7 Mar 2002 Legislative Assembly 449

THURSDAY, 7 MARCH 2002

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

CIVICS EDUCATION PROJECT Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise all honourable members that I have given permission to a civics education project of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Education Queensland to obtain video footage in the Assembly today. An unattended camera will operate from the rear of the chamber for the whole day, while another camera operator will film from the regular media pool locations from 11.30 a.m. until midafternoon. I thank members for their cooperation for this worthwhile project.

MEMBERS' SURVEY Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw honourable members' attention to the members' survey which has been delivered to their Parliament House offices. I ask all members to please complete the survey by the due date as it is part of the Legislative Assembly's performance reporting process.

PETITIONS Security at Nightclubs Dr Lesley Clark from 3,353 petitioners, requesting the House to enhance the safety of patrons and the public by legislating that hand held metal detectors be required to be used at nightclubs by security staff who are responsible for admitting persons to such establishments.

Little Mulgrave Mr Pitt from 73 petitioners, requesting the House to give consideration to retaining the name Little Mulgrave in the Register of Place Names as a separate locality.

Bridge, Pomona-Kin Kin Road Miss Elizabeth Roberts from 436 petitioners, requesting the House to replace the bridge on Pomona-Kin Kin Road, Pomona with a higher and wider one with improved approaches.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in Queensland Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: The Queensland and Commonwealth governments have reached agreement on a major initiative to address salinity and water quality problems in the state. Together, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments have committed $162 million—that is, $81 million each—to combat this problem. Salinity poses a major threat to our rural industries. If not managed, it could lay waste to vast tracts of prime rural land, as it has done elsewhere in Australia, notably the Murray-Darling Basin. Our agreement with the Commonwealth government recognises four priority regions for funding: the Burdekin-Fitzroy, the Border Rivers, the Condamine-Balonne-Maranoa, and the Lockyer-Bremer-Upper Brisbane, Burnett and Mary River regions. The agreement, which was signed by both the Prime Minister and me, establishes the arrangements for implementing the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in Queensland. The national action plan commits Queensland and the Commonwealth to address water quality and salinity in partnership with local governments and community based organisations. Salinity and deteriorating water quality have the potential to seriously affect the sustainability of Queensland's agricultural production. This is one of the most significant environmental problems confronting Queensland and the rest of Australia. We were the first state to sign up to the intergovernmental agreement covering the national action plan and, because there is a very close relationship between tree clearing and salinity, I am keen to finalise a tree clearing compensation package with the Commonwealth. We want the same partnership on tree clearing as we now have for salinity. 450 Ministerial Statement 7 Mar 2002

If we can cooperatively manage these two highly significant natural resource issues, we will, as a government, have gone a long way towards preventing a repetition of some of the disastrous land degradation issues that characterise our southern states. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a news release issued by both the Prime Minister and me which sets out the details because of the significance of this issue. Leave granted. Prime Minister Queensland salinity and water quality national action plan agreement The Queensland Premier, Mr Peter Beattie, and the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, are pleased to announce the signing of a Bilateral Agreement under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality to address salinity and water quality problems in Queensland. The Bilateral Agreement establishes the arrangements for implementing the National Action Plan in Queensland. The National Action Plan commits Queensland and the Commonwealth to address water quality and salinity in partnership with local governments and community-based organisations. Together the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments have committed $81 million each of new funding for spending on activities to prevent and address salinity and deteriorating water quality in the State. This funding will be applied to four 'priority regions' in Queensland. Salinity and deteriorating water quality have the potential to seriously affect the sustainability of Queensland's agriculture production, the conservation of its biological diversity and the viability of infrastructure and regional communities. Activities in Queensland will focus on: rigorous scientific assessment; identifying targets for natural resource health; planning for integrated natural resource management; investing in priority on-ground action to prevent and mitigate salinity and deteriorating water quality impacts for communities, industry and the environment; building partnerships between the community, landholders and government through an integrated planning process and developing community capacity; and augmenting and expanding the work already under way in the State through the Natural Heritage Trust. The active involvement of communities is the cornerstone of the National Action Plan. The Bilateral Agreement will enable communities to take responsibility for planning and implementing natural resource management strategies, in partnership with all levels of government, that meet their priorities for sustainable development and ongoing viability in their regions and in the broader community. Under the National Action Plan Queensland regional bodies will develop integrated natural resource management plans for their catchments/regions. The Commonwealth and Queensland Governments will jointly invest in actions aimed at addressing salinity and water quality problems in the priority regions, in accordance with these plans, and help to build the capacity of communities and landholders to deal with these issues. Addressing salinity and water quality issues is the most significant environmental challenge facing Australia and will remain a high priority for the Federal Government over coming years. The Queensland Government is fully committed to addressing natural resource management issues, as demonstrated through being the first state to sign up to the Intergovernmental Agreement covering the National Action Plan and having already announced the establishment of a number of 'regional NRM bodies' to implement the National Action Plan. 6 March 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Institute of Medical Research; Smart State Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.), by leave: This ministerial statement is about Queensland continuing to build itself as the Smart State of Australia. The Queensland Institute of Medical Research has just received a $3.43 million grant from Bermuda based Atlantic Philanthropies to further its work in developing a new treatment for cancer without harmful side effects. This grant will be used to establish a Cell Based Cancer Therapy Research Centre within QIMR's new Comprehensive Cancer Research Centre, which the Health Minister and I opened last year. I know that she is excited about this news as much as I am. This project has tremendous potential to benefit people here and around the world, with the clinical trials to involve patients with advanced melanoma, leukaemia, lymphoma and prostate cancer. Approximately 15 of QIMR's 460 scientists will be working on this research in the short term, with greater numbers of scientists being employed in the forthcoming years. The treatment is based on harnessing the patient's own immune system to recognise and attack cancer cells. It will involve removing the patient's cancer tissue and obtaining immune cells from a blood sample. The cells are then cultured in the laboratory and re-infused back into the patient through an 7 Mar 2002 Ministerial Statement 451 intravenous drip. While there are other cell based therapies being researched by other organisations, QIMR is the only one utilising four different types of cells to harness an immune response against cancer cells. Other organisations are using only one or two cell categories in their clinical trials. The researchers will be working closely with clinicians from various Queensland hospitals. The Atlantic Philanthropies is a charitable organisation consisting of The Atlantic Foundation and The Atlantic Trust. It began giving out grants in 1982. Since then, Atlantic Philanthropies has awarded approximately 2,600 grants totalling $US2.1 billion. Atlantic Philanthropies identifies and supports leaders in the field who are dedicated to learning, knowledge building and solving pressing social problems. The QIMR is one of Australia's leading medical research institutes and is now, with 460 scientists on staff, the largest in Australia in terms of scientists, variety of projects and diseases being researched. As such, QIMR is one of the few organisations in Australia to have received funding from Atlantic Philanthropies. QIMR has a proven track record which includes having discovered Ross River virus in 1963, discovering a link between ovarian cancer and smoking in 2001 and this year discovering a major genetic mutation causing breast cancer. It has also been a world leader in its work in relation to skin cancer. The grant from Atlantic Philanthropies will also provide education and training programs for medical students as well as advanced training for clinical researchers from around Australia. This is a clear demonstration of Queensland becoming Australia's Smart State. Today I am also tabling a document which outlines some of the major decisions and advances we have made in making Queensland the Smart State since my government was elected in June 1998. I table two copies of that for the information of the House and indicate that copies are now being distributed to all members. I will be taking this with me on my trade mission to the United States in a bid to win more investment, more partnerships and more companies establishing their Asia-Pacific headquarters in Queensland. The document tells how we have been building the Smart State by developing Queensland as an Asia-Pacific hub for the new industries of the 21st century—industries such as biotechnology, information technology, nanotechnology and communication technology. We are making our education system relevant to the needs of the new millennium, skilling the work force and creating thousands of long-term, new-age jobs in these high technology areas. Queensland is attracting a critical mass of scientists and researchers. Just two of our many research facilities, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research—about which I have been talking—and the new $100 million Institute for Molecular Bioscience will house more than 1,500 scientists. A recent audit of Queensland's biotechnology industry by Ernst and Young shows that job numbers, research and revenue are all on the rise. There has been a 67 per cent overall growth in employment in the industry in Queensland since 1999. The Reef Network, a fibre optic cable which runs up the entire coast between Brisbane and Cairns, has already cut wholesale prices for broadband capacity by two-thirds. Yesterday the Minister for Innovation and I met with a well-known international company, Cisco, to discuss other opportunities for IT links into this state. We are also applying new Smart State solutions in our traditional industries, such as mining, manufacturing, construction, farming and tourism, to ensure that they remain ultra-competitive in the world marketplace. This climate of innovation, education and training, coupled with our low state taxes, high standard of living, great lifestyle and sunny climate, has resulted in the state government attracting many existing hi-tech companies to establish their Asia-Pacific headquarters in Queensland—companies such as Boeing, Red Hat, GE Medical Systems, Sequenom and Mincom. We will continue to do everything we can to make Queensland even smarter.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Centenary of Federation Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.), by leave: Today I take great pleasure in tabling the final report for the Centenary of Federation Queensland events and community projects program hosted throughout the state during 2001. All members will receive a copy. Because of the time restraints and because there is another issue that I want to raise, I seek leave to have my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. 452 Ministerial Statement 7 Mar 2002

