is on the other side. How do we deal with a problem like that? We do not deal with it in terms of serving notices on people to clean it up. How we deal with it is by way of a collaborative effort, which is the basic philosophy of this bill. I know that we are going to get into a long debate about the serving of notices and what have you, but the basic philosophy behind this bill is identifying land-holders' responsibilities and the need for the development of strategies and plans that are implemented collaboratively—between state government, local government and individual land-holders. I think that is the secret for dealing 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 811

with the problem I have just outlined with hyacinth up in the Burnett, for example. One day it is on my side of the river and the next day it is on the other side of the river. We both put our hands up and all that happens is that water hyacinth infests the whole river. That is in nobody's interests. So what actually happens is that people from my department and people from the Burnett council get together with the land-holders and say, 'Everyone, we've got a problem here. How are we going to deal with it?' And by and large it works. That is day-to-day natural resource management. It in nobody's interests for government departments or local authorities to go around the place and serve notices on people to do something that is in effect impossible. It is like the hymenachne problem in north Queensland. We have had exchanges of letters about how we actually deal with it. If we wanted to act in accordance with the letter of the law in this case, we could go up to every cane grower who has riparian rights in a hymenachne-infested waterway and serve notice on them to clean it up. The member and I both know that would be impractical. We actually need a different solution that involves land-holders but also probably involves some new technology or some different approach to aerial spraying. I know that is a debate that is going on. I think that is the best way I can answer the member for Hinchinbrook in terms of the questions of riparian rights and what happens if someone upstream—I guess national parks is what the member is referring to—is not doing the right thing. There is an expectation under the local government management plan that if the national park is in that local government area it will abide by the provisions of that plan. There will be responsibilities on the EPA for that national park. The situation the member suggested will not occur. If it does occur, the local government has the ability to go to the EPA and say, 'Clean it up,' or engage in a broader community based effort to clean up that waterway. These are complex issues in relation to waterways, as we all know. That is why, in defence of carrying over that provision from the old act, I am not too sure it is in anyone's interests to change the current provisions that recognise land-holders' responsibilities out to the centre of a waterway for particular provisions. We had this debate when considering another bill only a couple of months ago. That provision has existed for a long time now. I appreciate that people may not understand it, but I do not think it is in anyone's interests to change it at this stage, unless the member has some other response that meets the needs of all interests—not just land-holders but all interests—in terms of protecting our waterways. Mr ROWELL: The point I make is that what has been done in the past has not been terribly effective. I know what is intended with this bill. I am just concerned about the state's involvement. That is why we are raising these issues. The other issue I raised related to stock routes and people's responsibility to get rid of weeds that are of some concern on a stock route. I asked about the residual effects relating to cattle that might be grazing on those areas and the withholding periods of certain chemicals. An owner might be doing the right thing but suddenly there is a lack of coordination with whoever might be having straying stock even on a stock route—using the stock route without a permit or using it with a permit. I ask a question about cattle that may be affected by that chemical. As I said, a lot of these chemicals have a withholding period which determines when it is safe to graze on them. The adjoining landowner, whether he is a lessee or whether he has a freehold title over the land which contains an unfenced stock route, has the responsibility because there are cattle going out there on that stock route. Very often you see grids and then no fences, and so it goes on. The minister knows how it works out in some of those western areas. What happens to the grazier who is doing the right thing but who might be affected by the fact that the withholding period had not been adhered to? He has no control over it, yet he is obligated to clean up the pest. I raise another issue relating to rivers and creeks. All we are saying is that whatever we have done in the past has not worked terribly well. If we are just going to use sections of the previous act to tidy the situation up, we have not really done anything, except that we hope in the future things will be better. I cannot see in the legislation sections that finally determine the state's responsibility as to the future of controlling pests and animal problems we have. In some of these riparian areas the problems are with not just the weeds; they also act as a conduit for wild pigs. I am a land-holder myself, and I know that very often there are mobs of pigs that travel up and down the creeks. They are areas that act as a conduit for the pigs to travel from one farm to another and from sugarcane field to sugarcane field. The minister talked about 812 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

spraying these. I do it myself because I want to keep the waterways clean, but my neighbour across the river might not necessarily want to do it. I cannot force him. I just go and do it on his behalf. But if it was considered by the local authority that I was not doing enough and I did not do it on behalf of both of us, then I could be held in contempt and I could have a notice served on me. That is the point I was making. Mr ROBERTSON: I will try to help the member with respect to the issue of stock routes. I am advised that if there is a need for chemical usage to clean up a stock route, for example endosulfan— Mr Rowell: You wouldn't be using endosulfan. Say gramoxone. Mr ROBERTSON: They would need to advise the local council in relation to that. That would enable the local council to advise the people who are moving the stock along the route. As the member knows, there are provisions in the bill with respect to notification of the local government for the movement of stock. It is a question of people acting responsibly, as it always is, about the usage of chemicals—when and how they are applied and the notification of, in this case, local authorities of the use of chemicals on the stock route. That notification would also allow the council to advise the land-holder who has the stock route next to his property or through his property not to do it this week because Jack from up the road will be passing by with his cattle in the next couple of days, or whatever the case may be. Amendment negatived. Clause 77, as read, agreed to. Clause 78— Mr SEENEY (5.28 p.m.): I move amendment No. 5— 5. Clause 78— At page 51, lines 3 to 12— omit. This amendment seeks to amend clause 78. As has been mentioned previously, clause 78 is the one that much of the debate, at both the second reading stage and the committee stage, has been centred around. Clause 78 puts into this bill the enforcement mechanism. That enforcement mechanism is known as a pest control notice. There are a number of amendments proposed to clause 78, but this first one proposes to omit lines 3 to 12 at page 51. Lines 3 to 12 at page 51 encompass clause 78(3), which allows a pest control notice to be issued against an animal or plant that is not a declared pest. That is a particularly dangerous provision in this legislation and is one that has caused a large degree of concern within the community. I will start from the beginning of clause 78. A pest control notice can be issued by the issuing entity if provisions of this legislation are not being met. It is, as I said, the mechanism that the issuing entity uses to enforce the provisions of this legislation, which is all about controlling declared pests, both animal and plant. When we get to subclause (3), the power to issue a pest control notice and the power to force people to comply with this legislation has been extended to species of animals and plants that are not declared pests. It has been extended to species of animals and pests that are not declared pests for environmental reasons. Subclauses (3) (a) and (b) define a number of situations where pest control notices can be issued against animals and plants that are not declared pests. I will not go through this because I assume that everybody understands the process of declaring pests. This subclause allows that enforcement mechanism to be applied against any plant or animal species for environmental purposes and reasons. Subclause (a) allows a pest control notice to be applied to animals and plants that are not declared pests if 'the land for which the notice is given is, or is in or adjacent to, an environmentally significant area'. The clause goes on to give the definition of an 'environmentally significant area' and contains seven separate definitions. If a land-holder has one of these areas on their property or if they are adjacent to one of these areas or adjacent to another property that includes one of these areas, they can find themselves in a situation where a pest control notice can be issued against any animal or plant species on their land—that is, any animal or plant species that is not a declared pest. It is a major departure from the intent of this legislation. It appears to me that this particular subclause has been thought of by somebody as a good idea and inserted in the legislation, but it is a major departure from the intent of the legislation. It is a dangerous departure, because it allows somebody in the future to take action against a land-holder for so-called environmental 10 Apr 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 813

reasons to issue pest control notices for a whole range of plant and animal species that could easily be the basis of that land-holder's business. The way this particular section of the legislation is worded it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a pest control notice could be issued on somebody's cattle or sheep. It is certainly within the realms of possibility that those pest control notices could be issued on commercial pasture plants such as luceana or buffel grass. The legislation clearly allows that to happen if it is decided that those particular species somehow threaten an environmentally significant area. Subclause (b)(ii) doubles the concern that anyone would have after reading this particular proposal. It says that the issuing entity is able to issue this pest control notice if it is satisfied that the animal or plant 'is affecting, or is likely to affect, the area's capacity to sustain natural processes'. That is probably as broad a statement as I can imagine. In terms of the practicalities of natural resource management, that basically means whatever the authorised person enforcing this legislation likes. It is up to them. Anything could be seen as affecting or likely to affect the area's capacity to sustain natural processes. That is an absolutely open door. It is an absolutely blank cheque to any particular officer with a personal agenda or a personal philosophy to misuse this legislation. The part of subclause (ii) that worries me the most are the words 'or is likely to'. Those words mean that it does not even have to be occurring. It basically means that in the officer's opinion or in the issuing entity's opinion it is likely to happen. That is repeated right through subclause (3). It says that the issuing entity can issue these pest control notices if it is satisfied the animal or plant 'is threatening, or is likely to threaten, the survival of native wildlife in the area' and 'is affecting, or is likely to affect, the area's capacity to sustain natural processes'. This section of the legislation is simply unacceptable and the amendment I moved simply seeks to omit it. It has no place in this legislation simply because it does not deal with declared pests, and that is the purpose of this legislation—that is, to deal with declared pests. We support the basic thrust of this legislation in that it attempts to modernise the regime of management of those declared pests in Queensland, but this section of the legislation appears, as I said, to have been inserted at the last hour because it was somebody's good idea. It broadens the legislation. It takes the practical effect of this legislation into a whole new area. It takes the legislation into an area where there are a large number of scenarios that would frighten anyone who likes to think about them. It is simply unacceptable to allow a situation to exist where commercially important species—be they commercially important animal species or commercially important plant species or pasture species—can somehow be the subject of pest control notices, where somebody can decide that buffel grass is a pest and issue a notice or luceana, a very valuable fodder plant, can be described as a pest and have a pest control notice issued against it. With the way the legislation is written, it is not out of the question that commercially important animal species such as cattle and sheep can be the subject of pest control notices in certain areas. It is just too dangerous. As I said earlier in the debate, this legislation will be around for a long time after the assurances we get in this parliament are forgotten. But this legislation has to be right. It cannot be right with this clause included in it. Time expired. Mr ROBERTSON: Before responding to the honourable member, I should advise that, because of the hour, if this debate was to continue into tomorrow, I will not be present after question time because I will be attending a ministerial council meeting with the Murray-Darling. So I will be leaving parliament after question time. Mr Seeney: You had best adjourn the debate to another day then so we can continue. Mr ROBERTSON: That is the option I am giving those opposite. I am just alerting them to that fact. I am giving them the choice—that is, if they want to conclude the debate by six or continue. As they have clearly indicated that they want to continue, we will set it down for next week. I am just trying to do the right thing by those opposite. The honourable member should look at the first part of 78(2)(c). First, it provides— Also, the notice may require the owner to take within the compliance period stated reasonable action against an animal or plant that is not a declared pest... Once again, the reasonableness test applies in terms of how that clause would be implemented under the new act. Again, having listened to the concerns of groups such as Agforce, I am not of a mind to accept the member's amendment to provide certainty instead of the use of the words 'may' and 'stated reasonable action'. To that end, I have committed the chief executive of my 814 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 10 Apr 2002

department, my director-general, to developing a guideline, that is, a standard operating procedure, to cover the use of this provision. I am aware of some land-holders' concerns—and Agforce enunciated them—that some exuberant officers may not act in a reasonable fashion. That is a reasonable concern, but I do not think it could be extended to the point of deleting, taking away or amending this provision. That is why, in listening to the concerns of land-holders, I have asked my director-general to develop a guideline or a standard operating procedure. The development of this standard operating procedure will include consultation with the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Council. We will actually have input into the development of that SOP from the very groups that are expressing concern. A notice under this clause must be accompanied by information about the decision to issue the notice, and the issuing of a pest control notice is appealable to the magistrates court. The land-holder, if aggrieved by a notice that has been served on him or her that contains the provisions of subclause (3), has the ability to appeal that notice to the magistrates court. Nevertheless, we believe that this provision is important. It is not meant to operate or be seen to operate in a way that penalises people who are trying to do the right thing. However, there are occasions when a land-holder has to clean up class 1 and class 2 pests and it makes sense to clean up a third class of pest plant or animal that is threatening environmentally sensitive land at the same location. That is triggered only at the time a notice is served for class 1 and class 2 pests. It does not operate in its own right. For example, if a land-holder is situated next to a national park and a bit of buffel grass is found in the boundaries or in the area of a national park, that is not sufficient reason for an officer to serve a notice. A precondition for cleaning up a bit of buffel grass is the appearance of a class 1 and a class 2 pest in that national park. It is assessed that this applies only in rare circumstances, with the caveats contained in subclause (3) wherein it is not something that will always occur or will always have to occur. At the end of the day, the land-holder has the ability to appeal against the serving of such a notice. Mr SEENEY: I take it from the minister's response that he is obviously struggling to justify the inclusion of subclause (3). I am pleased that the minister is aware of the level of concern expressed in the community. It would be advantageous in terms of allaying that concern for the minister to use some examples to illustrate in what circumstances he thinks this type of provision could be used, because I am struggling to think of any situations in which this type of pest control notice could be used legitimately. I would like the minister to provide the parliament with some examples of circumstances in which he thinks this provision would allow pest control notices to be issued in relation to animal and plant species that are not declared pests, because that is important. When the minister spoke before he seemed to indicate that these other species were pests. If that were the way the act was written, the land-holding community and I would not be so worried, but, as I have said, that is not the way the act is written. I accept that that is probably the way it has been explained to the minister, and from what the minister has said tonight that is his intent, but that is not the way the act is written. The act allows the pest control notices to be issued in relation to any species of plant or animal. Whether or not it is considered a pest, whether or not it has commercial value and whether or not it is important commercially to the land-holder, a species that is not a pest and could not possibly be regarded as a pest can be subject to one of these pest control notices. It is obvious that the minister will not accept my amendment. Given the political reality of the numbers in this place, this will become law. However, it would assist not just me but all the other people who have expressed concern about this issue if the minister could give some examples of when he believes that this provision could be used legitimately and when he believes that its use would not be legitimate. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The question is that Mr Seeney's amendment be agreed to— Mr SEENEY: No, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I am putting the question. Mr SEENEY: I am waiting for the minister to respond. The CHAIRMAN: He is under no obligation, as he has already given an answer. I am going to put the amendment. 10 Apr 2002 Crime Statistics 815

Mr SEENEY: I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. If the minister chooses not to respond, I still have another chance—as does every member of the opposition. We do not lose that option simply because the minister chooses not to respond. The CHAIRMAN: The minister has responded. I do not understand what the point of order is. I would suggest that the member's 15 minutes on this amendment has expired. I will check Hansard, but I bet that it has. Members of parliament have a responsibility to behave properly and not to filibuster. Mr SEENEY: I take offence at that assertion. I have asked the minister to provide this parliament with some examples, and he has chosen not to do so. If the minister has chosen not to do so, I get another chance. That is well within my rights. The CHAIRMAN: There is also standing order 141, which provides that members are not allowed to be tedious and repetitious. Mr ROWELL: I just seek a point of clarification. There is also another amendment to this clause. The CHAIRMAN: There are two more amendments to this clause. Mr ROWELL: Does that entitle us to speak again? The CHAIRMAN: There are two more. If this one fails, there is another one. You would not know this, minister, but there is another one. There are two more amendments to this clause, which gives the members every opportunity to keep on debating this clause. I was not being difficult at all. There are two more amendments to this clause. I am just putting that amendment. The minister did not wish to respond to what was said. He is not obliged to respond. I thought that it was pretty fair for me to suggest that I put that amendment. Nobody else got up, and I am entitled to do that. You are entitled to speak for another five minutes. I remind the member for Callide of standing order 141. Mr ROWELL: Mr Chairman, I seek clarification to ensure that, while you are putting this amendment, it does not relate to the closure of any other involvement on this clause in terms of the other amendments. I just seek clarification. The CHAIRMAN: I am just putting the one amendment. There are two more amendments to this clause. I have not put this clause. So I am not taking any right from any member in this chamber. Mr SEENEY: Mr Chairman, I do not intend to take five minutes and I do not intend to repeat anything that I have said. I believe that you cannot assume what I am going to say before I stand up. I just want to put on record the fact that the minister has been given the opportunity to demonstrate to this chamber his intent regarding this clause and he has failed to do so. That needs to be on the record so that people who read this debate can appreciate the fact that the opportunity was given to the minister to explain how this particular clause should operate in justifying his non-acceptance of my amendment, and he has chosen not to do that. The CHAIRMAN: I will now put the amendment. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 18—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 60—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bell, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Hayward, Hollis, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Progress reported.