The $27.25 million Centenary of Federation program was an outstanding success in Queensland. It is estimated that more than a million Queenslanders attended the 364 projects that were directly funded by Centenary of Federation Queensland. These projects involved about 500 different events reaching 123 towns across 68 shires and local government areas of Queensland. Queensland distinguished itself from the other states by holding two of its national centrepiece events outside its capital. The extraordinary Federation air shows in the Outback visited 16 towns in Western Queensland and Federation North in Townsville, attended by 120,000 people, was one of the largest gatherings to ever occur in North Queensland. The Centenary of Federation program in Queensland has left a lasting legacy with the $10.2m Queensland Community Assistance Program funding 182 community projects and facilities throughout the state. Communities now have additional assets such as walking trails, new buildings, public artworks and heritage restorations that will leave a lasting reminder of this important landmark in our nation's history. This extraordinary, once-in-a-hundred-year, project has exceeded all targets set. Of the three major program areas: The Queensland Community Assistance Program; Queensland Community Events and Celebrations Program; and the Millennium Legacy Initiatives Program; 91.2 per cent of all funding was allocated directly to community projects and celebrations.Centenary of Federation Queensland was established to develop, implement and manage a Statewide program of events and celebrations for delivery in 2001. In the regions during 2001, surveys indicate that awareness of Centenary of Federation ranged from 74% to 92%, a significant result compared to a rate of less than 27% in 2000. The vision for the project was to encourage confidence in the future by supporting participation in and awareness of the 100th Birthday of the Nation. All the indicators show we have achieved this in spectacular fashion. Of the 90% of event partners surveyed, the program created the equivalent of more than 1,123 weeks of full time employment, 623 weeks of part time employment and 810 weeks of casual employment across the State. The success of the project was greatly enhanced by the extraordinary contribution of an estimated 8,000 weeks of volunteer labour by thousands of dedicated, inspired and enthusiastic Queenslanders. With more than 80% of project funding going to organisations outside the Greater Brisbane area, regional Queensland showed its enthusiasm for joining in the national celebrations. Both large and small businesses showed their support for the celebrations generating an additional contribution in excess of $10m cash and in-kind sponsorship. Hundreds of schools, groups and individuals got into the spirit staging their own federation celebrations, from fetes and debates to sports days, federation-style dances and old time dinners. The Australian Defence Force also celebrated its centenary, adding military spectacle to many memorable Centenary of Federation Queensland events throughout the State. Funding was allocated to the Millennium Legacy Initiatives Program, investing in projects that provide lasting benefits to Queensland, particularly Queensland's young people. The program includes the areas of cultural exchange, environment, a youth forum and an innovative technology-based project that will provide Far North Queensland young people better access to education and counselling services. One significant element of this program addresses the issue of youth suicide, investigating ways to improve coordination of, and access to, services for young people at risk.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Events Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.), by leave: Queensland is the big events state of Australia. Last year we hosted the Goodwill Games, the world's biggest multi-event sporting carnival of 2001. Now we have successfully hosted CHOGM, the world's largest gathering of political leaders outside of the United Nations, and the associated visit to Queensland by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and former US President Bill Clinton. These events have given Queensland unprecedented exposure to the world that will generate enormous flow-on benefits, particularly for our tourism industry, for something like five years. These big events link into a calendar of events that ensure national and international eyes are focused on Queensland right through the year. Honourable members should look at the class of events we have hosted in Queensland. The ANZ Ladies Masters on the Gold Coast from 21 to 24 February attracted 10 of the world's top 20 women golfers. The Minister for Tourism and I attended a dinner at which the best female golfers in the world were present. It was a great honour to have them in Queensland. What a finish to the event, even if it was disappointing to see our own Karrie Webb surrendering her title after a four- hole sudden death play-off against her arch rival and current world number one, Annika Sorenstam. There is a lot more to come in 2002. From Thursday, 11 April to Sunday, 14 April Brisbane will host the Telstra National Athletics Championships. The championships double as Commonwealth Games selection trials, with athletes of the calibre of Olympic medallists Cathy Freeman, Tatiana Grigorieva— Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE:—Jai Taurima and Louise Sauvage vying for Australian team selection for Manchester. I am delighted to see that she is very popular in this House. 7 Mar 2002 Ministerial Statement 453

Also in April we will host the Mooloolaba Triathlon Festival, which features the Australian Triathlon Championships. From April to June we will host the Winter Racing Carnival—and the list goes on. During June and July we will host a series of down under events on the Gold Coast. There is the Down Under Bowl, with more than 2,500 grid iron players from 36 American states with 200 cheerleaders adding hype and excitement to tournament. The Down Under International Games is expected to attract 350 American high school students participating in a variety of sports with a further 350 American high school basketball players contesting the Down Under Hoops Classic. Then on 7 July we will host the Gold Coast Marathon; on 27 July, the Bundaberg Rum Tri- nations Rugby match between Australia and South Africa; and from 13 to 17 August, the Australian International Movie Convention on the Gold Coast. We will be hearing a lot more about Rugby international games in Queensland for next year. I simply say: stay tuned for those. From 13 to 15 September the Queensland Raceway at Ipswich will reverberate to the note of V8 supercars contesting the 2002 Queensland 500. We have the Asia Pacific Masters Games in September. We have the Honda Indy 300 action in October, and this year the event also features a championship round of the popular V8 supercars. The Gold Coast will host the Air New Zealand Golden Oldies World Netball Festival from 2 to 9 November. The big event to wrap up the year is Equitana Brisbane 2002 from 16 to 24 November. Equitana is a celebration of the horse, with the week's action including competitions, entertainment, exhibitions and education. During Equitana the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre will be transformed with seating for 7,500 people, 180 stables and yards accommodating 800 horses and 100 head of cattle. Equitana also links well with our year long celebration of the Year of the Outback. This includes Easter in the Outback events planned for Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine and Ilfracombe and Gayndah's Queensland Year of the Outback Legends of Racing and Rodeo in June. Of course there are other important local festivals and carnivals in centres throughout rural and provincial Queensland during 2002. The bottom line is that Queensland Events, which is in my portfolio, has now come up with a comprehensive long-term strategy that is designed to bring event tourism to this state. It is about jobs, jobs, jobs. We need to be multifaceted in what we do and we need to do all the things we have traditionally done better and smarter. That is why we have placed such emphasis on innovation, biotechnology, IT, doing our traditional industries better, our reforms in education and our big events strategy. All of those things are designed to encourage development, innovation and jobs for this state. It is a big year of events in Queensland with something for everyone wherever they live in this great state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Education Reforms Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.45 a.m.), by leave: Over the past few days the Minister for Education and Training and I have been travelling to encourage regional Queenslanders to have their say about the groundbreaking reforms proposed in the government's education and training green paper. It is important that as many people as possible have the opportunity to comment on our Smart State agenda because it is an agenda for the future. I visited Pimlico State High School in Townsville yesterday. The member for Mundingburra, Lindy Nelson-Carr, and I spoke with staff and students, and I am happy to report that the initial reaction to the government's proposals has been very positive. The students were particularly keen to tell us what they thought. A number of students liked the idea of the reorganisation of the senior years of schooling to include years 10, 11 and 12. One student said that she experienced a great shock in year 11 and would have liked year 10 to also be part of the senior years. Another said that he would have welcomed a more gentle transition to senior schooling. The Pimlico State High School students also signalled a desire to give formal feedback in the public consultation process. I encourage student participation in this discussion. If we are to become the Smart State we must all take part in building it. Earlier in the week the Premier and I visited Kelvin Grove State College. Again, I can report very positive feedback. The senior students at Kelvin Grove approved of the later leaving age. 454 Ministerial Statement 7 Mar 2002