CRIME STATISTICS Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.57 p.m.) I move— That this Parliament believes the community should be able to access data on crime rates in their local areas and therefore calls on the Minister for Police to reverse his decision yesterday that ended the practice of providing Members of Parliament with crime statistics for individual police divisions which now means suburban breakdowns will not be available to the public. 816 Crime Statistics 10 Apr 2002

I do so because I am genuinely concerned that the practice that the government had in the past was an open one and it allowed members of parliament, through the avenue of asking questions on notice, to ask for details about crime statistics within their areas and to use those details as provided by the minister in terms of working with Neighbourhood Watch groups and the police consultative committees for the betterment of the community in general. The fact that the minister has said that he will no longer allow those statistics to be given out in answer to a question on notice sends a real shiver of alarm through members of parliament, particularly those on this side. After all, we have had a longstanding convention in this House that those statistics are provided to members of parliament. In fact, for quite a considerable period we have been applying and getting those crime statistics for areas such as Cairns, Townsville, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. In the past we have had cooperation from the minister, but that cooperation has been withdrawn and we now have to refer to the annual report, which does not give those statistics in the form of the breakdown that we require. This is not an onerous task. For the minister to say—if he does say it—that it uses valuable police resources is just a nonsense argument. Those statistics are collated as a matter of process within the department, and to allow members of parliament access to those statistics requires only the pressing of a computer button, then out they come and they are tabled in the House. So this change has nothing to do with police resources, it has nothing to do with the wastage of money; it is simply a fact of whether or not the government wants to allow these statistics to be released. If those statistics are not released, if the minister is going to maintain his position, then this is just another step down the path to the secret state. The government is locking up information, refusing to allow it to be accessed by members of parliament and the public in general. It is putting a cloak of secrecy around the real crime rates in this state and how they impact upon local areas. Over the past four years under this government, crime has increased by about 17 per cent. Of course, we do not know in which suburbs the larger increases have been. The intention of this motion is to ask the minister to comply with the previous convention and supply those statistics. It is regrettable that this motion has to be moved in the House to force the government to answer a question on notice. How regrettable is it when a motion has to be moved in the House to highlight the minister's actions. He is refusing to supply statistics which are available quite easily from within his own department. One can only assume that this is bringing down the veil of secrecy even tighter over the government of Queensland. In fact, it is an act of breathtaking arrogance and typical of a government which has a huge 66-seat majority in this House. This government thinks it can overturn a convention or process which has been in existence for quite some time, and refuse to provide those statistics. In the past, we have had access to these figures. In May last year those figures were provided to the member for Caloundra when she asked about crimes reported for each station area within the Sunshine Coast district. What did she receive? A 20-page print-out—which is very easy to supply—listing station by station the statistics for homicides, murders, assaults, break and enters, and so on! As I said, this is nothing new or novel. It has been an ongoing scenario for quite some time. In fact, prior to the change of government, these statistics could be accessed through the Parliamentary Library. Any member of parliament could go to the library and ask for the statistics for the police stations in their electorate. The library staff would ring up the Police Service, access the material and out it would come. This is not secret material. It has been available for many, many years. For the government to say now that it will not provide them and that we should go to the annual report where the figures are simply listed by region is a backward step from being open about the crime rates and where they are occurring throughout Queensland. In fact, opposition members are not the only ones who were receiving these statistics. Even Labor Party members were receiving them. The blanket censure on releasing these statistics now will, of course, apply to everyone. However, if a member of the government really wants them, do members really think the minister will not supply them? That will still apply. The only people who will be disadvantaged by this new rule brought into the House by the minister are the non- government members. It is just a way of preventing members on this side of the House from accessing statistics we have had access to for quite some time and working with their communities to identify problem areas and putting in place the necessary responses with the local community, Neighbourhood Watch and the police consultative committee to work out solutions. 10 Apr 2002 Crime Statistics 817

It is a pretty straightforward motion and it is regrettable that we have had to move it, because it really highlights the actions of this government. This would never have occurred if the minister was responsible enough to understand why the statistical breakdown is needed and to act in an open and accountable manner. The fact that he is not says that this government is trying to hide the rates of crime in a particular area. I think I have covered the issue fairly well. It is not a long and involved debate; it is simply a matter of whether the government wants to continue with the protocol which has been in place. The fact that it does not means that it has something to hide and is not willing to be open and accountable. This is just another step down the path of the secret state agenda. The government has tightened up the FOI process to make it impossible to obtain information unless the application is from a large multinational company. Now there is this process of refusing to answer a question on notice when the material is available at no undue cost to the Police Service. It is simply a matter of the minister not wanting to release it. By doing this, he has said, 'No, I refuse to release the information.' No reason is given, it is simply a blanket no. That is not acceptable in this day and age. The minister cannot simply buck the requirement to be open and accountable all the way down the line. To wind back a practice which has been in place for some time is unbelievably arrogant and a sign that this government really does not care whether or not it is open and accountable. This is simple; it is easy. Every member of this parliament should be supporting this motion. It is what has happened in the past, it is nothing new. It is not a step into the brave new world, it is simply asking the minister to provide the relevant information. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (6.07 p.m.): I rise to second this motion. In doing so, I will make comment on the minister's amendment which has just been circulated in the chamber. It really is quite a nonsense! It is just the status quo. Part of the amended motion will read— That this parliament believes that the community should be able to access data on crime rates in the local areas and notes that the Queensland Police Service annual statistical review is the mechanism already established for this purpose. That is exactly what this motion is about, the fact that the figures are not broken down in the annual statistical review. If a person wants to find out the exact crime statistics for their police station—be it Maroochydore, Kawana, Caloundra, Boondall, City, Fortitude Valley, or wherever—they will not be available because the statistics are done for police areas. It is an insult for the minister to move that amendment in the parliament. It is just exactly what is now happening and what this motion seeks to overturn. Until the recent ruling by the minister—from the answers to our questions on notice, I assume it is a ruling—this information could be obtained by asking a question on notice or from the Parliamentary Library. In fact, as the member for Robina has said, in May last year I obtained all of this information about my own area. It is important that members can see this change or this shift. I would like to mention a few that have occurred. The state has experienced a 17 per cent increase in crime since Mr Beattie took office in 1998. In the Sunshine Coast police region alone there was a 6.1 per cent increase in crime for the 12 months to June 2001. Total offences have jumped from 25,908 to 27,501. As I mentioned, in the past we have been able to get figures not just for a statistical division but for our own police station area from either a question on notice or from the library. It is important to be able to say to our electorates whether crime has either decreased or increased and whether more focus needs to be put into an area. The police have those figures. Obviously, they try to act on them despite the limited resources they have under this minister. This government is supposed to be supporting community connections and interaction with the police. If we are to tell community groups that we want their help and support, they need to know what the local problems are. They are not particularly interested in the statistics for the wider statistical region, because that might not apply to their area. It needs to be confirmed that the community crime partnerships that we in the coalition put in place, and which have been funded for only a further few months by the Premier, will continue to operate and receive funding. I have done a lot of research in my area and the whole Sunshine Coast in relation to this issue. All of the local councils that are part of the community partnerships, the police and other groups involved—and we are not talking about political parties here, we are talking about good community people—have said that this is a very cheap way for the government to get community help and accurate information about what is happening in the 818 Crime Statistics 10 Apr 2002

community, and that for the amount it is costing the service is well worth it. It should continue to be funded, and I am sure, Mr Speaker, you would like to see it in your area. As late as 8 April, I received an answer to a further question on notice I put to the minister asking for the crime statistics on a station basis for the Boondall, Brisbane City, Ferny Grove, Fortitude Valley and Hendra districts since 1998-99. I received the answer upon which this motion is based. I was told that we could go to the statistical document sent out, that a copy of the 2000-01 review was attached for my information, and that I could get the information from the web site. I know that I can get that information on the web site. However, I want much more detailed information than that. The minister cannot tell me that in relation to the Brisbane City station or Fortitude Valley station, which I would imagine are both within the electorate of the Premier, the Premier cannot get that information, if he wants it; that the member for Ferny Grove cannot get the information; that the member for Clayfield cannot get information about Hendra; and that the member for the electorate covering the Boondall station cannot get that information. They are all Labor Party areas. I would bet my bottom dollar that they can get that information if they want it. We in the opposition cannot. This is another example of secrecy by this government, of its not giving the facts to the people and of using them only for itself when it is politically advantageous to do so. Time expired. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (6.12 p.m.): I move the following amendment— Omit all words after 'and' and insert the following— 'notes that the Queensland Police Service Annual Statistical Review is the mechanism already established for this purpose. Further, that this Parliament endorses the State Government's resolve to put more police back on the beat to fight crime and safeguard the Queensland community, as opposed to having them tied up with administrative tasks.'.

It is my view that it would be totally inappropriate misuse of Police Service resources for ... staff to be tasked with extracting and collating information in the detailed way specified and I am sure the people of Queensland would share my view that police time is better spent policing our state. They are not my words, they are the words of Russell Cooper, the police minister in the government of which the member for Robina was a leading minister. Mr Cooper was responding to a number of questions on notice that sought a range of statistics about the Police Service. They were not my words, they were the words of the former colleague of members opposite. This is a hypocrisy that we are confronted with day after day from members opposite. This government is committed to putting more police on the beat in Queensland communities. At the last election we promised that a re-elected Beattie government would fund an additional 300 police officers per year. That is what we promised and that is what we are delivering. This Labor government is about putting more police on the beat than any other government in the history of Queensland. On the one hand, opposition members come into this place or run to the media and whine about the lack of police numbers and resources, yet they moved this motion tonight which in effect places further burdens on the resources of the Police Service and which would be better spent if diverted to fighting crime on the streets. It takes the department about 11 person-hours to answer these sorts of questions. If that is what the Leader of the Liberal Party wants us to do tonight, I will do it. But they should not come into this place day after day or rush to the media complaining about the lack of resources on the streets. We will give members opposite what they want, but they should not come back into this place bleating about the lack of resources. I remind the parliament that the Leader of the Liberal Party tabled a petition in this parliament calling upon this government to take seriously the issue of law and order and immediately provide more police for the Gold Coast. I would prefer to have the police on the streets of the Gold Coast than sitting behind a desk responding to these sorts of questions. Everywhere I travel around the state people raise the issue of more police, more police stations and more police youth clubs. This government is increasing police numbers and we have backed this up by delivering successive record budgets to the Queensland Police Service. I am also pursuing the civilianisation of non-police roles to free up more police and to ensure that they are out on the streets serving the people of Queensland. 10 Apr 2002 Crime Statistics 819

All of these measures will mean that we have more police on the streets to fight crime, where I believe the average member of the public expects them to be. If members opposite want to keep using police resources to generate crime statistics that will be used only to further their own political interests, they should say so. But they should stop complaining that we do not have enough police on the streets in their electorate. Under successive governments police have released an annual statistical review which details crime rates right across this state. If we were trying to keep crime rates a secret, would we fund a public document each year detailing the crime rates throughout Queensland communities? In line with our Smart State approach we have even made them accessible over the Internet, making them available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to the people of our state. The question on notice which prompted this motion from the members for Robina and Caloundra requested information about the crime rates in the Boondall, Brisbane City, Ferny Grove, Fortitude Valley, Hendra, Indooroopilly, Petrie and Sandgate divisions and the Oxley, Wynnum and South Brisbane districts. All of these crime statistics are provided in great detail on pages 102 to 132 in this year's statistical review. Let me assure this House that we have no interest at all in keeping these figures secret. Time expired. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (6.17 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of this amendment and am absolutely stunned at the gall of the opposition and its hypocritical attempts to score cheap political points. This is not about a secret state agenda or a government withholding information from those sitting opposite. We are a committed, open and accountable government. Under successive governments police have annually released a statistical review which details crime rates right across Queensland. It is available in hard copy to anyone who requests it and, in line with our Smart State agenda, it is even on the Internet. It seems that Mr Quinn and his colleagues are simply too lazy to look up this information. I doubt that anyone in this parliament would condone the wasting of taxpayers' money because of the laziness of those opposite. Mr Quinn and Mrs Sheldon recently asked questions on notice about the crime rates in the Boondall, Brisbane City, Ferny Grove, Fortitude Valley, Hendra, Indooroopilly, Petrie and Sandgate divisions, and the Oxley, Wynnum and South Brisbane districts. All of these crime statistics are provided in great detail, as the minister said, on pages 102 to 132 in this year's statistical review. There is not one of those areas for which crime rates are not available. How short Mr Quinn's memory is. I refer members to Hansard question on notice No. 1092 from 1997 in which the member for Kurwongbah asked the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Racing a series of questions with reference to the issue of police numbers in the Petrie police division. This is an understandable question from a concerned member of parliament. The then police minister of the then coalition government, of which the member was a part, answered— In relation to your question regarding Police Budgets, I refer you to Standing Order No 68 and express my disappointment that your question clearly does not meet the spirit of the Order in that it would require significant allocation of time by officers throughout the State to collate the information sought. It is my view that it would be a totally inappropriate misuse of Police Service resources for departmental staff to be tasked with extracting and collating information in the detailed way specified and I am sure the people of Queensland would share my view that police time is better spent policing our state. In this, I must concur with the then minister. This was not an isolated incident of a number of Labor parliamentarians asking similar questions that day and receiving the same answer. I would ask: why is it now appropriate for members of the Liberal Party to demand that statistics be compiled for them, draining police resources and taking police staff away from valuable other tasks to fulfil their political agenda? The honourable member's current spat with the National Party, with the resultant temporary estrangement, does not absolve him from the coalition's previous position. I am stunned at such hypocrisy from those sitting opposite. I think most members would feel nothing but disgust at the fact that we are wasting even more time on this debate. What makes this debate even more hypocritical is the number of questions raised by Mr Quinn's colleagues in opposition late last year targeting the amount of paperwork conducted by police officers. There he sits, with a straight face, asking police officers to spend their time and taxpayers' money using reams of paper and generating statistics which are already available in the most comprehensive and digestible fashion in our annual statistical review. 820 Crime Statistics 10 Apr 2002

Last year's CJC report into the impact of information technology on police practices said that the Queensland Police Service had been under tremendous internal and external pressure to provide a state-of-the-art system that satisfies legislative and watchdog requirements; is transparent for accountability and auditing purposes; and provides accurate and up to date statistics to external and internal user groups. Constant and unrealistic requests for statistics, such as those made by the opposition, are part of that external pressure. I have no doubt that the Queensland Police Service is well equipped to handle the pressures of the information age, and accurate information is vital to ensuring the transparency of today's police service. We are providing substantial funds for information technology improvements, not the least of which is $7 million in the 2001-02 budget for the QPS desktop replacement project to provide the service with modern and up-to-date computer equipment. However, no matter what technological advances are made, demands for statistics such as those made by the members for Robina and Caloundra place unnecessary demands on the Queensland Police Service. I do not know about members opposite, but I would certainly rather see my taxpayer dollars being spent on putting more police on the streets and not on wasting valuable police resources generating statistics which are readily available. I call on the Leader of the Liberal Party to take the issuing of policing seriously and stop wasting time on political grandstanding. I would like to comment that obviously the Liberal Party has caught the National Party disease of the tactical lie. In the motion moved, there is a significant difference between police divisions and suburbs. I would like to highlight that the Cleveland police division includes the suburbs of Cleveland, Ormiston, Thornlands, Victoria Point, Redland Bay, the five southern bay island group and Alexandra Hills. To try and suggest that suburban information can be divulged along with police division information is just another tactical lie by the members opposite. I commend the amendment to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.23 p.m.): I rise to support the motion that was moved by the member for Robina. In doing so I must say that I have listened to the comments of both the minister and the member for Redlands. I find it difficult to understand that the information that generally members of parliament ask for is not already collated by police or by administrative staff within the station. They would be called upon to provide fairly detailed breakdowns of crime statistics for each of the stations because of the staffing module requirements for statistical information from the regional station for the assistant commissioner to pass through to Brisbane. This would allow authorities in Brisbane to have a detailed breakdown of not only the number of crimes committed but the types of crimes as well. I find it very difficult to believe that the breakdowns that we, as members of parliament, ask for are not already provided as a matter of management of the police force. We represent our communities and, in many instances, we are asking questions about crime statistics so that we can help our communities. We are asking the questions on behalf of members of our communities. That information can be used very positively. It can be used to enhance a sense of safety in the community; that is, the success rate of police in our area. I know that, on occasions, the minister has issued quite significant press releases about the solving of crime and police success rates. This information can be used to increase the confidence of the community in policing. It can be used to increase the confidence of the community in the adequacy of police numbers. Negatively, I know, we can use it to look at response times to crime, but we do not need the statistics to do that. We can get that information from community feedback and anecdotal evidence of when police were called. Because more critical or more important incidents have occurred, police may have to respond to a break and enter report by saying, 'We will come out tomorrow or the day after.' We do not need the statistics for that sort of negativity. With this information we can also plot the types of crimes and their increases in certain areas. That can be used to, perhaps, lobby for more particular types of police officers—whether it is JAB, the Dog Squad, water police or whatever. Members of parliament do not ask for this sort of information all the time. We do not ask for it on a weekly or monthly basis. It would be asked for on a spasmodic basis in order to allow us to keep track of how things are going in our electorates. The police division of Gladstone extends beyond the boundaries of my electorate. It is partially contained in the electorates of Burnett and Callide. To some extent, it would be misleading to all three of our electorates to be asking for the statistics only for the division when more specific and targeted information can be made available. 10 Apr 2002 Crime Statistics 821