Some welcomed the links with TAFE. The staff heartily approved of the reorganisation of the senior years, which is hardly surprising because Kelvin Grove has already adopted this model. I have been encouraged to note a very strong awareness from all of the high school students to whom I have spoken this week, whether they are in year 8 or year 12, of the importance of continuing education and training beyond year 10. Many of these young people are already involved in the study of vocational subjects and spoke enthusiastically about these opportunities. When I visited Pacific Paradise State School on the Sunshine Coast earlier this week parents and teachers offered enthusiastic support for the trial of a full-time preparatory year. Many wanted to know when and where the trials would take place so that they and their children could take part in it next year. I encourage schools to put their hand up to be considered for involvement in these trials. There will be 30 trials next year, growing to 50 the year after. I am sure that the trials will be enthusiastically supported. Following question time today I will be travelling to Bundaberg to visit Avoca State School. Again, I will be distributing the document of reforms to staff and students, and I look forward to hearing their response. I am also pleased to inform members that in the last two days some 190 calls have been placed with the education and training reforms hotline. Many were from people seeking a copy of the document and many others called to register their initial support. I cannot overemphasise the importance of public input into this significant Smart State agenda. Public forums across the state will be announced shortly and I look forward to hearing from Queenslanders about their views.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Film Industry Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.48 a.m.), by leave: There can be no doubt that providing a skilled work force attracts industry and investment which in turn provides job opportunities for young Queenslanders. This is the elementary logic of the Smart State. The film industry is a classic case. Because Labor governments have had the vision to build up a skills base in film-making over the past decade, this state has now developed an excellent reputation in the international film industry. Because Queenslanders have the skills, film-makers want to come here to make movies. Since 1991, the film production industry has generated over $2 billion in economic impact and employs more than 4,500 people. The major focus of the Queensland government's Pacific Film and Television Commission is developing the domestic industry and allocating the majority of its funding to proactive schemes that assist writers, producers and directors to create film and television ideas that can be sold in the marketplace. We must strive to nurture the local film industry. We cannot simply be dependent on the crumbs that fall from the Hollywood producers' table. Two practical examples of nurturing the local film industry are the Jumpstart Short Film Fund, which provides assistance of up to $25,000 each for 10 new film-makers, and The Write Stuff Short Film Initiative, which gives budding writers throughout Queensland the chance to develop their skills as scriptwriters. Such schemes involve a total investment of $350,000 and they are helping our film-makers create production credits and valuable industry alliances, which will strengthen our local industry and lead to more production, more investment and more jobs. Most importantly, it enables Queenslanders to showcase their stories to the world and retain ownership and profit from their ideas. This strategy is helping many Queensland film-makers get their ideas on screen. Last night, I opened a short film screening of five Queensland-made films. Recently, I launched Blurred, a film about schoolies week on the Gold Coast, which will be the first internationally distributed feature film to be wholly written, produced and directed by Queenslanders since 1949. Currently in Harrisville near Ipswich, the interactive television series Fat Cow Motel is in production for Austar. Queensland is also experiencing increased demand for foreign productions and co- productions to be filmed in Queensland. Last month, I visited Coote Hayes' productions, which have produced telemovies and television series on the Gold Coast since 1998, providing over $434 million in economic impact. These productions include the Flipper series, The Lost World III and Beastmaster III, which have provided significant training, employment and business 7 Mar 2002 Ministerial Statement 455 opportunities for Queenslanders. Coote Hayes is currently negotiating or developing a fourth series of The Lost World, a new 22-episode series called Lost in Oz, and two other television series and expect to shoot several telemovies this year. The PFTC has also attracted several major feature films to Queensland. Inspector Gadget II, starring French Stewart, has completed filming and is currently in post-production; Ghost Ship, a Warner Brothers Picture starring Julianna Marguiles and Gabriel Byrne is currently in production until April; and The Great Raid, a World War II epic starring Benjamin Bratt is in pre-production and will commence filming in June 2002. The year 2002 will be a bumper year for filming in Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Department of State Development, Business Initiatives Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.52 a.m.), by leave: There has been recent questioning of the state government's attitude towards small to mediums sized enterprises—or SME's—and its efforts to assist these businesses. The general suggestion was that this government was not doing enough for these businesses. For the record, I would like to outline to the House just a few of the initiatives the Department of State Development is providing to these businesses to innovate and to grow. Computer applications for small enterprises—CASE—provides highly skilled specialised experts throughout the state enabling SMEs to explore opportunities to integrate e-commerce technology applications into their businesses. E-commerce grants, a $2 million scheme commenced early in 2001, provide SMEs funding to uptake innovative technology applications to enhance business capacity to be at the forefront of e-commerce. Material from each project is then disseminated to business and industry through case studies. The department, through its network of state development centres, provides a comprehensive range of products and programs targeted at business operators to ensure they have skill levels to enable them to embrace opportunities and compete in the competitive business world. On average, this involves about 700 workshops or seminars with about 17,000 attendees each year. The Queensland Manufacturing Institute provides Queensland business with access to world-class manufacturing technology and expertise at an affordable cost. The red tape reduction task force—RTRTF—and the Queensland Small Business Advisory Council—QSBAC—are key private sector advisory bodies to the minister on small business matters. The Small Business Advisory Council, with which I am very ably assisted by the member for Kurwongbah as deputy chair, had its most recent meeting—and a very productive meeting—only last Thursday. Both bodies have been working to improve the relationship between the government and small business. For example, the Red Tape Reduction Task Force is developing a regulatory communication system for Queensland, which will provide small business with an early warning of upcoming proposals to amend or develop regulations so that they can participate in and influence the regulation-making process. The Red Tape Reduction Task Force is also developing a business referral service, which will provide access for small businesses experiencing difficulty with understanding and complying with regulations to experts in those regulations in government departments, thereby reducing unproductive search time for business. Both these initiatives are expected to be launched in coming weeks. The Small Business Advisory Council has developed a comprehensive strategy for the franchising industry, which will significantly improve the capabilities of small business to participate in this important and growing sector. The government also has in place a regulatory impact statement system for major regulatory proposals, which requires government departments to consult small business and the community on such proposals. The Department of State Development provides training in the RIS process for government agencies, which includes the use of alternatives to black letter law that can impose high compliance costs on small business. The department maximises opportunities for small to medium sized enterprises to capitalise on major markets, projects and events by gathering and disseminating commercial intelligence and facilitating business matching. The Goodwill Games provided over $12 million worth of business to Queensland firms. Other projects include the defence markets, the 2006 Commonwealth Games, the Beijing Olympics and other major events and projects. This government is working with small to medium sized enterprises to ensure that they can grow and benefit from the economic growth that this state is experiencing. 456 Ministerial Statement 7 Mar 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT International Clandestine Laboratory Investigation Course Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.57 a.m.), by leave: I would like to inform the House of a recent initiative by Queensland police that may help to stem the flow of drug trafficking in our region and indeed in Queensland. In January, four members of the Queensland Police Service's state drug investigation group travelled to Jakarta to conduct a training course for Indonesian police. The program was an international clandestine laboratory investigation course. The federal police had approached Queensland police to facilitate this training. The course was attended by 20 members of the Indonesian national police service. They were taught all elements of clandestine laboratory investigation, including drug identification, precursor chemical identification, evidence requirements and workplace health and safety standards when investigating these laboratories. Queensland police have a great deal of experience when it comes to detecting illicit drug laboratories, having put more than 100 of these labs out of action last year. Drugs are not a problem that are unique to Queensland—not by any means. Indeed, I am sure many places have far worse problems with drugs than our state. But that does not mean we should be complacent. The trafficking of drugs is a social menace and we should tackle the issue head-on. To do this, we need to recognise that drug trafficking is an issue that transcends jurisdictional borders. Amphetamine production is occurring in many parts of our region and, therefore, we need to work with our neighbours to ensure we share knowledge on how to best shut these illicit drug labs down. Our government has repeatedly stated its determination to be tough on drugs. Last year, the Beattie government also introduced stronger penalties for producing and trafficking amphetamines—up to 25 years in jail, the same as heroin and cocaine. My colleague the Attorney General also acted quickly to ban a designer drug known as Eden. We will continue to support strong measures to attack drug supply. This is part of our two- pronged approach, which includes programs aimed at early intervention to help young people off drugs before they become trapped in the drug dependency cycle.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sale of National Rail Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (9.59 a.m.), by leave: Members would be aware of the recent purchase of the National Rail Corporation and FreightCorp by the Toll/Lang joint venture, operating as the National Rail Consortium. That purchase has profound implications for the transport sector within Australia. The National Rail Consortium is aiming to increase the competitiveness of rail freight on the national rail network by between 20 to 30 per cent over the next two to three years. It is a laudable aim and I sincerely hope it can be achieved. However, there are clear limits to the efficiency of all Australian rail operators if they are forced to operate on a substandard interstate rail network. Using rail to transport freight is efficient economically and environmentally. However, road is currently the dominant means of transporting freight in Australia. Only about 20 per cent of the freight between Melbourne and Brisbane, and Sydney and Brisbane is by rail. This compares with 70 per cent of all freight between Melbourne and Perth. The challenge for rail operators is to move freight off our roads and onto rail. Mr Johnson: And you are trying to do it the other way around. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Johnson: There's no order at all. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, order! Mr BREDHAUER: To do this, we need to ensure that we have an infrastructure that can do the job. It seems that many people agree. There have been a number of studies into the standard of rail infrastructure in Australia. One of those, the Neville report, recommended that the 7 Mar 2002 Ministerial Statement 457