I heard the minister say that it was a diversion of police resources. To my mind, much of the work that would be required to be done would be undertaken, as I said, as a matter of management and as a matter of administrative course, and therefore it would be done by administrative staff. I do not really understand the core reason for the minister's refusal. That information does not compromise police activities. I do not believe that any government—I do not care of what persuasion—should be concerned that the true nature of crime and the patterning of crime would emerge publicly. The fact that people know where certain types of crimes are occurring means that community policing can be enhanced. If there are a lot of break and enters, it means that groups such as neighbourhood watch can be commenced. This can only be done if people know that there has been an increased incidence of break and enters, property crime and perhaps assaults on elderly people living on their own. When that information is made available to the community, citizens can voluntarily address those issues in a community sense. They can institute a stronger neighbourhood watch. They can look out for their elderly neighbours more effectively. The reality is that in a lot of cities we do not meet our neighbours, let alone care about them. In many instances, those statistics can be used very positively to enhance police work, not to detract from it. I have talked to the minister and I have raised in this House the question of increased police presence. I particularly refer to the police station at Boyne/Tannum and other police stations in my electorate. I would not support this motion if I genuinely felt that adhering to requests by local members would be particularly onerous. The rate of requests is not high. The repetition of requests is not high. It is reasonable for members of parliament to have a breakdown on a statistical basis for their areas, and I commend the motion. Time expired. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (6.28 p.m.): I rise to support the amendment to this motion. From the outset, it think it is important to state the absurdity of the member for Robina calling for this debate. If Mr Quinn wants crime statistics, they are readily available in the Queensland Police Service annual statistical review, a public document which is compiled each year for the express purpose of providing easy access to these figures. Surely, if this government was trying to keep crime rates a secret we would not fund a public document each year detailing the crime rates throughout Queensland communities. In line with our Smart State approach, we have even made it accessible over the Internet. I am proud to be part of a Labor government which places its priority on getting police officers out there on the streets protecting our community. To this effect, the Queensland government has resolved to put more police back on the beat where they are needed to fight crime and safeguard Queenslanders. Queensland police numbers are continuing to grow at a record rate. The government is determined to reach the target of 9,100 serving police by 2005, and we will continue to provide funding so that we can have a net growth of police numbers by 300 serving officers each year. The last coalition Liberal-National government in Queensland promised 695 police, but increased numbers by only 437. That is the coalition's record on increasing police numbers. It seems that members opposite have not learned from their mistakes of yesteryear. What they are saying today in effect is that they do not want police on the beat. They would rather see them behind a desk, churning out statistics. What they are saying is that they do not want us to spend our $870 million record budget funding for our police wisely. They would rather see resources drained and time wasted for police to compile statistics which are already available in the best possible form in the statistical review. I am thinking that the member for Robina is a bit confused on this issue. Is he not the same person who constantly whinges about our approach to law and order? These backward priorities never cease to amaze me. For the sake of a lesson in good government, let me inform the parliament about our priorities and how we are delivering our law and order for the people of Queensland. In this financial year the Queensland government has allocated the largest police budget in history, with an increase of 8.6 per cent on the previous year to a record $870 million. In addition to this funding boost, the government is committed to having a Police Service in the Smart State utilising smart spending. Queensland has the highest proportion of civilian employees of all the states and territories. This is because we want to see our police officers on the beat, not stuck behind a desk doing a job a civilian could be doing. The use of civilian employees for administrative and other non-operational duties creates substantial savings. The QPS plans to introduce an extra 60 civilian employees in 2001-02. 822 Crime Statistics 10 Apr 2002

Not only are we providing extra police; we are ensuring they have the best possible resources. To this end we are building and upgrading police stations right across the state, with north Rockhampton, Mount Isa, Roma, Albany Creek, Maryborough, Stafford and South Kolan all benefiting, just to name a few places. We are building six new police beats and four new shopfronts this year and we are ensuring that more police than ever before are patrolling local streets. In fact, a new police beat will be officially opened in my electorate of Mount Ommaney in May as a result of my lobbying after the coalition closed the Oxley station. The Beattie government is also committed to providing funding for initiatives which streamline procedures for police, boosting efficiency and allowing police to make the most of their time and taxpayers' money. Members opposite could play a valuable role in offering their cooperation towards our efforts to improve policing in Queensland. Instead, they choose to play politics and waste the parliament's time. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (6.32 p.m.): I enter the debate to support the motion moved by the member for Robina and seconded by the member for Caloundra. In doing so, I cannot help but comment on what the minister and previous members of the government have said. The minister has moved an amendment which states in part— ... the community should be able to access data on crime rates in their local areas ... We agree with that precisely, because that is what the motion of the member for Robina states. The local community ought to be able to gain access to local crime data. That is what it is about. The second part of the first paragraph of the minister's amendment states— ... notes that the Queensland Police Service Annual Statistical Review is a mechanism already established for this purpose. That is wrong. The information requested by the member for Robina in his motion is not available in the statistical review. Members ought to have a look at it. If it is available, then the government should tell the member for Greenslopes. In December last year he asked a question specifically on this issue. He asked a question about the divisions of Coorparoo, Camp Hill and Holland Park. He wanted information about the trends. Guess what? In December 2001 the information was provided. There was no question about the information being impossible to get and no suggestion that providing an answer would take substantial police resources out of the areas of Camp Hill and Coorparoo and into administrative duties. The minister did not say that then. The minister provided the information. Let us look at what the minister provided in the answer. The answer states at the bottom, 'Statistical Services, Information Resource Centre'. The police have it all set up. All we have to do to see that is look at this answer. It is a print-out of what is in the database. Providing those individual station figures requires no effort whatsoever on the part of the Police Service. What the minister and the members for Redlands and Mount Ommaney said is simply nonsense. Their argument is completely refuted by the minister's answer to the member for Greenslopes in December 2001. If their argument is right, why did the member for Greenslopes have to ask the question? He is a member of the government, yet he had to ask the question. The government is condemned by its own members because the minister provided for them precisely what the member for Robina has requested in this particular motion. Some of the information is simply incomparable. For example, part of the question asked by the member for Robina earlier related to the statistical division of Indooroopilly. I can tell members that we cannot compare the annual report of 1999-2000 with that of 2000-01. The reason is that the boundaries were changed. Even if we wanted to believe what the minister said, which was totally wrong, we cannot do any comparison. No-one can tell what has happened within the Indooroopilly statistical district because the boundaries have been changed and no valid comparisons can be made. The members for Mount Ommaney and Redlands talked about the Smart State and the use of information technology in the Smart State. If the government wants to make us the Smart State, all it has to do is give access to members of parliament via the Internet— Mr Nuttall: 'www dot'. Dr WATSON: I take the interjection of the Minister for Industrial Relations. If the government wants us to use technology, it should give us access to this database. The information is right there. The police database has all of the information. If the government is worried about the use of police resources, it can simply make the information available to members of parliament over 10 Apr 2002 Crime Statistics 823

the Internet. Those opposite are bragging about it and they have a very simple solution. The government can give access to the database. Then there will be no problems. The government's arguments are completely flawed. First, the information is available. Second, it is regularly collected by the police. Third, the government makes it available to some members of the parliament and not others. Fourth, if the government wants to use technology it should use it appropriately. It should give access directly to the database— Time expired. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.37 p.m.): I rise to speak against the motion and in favour of the amendment. I am not quite sure why the Queensland Liberal Party has suddenly become obsessed with statistics. Perhaps it is the latest in a long line of political stunts to attempt to get some limelight in the media and promote its ailing fortunes. But statistics can be very helpful. Our government recognises this, and we are happy to oblige in providing crime statistics at any time. The Queensland Police Service compiles an annual statistical review. This is a public document and it is readily available to anyone who is interested, even on the Internet. The annual statistical review provides an accurate, timely and comprehensive record of crime and related information. It is used by many external researchers, private and public agencies and community groups. It is regarded by these as a highly comprehensive document. The document is nearly 150 pages long and has a 30-page section with statistics on district crime. This provides a detailed examination of reported and cleared crime for the Police Service's regions and districts each year. It details murders, rapes, attempted murders, assaults, robberies and sexual assaults—from the biggest crime to the smallest. Any statistic the Queensland Police Service has collated in its CRISP computer database is listed within this document. This document is good enough for everyone else to refer to, but not Mr Quinn. I must say that I do not really see how this relates to improving policing in Queensland. That is what the Beattie government concentrates on by providing an $870 million record operating budget for the Queensland Police Service, by boosting police numbers by 300 each year and providing the resources, technology and infrastructure the Police Service needs to do its job. We are building new police stations. We are spending millions on new computers, DNA technology, forensic science and other ways to progress smart policing in our Smart State. I can only speak for the police in my electorate, who I know do a fantastic job. I have a lot of respect for the staff at Runaway Bay Police Station, including our new Senior Sergeant, Murray Underwood. Senior Sergeant Underwood has thrown himself into the local community by attending Neighbourhood Watch meetings and visiting local businesses. Because the Beattie government has increased police numbers on the Gold Coast, my constituents now receive a 24-hour policing service out of the Runaway Bay Police Station, and I thank the minister for that. Speaking of smart policing, bike patrols allow police to access areas more swiftly while also being more visible and accessible to the community. This smart initiative is being carried out by the capable Runaway Bay police officers. It is what the people of the Broadwater electorate want. This government is working hard to ensure police officers are on the street and not behind a desk. We are employing civilians to do jobs wherever police expertise is not required so that officers are not tied down in administrative duties. Members would therefore understand why it makes me angry for Mr Quinn to suggest that the QPS budget and its valuable resources and expertise be spent on generating statistics for members of the Liberal Party who are clearly too idle to look them up in the statistical review. Why should we allow this strain on QPS resources to continue so Mr Quinn can score cheap political points? There is a process in place. There are statistics in the public arena for anyone to use as they wish. If Mr Quinn needs to fuel his statistics obsession further, the Australian Bureau of Statistics also provides figures about crime in Queensland. I would almost prefer Mr Quinn to be bleating about police resources and calling for more police than to have him call for a debate about such an irrelevant matter. At least then he could say that he had done something to advance the interests of his constituents. If the Liberal Party wants to have a debate, it would at least be refreshing for it to come up with a subject that was more relevant, like how to best equip our Police Service to ensure the Queensland community is kept safe. In the meantime, we will continue to do what we do best: provide better police services for the people of Queensland, because we believe that our actions speak louder than all the opposition's interminable whining. 824 Crime Statistics 10 Apr 2002

Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (6.42 p.m.): I was surprised and indeed shocked when I heard today that the minister had made a decision to end the previous practice of providing statistics. I have been generally supportive and appreciative of what the government has done in policing and have been quite impressed at improvements which have occurred. I see this as a tremendous retrograde step and a step which will take a lot of the heart out of some of the community organisations which have been working so hard to advance community policing and to assist the Police Service throughout the state and in the electorate of Surfers Paradise. I would point out to the minister that the refusal to continue to provide the information which has been forthcoming to date could be seen by the community as a cover-up. It may not be intended as such, but nonetheless reasonable people in the community would take it that way. This would create suspicion whereas a cover-up may not have been intended. The availability of the break-up of police statistics is important to enable community members, leaders and organisations to do effective lobbying. They need to be able to lobby based upon known facts. I do not accept that it would take a great deal of administrative cost to provide the sort of statistical information which has hitherto been provided upon request. I occasionally go, and at other times my electorate officer goes, to the Surfers Paradise Police Community Consultative Committee meetings. At those meetings the inspector who is present generally has all the statistics at his fingertips. I have personally called upon the Assistant Commissioner to discuss matters of crime in my electorate. He, too, can come forward with statistical information on the spot. Mr English: A police officer collated that. It took him time to collate that. Mr BELL: The member for Redlands really does not know, because the Assistant Commissioner did not know what I was going to ask. The Assistant Commissioner and the inspector representing him at other meetings were able to provide information unasked of their own volition. Henceforth, if the minister's policy becomes widely known, that will be seen by police officers who are forthcoming now and have the information at their fingertips to say, 'No, we shouldn't give it.' They will take it as a direction of secrecy that they should not give the information which has been forthcoming and available to date. In fact, I am quite satisfied that in the area that I represent the Assistant Commissioner and those under him are well informed of all the statistical information, because they themselves want to do internal comparisons. It is an absolute nonsense to say that the relevant data can be obtained from the Queensland Police Service annual statistical review. Those who might support that view surely have not seen the review and the paucity of the information and the collation of lumps of information without the detail which has hitherto been forthcoming on a police station by police station basis. There is no sufficient breakdown. By its very nature, the Queensland Police Service annual statistical review is annual. It does not provide for anything intermittently to allow trends to be picked up as they occur. If we keep the community organisations which help the Police Service active, interested, feeling that they are doing a good job and able to compare what happens in area to area and compare their own efficacy, that will save a whole lot more money for the Police Service than it would cost in administrative work to provide the statistics. I certainly want the police to catch criminals, but I want community policing to work. Those people have a right to know. I do not look forward to going to a police community consultative meeting and saying to the people there, 'You can no longer have the statistics. The minister has forbidden it.' I do not believe that is right. I do not believe it would go down well. I do not believe it is in the interests of the government or policing in my electorate. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (6.47 p.m.): I rise to oppose the motion and support the amendment moved by the minister. Firstly, I am disappointed to see the Leader of the Liberal Party once again concentrating on issues that are irrelevant to the business of providing good government and advancing the prospects and wellbeing of the people of Queensland. If this is the best thing that Mr Quinn can find to have a debate about, then he might as well give it away because he is doing nothing to benefit the needs of his constituents. If access to stats which are already in the public arena is the chief grievance the Liberal Party has about our government, we must be doing something quite well. To add a bit of context to this debate, in a question on notice last May Mr Quinn asked for a breakdown since January 2000 to April 2001 of all categories of crimes reported for each station area within the Gold Coast police district. His colleague the member for Caloundra asked the exact same question about the Sunshine Coast district. In response, the government provided in painstaking detail pages and pages of reported crimes. This represented hours and hours of 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 825

work from the Queensland Police Service which I am sure would be better spent on providing policing services for the people of Queensland than producing information for Mr Quinn's press releases. I challenge Mr Quinn to tell the parliament exactly how this information was used to advance or benefit the people of his electorate or the Gold Coast. I would wager that this information was used for nothing other than political gain. I cannot fail to see the funny side of this debate, because the fact is that Mr Quinn is jumping up and down and railing against not being able to access figures that are available to anyone in Queensland at any time from the Queensland Police Service's annual statistical review. Any journalist, politician or organisation with an interest in crime or policing in Queensland would have a copy of the statistical review which Mr Quinn could borrow. In fact, I have a copy which Mr Quinn could borrow, or he could jump on the Internet and find out the facts for himself. This is very secretive. Our crime stats are so undercover that we put them somewhere where the whole world can access them. The fact is that, no matter how Mr Quinn or anyone else wishes to use the stats, they are freely available. People are welcome to look at the statistical review at any time; we are not hiding it. It is a bit rich for Mr Quinn to launch this attack on our government for access to figures that he can already get and easily get. It is a waste of the system of questions on notice, which holds a key place in maintaining the accountability of governments. Meanwhile, our government will get on with what we consider a priority, that is, policing and protecting the safety of the Queensland community. Our attention will remain focused on what we consider important, such as providing 300 extra police a year for Queensland, an $870 million record operating budget for the Queensland Police Service and a massive capital works program. Our government is undertaking many strategies to improve policing to help tackle crime in Queensland. We look at the hard facts and do not just chase after statistics for political gain. The Beattie government is delivering on law and order for Queensland. Mr Quinn should applaud our aims and work with us to achieve them—not waste his and our time in parliament with stunts such as this. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Purcell,T. Sullivan NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson, Wellington. 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, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell. NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.01 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

ELECTORAL (RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 19 February (see p. 20). Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (8.30 p.m.): The government thanks the honourable member for presenting this bill to the House. The purpose of the bill is to make a member who resigns without due cause or is disqualified under section 7 of the Legislative Assembly Act liable for the costs of any by-election that results from their resignation. It enables the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to jointly direct an amount up to the estimated by-election costs to be retained from the member's salary or superannuation entitlements. This retention can continue only if legal proceedings for recovery are commenced within 30 days. 826 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

The bill is undoubtedly well intentioned. It is true that capricious resignations soon after a member is elected tend to bring the parliament into disrepute. Such resignations also put the state to considerable expense in holding a by-election. They inconvenience the voters of the particular electorate, who are subjected to yet another election campaign and yet another election. So the public understandably resents what may be considered a breach of the candidate's implied commitment to serve a full parliamentary term. Our government certainly acknowledges the sentiment of the bill and believes that candidates should be honest with voters as to whether they intend to remain in a seat for a full term if elected. But as this bill demonstrates, trying to find a legislative solution to this is problematic. This bill highlights just how difficult it is to define when a resignation will or will not be justified. Of course, it can work a real injustice on those members who resign through circumstances over which they do not have any real control. As the parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation Committee indicated, the end result could be to deter people from nominating for election or force members who are not capable or committed to properly representing their electorates to stay on. So while the sentiment is one that the government acknowledges and is interested in exploring ways to support, the bill in its current form also tends to work consequences that we believe are not in the public interest. The bill recognises that resignations are justified in some circumstances. For example, it provides that a resignation without due cause does not include a resignation for ill health, personal emergency, to seek election to the Commonwealth parliament or on being elected a local government councillor. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has raised concerns regarding the scope of the ill health and personal emergency exemptions. The proposer of this bill may wish to respond to the concerns of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in that regard. The committee considers that the ill health benchmark is set unreasonably high in the way in which the bill is currently drafted. Under the bill, resignation will be justified only if attending parliament will gravely endanger a member's health. As a result, members who may not be well enough to properly discharge their duty to their constituents, but who on one view do not fall within this narrow category, would be forced to continue or, alternatively, be forced to suffer a severe financial penalty. This would do a great disservice not only to the member whose health may deteriorate as a result but also to the member's electorate. Also, the excuse of personal emergency is, I would suggest, somewhat vague and uncertain. There are no guidelines as to what circumstances justify a resignation on the ground of personal emergency. The bill states only that a personal emergency will exist if the member is— ... prevented from attending any sitting of the Legislative Assembly without serious adverse consequences to the member or the member's family. The process of claiming these exemptions also raised serious privacy issues for members. The committee has identified a number of other problems that I should mention. There are many other circumstances, such as resignation as a political protest over an issue of importance or resignation on a matter of principle or because of extreme intimidation from other members, that may in certain circumstances be regarded by a reasonable person as a justifiable ground upon which to resign from parliament. These, of course, are not currently exempted by the bill. On the other hand, resignation to stand as a candidate for the Commonwealth parliament or because of election as a local government councillor are excused, but there is arguably little difference between these and a resignation for career advancement in other ways, for example, to take up an executive appointment, such as agent-general for Queensland, or some other appointment. There are a wide range of grounds for disqualification with different levels of culpability. Members can be disqualified because they have become bankrupt or committed a crime. We believe that it is unfair to inflict a further penalty in all of these situations by making the disqualified member liable for by-election costs. What would be the point in imposing that obligation on a bankrupt? In addition, there is a serious problem not identified by the committee. This relates to the proposed retention of money from a member's superannuation entitlement. Queensland is a party to a heads of government agreement that requires exempt public sector superannuation schemes to comply with the spirit of Commonwealth superannuation legislation. The agreement refers specifically to the diversion of benefits and states that these public sector schemes must not attempt to assign, have charged or have any lien attached to superannuation benefits. Yet this is what is being proposed under this bill. Any breach of the COAG agreement could 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 827

jeopardise the concessional taxation treatment of the Queensland public sector superannuation scheme. So in the circumstances, on this occasion the government cannot support this bill. As I have indicated, we understand and acknowledge the sentiment expressed by the honourable member for Nanango in proposing the bill, but in its current form the bill demonstrates the difficult complexities that can arise in trying to define clearly and specifically those circumstances that adequately cover the range of contingencies that can confront a member who for various reasons wishes to cease to be a member of the parliament. I am happy to indicate to the member for Nanango that I am prepared to explore this matter further and receive further submissions from her in relation to the proposal. For the reasons I have outlined, I believe it is not appropriate for the parliament to support this bill in its current form. However, I look forward to the ensuing debate and the contributions of all honourable members. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (8.40 p.m.): Members of the National Party understand the principle being espoused by the honourable member for Nanango in this private member's bill. Our party has a very strong philosophy of accountability and good, faithful and loyal service to the people we represent. Despite that, we are unable to support this bill because we believe that it contains some very real flaws. Looking at the past 15 years and the number of members who have resigned from this parliament, you could almost say it is rare. One thing that needs to be considered is the result this legislation is trying to achieve. One can understand the principle of trying to ensure that a person who stands for election and offers themselves for three years' service actually serves that term. There are some exceptional circumstances besides ill-health. Often there are personal reasons other than absolute personal tragedies which are very hard to define. In the very, very few cases in which we could perhaps identify people who have retired in the fairer sense of the word, would we be doing a disservice to that constituency if the financial penalty of up to a quarter of a million dollars ensured that those people stayed when in their hearts they knew—and I am being quite honest about this—that they could not give the 110 per cent that they had always given during their career? Would we be denying the people of that electorate proper representation? I will mention some people who come to mind. From the Labor side there was Tom Burns, who gave long and faithful service to the Labor Party and his electorate. He served for a long, long time. On our side—and I know the proposer of this bill mentioned my predecessor—there was the former Opposition Leader, Rob Borbidge. Both of those people gave very long service and made the honest judgment that they could no longer give of themselves 110 per cent. If people are going to be penalised a quarter of a million dollars if they do not stay, it is easy enough for them to turn up. They might be at that stage in their lives or their careers where they decide that they want to do a university degree or something else, and they come in here for half an hour of question time or whatever. Is that doing the right thing by the people as a parliamentarian? If a member has been flattened by something and is unable to give 110 per cent, would that member still be able to achieve for their electorate everything that they had achieved previously when they were in the full flower, you might say, of their desire and will to serve? I know there is a contrary argument, and that is that when people offer themselves for service, they should be prepared to do that. That is my personal belief. Nevertheless, I understand the views of the member for Nanango and the philosophy behind the introduction of this bill. I saw a letter to the editor in the Toowoomba Chronicle recently in support of the member for Nanango. It is very easy for those in the outside world to wonder why members of parliament should be able to resign when they have put themselves forward for election. At the end of the day, the number of people who have retired from public office is extremely small. I would just like to mention a few of them. Since 1986—some 16 years ago—15 people have resigned as members of this parliament. The vast majority of them did so as a result of ill health or as a result of the Fitzgerald inquiry, the inquiry into rorting or some such. Doug Jennings died in the Parliamentary Annexe one night. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen retired as a result of the Fitzgerald inquiry and the whole traumatic period leading up to 1989. Similarly, Russell Hinze left following allegations made at the Fitzgerald inquiry, as did Don Lane. Michael Ahern, who is a former Opposition Leader but was not Opposition Leader at the time of the 828 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

election, retired some time into the next term. Angus Innes retired. Phil Heath, a Labor Party member, left in 1991. Obviously some matters arose at that time. Subsequent to that two by-elections were held, and that is when I got into parliament. As a result of Phil Heath's departure, a by-election was held in the electorate of Chermside—now known as Stafford—and the current member was elected. I got in at the same time in another by-election after Clive Berghofer was forced to retire as a result of legislation which meant that he could not be a member of a council and a member of state parliament. Jim Randell retired. Jim had given long service in the parliament and I understand that his leaving was due to ill health. Ken Davies from the ALP was the subject of a matter before the Court of Disputed Returns. That court declared that his election at the previous general election was void and a new election for the seat was called. I have mentioned Tom Burns, who for many years gave long and dedicated service to his party and to this parliament—sometimes in very difficult circumstances. Margaret Woodgate resigned due to ill health. Charles Rappolt, a former party colleague of the member for Nanango, was a case of a death. Bob Gibbs was appointed to take up the position of Queensland Trade Commissioner in Los Angeles. Then we had Bill D'Arcy and Rob Borbidge. Out of all of them, there are probably three or four cases in which it might be said that it was not a case of ill health or someone being forced out of the parliament. During that period of time some 200 to 240 members have come and gone through this parliament. At each of the five elections since 1986, an average of 30 people have come and gone from the parliament. On that basis, the people who might come within the ambit of this bill would represent a figure of less than two per cent. This might be the populist view but, at the end of the day, does it actually do the right thing by the people of the particular electorate? I know that I am being followed by the member for Surfers Paradise, who entered this parliament following the resignation of our leader. The people had their say on that particular occasion. But Rob Borbidge had the courage to say—as he said to us—that in the circumstances he did not think he could do the right thing by the people he loved and whom he had served. That was his genuine and sincere judgment. This has to be considered very carefully. In most jobs other people in the community do have the opportunity to leave their job for whatever reason; it does not have to be for personal reasons or because of ill health. All members of this parliament take an oath. We take a philosophical position that being a member of this parliament is a great honour and a tremendous responsibility. Members set out to serve their constituents to the best of their ability; they give 110 per cent. As I have said, only three or four of the people I mentioned may be considered to have retired from this place. However, they had all given good service to this House. I do not think any of those people resigned lightly. Whilst the intent of this legislation is good and we would all like to see 100 per cent of members complete their three-year term, there will be those rare occasions on which that does not occur. I believe we should be ensuring that members represent their constituents to 110 per cent of their ability. Isn't that what we all desire to do for our constituents? I have a personal philosophy that you always do your turn, but you cannot help what happens to some other people. Whilst the National Party supports the ideas of the member for Nanango, we are unable to support this bill. Time expired. Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (8.50 p.m.): I think it appropriate that I speak on this bill, being something of an example. My initial reaction when I read the draft bill was to oppose it. It seemed to me that this was a bill that sought to inhibit liberty, that it would inhibit potential candidates from standing if they thought at some stage they might be faced with a tremendous impost if things did not work out and felt constrained to leave, and that there was no use having an electorate represented by a reluctant soldier just serving out his time. However, upon reflection I felt that the honourable member for Nanango has perhaps hit a nerve in the community, for on making just a casual inquiry it seemed to me that members of the community are very strongly in favour of the gist of this bill. In the circumstances, I feel that I should support it, though I have listened to what the Attorney-General has said and I must say that some of his reservations make good sense. I believe there is a proposal for an amendment, if this bill reaches the second reading stage, which will address superannuation. If superannuation provisions are deleted, one is still left with the fact that there is ample precedent for a former member being required to make a refund to 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 829

this parliament, for example, for overpayment of allowances. I think it is true to say that anyone who offers for election to this parliament has something of a contract with the electors. I can say from personal experience in the electorate of Surfers Paradise that at the time I stood for election to this House there was considerable angst in the electorate about the prospect of members resigning very shortly after they were elected to office. I make no criticism of my predecessor in the seat of Surfers Paradise. I think he was a fine parliamentary representative. He is quite a good friend and he served the electorate extremely well. However, that does not detract from the fact that many in the electorate were very disappointed when my predecessor resigned. I could say that I am grateful for the fact that he did resign, but that is another issue and a personal one. I think that on balance the member for Nanango has it right. I can see amendments required at the second reading stage, but the import of the bill merits its reaching the second reading stage. It contains much of interest to the community. It is a matter of community concern. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (8.53 p.m.): I rise to oppose the Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 2002. At the outset, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of my sister, Patricia Mumford, and her husband, Kevin, and their children, Centaine and Courtney. For the benefit of my friend the member for Southern Downs, I point out that they were not waving at him and the time for the challenge is not right yet. While I understand that the intent of the honourable member for Nanango is to prevent what she says are unnecessary by-elections, I suggest that the passage of this bill into law would create a far bigger problem than that which she hopes to address. Mr Strong: A great speech. Mr McNAMARA: I take the interjection of the honourable member for Burnett. Whatever happens with this bill, he will never let his people down and will serve many terms in this place with distinction. By-elections cost money. For the record, I do not think there is any argument that as a matter of honour and good faith members should serve out their term when elected to this place or to other parliaments or to local councils for that matter. But let me ask the honourable members supporting this bill: do we really want to have members in this place who are here only because they cannot afford the costs of up to $250,000 for a by-election so they can leave? What is the precedent out in the world for a penalty such as this? The honourable member for Surfers Paradise, as a former distinguished lawyer, would know that in contract law and employment law there is no provision which can keep an employee at their workplace forever. Can the member for Nanango name any other area of human endeavour in which free men and women cannot leave without huge financial penalties? For every other worker or employer in Queensland it is the same. If we want to change employment, retire or move, we quit. We are not slaves here, we are people. Legislation such as this which offers to belt politicians, while perhaps being superficially populist, is in fact quite contrary to the public interest. I am adamant that what we should all want and what the public needs is people elected to this place who are passionate about being here. Our democracy is best served by a parliament made up of people filled with energy, drive, enthusiasm and a devotion to serving the interests of their electorate and Queensland. As annoying as so-called unnecessary by-elections might be, is not a solution which encourages uninterested time servers far worse? Who here would feel comfortable in saying to the people of some unfortunate electorate that, although their member is uninterested and has retired for all intents and purposes, we are going to keep him or her on the payroll and prevent their being represented by someone who actually wants the job? Let us have a look at some recent history and ask ourselves whether the people would have been better served had the provisions of this bill applied. I never served in this place with Rob Borbidge. Although he won his seat of Surfers Paradise at the election on 17 February 2001, he did not take up the seat next to the honourable member for Southern Downs in this House for the 50th parliament. I do not speculate on his motives, but I certainly do not criticise him for his decision. As far as I am concerned, if he did not want to be here, if he felt in his heart that he did not want to represent the people of Surfers Paradise, unquestionably he did the right thing. He did not take the pay under false pretences by not being here. He resigned and invited the community to find someone who really wanted the job. He also impliedly invited the community to judge his party, which they did. I ask the member for Nanango: are the people of Surfers 830 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

Paradise not better off for Mr Borbidge's honesty? The current member for Surfers Paradise wants to be here. I have no hesitation in saying—and I defy any honourable members to contradict me—that the community deserves representation, not stagnation. Members will accept that the electorate vented its frustration at having to vote again so quickly by punishing Mr Borbidge's party with a 40 per cent swing against it, reducing the National Party's primary vote in the formerly safe seat to around seven per cent. That is the appropriate way for a democracy to respond to the scenario of an unnecessary early election. Members of the Liberal Party will, of course, also be too well aware of the displeasure of the voters of Ryan over John Moore's early departure in 2001. Political parties have got this message loud and clear. After the Ryan and Surfers Paradise by-election results in 2001, I suggest that this new legislation is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive. I ask honourable members thinking of supporting this bill to consider for one moment the very sad case of the late Charles Rappolt. I know that the three One Nation members here and I am sure the two former One Nation members—the members for Maryborough and Nanango—will take this very seriously. Mr Rappolt was elected to this place in the general election of 1998. I think it is fair to say that he was not happy in the role of a member of parliament and he resigned fairly soon thereafter. Tragically, he later took his own life. This desperately depressed and anguished man felt that he had to leave this place and he did. Very sadly, that was not enough to save his life, as he was unable to find a way out of his depression. But just imagine how we would feel if, before he had been able to leave, he had been forced by this bill to seek medical evidence or to satisfy the Premier and the Opposition Leader, or to come up with $250,000. When we leave this place, we should go—no deals, no doctors' certificates, no satisfying other politicians that our reasons are valid. We just have to decide that we do not want to be here and that is good enough. This is a job that is very demanding on people who receive no remuneration, and even less recognition—our families. They put up with us being away for weeks on end. They put up with being harangued in shopping centres and having abusive messages left on their home answering machines. They get none of the glory and all of the grief. If they ever say, 'It's over; I need you at home,' then again I suggest that is enough—no matter if that comes from a spouse, children or a parent, and no matter whether it happens after one year or 20 years. It should be enough. I would hope that every one of us would say, 'Family comes first and if they need me at home, so be it'—no medical certificates and no satisfying anyone else's standards of what is right. Just go! This bill puts time in this place above our duty to our families. It values pointless time-serving above personal honesty—and indeed, honesty to the electorate. It puts a massive financial impediment in the way of someone leaving this place—someone who cannot do the job or does not want to do the job. Ironically, it could serve to keep people who can do the job, such as the member for Surfers Paradise, out of the job. It creates a penalty and a barrier which no other worker in the state has to suffer. It is, I suggest, unfair and ill-conceived. It creates unintended hardship and only panders to that section of public opinion that hates all politicians, and always will, whether this bill is passed or not. I urge all honourable members to vote this bill down. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (9.01 p.m.): In speaking to the Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill I would like to acknowledge the sentiment behind the bill. I think it is done with the best of intentions, in terms of reflecting community concerns for the wastage of money for what they see as an unnecessary by-election. However, as other speakers have already said, there are other considerations that have to be taken into account here. We really need to ask ourselves whether or not the people in the electorate would be better served by having a new representative or someone who is forced to stay here against either his own wishes or those of his family and who is merely serving out a period of time—in other words, going through the motions and not giving the job at hand his wholehearted support and passion for the next three years. Whilst people think of the monetary circumstances involved, it also has to do with the level of service and the way in which people are represented in this chamber. Putting an onerous financial requirement on a representative to try to force that representative not to resign carries with it a range of detrimental effects. 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 831