Commonwealth allocate an additional $750 million over 3 years and $2 billion over 10 years for investment in the national rail track. The Commonwealth's own body for managing the defined interstate rail network, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, in its Network Audit found that an additional $400 million expenditure was warranted. They found that expenditure such as this would provide approximately three times the economic benefits in return. In the Melbourne to Brisbane corridor alone, 88 per cent of the total volume growth would be captured on the interstate rail network, or the equivalent of 128,000 truck trips per annum. The Commonwealth government recently received $220 million from the sale of National Rail, and today I challenge the Commonwealth government to spend that windfall on improving rail infrastructure. The Commonwealth government claim to be committed to upgrading the corridors, but the rhetoric so far has not been matched by actions. By any measure, Commonwealth expenditure is inadequate and it needs to be addressed now. In Queensland, there has been a substantial investment in rail over the past decade, and we have reaped the rewards. The federal government need look no further than Queensland to find an example of a commitment to rail. Investment of over $6 billion over the last 10 years has resulted in record tonnages hauled by QR services, particularly in the coal division, improved passenger services and a significant increase in passenger numbers for both Citytrain and Traveltrain. The Commonwealth should live up to its responsibilities south of the Queensland border with the Interstate Rail Network, as Queensland has for its own network. It is common sense for the Commonwealth government to reinvest the $220 million from the sale of National Rail in the rail network. If these funds are spent sensibly and if the rail infrastructure south of the border is maintained and enhanced, rail can become a true competitor with road transport, and we will all benefit.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Building Services Authority; Building Defects Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: As honourable members would be aware, the government has taken a number of steps to strengthen confidence in Queensland's building industry. This has occurred at both the broad level of legislation and regulation, as well as at the grassroots level through training and education of those working in the industry. To that end, I am pleased to inform the House that the Building Services Authority has established working parties to find ways to prevent common building defects. The BSA handles up to 6,000 disputes a year. Many of those arise from common types of defective work. I am told that almost every year the list of top 10 defects is headed by leaking shower recesses or poorly installed plasterboard on ceilings or walls. Last year the BSA handled around 410 claims of poorly installed plasterboard and more than 360 instances of defective work on shower recesses. The other top 10 complaints related to house footings, concrete driveways or paths, roof flashings, floor tiling, termite protection, external painting, floor slabs, and stairs and balustrades. The BSA is moving to head off such complaints. Two new working parties have been established: the Paint and Plasterboard Working Party and the Showers and Tiling Working Party. Both are chaired by the BSA and contain representatives of the Queensland Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, as well as relevant trade organisations such as the Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association, Master Painters Association, Building Designers Association, Master Plumbers Association, Waterproofing Industry Council, and manufacturers of plasterboard or bathroom products. Both working parties will recommend to the board of the BSA any policy or legislative changes necessary to reduce defects. They will also advise on education or training initiatives for both contractors and consumers. The working parties held initial meetings in February and will meet again next month. It is anticipated that the BSA will be able to report specific proposals later this year. I urge builders or contractors who want to have input into this process to contact the BSA or their trade organisation. This is a process that will pay dividends for consumers, as well as for the building industry as a whole. 458 Ministerial Statement 7 Mar 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Child Protection Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: Any child's death is a tragedy, particularly when the child has come from a background involving abuse or neglect. Just one death would be a death too many. Recent media reports have suggested that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of deaths of children who have come to the attention of the Department of Families. However, that is not the case. The most reliable data now becoming available indicates that the figures for deaths of young people have remained comparatively constant since 1995 when 24 young people, aged up to 12, who were known to the department, died. In subsequent years the figures were 13 in 1996, eight in 1997 and 11 in 1998. In 1999, the reporting extended to include children up to age 18 known to the department. They show 12 in 1999, 19 in 2000 and 18 in 2001. Children known to the department often exhibit 'high risk' behaviour or have existing disabilities or injuries that are life threatening. Some have a life-threatening disability or injuries from abuse that brought them to the department's attention. Other young people are classified as 'high risk' from substance abuse, self-harm or taking great risks, including joy riding in stolen cars and mixing with more violent associates. The new reporting systems implemented since 1999 mean that for the first time we are receiving accurate information which will help us work more effectively with other government agencies. On 19 February 2002, the Coordinating Committee on Child Abuse (CCOCA) met to discuss a number of issues, including the need for clear protocols and interagency guidelines for agencies involved in child protection. The Department of Families is contacting collaborating agencies including the Queensland Police Service, Education Queensland, Queensland Health, and Justice and Attorney General about the sharing of information and the operation of Suspected Child Abuse Notification (SCAN) Teams to better track at risk and highly mobile families. The number of child protection notifications has risen since 1995 because of new, more comprehensive legislation and reporting requirements, coupled with information campaigns to raise public awareness of child abuse. All of this has meant increasing levels of notification. That shows that the new legislation, the changes in policy and increased resourcing are working. There is no doubt that many occupations and the community in general are far more aware of child abuse than previously and are more willing to use the available avenues to report it. I emphasise that any child death is tragic and we have been, and we are, committed to providing the resources, the legislation and the staff necessary to tackle these issue. Since 1999, successive state budgets have increased funding for the Department of Families, which has seen record levels of expenditure on child protection and record numbers of child protection officers. We have not wavered in our commitment to rebuild the child protection system and we will not walk away from Queensland's children. We are prepared to do the hard work necessary to achieve this result. Since 1999 there has been an almost 50 per cent increase in the child protection budget in Queensland. This is the single largest commitment to increase child protection spending by any Queensland government in history. Since 1999 more than 200 direct child protection service delivery staff positions have been created, and there will be further staff employed in the next financial year as the Beattie government delivers on its commitment to increase the number of front line staff by 250. Both the Premier and Treasurer agree with me that families will be the state government's top priority in this year's budget. This financial year we expect to spend more than $140 million on child protection in this state. The Productivity Commission Report, the Report on Government Services 2002, referred to yesterday by the Deputy Premier, notes that the real recurrent expenditure on child protection and out-of-home care services for children aged 0 to 17 increased in all jurisdictions except Victoria and South Australia between 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Queensland's reported percentage change was the largest, increasing by more than 26 per cent or almost triple the national average. 7 Mar 2002 Ministerial Statement 459