This is not a job or occupation in the normal sense of the word. It is something that only a few people in the community do. As other members have said, it is not a contract at a personal level. It involves family and a whole range of other people who support honourable members. If we are going to put that onerous financial precondition on a person coming into this job, a lot of good candidates may not come into this chamber because people do not know what sort of circumstances their lives will trail into further down the line. When I was thinking about the bill and looking at the relevant legislation, I was quite fascinated to find that there is actually no requirement on members elected at elections to take their seats in this chamber. If one so desires, one can be a member of parliament in name only and not come into this chamber at all. So, how would it be if we had a person who was elected but, for some reason, decided that he or she did not want to come into this chamber to represent the electorate. We would have an MP in name only who was continuing to be paid but taking no formal part in the process of determining the outcome of legislation, debates in this chamber, serving on committees and whatever else a member of parliament does. We would need only one instance of that happening and the image of parliamentarians, the image of politicians, the image of this chamber and the way democracy is served in this state would be tarnished. I urge members to think about this if they want to go down that track. From my perspective, I do not believe that I can support this legislation. As I said, it has been presented with the best of intentions, but there are considerations other than financial considerations that have to impact upon whether or not we support this legislation. It has to do with the role of parliamentarians. It has to do with a range of personal circumstances that people can face as their lives evolve. No legislation, however carefully drafted, can take account of all of those circumstances. This is an area which should be left up to the individual member of parliament. He or she has to make that decision. It is not a decision that a member of parliament would take lightly. Everyone in this chamber has worked hard and long and faced a variety of circumstances and challenges to get here. We know what it is like. It is not something we would give away lightly. When a member makes the decision that, for the best reason in the world—whether it be personal circumstances or something else—he no longer wishes to be a member of this chamber we should respect that decision. We respect the decisions they make when they arrive at this place. The sentiment of this bill is correct. I understand the community concerns, but there are other considerations apart from financial considerations. We should be very careful not to put these things in legislation because they cannot cover all sets of circumstances. If we do put this in legislation, somewhere down the line someone will be trapped. The moment that person becomes trapped and does something which brings this chamber or parliamentarians into disrepute, we will live to regret it. What we are trying to do is build up the esteem of parliament and the work that we do. We do not want to be trapped by legislation which we put in place purely for financial reasons. Democracy costs money. If we are going to have the best democracy we should not be afraid to spend a little extra money to make sure that we get it. It is in the best interests of the community as a whole. For that reason, I will not be supporting the legislation. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (9.08 p.m.): I, too, rise to oppose the Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill. I have to say at the outset that my opposition to the bill is not for partisan political reasons. I oppose the bill for some sensible and straightforward reasons. It is my view that the time that we have in this place as members of the Legislative Assembly is an honour and a privilege. My philosophy of the time I spend in parliament is that I would not give up a day of it. We need all the time we have to work for our electorates, and we ought to work very hard for our electorates. I think that is taken as a given. However, I have some significant concerns with some particular parts of the bill. The bill, in amending the Electoral Act, has as its objectives setting guidelines for the resignation of members of parliament who resign prior to the expiration of their terms. They would be required to submit a resignation notice, along with their reason and support for the reason, to the Speaker who would then send a copy to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I imagine that these two individuals would then have a bit of a natter about whether they thought the member was resigning for sensible reasons or otherwise. The bill refers to 'resignation without due cause'. It is my concern that an assumption has been made that, unless one of the following four things apply, resignation without due cause is being implied. The first one is resignation due to ill health. In the eyes of the bill that is considered to be a sensible and reasonable reason for not being penalised. The second one is 832 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

resignation due to personal emergency. Both of these things are getting into the realm of subjectivity. The third one is resignation for the purpose of seeking election to the parliament of the Commonwealth, and the fourth refers to becoming a local government councillor. I can understand where the member for Nanango is coming from. As a metropolitan member who finds approximately two-thirds of his electorate falling within the federal electorate of Ryan, I know how people feel when a member of parliament who has been contented to serve significant amounts of time in the federal parliament decides, because they are probably going to be shifted to a ministry they do not want, that they are going to drop their bundle and put it upon the taxpayers to pay for a by-election. John Moore, quite frankly, was a mediocre defence minister, but I am happy to say— Mr Briskey: That's being kind. Mr LEE: I take that interjection from the member for Cleveland. I think that perhaps is being kind. I will say this about John Moore as the member for Ryan: he was absolutely hopeless. We never saw him in the electorate. Mr English: Honesty in the political process! Mr LEE: I think it is only fair that we are straightforward about things. He was absolutely useless as the local member. We never saw him at fetes, at schools or at seniors groups. Quite frankly, the only times I ever saw John Moore were on those rare occasions he might have to answer a question in parliament, but I have never seen him in the electorate. Mr Welford: He retired 10 years before he actually left parliament. Mr LEE: Some less kind than I might say that he retired 10 years before he left parliament. As frustrating, annoying and nasty as it is when a member such as Mr Moore abuses the trust of the electorate and throws a by-election upon us, I was absolutely overjoyed following the by- election to finally have a federal member in the seat of Ryan who actually did some work in the electorate. I commend Leonie Short for the work she did as the member for Ryan following the by-election. For the first time in 20 years my constituents had decent representation at a federal level. I imagine that if a bill of this nature applied at the federal level Mr Moore would not have dropped his bundle in the way that he did. What we in suburbs such as Indooroopilly, St Lucia, Taringa, Toowong and Fig Tree Pocket would have dealt with was probably another six, seven or eight months, depending on when the next federal election was called, of absolutely useless representation. As annoying and costly as it was, I think there would be a lot of constituents in the federal electorate of Ryan who would say, 'We believe John Moore was a bit of a ratbag for doing what he did, but we were happy to pay the price of the by-election.' I am one of those people who feels that one cannot value democracy too highly. It is a very special and useful way to govern a country. I would be very disturbed if we ever decided that we needed to put a dollar value on representation in a place such as this. I do not want to suggest for one minute that the member for Nanango is any sort of economic rationalist—I am not going to cast any aspersions of that nature—but I do want to say that what concerns me about the bill is that it seems to be turning the time people spend in parliament into an issue of dollars and cents. It could be a case of, 'Maybe you should stay, even if you are one of those people who does not want to be here—if you are like Mr Moore. Maybe you should stay because it will cost you $250,000 if you go.' I do not want to see the principles of economic rationalism being used to underpin our democratic process. It is too important to let the dollars rule those sorts of things. The assumption in the bill is that any resignation is a resignation without due cause unless it meets those four specific criteria. I would be concerned that if someone did not happen to satisfy one of those criteria they would feel some compulsion to remain in the parliament. I am concerned, too, that the large financial burden that would be placed upon people who are deemed to have resigned without due cause would again encourage not just those people to stay in the parliament but also unreliable, unenthusiastic and quite clearly poor representation. Also, I do not believe that forcing members, through crippling financial costs, to stay in this place would in any way benefit the foundations of our parliamentary system or the chain of accountability members have to their electorates. In her second reading speech the member for Nanango said— We are elected to ensure the constituency's collective viewpoints reach the ears of the parliament. 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 833

We indeed are, but Mr Moore did not do that. I do not believe there are many people living in the parts of Ryan that are in my electorate who believe that he represented their electorates. Despite the cost of the by-election, I think they were absolutely over the moon to have decent and sensible representation following it. I refer to family commitments. I think it is altogether sensible and altogether reasonable for a member of this House who feels that they cannot fulfil their duties as a member of parliament and at the same time fulfil their commitment to their family to be allowed to, if they would like, provide their commitment to their family. I do not want to see anyone in this place ever feel that they should not be able to leave this place to be with their family. That is something that would disturb me in particular. In closing, I am not someone who is in any hurry to be leaving the House. I do not think—I would hope—I would ever be one of those people who causes a by- election. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.16 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill. Without going into the details of the bill, I think it expresses the sentiment of the community that I represent and, indeed, many communities across Queensland. A number of very valid points of view have been put. I particularly commend the member for Hervey Bay. I felt that, while we have different points of view, his contribution was well thought out and well argued. I appreciate the perspective he brought. It certainly in some measure altered my contribution today. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised a number of issues. There are a couple I wish to comment on. Rightly, the committee raised the fact that the bill introduces the reverse onus of proof. That is, the member of parliament is required to prove that their resignation falls within acceptable parameters and that they therefore are not to be held liable for the costs of a by- election. The reverse onus of proof, while it has a great deal of disadvantage, is used in many pieces of legislation today and it is accepted by this chamber. In this instance I think it is less onerous, because the member of parliament who has been duly elected is responsible to show to the parliament and, via the parliament, his or her community that their resignation is justified in certain set circumstances. Part of the Alert Digest states that there is a real risk that justified circumstances may be overlooked as a consequence of imposing the onus of proof on the member. I query that comment. If anybody is going to know the most delicate of reasons for resigning, it is the member themselves. How a member who has struggled with the possibility of resigning, who has argued, probably within a close circle of trusted friends, the pros and cons of resigning, could then be adjudged by the committee as potentially overlooking a justified circumstance to me is a complete distortion of reality. I would hope that a member of parliament who is successfully elected but who then decides to resign from that position would go through quite a strenuous process to come to that decision. Previous speakers have spoken about members of parliament who have resigned in the past. Most of those members had reasons that fell well within the constraints that this bill proposes to set up. Many of them had to resign for health reasons. In fact, former Premier Wayne Goss came back to this chamber as a backbencher, a very difficult position to accept after having been Premier. He fulfilled that role, albeit he did some fairly serious study while he was here. He then subsequently had a serious health incident and had to deal with that. The point I am making is that Mr Goss came back to the chamber. He did not resign at the prospect of not holding the position he had previously held, and I commend him for that. It was a difficult situation to face. The case in point which brought this bill forward relates in particular to the resignation of the previous Premier, the Hon. Rob Borbidge, who, having won his seat at the election, then resigned. That created a lot of angst in the community, yet from an outsider's perspective he faced no less a challenge than the previous Premier, Wayne Goss. The Alert Digest goes on to say that the ill-health provisions are unduly restrictive in that ill health must be such that to attend parliament would gravely endanger the member's health. In a normal workplace, a person would take sick leave. If their health deteriorated to the point that they had to resign, they would have to provide doctors certificates for superannuation purposes and other compensation purposes. I do not see that this requirement in this bill is in great measure different to that obligation. However, the test for personal emergency is different. It is not three medical certificates but rather statements from people who one would expect would be able to verbalise the position of the family, and their written support is sufficient. There are amendments being put forward by the member for Nanango to address concerns relating to privacy issues. If the bill gets to the committee stage, they will be more fully explained. 834 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

The Alert Digest also talks about the ambiguity of determining the amount that would have to be paid by the resigning member to cover the by-election. I found that passing strange. The Electoral Commission has had quite lengthy experience in running by-elections and elections in all sorts of electorates involving a cross-section of communities, sizes, demographics and locations. So it could give a very accurate figure in relation to the cost of a by-election in any electorate affected by this legislation. A comment was made that this is the only occupation where such a degree of financial loss would be faced. Perhaps the degree is different, but if one breaks any contract—be it a business contract of any sort or a tenancy lease contract—a penalty is attached. I believe that this bill is in no great measure differently applying that same principle. My support for this bill is not because it is perfect. We have opportunities to bring forward amendments if we so choose. The member who introduced this bill has foreshadowed some amendments. I am happy that this bill gives this parliament the option to support a process that the community supports. It is aggrieved by members who, without apparent just cause, go through the election process successfully and then, for whatever reason, such as not being happy with the final make-up of the parliament, decide to resign prematurely—in some instances, before they have even taken up their position. I believe that this bill reflects community expectation. It does provide examples of situations where members with genuine reasons can absolve themselves from the financial penalty obligations of the bill. I support the bill. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (9.25 p.m.): I am sure everybody here knows how keen I have been to speak to this bill, and I rise once again to oppose it. The bill's two objectives—namely, setting guidelines for the resignation of members of parliament before their term expires and imposing liabilities on members whose grounds for resignation are decided by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to be unacceptable—raise a number of concerns. In relation to members resigning before the next election, any elected member may be forced to resign early because of circumstances well beyond their control. In cases like these, the member should not be criticised or penalised by having to pay for a by-election. A resignation before the due date is seen by this bill as somehow being a breach of trust with the electorate, but it is not a contract and cannot be compared with one. If it were a contract, then members who jump ship from one political party to another or simply jump ship could also be penalised because the public may see this as a breach of contract. We have seen many examples of this, particularly over the last couple of years, where some members opposite seem to have had an altered stance in values, a shift in policy or a change of heart in what they actually stood for at the previous election. Perhaps they simply suffer from the AA syndrome—that is, where ambition is placed before ability—or it may be purely a survival tactic. Maybe these members should resign and then go to the people again after they show their true colours. The bill emphasises the cost of a by-election. If this is the thrust of the objective, then perhaps we should be looking at ways to replace members without the necessity of a by-election. For example, the Local Government Act provides that if a councillor resigns within the last 12 months of their term the council can itself elect a replacement. This saves a costly by-election but is flawed in that the party with the numbers can simply elect one of their own—that is, a person who may not necessarily be the best candidate. The bill targets only those members who resign early without due cause, but it gives little detail about those circumstances. It therefore casts on members the burden of proving that their early retirement was justified and it restricts the grounds on which this can be done. Whether these circumstances constitute without due cause is likely to depend on one's point of view, because what I would determine to be without due cause may well be different to what members opposite might think. It is very subjective. An issue with the bill before the House is whether the measures adopted are appropriate and adopted to protect the cost of a by-election and the integrity of the political system while at the same time paying sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of parliamentarians as well as the parliament itself. I believe that the answer is no. The bill raises a number of concerns in this regard, and I quote some of these concerns as outlined in Alert Digest No. 2 2002, which states— (a) members are rendered liable to a penalty for resigning early, in circumstances which, despite being justified, are not recognised as such in the bill; (b) the health of members is not adequately safeguarded by requiring too serious a level of ill health before early resignation is justified. The bill suggests that three medical certificates be supplied to the Speaker, including one from a government doctor, certifying that the member's ill health will be gravely affected if required to 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 835

attend parliamentary sittings. Like other members, I am not a patient of three doctors so I would have to visit two complete strangers, and I am not the only one who would be uncomfortable with that. It continues— (c) because of the bill's ambiguous terminology, members are unable to determine with any degree of confidence whether their personal circumstances will justify their early resignation; (d) members' right to privacy is eroded; (e) a further penalty is imposed on members who are disqualified; and (f) the calculation of the member's liability is not expressed to be subject to any clear limits nor to any form of administrative review. (2) In relation to the institution of Parliament, the bill may: (a) add to the perceived disadvantages of being elected to Parliament and thereby deter potential candidates; (b) result in members, who are unable or unwilling to continue to perform the duties of a member for a wide range of legitimate reasons, deciding not to resign for fear of incurring the liability of by-election costs. What happens under this circumstance? The electorate does not get the effective representation it deserves, and not only does this affect the standing and functioning of parliament but it undermines the political rights of the member's constituents. Constituents are entitled to be represented to their member's very best ability and not by someone who simply does not want to be there. I quote from the Digest again— It is an intolerable situation where a member retains a seat only in name. This bill is suggesting that one should not have to pay for a by-election if one decides to seek another office. One could argue that this is also a breach of trust between the elected representation and the public. Recent state legislation puts a stop to councillors jumping ship midstream and using council resources to fund their campaign. Why should they not fund the by- election? Why should the public purse pick up the tab for someone using or perhaps abusing a level of government just to promote himself or herself to the next step? To me, that is worse than simply wanting to resign because someone did not get into government, something for which Rob Borbidge will always be remembered, unlike former Labor Premier Wayne Goss who chose to sit on the backbench for the rest of his term rather than cost the public a by-election, and that would not have been easy. I applaud his decision for staying and for working his electorate to the best of his ability for his entire elected term of office. I do not want to see the public funding unnecessary by-elections, but much more thought has to be put into what is a far more complex issue than this bill implies. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.33 p.m.): No-one can deny the disappointment and sometimes anger felt by an electorate when a sitting member resigns part way through their parliamentary term for what appears to be no good reason. Election campaigns are stressful times not only for those campaigning but also for those in the electorate. They have to go through the inconvenience of being bombarded with election material and media hype and having to judge the new lot of candidates to make up their minds on the order in which they should tick the ballot paper on election day. Mind you, we are very fortunate that every Australian over the legal age has a right to vote unless disqualified for some good reason. Voting every two-and-a-half to three years is a reasonable span of time. More often than that and it becomes an impost for all concerned. Naturally, unforeseen circumstances do occur. Human nature dictates that nothing is certain in this life, apart from death and taxes, but surely when one throws one's hat in the ring at election time one unofficially contracts oneself to the job for the full length of that term. After all, a two-and-a-half or three-year term is not that long. A four-year term is, and it may throw a different light on the matter. As we all know, the resignation of the former Leader of the Opposition, Rob Borbidge, has prompted this bill. While it certainly looked to many on the outside as a wounded ego, it is of course entirely possible that the results of that election were quite traumatic for him, so much so that he may have felt that he had no real option but to resign. In that case, the proposed bill does provide for such a case, with a member in that circumstance needing medical certificates indicating their situation, and that process itself could in effect provide a cooling-off period during which time the decision could be reconsidered. Many other sitting members have retained their seats by just a handful of preferences. I am sure it was a huge blow to the National Party to lose a member of such experience in terms of its membership being slashed to its present skeleton levels and the resultant high workload placed on the remaining members. Certainly, Mr Borbidge had to take responsibility for the decline in the 836 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