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Rural Queensland Internet Guide Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: Our government is continually seeking new and innovative ways to ensure that all Queenslanders have equal access to government information and services. It is a sign of the times when technological advances mean we can all access information at our fingertips 24 hours a day and from virtually anywhere via the Internet. In particular, the Internet offers an opportunity for us to greatly improve the range of available information and communication opportunities for people on the land. In the same way, it also allows rural scientists, economists and policy makers to be better informed as to the prevailing biophysical and socioeconomic conditions throughout the country and also overseas. In this sense it is an excellent tool for rural Queenslanders, particularly farmers, who want to access up- to-date information that can significantly enhance their operations. Recent studies on Internet usage show that rural and regional Australia is making significant progress in reaching online usage levels that are comparable to metropolitan Australia. In fact, households outside of the capital cities that are connected to the Internet increased by 146 per cent since November 1998, from 13 per cent to 32 per cent, in comparison to an 82 per cent increase for capital cities, from 22 per cent to 40 per cent. At the end of March 1999, 18 per cent of the 147,181 farms in Australia used the Internet. The figure for Queensland was 16 per cent, with farms in Mackay, far-north Queensland and Brisbane recording the highest usage. As we all know, one of the great difficulties in using the Internet is finding authoritative material and locating the web sites which provide this information. It gives me great pleasure to today present to parliament the second edition of the Rural Queensland Internet Guide, which I believe has been issued to all members. One of the sites covered, and which is very topical in my office at the moment, is 'nappiesonline'. My senior media adviser, Kirby Anderson, and his wife, Dianne, are the proud parents of an eight pound 12 ounce boy, Zachary Kilpatrick, born a couple of days ago. Congratulations, Kirby and Dianne. A Smart State partnership between the Department of Primary Industries and Queensland Rural Press, this guide offers users a handy, easy-to-use reference guide to navigate the vast amount of information available on the internet. Some 44,000 copies of the guide are today being delivered to homes and businesses across the state as a free supplement within Queensland Country Life and the North Queensland Register. With its focus on rural and regional items, the Rural Internet Guide has already demonstrated itself as a very useful tool for users irrespective of their Internet skills level. This guide is a fantastic initiative and I am confident that it will be embraced by all rural and regional Queenslanders. The publication demonstrates how rural Queensland is contributing to the backbone of a Smart State through the early adoption of Internet technology. I take this opportunity to thank my departmental staff and Queensland Rural Press on this initiative and congratulate them on a job well done.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: Today I would like to inform the House that Queensland firefighters had their busiest year ever during 2001. Statistics collected by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service have revealed that our firies fought an average of 52 fires and attended 19 road accidents and other rescues each day during 2001. The data was collected through the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service's Station Management System and Australasian Incident Reporting System, and revealed that fire crews responded to a total of 19,138 blazes last year. The busiest fire months were August with 2,815 blazes, September with 2,490, and October with 2,681—the state's traditional bush and grass fire season. The winter months were also busy, with crews responding to a large number of house and other structural fires throughout Queensland. According to Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Commissioner Lee Johnson, the number of fires attended by crews was more than 30 per cent above expectations based on records for previous years. In total, fire crews were called to 58,697 460 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 7 Mar 2002 emergency incidents in 2001. This included higher numbers of road accidents and other rescues and attendance at a range of chemical and hazardous material incidents. The data revealed that firefighters responded to almost 6,000 road accidents and more than 1,200 other rescues. Crews also attended almost 3,000 chemical and hazardous material incidents. The 58,697 incidents that I referred to include a large number of calls that were later determined to be false alarms. However, it must be stressed and remembered that crews respond to all calls as if they are potentially life-threatening emergencies. The data also revealed that during 2001 firefighters spent more than 135,000 hours conducting community fire safety activities such as building inspections, visiting homes and shopping centres, holding station open days and carrying out school based fire safety lessons. This last figure shows that firefighters have definitely moved away from the days of the past when they had a reputation for sitting around at their fire stations whiling away the hours in between fire call-outs. That down time is now spent productively in these fire prevention and education activities. As Minister for Emergency Services, I cannot stress enough the importance of educating children. The simple fact is that safety aware children grow into safety aware adults, and this is a philosophy that we use right throughout the Department of Emergency Services. However, with these statistics showing the number of fires and rescues growing each year, it is obviously not a time to become complacent. After all, if fires or accidents can be prevented through these education projects we can, and will, save lives.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Biotechnology Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (10.17 a.m.), by leave: All members here today will be delighted to hear that Queensland is constantly achieving breakthroughs in health and bio-innovation. Members might recently have read about PanBio, a Queensland company that is a world leader in diagnostic tests for diseases. The tiny plastic cassette I am holding will allow health professionals to take a small sample of blood from a patient and perform a dengue diagnostic test in less than five minutes. It is technology that can achieve the same as laboratory testing, but can be used anywhere, anytime. Progen is another Queensland company that has recently received ethics committee approval for phase 2 trials of an anti-cancer drug, PI-88. PI-88 has been shown to retard the growth of primary tumours by inhibiting new blood vessel growth and holds hope for cancer sufferers around the world. Also in Queensland, we have Xenome, a biopharmaceutical R&D company which is using the venoms of Australian animals to research new pain killing drugs. Research towards breakthroughs in health care are supported by this government and by my department. Last year I handed over a cheque for $100,000 to the Cooperative Research Centre for Vaccine Technology, based at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research at Herston. This money will fund research into a vaccine for human cytomegalovirus—the most common microbial cause of birth defects in the developed world, which affects 200 of the 250,000 babies born in Australia each year. This virus is the rubella of 20 years ago. The National Institutes of Health Report two years ago rated it as one of the seven most needed vaccines required in the next decade. This government is working to assist Queensland research teams conduct groundbreaking work that has the potential to save lives in Queensland and around the world.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Sessional Order Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.20 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, the House will meet for the dispatch of business at 9.30 am tomorrow, on which day the routine of business shall be as follows— 7 Mar 2002 Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee 461

9.30 am to 10.30 am— Prayers Messages from the Governor Matters of Privilege Speakers Statements Motions of Condolence Petitions Notification and tabling of papers by The Clerk Ministerial Papers Ministerial Statements Ministerial Notices of Motion Any other Government Business Personal Explanations Reports Question Time 10.30 am to Adjournment of the House— Government Business Motion agreed to. Ms BLIGH: 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.

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE Reports Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House, pursuant to section 4.7(4) of the Police Service Administration Act 1990, a certified copy of the register of reports and recommendations made to the minister, ministerial directions and tabled ministerial reasons 2001, together with a letter from the Commissioner of the Police Service, Mr R. Atkinson, to the Chairperson of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Brendan Butler, SC dated 21 January 2002, and a letter from Mr Butler to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee dated 30 January 2002. In his letter Mr Butler advises that he is furnishing the register without further comment. I advise that the register was received by the committee on 31 January 2002. It is therefore tabled within a period of 14 sitting days after receipt as prescribed by section 4.7(4) of the act.

MEMBERS' ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Report Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.22 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 50 titled Report on the declaration of members' interests. I commend the report to the House and move that the report be printed. Ordered to be printed. Mrs ATTWOOD: Consistent with its responsibilities under section 15 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 concerning the content of the register of the interests of members, the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee reviewed the members' interests resolution that establishes the register. The resolution currently makes no mention of interests that are imposed on members under statute in their capacity as ministers of the Crown or by virtue of their public office. For example, some ministers have a statutory obligation to hold shares, on behalf of the state, in government owned corporations. Interests such as GOC shareholdings do not relate to the private interests of members, and they are unlikely to lead to any perception of a conflict of interest. The committee believes, however, that to foster greater transparency and accountability, there should be some reference in the resolution as to the existence of such interests. In report No. 50 the committee has recommended an amendment to the resolution establishing the register. The recommendation is underpinned by the principle that transparency is the best safeguard to maintaining a high standard of integrity by members in their duties as parliamentarians. The proposed amendment formally spells out—in the resolution itself—the 462 Private Members' Statements 7 Mar 2002 existence of interests imposed on members under statute or by virtue of their public office. It also provides that members are not individually required to declare such interests on the register of the interests of a member. This amendment will strengthen the register of the interests of a member by enhancing openness and accountability and by ensuring that there is no ambiguity as to the requirements of the register in relation to the declaration of members' interests.

NOTICE OF MOTION State Government Performance Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.23 a.m.): I give notice that tonight I shall move— That Parliament notes with concern the Beattie Government's obsession with self-serving publicity, meaningless slogans and opportunistic stunts while it presides over a rapid deterioration in the financial position of the State and exposes the people of Queensland to serious reductions in the provision of essential services and infrastructure.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS State Government Performance Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.24 a.m.): We are seeing in Queensland government by stunts and slogans. The greatest stunt of all, of course, was the five per cent unemployment target and 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. We have seen now what a cruel hoax that was on the people of Queensland and particularly on the young people of this state who face massive unemployment queues. Then we had the Smart State and the government trying to force people to buy Smart State numberplates. Now that is just about limited to the public service cars that the government imposes upon those people. There are so many slogans around that even at CHOGM the Premier forgot that one and called Queensland the Sunshine State. What about the latest one: learning and earning? Are there any targets? What is going to happen to jobs? We have the longest unemployment queues in Australia, the worst unemployment rate in mainland Australia and the worst youth unemployment rate in mainland Australia. Where is the target? Where is the action to give people real jobs? Or is that something that is maybe going to happen in the year 2007—half a decade away? Will it be another five years before some of these proposals will even be implemented, when there will be money available to make them happen, and another two or three years before people actually get out there in the work force? What has happened to the petrol price watch task force? Was that just another stunt that the government used? What has happened to the return to honest government proposals that we heard about some five years ago? Straightaway the government breaks all those proposals by having fully funded taxpayer ads and photos of the Premier in those ads—a blatant disregard for the stunts that the government used prior to that. Then of course there is the biggest one of all: Cooler Schools. That one is already being stalled because of difficulties with trying to make schools upgrade the power that they need to install airconditioning systems—just another stunt, just another slogan. We see it every day here in the parliament: glossy books, glossy magazines, but there is no substance. Time expired.

Advertising by Solicitors Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (10.26 a.m.): I rise to speak about the no-win, no-fee advertising by solicitors. This is a fairly difficult issue because one cannot generalise without offending someone along the way, but here goes. This issue has its origin in the public perception that consumers needed to know what lawyers did so they could choose a lawyer for a particular job. In theory it is a good idea. In practice it has a few difficulties. It may encourage unmeritorious claims because some people will have a go, as it is not costing them any money; or if they lose, they have no assets to protect from a costs order; or they are hoping that the insurer will pay a small sum for them to go away. It may lead to unethical behaviour on the part of the lawyers—from manufacturing or exaggerating of the evidence and claims, to extortionate fees, to settlement of a claim short of a reasonable sum. 7 Mar 2002 Questions Without Notice 463

In all cases the clients will sign a complicated fee agreement that probably most of them will have difficulty in understanding, and most will not get independent advice on it. These agreements generally require the client to act reasonably and accept the advice of the lawyer as to when to settle and for how much. And if they refuse—and this is the important part—then the lawyers are entitled to decline to act further and to require full payment of all fees at that time, rather than at the end of the action when the client gets paid. Clients may well be advised to read the terms of such agreements carefully and, if necessary, get independent advice. In some instances, medical practitioners will provide favourable reports as to the extent of a litigant's disability, as they are also on a speculative fee basis. As we all know, increasing volumes of claims lead to increased premiums. But on the positive side, it allows impecunious litigants to receive just and fair compensation when they might not otherwise be able to afford to pursue such a claim. The lawyers carry their fees until the end of the matter and the client is not put to the burden of paying fees while recovering from injury.

Caloundra Hospital Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (10.28 a.m.): On Monday in Caloundra at a public meeting of over 300 people we saw how disillusioned the community has become about the lack of health services at the Caloundra Hospital. The minister was asked to attend but could not. It would have been a good idea if she had been there and actually heard what the people were saying. It was a public meeting organised by the pensioners and superannuants league, and it was attended by many senior citizens in the area. At that meeting they passed a motion which is to be sent to the Premier. It states— That the Premier Mr Peter Beattie immediately makes available the necessary funds to ensure that the Caloundra City Hospital receives sufficient financial resources for qualified staff, equipment and all other utilities necessary, to ensure that this Hospital functions to its fullest capacity. ... Ensure both Hospital Theatres are fully operational All Hospital beds are fully functional The new quick recovery wards are fully staffed and equipped Provide funding for staff and equipment to service the 16 bed Rehabilitation Unit That there is sufficient Specialists, GP and Medical Staff permanently employed to allow this Hospital to make available to patients a seven day, twenty four hour, Out-patients and Emergency Service Reinstate the outpatients Physiotherapy Clinic Place in position additional financial resources into the Caloundra City Hospital Dental Clinic Employ more dentists so as to reduce the (99-week) waiting time that patients must endure waiting for dental treatment. What became very clear at that meeting was that people of all political persuasions are thoroughly disillusioned with the lack of services that this minister is putting into the Caloundra Hospital. Caloundra has been left behind. We, as a government, provided the funds to build the extensions to that hospital that were desperately needed then, but all of those things that I have mentioned are not functioning. It is a Yes Minister hospital that the minister has left there, not functioning, with a growing ageing population and a growing population of young people. It can take up to an eight and a half hour round bus trip from Caloundra to Nambour Hospital and back. The minister is derelict in her duty. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Post Politics Employment Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Premier to his return to honest government in Queensland policy of five years ago. When will the Premier put in place the promised legislative safeguards governing post political employment of cabinet ministers and senior public servants—people such as Tom Burns, Keith De Lacy and Bob Gibbs—or was that just a stunt? When will he institute the promised ban on appearances by ministers in taxpayer funded government advertising, such as his regular appearances in full-page colour newspaper ads, or was that also just a stunt? 464 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2002