National Party's fortunes. I know that many so-called experts and commentators tried to blame some preference arrangements involving my party. The members of the National Party have been turning somersaults in their efforts to please the Liberals by trying to distance themselves from Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Some of them have in my opinion demonstrated all the skills of a contortionist in their ducking and weaving, but I do not see them storming up the popularity ladder as a result. Clearly, the responsibility for the electoral performance of his party is something for which Mr Borbidge carries the can. At the level of representing his electorate, he won his seat of Surfers Paradise, be it even with just a handful of preferences. I feel he would have retained some credibility had he chosen to remain in parliament and see out the term for which he was duly elected. He need not have stood at the next election. One of the primary objects of this bill dictates that the public purse should be reimbursed on the early resignation of an elected member who resigns without due cause, thus constituting a breach of trust with the electorate. Clause 177B recognises four prescribed grounds justifying early resignation; namely, ill health; a personal emergency; to seek election to Commonwealth parliament; and on being elected to local government. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee commented on the following— The excuse of a personal emergency is not drafted in a clear and precise way and is only described as if there are serious adverse consequences to the member or the member's family. I believe this is a very broad brush and leaves itself open to a wide range of interpretations. Many members could be embarrassed to disclose their personal lives to strangers or people they hardly know. Copies of medical certificates and statements would have to be given to the Speaker, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, thereby causing substantial invasion of privacy. I am also concerned with the latter two justifying grounds on seeking election to the Commonwealth parliament and being elected to local government. In both these cases the member would be deliberately seeking another office, and this could be seen as much a breach of trust with the electorate and causing a by-election as is presently the case. Another concern is the costs of a by-election, wherein the bill states that the member's liability as an amount is equal to the amount of the Electoral Commission's expenditure for the election. There is no mechanism provided for the member to challenge this amount, nor any guidance which can legitimately be ascribed to the commission's election expenditure. Also, there is no enforcement mechanism mentioned as to how these costs should be repaid. In conclusion, I believe that community expectations are in support of the intent of this bill. So, I support the bill but with the reservations previously outlined. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (9.37 p.m.): While I rise to talk against the bill, I should point out that I do support the overall aim of this legislation. What I disagree with is the way in which the member for Nanango is attempting to achieve this aim. Almost everyone in the House would object to parliamentarians unnecessarily causing by-elections. We have all seen it happen, and it only adds to the low opinion the public already has of politicians. The most contemptible examples in recent years were high profile politicians, party leaders or former state leaders who, once they lost their position in an election, resigned their seats in a fit of pique. There are notable exceptions as well, for example, Kim Beazley, who is serving his three-year term on the backbench, and Wayne Goss, who continued to serve the people of Logan after he resigned as Premier. The Labor Party has not been immune to members resigning their seats, but it is frowned upon within the party structure. Thankfully, federally, Simon Crean showed strong leadership to convince Duncan Kerr of the error of his ways in attempting to resign his federal seat in order to take up a state seat in Tasmania. One of the worst examples of selfishness—and the one which prompted this bill—was the resignation of Rob Borbidge in the seat of Surfers Paradise. The ironic thing is that when he was Opposition Leader in 1995, Rob Borbidge used to travel around Queensland telling anyone who would listen how arrogant and out of touch was Wayne Goss. Yet it was Wayne who swallowed his pride, put the loss of the Premiership behind him and continued working hard for his electorate of Logan, which is now safely in the hands of another dedicated and caring member, John Mickel. There has not been a more arrogant and out-of-touch display than the one given by Rob Borbidge on election night of 17 February last year when he resigned his seat even before the final results were known. 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 837

One would have thought he would have been used to losing, considering he has never won a general election. It was understandable that Rob Borbidge would have been bitter and twisted after he saw his election chances blown to pieces when his National Party executive and candidates shafted him over his One Nation stand. However, why inflict more pain on his loyal supporters by forcing a by-election on the people of Surfers Paradise, not to mention the extra cost to Queensland taxpayers? It is hard to say whether his petulant resignation will form his political epitaph or the fact that he was the leader of only the second government in Queensland history to serve less than one term. Another example—and one that came as no great surprise—was the early retirement of Jeff Kennett after he lost the 2000 Victorian election. One could not find a more arrogant man strutting the Australian political stage than Jeff Kennett, and for him to pull the pin so soon after the election only reinforced his image as an uncaring, thoughtless individual. Now he is trying to remodel himself as another shock jock on Melbourne radio. No doubt Jeff will be showing the same fierce political fairness and independence as his radio colleagues Alan Jones and John Laws. There is one glaring omission from this bill and that is politicians who resign from their parties and either join another party or become an Independent. The same should apply to these politicians. They were elected as representatives of a particular party and betrayed the supporters of that party when they resigned. The member for Nanango is a good example. I think that she would concede that she was not elected in 1998 purely on the basis of the work that she had done in the election campaign. Her election was due largely to the fact that she was a One Nation candidate and there was at the time a groundswell of political support behind Pauline Hanson. The member for Nanango won the 2001 election as an Independent but only after she had had time to raise her profile in the electorate. But she had that opportunity only through her close association with One Nation in her early political career. I may be a new member, but I am not naive when it comes to the reasons why I won. I do not think that it had too much to do with my good looks or my charm; I think that it had everything to do with the performance of the Beattie Labor government and the fact that I was standing as the Labor candidate for Glass House. For those politicians who deny their political roots and change parties, they should forfeit their seat also. This should apply to those politicians who stand as Independents and then join a party after they are elected, as the member for Darling Downs has done. He has basically misled those who elected him. The majority of people in Darling Downs wanted an Independent to serve them for three years, not a National Party member. One of the few politicians who has done the right thing—and someone I know the members opposite love to hate—is Cheryl Kernot. When she decided to leave the Democrats and join Labor, she took the only honourable course and resigned her Senate seat to run as a Labor candidate in the subsequent election. The Democrats were then able to select a replacement for Cheryl and the integrity of the political system was maintained. It is the same system that we should adopt here when a member resigns his or her seat. I would favour the party of the resigning member selecting a replacement until the next election, thus forgoing the need and expense of a by-election. If that replacement does not perform, he or she will get voted out at the next general election. The only exception would have to be when an Independent resigns or joins a party. In those cases, by-elections should be called to enable the local constituents to pass their verdict on the actions of their member. It is a far simpler solution than the one proposed in this bill and avoids the financial retribution that is also entailed in this bill. Further to that, I believe the ill health provisions are also overly onerous and, indeed, are an invasion of the member's privacy during an already stressful time. I think that members here would already believe that we have very limited private lives and I do not think that we need to go further into a member's private life if they have a particular illness that they might not want to disclose to all and sundry. So, looking at all of those particular issues that I have raised in my speech tonight, I would have to say that I will definitely not support the bill in this particular form. Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (9.42 p.m.): I rise to support the intentions of this bill. I personally regret that it has been necessary to name people in the process of explaining the intentions of this bill. I think that in the past certain members have resigned from this chamber for personal and responsible reasons that they would not of choice choose to make public for honourable, personal reasons. The intention of this bill is to restore respect for members of this House. I fully endorse that intention. 838 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

I have worked in 20 different countries and worked at government level. Regretfully, I have to say tonight that in no country that I have ever worked in have I seen politicians so lowly regarded as they are in Queensland and in Australia. Over Easter my wife, Joy, and I spent two days in Canberra helping open a Lao Buddhist temple. Some 400 Lao people were present. I was amazed at the respect with which Joy and I were greeted by refugees from what is now a communist country and has been a communist country since 1975. I get upset when I hear people say that any member of this House—any member—has stood for this position for monetary rewards. That is unrealistic and we all know that. I know that in my electorate several members before me, when asked about their position, have replied that the money is good. I hope and trust that they said that in jest. I know from my experience in providing strategic advice to foreign governments that government is the act of the possible. If a member's current situation and stance is impossible, then that member should resign. If a member has lost heart, has lost the drive and has lost the ambition to make working in this place possible and enjoyable, then that person should resign—be honest and go. I agree with most previous speakers that members should not be compelled to stay within this chamber. However, in this regard it is a pity that the member for Nanango has not had the chance tonight to elaborate on her amendments that have been available to other members of the House for some time. I wish to advise the member for Indooroopilly that I went to school with John Moore and I could claim to know him better than most people. Mr Lawlor: Great tennis player. Dr KINGSTON: The member should just wait a while. Whilst I may generally agree with some of the statements by the member for Indooroopilly, I see no value in an attack on an individual to establish the veracity of one's own philosophy. Thus I support the intentions of this bill. I endorse the statements of the Attorney- General—and that is unusual for me, although he is not listening—that this legislation is worthy of reconsideration. Thus I suggest to the members of this House that we do not kill this legislation tonight; rather we agree to ask the member for Nanango, whose integrity and sincerity I admire, that she presents this legislation again in a different format at a later date as is allowed under the rules of this House. Its intentions are too worth while for those intentions to be sacrificed by any party political ambitions tonight. Thus my recommendation to the House is that we conditionally support this recommendation and ask the member for Nanango to present the bill again to the House after consultation with the Attorney-General and other people at a later date. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (9.47 p.m.): Even though I rise to oppose the bill before the House, I acknowledge the intent that the member has tried to include within this legislation. Unfortunately, I believe that the realities of political life mean that what she has proposed in this bill will be only too easily avoided. I bring to the member's attention practices that have grown up within the mother of all parliaments—within the Westminster parliament itself—from which we take our name and our practices. The member may or may not be aware that a system of avoidance grew up in that parliament simply because of a situation similar to what the member is proposing. It is actually not possible for a member of the Westminster parliament to resign their seat. So to allow by-elections and to accommodate the various situations that occurred within the Westminster parliament, a system called the Chilterns Hundreds emerged. Chiltern is a tract of crown land that contains the Chiltern Hills and extends from Oxfordshire into Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire in England. The stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is by a legal figment held to be an office of profit under the Crown and is conferred on any member of parliament wishing to resign their seat. A member of the Westminster parliament cannot legally resign their seat, so an artificial system of resignation was introduced. The stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds means that this person, by a legal figment, obtains an office of profit under the Crown and is, therefore, duly disqualified from holding their seat. They cannot resign, so they are disqualified by this figment of the parliament's imagination. The member of parliament accepts this office of profit under the Crown, vacates their seat and, in many cases, stands for by-election in a safer seat. Members should feel free to read page 325 of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which lies on the table of this parliament to gain an idea of what this notion is about. I have raised this because it brings to light that the proposal of the member for Nanango does not match the political reality. There are enough reservations within this bill to bring about 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 839

an avoidance of what the member is trying to achieve. The stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is an example of a rule established by the political process of Westminster which overcomes the member's proposal. If the member's bill were to be passed and adopted, within a very short period of time this parliament—which follows in the footsteps of the mother of all parliaments, the Westminster parliament—would develop systems to avoid what the member is proposing. The political reality of Australian life is clear. I do not know whether members recall the televised debate just before Howard and Keating went to the federal election. They both agreed on a number of issues, one of which was that after the election only one of them would stay in parliament. They knew—whether it was Howard or Keating who lost—that it would be impossible for one of them to sit on the back bench. Rather than accept the member for Nanango's proposal, I suggest that we should have a system similar to that in the Senate; that is, a built-in system of replacement for people who resign for specific purposes. It would not have been in the best interests of the federal parliament if John Howard or Paul Keating had stayed after their defeat in the 1996 election. If we had a system similar to the Senate's replacement system, the party could nominate a person to replace them. One could build in a series of reservations or qualifications so that such a replacement did not happen on an ad hoc basis. For example, if someone had just been elected, they could not resign in this manner. Perhaps there might be a qualifying period of, say, two or three terms. In the case of Howard or Keating, it was 20 years. During the debate, one of my colleagues mentioned Wayne Goss. He made a positive contribution to this parliament in the 1996-98 period, but I do not believe he contributed as much as he could have because it was not possible for a former Premier to take a very active role in opposition. I believe the same applied to Keith De Lacy. Their skills and talents were under- used—and they had to be under-used. If they had taken an active position in this parliament from the very back benches, the press gallery would have been onto that story, claiming that they were trying to undermine the new leadership. They had two alternatives: basically, sit mute in this parliament and work their electorate, or take an active role in this parliament and create a problem for the new leadership. A third alternative is a system similar to the Senate replacement, where a person of a lengthy qualifying period in a defeat of that sort—with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier and perhaps the Speaker of the day—allows that replacement to occur. That is a much more practical system. I do not believe that a by-election immediately after an election is necessarily a good thing. I am sure that the member for Surfers Paradise might disagree with me, but as someone once said to me: in any race, back self-interest; at least you know it's trying! I do not want to delve into the details of my own experience with a by-election because Phil Heath had particular personal problems in his life. I know, and continue to have contact with, his wife. She is a fantastic teacher at a school in my electorate and is a valued member of the Labor Party. If this legislation were passed, it would impose on a family experiencing difficulties the added cost of a by-election. Not only the member would have suffered but also his wife and two children. I do not believe that would have been reasonable. In conclusion, while I appreciate the good intentions behind this bill, I do not believe it achieves its aims. There are other systems which would accommodate unnecessary by-elections, and we already have a model within the upper house of our federal parliament to accommodate such circumstances. I will be opposing the bill. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (9.56 p.m.): In rising to oppose the Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill, I will say—as many other members have—that I understand its intent. I suppose that sounds like little more than a platitude to the honourable member who has brought this bill before the parliament. It is important to realise that this intent is something which would probably meet with a great degree of public support and sympathy. However, it is the practical mechanics of it which I am opposed to. I have heard some excellent speeches tonight and also some unnecessarily vitriolic speeches. I commend the member for Hervey Bay, who made a great contribution to this debate. I agreed very much with what the member for Stafford said, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and a number of the Independent and One Nation members. I think there is a lot of common goodwill in trying to come up with a way of actually addressing this issue and the bill before this parliament does not necessarily do that in a practical way. In his contribution, the member for Maryborough lamented the fact that politicians in 840 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

Australia are held in extremely low regard. He indicated to the parliament that he has worked in something like 20 countries throughout the world and, of all those countries, Australians hold their politicians in the lowest regard. That concerns me a great deal. I think there is one reason for that: we take our democracy for granted in this country, we take our politicians for granted in this country and we take our freedom for granted in this country. Many people who are the first to criticise their politician at the local pub, at the local football match, talking with their mates around the television on Friday night or around the dinner table are often the first ones to admit, after they have travelled overseas and come back, that Australia and their state are the best country and the best state in the world. That did not happen by accident. That happened because of the very advanced and free democracy that we have in this country. It has built up and developed over a long period of time. That has happened because of the contributions that politicians make and the free way in which people can actually change governments and elect their member of parliament. It is the culture of the country. Mr Terry Sullivan: The ballot, not the bullet. Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, the ballot, not the bullet, as the honourable member for Stafford has said. When Rob Borbidge took the Premiership of Queensland in a baton change—and it was done in a very courteous way with the then Premier Wayne Goss—he said at the time that at least we can change governments here on a handshake, by a ballot or a baton change and not by a bullet. That is basically what he said and that is extremely important. It is unfortunate that some members have come in here tonight and lambasted other members of parliament and former leaders because they have resigned and called them petulant and all of those sorts of things while selectively forgetting about members on their own side. The member for Glass House, for example, launched a very regrettable attack on the former member for Surfers Paradise. I did not want to see Rob Borbidge go, and I wondered in my own mind whether that was the right decision. A little while ago in response to the honourable member who brought this bill to the parliament, and also when Rob Borbidge resigned, the Leader of the Opposition asked, 'Would you like to have a member in this parliament who has his or her heart in the job or somebody who does not?' That is the simple reality. The member for Glass House forgets the fact that when Bob Hawke was defeated for the prime ministership by Paul Keating he left the parliament and that seat was won by an Independent. Paul Keating and Tom Burns left the parliament. Tom Burns did not want to serve as a frontbencher or a backbencher in opposition after the baton change. We did not attack Tom Burns for that. There were very good contributions by many members on both sides who spoke about the fine contribution he made to the parliament. The honourable member for Gregory was one of them. He recognised the fact that members of parliament, in making these decisions, have very difficult matters to weigh up. I applaud the former member for Logan, Wayne Goss, for staying on. But Wayne Goss did not have his heart in it. A valid point was raised by the member for Stafford. People do look to what former premiers and leaders of parties have to say and at whether they are providing guidance or attacking the direction of the party. But he did not have his heart in it. That was my view. He spoke on no more than a couple of occasions in this parliament in the over two and a half years in which he was a backbencher. He might have done the right thing in not costing the state money by holding a by-election, but did he do the right thing by his electorate? Did he serve his electorate as well as he should have? Handing over the baton to another government obviously has an impact on members. I question whether he did. He stayed here, but did he do the right thing by his electorate. At the next election the new member for Logan only just won that seat. Did the electorate react against the Labor Party over the fact that the member for Logan did not contribute as much as he should have? Those are matters that we can debate in this parliament. Wayne Goss is a person of enormous intellect. He took the opportunity to take on another challenge, that of doing an MBA whilst he was in parliament—something that he just breezed through. Did that take his attention off his electorate? We can talk about all of these issues in here. Did he do the right thing? Would he have liked to have been able to avoid the circumstances of discontent that might have arisen in his electorate and just say, 'I would like to go.' He stayed on for whatever reason, but did he contribute as well as he should have? He was a person for whom I had an enormous personal respect. I did not always agree with him politically, but I felt that he was a person of great dignity. He was very driven and was an extraordinary reformer in this parliament. As I said, whilst we had our political differences, we should all respect him for what he did in this 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 841