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member. He should have gone on and said 'and Sally- Anne Atkinson and Mike Ahern'. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not like the truth. What about Beryce Nelson? Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: When we give them the facts they get agitated and excited. This government has been prepared to appoint the best. It does not matter whether it is Sally-Anne Atkinson, a former Liberal Lord Mayor, or whether it is Mike Ahern, a former National Party Premier of this state. Why did we appoint them? Because we know they can make a contribution! The member opposite does not like it because we are fair. Unlike the National Party, which used to set out to destroy people's careers, we encourage people on the basis of merit. When in opposition we released a number of discussion papers. I think the Leader of the Opposition was referring to one. As a result of those discussion papers we established clear guidelines. Those guidelines are implemented and they are effective in any area of activity the government is involved in, including advertising. What did we do? We released a discussion paper, undertook consultation, determined final guidelines and implemented those guidelines. I will stand by the appointment of Bob Gibbs, Mike Ahern and Sally-Anne Atkinson any time in this parliament. Today I publicly thank Mike Ahern. He was at CHOGM and he was here the other day when we hosted the South African President. He was here and he was working hard for trade. This government is trying to build for the future, to get new jobs through trade and opportunities, and we are using both sides of politics to do it. Mr Horan: Was that just a stunt? Mr BEATTIE: I take offence on behalf of Mike Ahern. His appointment was not a stunt, nor was that of Sally-Anne Atkinson. One of the things the honourable member has forgotten is that the advertising we are putting forward works. I am advised—we are double-checking all of these figures—that on Monday— Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Would the member stop being so rude? For heaven's sake! Have some manners. Spare me! The people of Toowoomba are used to decency and manners. They would be embarrassed by the opposition leader's performance in here. I heard what Di McCauley said the other day. She said that the National Party seems to be an aimless ship sailing around in circles with a lacklustre crew and a captain who is unsure what to do and is probably below the deck playing patience. She said, 'We need someone young with vision and policies and fire in the belly.' Lawrence, for heaven's sake give us a decent opposition, will you? In relation to the Queensland Events web site, I am advised that on Monday—remember the ads?—10,038 hits were recorded. The Queensland Events web site had total hits of 45,040 from Wednesday to Wednesday. That is what justifies it.

Youth Unemployment Mr HORAN: I refer the Premier to his new 'learning or earning' slogan and policy. When can we expect to see these policies make any reduction in Queensland's youth unemployment rate, which remains just under 30 per cent? Has the Premier set a target rate for youth unemployment and a target time frame to achieve it? Mr BEATTIE: Let us talk very seriously about the issue of youth unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition is right: it is at the core of the learning or earning strategy which was launched by the government on Monday. If I remember correctly, the level of unemployment we inherited from the Borbidge government in the 15 to 19 age group was 35.4 per cent. That is what we inherited from the National and Liberal parties. In January 2002 the unemployment rate for persons aged 15 to 19 seeking full-time employment was 27 per cent—20,000 less. Yes, we have made an improvement on youth unemployment. Are we proud of that? No, we are not, because we inherited a mess but we still have a very significant problem. No side of politics can take any joy from the level of unemployment of our young people. When Anna Bligh, Matt Foley and I released the document relating to learning or earning on Monday—that is only part of the strategy—we identified that 10 per cent of the 103,000 people aged 15 to 17 were falling through the cracks. That is about 10,000 young Queenslanders who are not either earning or learning. In other words, they are not in school or in TAFE or in a job. That is not good enough. 7 Mar 2002 Questions Without Notice 465

Let me make this very clear. This is above politics. Yes, I could be half smart and come here and say, 'We are seven per cent or eight per cent better than when you were in office.' So what? The fact is there are still too many young people— Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition knows that the coalition's record on unemployment was much, much worse. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his performance in the last Borbidge government, his track record on unemployment, was worse than anything that has ever happened. We have created a significant number of jobs. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite sit there delighted with the unemployment rate. They are the only people who stand around the fax machine when the unemployment rate is coming out, hoping it will be high. They do not care about young Queenslanders. We do. The learning or earning strategy is about doing something about it. We are revolutionising Queensland's employment market. We are generating new jobs in new areas. We will deliver on that. That is why we have created thousands of new jobs while we have been in office. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Algester, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Collingwood Park State School in the electorate of Bundamba.

Mr S. Bradbury Ms STRUTHERS: My question is directed to the Premier. The electorate of Algester is known to have produced some pretty talented sportspeople. Members might not believe it, but I was quite a promising athlete myself. Courtesy of our Iceworld skating rink, we are the only electorate in this state to have ever produced a gold medal winning winter Olympian. Acacia Ridge in my electorate is now known to the world through the efforts of a determined, exciting sportsman. What will the state do to acknowledge that magnificent effort by our Steven Bradbury? Mr BEATTIE: I have known, as I am sure all members in this House have known, that the member for Algester has been a legend for years. We have all known that. We are aware of her sporting prowess and her intellectual prowess. We are very proud of the member in this House. I think she is a wonderful member. Turning to answer the wonderful member's question, however, Queensland's gold medal winning winter Olympian, Steven Bradbury—the last man standing— Mr Lucas: The smart skater. Mr BEATTIE: He was the smart skater. How about that: the smart skater from the Smart State. That works. Well done, Minister for Innovation. Anyway, he was the last man standing, and he will be our guest here on 27 March for a state reception. If ever there was an example of a role model for our young folk on never giving up and sticking to the task at hand, it is this fine young Queenslander. His stunning race win shows all that a race is never over until the finish line. All of Queensland and indeed Australia cheered when he did the seemingly impossible to claim that memorable gold medal in the 1,000 metre short track speed skating at Salt Lake City last month. I immediately wrote to Steve congratulating him on his historic win and extended my congratulations on behalf of all Queenslanders and of course all members. He has now accepted our offer of a state reception. He has achieved the ultimate in sport, and that deserves every praise from all of us. The win shows that, despite some tough times in his past, his dedication to the sport and his persistence have been rewarded. He has done himself, his family, this state and the nation proud. The win and the way in which he accepted the win are ideal examples for our young sportspeople, and for that I simply say thank you. Mr Mackenroth: As the acting minister you actually sent him a cheque before he went away. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. As the acting minister standing in for the Minister for Sport, I sent him a cheque because, as the Minister for Sport knows, we in fact encourage athletes. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member opposite should not be disrespectful to a great Australian. What a disgrace that he would interject in the middle of an answer about a great Australian. The member opposite is a disgrace. I would hope that all members of this House would say, 'Well done.' Government members: Hear, hear! 466 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2002

Mr BEATTIE: If the opposition wants to try to embarrass him, I think that is disgraceful. One thing that I was really proud of was that at the dinner held for Bill Clinton he actually made reference to Steven Bradbury. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Are you interjecting as well? The member opposite just wants to denigrate anything we do. He undermines Queensland at every opportunity. He undermines our education strategies. He undermines our sportsmen. He undermines any attempt to promote Queensland. Those on that side whinge; we work. You whinge, we work. You whinge, we work. That is going to continue to happen. I will tell members the one medal that the Leader of the Opposition will win: he will win a gold medal for whingeing at any opportunity.