place. If we wanted to, we could find many examples in the parliament of where people, in our view, could have done something differently. Ultimately, history will judge whether they did the right thing or otherwise. In his contribution, the member for Stafford said that we need to look at alternatives to what the honourable member is proposing. He proposed a system of appointment or replacement of members of parliament. That is worthy of consideration. However, I think there is some concern as to whether that would work as well for members of the lower house as it would for members of the upper house. Going back to the way that our parliamentary democracy has evolved and been improved over time, the lower house is the people's house; the upper house has traditionally been the House of Lords, the house of appointment, and has had a different genesis from the lower house. I am not sure whether we are doing our advanced and developed democracy justice by saying that we should appoint people to the lower house, but I am not insusceptible or unsympathetic to the argument. I think there is some merit in further advancing that. It is one of the alternative propositions which we should duly and properly consider. In his contribution the Leader of the Opposition said that we would be far better making sure that we had members in this place who served with absolute commitment and had their heart in the job. In my time in here—in 12 years and four months— Mr Lawlor: Who's counting? Mr SPRINGBORG: We do count. There are certain milestones in this place that we count. Mr Terry Sullivan: Eight and eleven are two significant numbers. Mr SPRINGBORG: Whatever does the member mean? There are certain things that we do count. The 12 years has gone very quickly. I have seen members of parliament on both sides in this place who have just been marking time; they have not had their heart in the job. They have just been getting to the next election and they have not contributed. Perhaps those people should have gone. I think they have cost their electorate, because they have not represented it. In many cases, they have run down their electorate. Regardless of whether we believe in the party system, in some cases they have lost that electorate for their party because they have not contributed as much as they should have or have not left that seat in a better state than it was in when they took over. It is a very real challenge for us as members of parliament to set ourselves aims, goals and objectives. When I came into this place as a 21-year-old, I said that five terms was something that I would aim for and an objective I could work towards. Somebody told me that that was a silly thing to say because I should make a career out of it and stay in here forever. I do not think that is the right thing to do. We have to set ourselves an objective. We need to ensure that whatever we do here tonight we do not have a situation which forces members of parliament to stay in this place when they lose heart and motivation and thereby do not properly serve their electorate. It is for that reason that I cannot support the bill which has been presented by the honourable member. I support the intent, but I find that the criteria in the qualification process she has put in place are far too restrictive to ensure that it does not disadvantage members of parliament and particularly the electorates they represent. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (10.06 p.m.): I was not intending to speak on this bill, because the member for Robina has already explained why the Liberal Party will not be supporting it. The Attorney-General made some excellent remarks in his contribution. I warmly applaud the statesmanlike fashion in which he explained why this bill should be opposed in this House. I join the member for Southern Downs in saying that I think your contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member for Hervey Bay, and also that of the member for Stafford were very significant. Unfortunately, I think they stood in stark contrast to a couple of other contributions made in this place. I cannot let those contributions go by without saying something. Firstly, I was moved to make some comments after the snivelling and condescending remarks made by the member for Indooroopilly—I am glad he is back in the chamber—about the former member for Ryan, John Moore. I wish to put three facts on the record. The member for Indooroopilly will never, ever make the contribution to Indooroopilly that John Moore made to the electorate of Ryan. Secondly, he will never, ever make the contribution to the Labor Party that John Moore made to the Queensland Liberal Party. Thirdly, the member for Indooroopilly will never make the contribution to this state and nation that John Moore made as a senior cabinet minister in a federal government. 842 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 10 Apr 2002

I will outline a couple of the things that John Moore did as a senior minister in his last six years, none of which will be matched by the honourable member. As industry minister, John Moore had the political fortitude, nous and seniority within the federal parliament to take on Treasury and talk about change in the car industry in this country. If members want to find out what he did, they should ask some of their union members in Victoria and South Australia about what those changes meant for their jobs. To a large extent, the reason why we have a competitive car industry exporting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vehicles a year is because John Moore— Mr Purcell: John Button. Dr WATSON: John Button did a great job, but there was pressure from Treasury a few years ago and John Moore made a significant contribution to the development and sustainability of the car industry in this country. Mr Purcell: Is this relevant to the debate? Dr WATSON: It is. It is as relevant to the debate as was the contribution by the member for Indooroopilly, and you should know that. The second very important contribution made by John Moore was something that those opposite ought to remember because time and time again in this place I hear the Premier talking about the Smart State and the biotechnology revolution. Let me tell honourable members that one of the aspects of the biotechnology revolution is the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland. That was started by a contribution by the Queensland coalition government of $15 million. We managed to get the federal government to match that contribution. John Moore was instrumental in getting that contribution. Beyond that, John Moore was the minister who was responsible for the CSIRO, and the CSIRO contributed about 50 per cent of the cost of that development. When the honourable member for Indooroopilly talks about his electorate and the contributions that he might make, I want to see what he does at some time in the future. However, I do not believe that he will last long in this place. I want to see the honourable member make a contribution to this state of the magnitude of the establishment of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland. I could refer to developments in my own electorate. I refer particularly to the CSIRO at Pinjarra Hills. John Moore had an input into that. The member for Indooroopilly will never be in a position to make the same type of contribution. As Minister for Defence, John Moore was responsible for the reconsideration of the Collins class submarine. The Collins class submarine project was established by Labor's pretend Prime Minister, Kim Beazley, when he was Minister for Defence. A supposed cost of $1 billion blew out when the Labor Government was in office to $4 billion. That project did not have any chance of succeeding without significant change and modification. The review was undertaken by John Prescott and Malcolm McIntosh under the direction of John Moore as Minister for Defence. The review was undertaken in an effort to ensure that the Collins class submarine would assist Australia's defence effort. That was John Moore's contribution. I listened to the condescending comments made by the member for Indooroopilly. I say to him that he will never make the contribution that John Moore made. In the Liberal Party I am well known for not being particularly close to John Moore. He and I had many arguments in the organisational sense when I was federal member for Forde and he was federal member for Ryan. It continued when I was member for Moggill. Two-thirds of my electorate is in the electorate of Ryan. There is no way in the wide world that the honourable member for Indooroopilly should denigrate the contribution made by John Moore. The member for Indooroopilly has been in this House for only three or four months. When he is here for 25 years—and he will not be—I would like to compare his record as a senior minister with John Moore's record. I guarantee he will never get there. The contributions made by the Attorney-General, the member for Stafford, the Deputy Speaker, the member for Hervey Bay and the member for Glasshouse were in stark contrast to that of the member for Indooroopilly. In some respects, the member for Southern Downs has already covered some of the points I wanted to make. This bill did not deserve a partisan attack by an individual—particularly 10 Apr 2002 Electoral (Resignation of Members) Amendment Bill 843

someone who has only been here for a couple of months. It was an attack on people that he probably does not know and does not understand. I was here when Tom Burns left and the current Minister for Innovation and Information Economy took his place in a very controversial selection process. We all respected Tom Burns and we did not say that he should stick around. Bob Gibbs left under circumstances that I thought were questionable. However, that does not mean that Bob Gibbs cannot make a significant contribution in his current position in Los Angeles. Irrespective of what we might have said in his chamber, Bob Gibbs had a lot of talent and he was a senior minister. Bob Hawke left and Paul Keating left. We can cover both sides of the political spectrum. This bill did not deserve a partisan attack. It deserves serious consideration. The Attorney- General set the example in that regard. That is the standard of debate that we should have had. It is the standard of debate that we ought to expect in this place. I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your contribution. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.17 p.m.), in reply: Firstly, I would like to thank members for their contributions. All aspects of the bill have been argued in an efficient manner. I appreciate the efforts put in by all honourable members involved. As the Attorney-General stated, this was a very simple concept which, when it went to Parliamentary Counsel, became a very complicated one. Therefore it took quite a long time to get to the point it has reached today. A lot of people express concern about 'due cause' and 'family emergency'. If we had got to committee I would have moved amendments that would have covered those concerns. If a person cannot represent his or her area, they find they cannot put in the effort, it stresses them and they cannot cope, that would have come under 'due cause'. If that honourable member could have supplied three certificates from a medical practitioner, a psychologist, a minister of religion or anyone along those lines, that would be acceptable. The matter did not have to be judged by anybody, be it the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition. It would have been accepted and that member could have departed in good grace. Reference was made to the seat of Surfers Paradise. I must admit that Rob Borbidge was the person who caused the instigation of this bill. In saying that, I do not denigrate him or his performance in this House in any way, shape or form. I had a lot of time for him and I greatly admired him. If Rob had lost heart, if he found that it was stressing him to be here, and if he had pressure put upon him to a point where it was affecting him, his family and his health, he probably would have been able to supply the certificates or letters which would have gracefully let him out under this bill. I congratulate the member for Hervey Bay on a very well considered and very well argued speech. I think it was the member for Hervey Bay who mentioned Charlie. I knew Charlie extremely well and he was a wonderful man with a good heart who wanted to contribute a lot to this state. He found that being in parliament, with the stresses and the media attention that came with it, got well and truly on top of him. It was a very sad thing that happened. If he had believed there was a way out—if he could have gotten three letters and submitted them to parliament—perhaps he would be with us today. None of us will ever know. He could have had an out. Unfortunately, he chose a very terrible out. I agree that families are a major consideration. I remember that when I first put this bill forward the Premier stated that if his wife were ill he would like to leave. That circumstance is also covered by this bill. Family members must come first at all times. The member for Robina said that to accept this bill would actually bring this parliament into disrepute. With all due respect, I would say that most people outside this place think we are disreputable anyway. That is the honest truth. If we asked anybody on the streets what they really thought of politicians as a whole we would find that we do not rate even as highly as car salesmen. In relation to the comments of the member for Indooroopilly, I respond that no-one is forcing members to stay. That was his concern. If a member feels they cannot stay for reasons of person emergency—I have already outlined this—they can get their certificates. One member talked about having to go to three doctors. The bill does not say that members have to go to three doctors. Obviously the member did not read that part of the bill. I know about this from experience. When I had my car accident I sought leave from this House. To 844 Adjournment 10 Apr 2002

get it I had to submit two doctors certificates. It was not difficult to get two doctors to say that I could not travel to parliament for a few sittings. It is not hard to get a minister of religion a member may confide in, or a psychologist if they have one, to write the third letter. I do not believe that is a very valid argument. The member for Gladstone answered just about every question raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I was very disappointed with that report, simply because I cannot believe the committee actually read the bill in detail. Mr Lucas: You are reflecting on a parliamentary committee. Mrs PRATT: I am not. I am just saying that I am disappointed because there were very obvious things that could have been picked up easily. I acknowledge the keenness of the member for Pumicestone to talk to this bill. She sought to make a contribution four weeks ago. I love to see that keenness. I thought it was really wonderful. All members who spoke to the bill were excellent. They came forward and argued their points well. I was quite surprised at the number of speakers to the bill. I thank all members for their interest. In all honesty, this has been one of the rare times I have seen this parliament act in the way I believe a parliament should act. I acknowledge members, their viewpoints and so on. However, there are a couple of exceptions—a couple of members made their contributions very personal. That just means that they have the problem, not the rest of us. Arguments were mostly logical and well thought out. I particularly recognise the member for Hervey Bay, as I said before, the member for Stafford, the member for Southern Downs and the Attorney-General. I really thank him for his statesman-like behaviour. I never thought I would say that. Almost everybody stated that they recognised or supported the intent of the bill. The Attorney-General said that government is prepared to explore the matter further, so I look forward to seeing the government's bill drafted in a workable form presented to the House. No doubt it will pass. Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 5—E. Cunningham, Pratt, Wellington. Tellers: Bell, Lee Long NOES, 77—Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Copeland, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Keech, Kingston, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lester, Lingard, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, Malone, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Rowell, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Seeney, Sheldon, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Watson, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Springborg Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.33 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Banana Industry Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.33 p.m.): Since the demise of the tobacco industry in my electorate of Tablelands, many farmers in the Mareeba district have, at great expense to themselves, diversified into the banana industry. This industry is becoming very successful and complements the banana industry on the coast, which spans the electorates of Tablelands, Mulgrave and Hinchinbrook. This area produces the majority of Australia's bananas. I wish to speak tonight on the grave threat facing this very important Queensland industry—that is, the threat of Philippine bananas being allowed to be imported into this country when we are more than capable of producing enough of our own and, very importantly, the great risk of importing the particular collection of diseases presently found in Philippine bananas. The combination of these five banana diseases—that is, black sigatoka, moko, freckle, bugtok and bract mosaic—are so devastating that they are known collectively as the black plague. Clearly, there is every reason for concern on the part of banana growers in my electorate, those in the neighbouring electorates of Hinchinbrook and Mulgrave and also throughout the whole of the state, especially since today we debated the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Bill 2001. 10 Apr 2002 Adjournment 845

The banana industry is so concerned that it is putting up its own money by way of an imports levy to try to keep these Philippine bananas out. This is money that growers can ill afford to pay out of their hard-earned income. Protection should be coming from their very own governments. The Australian Banana Council Imports Committee Chairman, Len Collins, said that the industry was increasingly concerned about a recent visit to the Philippines by the federal Agricultural Minister, Warren Truss. He said that it was also gravely concerned that comments from the Philippines Minister for Agriculture and other industry identities in that country suggest that the issue is being used as a trade bargaining chip. Mr Collins said that comments reportedly made by the Philippines presidential adviser on agriculture indicated that the import risk assessment on its bananas would be released by June this year, causing free entry of Philippine fruit exports to Australia. I believe that the banana industry has every right—indeed, a duty—to oppose the importation of material which carries with it the potential to wipe out its industry. Indeed, I believe it is also the duty of the Beattie government and the Minister for Primary Industries to vigorously support the stand of the farmers. There is concern in the industry that Biosecurity Australia officers are being dispatched to the Philippines to help that country develop protocols which will enable it to export bananas here and that Biosecurity Australia will not be able to offer a zero risk importation plan for Philippine bananas. This of course means that there will be some risk and, as the threat is so grave and the potential danger and damage so serious, I say it is too great a risk. The banana farmers have not heard the Premier or any other government minister speaking out over these concerns, which could have a devastating effect on yet another of our rural industries and ultimately on jobs for this state.

Morningside and District Country Women's Association Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (10.37 p.m.): When we say the words 'country women's association', most people would picture a rural scene with a group of farmers' wives getting together once a month to swap recipes and stories. I am very proud to say that this well- respected institution continues to operate as strongly in the city as it does in the country. In the Bulimba electorate, not more than 10 minutes from the heart of the CBD, the Morningside and District Country Women's Association has just celebrated its 53rd birthday. Its membership has declined over the past 10 years or so. It used to have up to 100 members but its current membership is around 20. However, these 20 members are very dedicated ladies who contribute regularly. The Morningside and District Country Women's Association meets regularly at the Morningside School of Arts where members participate in cookery, knitting, crochet and floral arrangements. There are not only local competitions but divisional and state-wide competitions. Entries for the cooking competition are sold and the money passed on to the state body. This money is used to assist with the running of a hostel style accommodation in Brisbane for country students, aged homes in Brisbane, Townsville, Ipswich and the Gold Coast, and accommodation in Townsville and Cairns for mothers and children who need somewhere to stay while having hospital treatment or awaiting the birth of a baby. The ladies at the Morningside CWA have adopted a room at the CWA aged care hostel at Manly Lota. They do things like send birthday cards and Christmas cards to hostel residents—things that do not cost a lot but mean a lot to an elderly person who has no family. It lets them know that someone cares. Each year the CWA has an International Day when the state body nominates a country. This year the country is England. Local primary school children are encouraged to participate in the International Day. Small prizes are awarded for colouring in posters and competitions. From time to time I have been invited to contribute to the competitions. I make tomato relish and I entered it in the competition. I have been extremely lucky to win first prize and to go on to win a divisional prize the year before last. I congratulate the President and Treasurer, Daphne Johnson, the Secretary, Peg Gladstone, and Vice Presidents, Heather O'Donnell and Hazel Coplick, for the great work they do. I know that they will continue to do it well into the future.

SES Cadets Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.40 p.m.): I wonder whether we have lost the plot. Last week the Sarina Local News and, since then, the Sarina Midweek ran stories on SES cadets in Sarina. They are in trouble because the state government has decreed that for every eight cadets there must be at least one adult leader of the same sex and that for each 10 cadets one instructor and 846 Adjournment 10 Apr 2002

one assistant instructor. For instance, if 30 cadets of mixed gender turned up on a training night, 10 adult volunteers would have to partake of that principal training session. Just imagine if that were translated into our classrooms and if these protocols were applied by the Department of Emergency Services. There would not be a state school in Queensland that could open on a daily basis for lack of teachers. Because Rob Hardwick, the Sarina SES controller, and his team are so committed to the youth of Sarina and have worked tirelessly with them, the Sarina unit has 64 dedicated cadets, which equates to a large number of adult volunteers being required to run every training session. From a truly practical sense, the Department of Emergency Services requirements are unachievable in Sarina and, I dare say, the majority of most rural communities throughout Queensland. In Sarina we have seen the excellent work of the cadets throughout the community, and if commonsense does not prevail we will lose the skills of these 64 young people who have volunteered their time and effort to learn in order to help our communities in times of need. This is a young group of people who have made a statement of their own self-worth as well as furthering the cause in the valuable contribution youth make to our excellent community. In this National Youth Week we need to be supportive and to commend all our youth, but we especially need to show our support for these young SES cadets with true leadership and commonsense. We have seen the way in which these young people have supported their community over the last couple of years, and I am very pleased and proud of them. They need the challenges of training within the SES and with the protocols it could give them the in interests of roof rescues, search and rescue, traffic control, et cetera. The training regime does not allow for this and I call on the minister to revert to the original system to ensure that these young people are catered for in the cadet system.

Mr S. Ciobo; Member for Moncrieff Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (10.43 p.m.): In a recent parliamentary session in Canberra, our Santoro-inspired federal member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo, decided to become confusingly involved in state politics. I realise that the newly elected federal member for Moncrieff is struggling to understand the difference between jurisdictions, but he could have asked someone for direction. Ciobo attacked the state Labor members of the Gold Coast for remaining silent on policing issues and numbers and attacked this government for unbalanced police numbers. The member compared Townsville and Cairns with the Gold Coast. The trouble is that he has got it all wrong. His numbers were fudgy; he tried to compare whole regions with Gold Coast City—a big difference. Thanks to the efforts of all members on the Gold Coast and the Police Minister, Tony McGrady, we now have 24-hour police stations at Coomera, Runaway Bay and Nerang, something that had not happened before despite Gold Coast seats being held by his coalition mates and in fact an ex-Premier, the member for Surfers Paradise. The federal member for Moncrieff also had the hide to call the Gold Coast members 'The Silent Seven'. Obviously this bloke just out of short pants got it wrong again. Imagine that—calling us the Silent Seven! Personally, I have never met a noisier person than the member for Mudgeeraba, and in fact I think all of us can hold our own. Now, if the member for Moncrieff wanted to get real fair dinkum, he would have involved himself in issues that do concern him, for example, the recent sacking of ABC staff from 91.7, a Gold Coast radio station. That is a federal issue. I cannot recall the member coming out in support of those people. Do members know that on the Gold Coast we have only three news journalists? Lismore in New South Wales has six. Maybe it is a marginal seat federally. Leading up to his election in November last year, he also told the people of the Gold Coast that he had struck a deal with the Prime Minister and that we were going to get federal funding for the light rail system. Of course, that was found to be a bit of kite flying and a real mean stunt to pull on Mayor Baildon, who actually believed him for a brief moment. Finally, whilst he is out looking for something else with which to bag us on the Gold Coast, he might look for the federal funding contribution for the Tugun bypass. 10 Apr 2002 Adjournment 847

Feral Dog Bounty Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.45 p.m.): I call on this government to support the payment of a $20 bounty on the scalps of feral or problem dogs currently roaming throughout our state apparently untouchable. I regret to say that the 1080 dingo baiting campaign announced today by the Minister for Natural Resources will have little or no application to the large areas in my electorate and large areas of Queensland because of the state government restrictions on its use. I understand that one cannot lay a 1080 dingo bait within two kilometres of a residence unless one has the consent of the occupiers of that house and that of all adjoining landowners. I also understand that the Queensland Ombudsman has on a number of occasions made it very clear to staff in the Department of Natural Resources that he will take action if the government's restrictive guidelines on the use of 1080 baits are not strictly complied with. I do understand that under the Rural Lands Act it is the legal responsibility of local councils in Queensland to control the problem of dingoes and feral dogs, but local councils need real assistance from this state government on this very difficult matter. Councils do not have the resources to solve such a large problem by themselves when so much land in this state is controlled by the state government. Queensland communities, like many in my electorate, should not be discriminated against by this government simply because people live in a closely settled area. Last week, I held a series of community meetings in my electorate at Woombye, Mapleton, Bli Bli and Yandina. At these meetings we saw photos of family pets savaged by feral dogs. We also heard real-life examples of feral dog attacks on house pets and farm animals. When you hear people talk about how they and their children saw their family pet fox terrier attacked and ripped apart by feral dogs, it is hard to come up with any other solution than the killing of these problem dogs. I wonder if I need to show some video footage to shock members into supporting my proposal for a $20 bounty on the scalps of feral dogs. Can we not recall the vivid television advertisements recently run by the Department of Main Roads and Transport in an attempt to shock drivers into not drinking and driving? This government certainly acted quickly when a half- starved dingo attacked a young child on Fraser Island. The problem dog and other dogs were immediately killed. A significant area of my electorate is under the care and supervision of the state government. I thank the Minister for Natural Resources for acknowledging that and I quote from his press release issued today— Wild dog numbers have increased in recent seasons and these pest animals are currently causing a greater than usual annual damage to primary industries in Queensland. He also said— State owned lands are largely seen as a refuse for wild dogs to breed and then travel to private land to prey on livestock before returning to the relative safety of the state lands. I thank the minister for acknowledging the significance of this feral dog problem. I urge the minister to support my proposal for a $20 bounty on feral dog scalps in this year's budget. I believe the state government, as a significant landowner, has a responsibility just like all other private landowners for the control of problem and feral dogs on crown land irrespective of whether that land is located in Queensland. If anything, the state government has a greater responsibility where the crown land is located close to similar areas such as in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast. Accordingly, I call on the state government to take a lead role in this matter and to show Queensland local councils real evidence of its willingness to join them and our Queensland community in a real workable partnership to address this significant problem throughout the length and breadth of this great state.

Clean Up Australia Day Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (10.48 p.m.): On Sunday, 3 March, various community organisations and individuals in the Capalaba electorate participated in Clean Up Australia Day. Non-profit organisations such as Clean Up Australia rely solely on people's commitment and passion for the country and community. Over six million Australians have been involved in Clean Up Australia Day since 1990 and since then have collected over 165,000 tonnes of rubbish and contributed more than eight million hours of hard work towards their country. 848 Adjournment 10 Apr 2002

Not surprisingly, the amount of community and corporate support continues to grow. In fact, it has grown so much that annually it is now the largest environmental campaign in Australia. Community awareness has become a very important part of people's lives. Preserving and maintaining safe and beautiful environments for future generations enables us to establish a sense of pride within ourselves, which in turn can make us more aware of our role within the community. As part of the Birkdale Progress Association team, I was involved in cleaning local roads and bushlands in the area. Volunteers in the Capalaba electorate were invited to a free sausage sizzle hosted by me that afternoon. Members from both the Alexandra Hills Residents Association and the Birkdale Progress Association were in attendance. I thank everyone involved in Clean Up Australia Day, in particular, those from the Birkdale Progress Association and the Alexandra Hills Residents Association. They should be commended for their efforts and dedication to their community. On 6 April I attended the commissioning of Reverend Nicholas Whereat as the Rector of the Anglican parish of Birkdale. I would like to thank President Ron Williams, Bishop of the southern region, for the kind invitation. I have always regarded churches as playing a very important role in the community. There are a lot of issues and concerns that my constituents have to face that cannot be addressed adequately by the government. In the past, churches have provided physical, emotional and spiritual guidance to the community and I trust that this great tradition will continue. I thank Reverend Kit Bunker and his wife, Elizabeth, for the wonderful work that they have done and I wish them all the best with their mission to Zambia. I welcome Reverend Nicholas Whereat and his family to the beautiful bayside suburb of Birkdale. I look forward to working with Reverend Whereat for the betterment of his congregation and my constituents.

Australian Gospel Music Festival Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (10.50 p.m.): Over the Easter break in Toowoomba a major festival was held. The fourth annual Australian Gospel Music Festival was conducted on Good Friday, Easter Saturday and Easter Sunday. This is growing into one of the major music festivals in the country. It has become a major event on the Toowoomba calendar and it is going to grow from strength to strength. The festival starts on Good Friday. As people drive down Margaret Street and see Queens Park where the festival is held they see an absolute hive of activity of colour and people. The atmosphere that is created there is unbelievable. Approximately 1,000 people camp on site in Queens Park for the duration of the event. It is an event that is a very positive and very safe place for young people to go and enjoy their music in a celebratory way over Easter. I pay tribute to all of the organisers of the Australian Gospel Music Festival who have over the past four years made this such a major event on the Toowoomba calendar that it is really going to rival the likes of the Tamworth Country Music Festival in terms of its importance to country music. Toowoomba will become the major centre for gospel music in Australia. When people think of gospel music, I am sure that they think of a very narrow type of music. But I can assure honourable members that that is not the case. It includes jazz, soul, country, rock, funk, bluegrass and classical—all sorts of things. Having attended the festival, I can attest that the music ranges in taste from some that any mosh pit queen would really enjoy to the more classical sorts of music that some of the older members of the parliament would probably enjoy more. This year's event saw total ticket sales increase by 160 per cent. The number of people who came for the full three days increased by 210 per cent. The total combined crowd size—and that does not include duplicates—increased from approximately 25,000 people last year to 30,000 people this year. So that makes it a really major event on the Queensland calendar. The largest single concert at the festival attracted 9,000 people, and approximately 2,000 people who wanted to watch it were turned away. The festival is a major event. It is a fantastic event for Toowoomba, but it will also focus the gospel music industry on Toowoomba. I pay tribute to the current board of directors of Australia Gospel Music Festival: Mr Ian Andersen, who is the president; Mr Ian Shelton, who is a senior pastor with the Toowoomba City Church; Gary Wells, who is an inspector of police with the Queensland Police Service in Toowoomba; Mr Mark Freeman, who is a certified practising accountant in Toowoomba; Cheryl Andersen, who is the regional manager of the Queensland Heart Foundation; and David 10 Apr 2002 Adjournment 849

Whitehill, who is a senior partner for Clewett, Corser and Drummond, solicitors. Of course, a whole lot of volunteers play their part as well. There is Mr Isaac Moody, who is the festival coordinator, and Ms Linda Moes, who is the assistant festival coordinator. They are really the only two full-time people who work on this project. The rest is conducted by volunteers. The festival is a fantastic event and I think that it is going to go from strength to strength in the years to come.

Swagman Orana Movielines Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (10.53 p.m.): Movie magic may be found at Movieworld on the Gold Coast, but I am proud to say that the action does not stop there. Following the Premier's announcement recently that Warner Roadshow's studios on the coast will be increased in size by 50 per cent with an estimated $640 million going into the economy over the next three years, I sourced what this would mean for Broadwater. I discovered a company called Swagman Orana Movieline, which is based on Brisbane Road, Labrador. Of course, Swagman is the company that produces those fabulous motorhomes that we all dream of travelling around this wonderful country in. Swagman Orana Movielines are purpose-built motorhomes that are used by the stars and film crew on the sets of movies being made right around Queensland. Presently, seven vehicles are being used on the set of Ghost Ship, which is being filmed on the Gold Coast. Other films that have used these vehicles include Scooby Doo, Terror on the Rail and Wilde Girls, which starred Olivia Newton- John. I am told that Swagman Orana Movielines is always developing new styles of vehicles to meet the demands of movie producers, such as specially made wardrobe vans. Swagman motorhomes employs 131 staff and is one of the Broadwater's successful training and apprenticeship providers. Swagman has established a wonderful school based apprenticeship and work experience program together with Coombabah, Robina, Kingscliff and Helensvale high schools. In fact, Swagman took on all six of the company's 2001 school based apprentices. I thank the Premier and welcome the recent $8 million for Warner Roadshow's Gold Coast studios and I acknowledge the hard work of our Minister for the Arts, Matt Foley, and his commitment to the film industry on the Gold Coast. This injection of support for the Gold Coast movie industry is not just helping the film industry but also creating welcome spin-offs to other industries that will create jobs. We now have an investment that is reaping rewards. The six school based apprentices at Swagman attest to this success. Behind the scenes of Warner Roadshow studios is a Broadwater based company that is providing homes to the stars—luxury cabins, anyway—and a bright future for our young Queenslanders.

Police Resources; Kingaroy Hospital, Wheelchairs Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.56 p.m.): The lack of adequate police staff for stations at Esk, Toogoolawah, Moore and Nanango is causing some concern to local government authorities. It appears that the government has a long way to go towards addressing the issue of adequate relief staff. Here are four police stations, yet there are continual complaints about unmanned stations, especially when these police officers are undertaking training, are on days off, on holidays, or on sick leave. It is distressing that the main thoroughfare through the shire of Esk, the Brisbane Valley Highway, has been identified as a route known for accidents. The lack of a police presence leaves the highway wide open for people to speed on. Despite the government's efforts to reduce the road toll, it will never be achieved if sufficient police numbers are not made available to patrol black spots or roads identified as dangerous. The Esk Shire Council liaises regularly with police officers from the Ipswich region but, as is well known, the police resources in that region are overstretched. The Esk Shire Council ask that a Lidar, or hand-held radar unit, be based permanently in the Esk shire and is calling on the government to supply that Lidar to address the problem. I believe that if the government is serious about lowering the incidence of road accidents, it has no choice. What is the use of identifying black spots on roads when the government is not going to do anything about them? Why does a region, which is the gateway to Brisbane, not have sufficient back-up police officers to staff unmanned stations when the regular duty officers are absent? Has the government run out of money? On all accounts it appears to be the case. Otherwise, why are more funds not 850 Adjournment 10 Apr 2002

available to police our roads, for those black spots? It is time to act now. The government should forget paying the lip-service that it is famous for and address the real problems of the horrific road statistics of this state. Recently, I have been made aware of what I believe is an extremely distressing situation for several people in the Nanango electorate. As members would be aware, long-term rural residents are a very proud lot and they refuse offers of help until necessity forces them to put away their pride and accept that help. Most of us believe that there are those who have greater needs than our own. Unfortunately, many people with this attitude do not anticipate encountering a system that has inherent delays. They do not seek help early and are left to fend for themselves for periods of in excess of six months. In September 2001, one gentleman was assessed by an occupational therapist at the Kingaroy Base Hospital as needing a wheelchair. After that occupational therapist was transferred in October, her replacement made the same request. Unfortunately, owing to the time delays associated with the provision of wheelchairs, the gentleman was told that he would have to wait six months for it. The reason for that delay was that the gentleman could propel himself, albeit with trepidation, in a walking frame and by bouncing off the walls in his own home. He cannot use the walker outside owing to his tendency to lose balance, his extreme weakness and his bad vision. The gentleman's wife told me that he is in the final stage of a wasting terminal disease. This man is a prisoner in his own home because he did not call on the system earlier, although his occupational therapist and other professionals had tried to get the department to provide assistance. People are individuals with different ways of reacting when they are in need. Some people will exaggerate their conditions to ensure that they get the assistance that they need, and they will succeed. Others such as this gentleman I have mentioned will hang on and on, his pride not allowing him to admit the totality of his burden. I ask that some consideration be given to these people who have not abused the system but respected and appreciated it, and their partners, who are often reduced to ill health themselves.

Springwood Bus Interchange; Loganholme Police Station Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.59 p.m.): Two major projects have highlighted the Beattie Labor government's commitment to the people of Springwood. Recently, I represented Minister Steve Bredhauer and turned the first sod on the Springwood bus interchange. The station is located at Fitzgerald Boulevard, Springwood, and is nestled in the central shopping and business district of Springwood. This is an ideal site for a bus station. An arrival plaza, lift and stair access, weather protection and a pedestrian overpass linking the station to nearby shopping centres is a benefit to all commuters and shoppers in Logan. The station will also include three bus platforms, a kiss-and-ride set-down area, a 40-space car park, a state-of-the-art intelligent transport and security system, and a unique look, one that I am certain will be noticed by everyone who travels down the Pacific Motorway. The South East Busway has proved popular with commuters since opening almost a year ago. The Springwood bus interchange will provide an ideal link with the busway, a vital link in the connection for cross-town services in Logan, and a connection to the Pacific Motorway. Not only is the interchange making life easy for commuters, it is also enhancing access to the Springwood business district. Part of the construction is a new Pacific Motorway off-ramp. After considerable consultation with businesses in the area, it was decided to alter the Pacific Motorway access and exit routes. This will benefit shoppers and businesses in the area, as it will allow safe and easy access to the many businesses in the central shopping area and along the service road. This $22 million project is expected to be completed by mid-2003. Like many of the residents who have spoken to me about the project, I too look forward to its completion. The second major investment for the people of Springwood is the purchase of land for the new Loganholme Police Station. Last week, Minister Tony McGrady, Inspector Alex Erwin, Senior Sergeant Brett Munn and I visited the site on the corner of Bryants Road and Timor Avenue, Loganholme. This new station will be the hub of a new police division which will service a rapidly growing area. I know that the residents and business operators in the suburbs of Loganholme, Shailer Park and Cornubia welcome this decision. This extra division and new station will protect their communities. 10 Apr 2002 Adjournment 851

This is an example of the Beattie Labor government's commitment to being tough on crime and delivering additional police resources to the people of Logan. The announcements of police beats for Crestmead and Rochedale South are other examples that this government is listening to the community of Logan and they are delivering. More and more people are realising that keeping the community safe needs to be a joint effort between police and the community. The concept of community policing is becoming increasingly popular as people realise that cooperation on law and order issues can achieve great results for the community. That is what police beats are doing for communities. As communities grow, the challenge to meet policing services change and also need to grow. This new station, the new police beats and the Logan-Gold Coast Tactical Crime Squad is addressing growing needs for Logan City. The Springwood bus interchange and the new police facility for Loganholme are two major facilities that will enhance and improve public transport and community security and safety. I welcome these facilities and I am thankful that I am part of a government that listens to the community and puts people first. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.02 p.m.