Palms Limousine Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to the fact that on 21 February 2002 in a statement to this House the member for Surfers Paradise referred to the action taken by a Department of Transport office in relation to a limousine operator on the Gold Coast. The minister subsequently made a statement to the Gold Coast Bulletin and forwarded a letter to the member for Surfers Paradise indicating that operator accreditation for Palms Limousine has been cancelled and that no transfer of a lease agreement to Mr James Stubbs had occurred. I ask: as there has not been an operator accreditation issued to Palms Limousine, how can it have been cancelled? How can the minister say that no lease transfer had occurred when I now table six transfer notifications witnessed at the Palm Beach Police Station on 21 January and lodged at the Elanora Queensland Transport customer service centre the next day? Will the minister now properly investigate the matter referred to him by the member for Surfers Paradise and provide the correct information to the Gold Coast Bulletin? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question and caution him about weighing into this issue where, candidly, he does not know the full facts. The operators of Palms Limousine service have deliberately misled the member for Surfers Paradise and now, I suggest, deliberately misled the member opposite or whoever provided that information to him. The information that I provided to the member for Surfers Paradise in response to the issue he raised in a private member's statement is true and accurate. Palms Limousine's accreditation to operate a limousine service on the Gold Coast was cancelled late last year. No transfer of the leases for the limousines has been effected between Bradley Stubbs and James Stubbs. Information which was provided to Queensland Transport was insufficient for the transfers— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: I am happy to. The information that was forwarded was inadequate and they were asked to provide additional information. Subsequent to the cancellation of their accreditation to operate a limousine service they have asked for a statement of reasons. In accordance with the appropriate procedures, my department is compiling the statement of reasons to send to their solicitor. The issue which the member for Surfers Paradise raised related to the actions of a Transport officer outside The Edge nightclub on the Gold Coast when he alerted the duty manager at the nightclub to the dangers that the public would face if they used an unauthorised limousine service in that they may not have the protection of the insurance that comes with accreditation. The Queensland Transport officer was correct in providing that advice to the duty manager. It is part of his responsibility to protect the consumer and the public and to alert people to those concerns. They were correct at the time. I am happy to provide all of the information and advice to the member for Gregory, as I did for the member for Surfers Paradise on the same day he first raised the issue, and I think the member for Surfers Paradise would say that I responded quite quickly because I was genuinely concerned about the issues he raised. I just urge honourable members, especially those from the Gold Coast, to exercise caution in relation to the information that is provided to them by the operators of Palms Limousine.

Berri Export Production; Call Centres Mr PURCELL: I refer the Premier to the fact that innovation and new industry have been central to his government's Smart State passion. I ask: can he enlighten the House on what might be happening in this area, specifically with regard to job creation opportunities in call centres and the TradeCoast development at Lytton? 7 Mar 2002 Questions Without Notice 467

Mr BEATTIE: I am absolutely delighted to do this, because this is another success story in building the Smart State. The Queensland government has successfully encouraged Australian fruit juice giant Berri to relocate its export production operations in Queensland. Last week I joined my colleague the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, Paul Lucas, in his electorate to officially open the company's new $25 million plant at Lytton on the Australia TradeCoast. The Minister for State Development, who unfortunately could not be there due to other commitments, was also involved in the project. The new plant also absorbs Berri's Queensland operations from its former plant at Bulimba. It employs more than 150 people and will service more than 30 export markets. The decision by Berri to relocate its export operations here from South Australia and Sydney has created an additional 30 jobs for Queenslanders, with further expansion planned. Berri is a $600 million a year business, supplying both the domestic and international markets. It sells to more than 30 countries overseas, with the big four export destinations being Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan. This is great stuff because it is about expanding the export culture. There are also significant sales to Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Pacific islands, with small amounts also going to the Middle East and the United States. The question also related to call centres. Among the exciting job-generating successes of my government has been the dramatic growth in the number of call centres in the state. Since 1998 when we came to office more than 20 call centres, which have created more than 3,090 jobs, have become operational in this state. The good news is that that looks likely to continue. There are ongoing discussions with a number of major companies looking at new call centres or to expand their existing operations. The incentives offered by the state government when matched with our climate, affordable accommodation, lifestyle and friendly manner are proving to be the bait to bring national and multinational companies to this state. There are 12 new centres in Brisbane, three at the Gold Coast and others at the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Ipswich and Cairns. So the regions are benefiting as well. This is an exciting industry and one destined for more job creating growth. We are finding new and different ways to do things. It does not matter whether it is the biggest political event in the world, such as CHOGM; we will use advertising to promote Queensland. As a result, the number of hits on the web site for Queensland Events from Wednesday to Wednesday was 45,040. This demonstrates that we are finding new ways to do things. It is the same with Berri. We established the Australia TradeCoast to attract them here. It is the same with call centres. We are doing things differently. We have never had an event like CHOGM before. We have to think outside the square to get it right. We have to make sure that we milk every one of these events and opportunities for everything they are worth. Queensland Events—and we were advertising its web site hits, which numbered 45,040 from Wednesday to Wednesday and 10,038 on Monday—is an effective way to do business. We have to get past the old politics and find new ways to get better outcomes.

Pork Industry Mrs PRATT: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to the pork industry and I ask: can he inform us—and I must say that I am aware of the recent allocations of water released from the Tarong pipeline—whether the DPI is pushing for further water allocation releases as part of the government's strategy to assist the pork industry to expand in the South Burnett and Burnett regions? Does the government intend to license more pork abattoirs, thereby fracturing the industry? How many proposals are being considered and, if approved, what will be the operational opening date? What does the DPI data show in relation to the projected production potential of the Queensland pork industry? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question, although there were about three or four different parts to it. The pork industry is one of the growth industries of Queensland. Exports have increased exponentially. Last year I led a very successful trade delegation to Japan and also to Taiwan where we certainly engaged a number of businesses with the intention of having them invest in Queensland. One of those, Nippon Meat Packers, of course has now invested in the Tong Park piggery just outside of Dalby. That is going exceptionally well. As far as I am concerned, the Department of Primary Industries and this government are encouraging as many proponents as possible to put applications in— Mrs Pratt: Will more water be released? 468 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2002

Mr PALASZCZUK: We are encouraging as many proponents as possible to apply for licences to operate piggeries because the export potential, based on our very clean, green, safe image, is envied by importing countries in the Asian region. As minister, I encourage investment in the pig industry here in Queensland because at the end of the day it does mean an increase in jobs and so on. In relation to the member's question on water, I would dearly love to come to the party and respond to her. But, unfortunately, that question should be directed to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines. However, as Minister for Primary Industries I say that, in relation to the new initiative that we have created within the Department of Primary Industries to promote the pork industry, water is a critical issue and the Department of Primary Industries and I will certainly support increased allocations. However, that decision is left to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines.

Child Care Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: I ask the Minister for Families: can she please inform the House of the Beattie government's progress on its election commitment to establish child-care and family support hubs across Queensland? Ms SPENCE: I thank the honourable member for the question. Nothing is more important to the Beattie government than listening to Queensland families. Nothing is more important to working Queensland families than quality child care. During the last sitting of parliament I was pleased to announce $1.2 million of funding to upgrade 26 outside school hours care services throughout the state, and that is part of a $4 million commitment to upgrade outside school hours care. Today I am pleased to announce $2 million of funding, which will go to support 12 family care hubs throughout the state. These hubs are a direct response to the needs of parents for improved services in child care. Working parents have told us that they needed improved access to education, to health and to other community services for their children, especially in their early years. So the hubs group together child care, early child-care services, family services, parenting support, child health services and education services under one roof. Last month I was pleased to see the new child-care hub which has just recently been built at Aurukun. It is part of the preschool centre, built on the school site and will provide child-care services for the children in that community from ages 0 to 15. This is a sensible, Smart State approach to service delivery. The funding that I am announcing today will go to child-care services from Beaudesert to Injune to Julatten to Robina. Queenslanders will be receiving services that they have been waiting for. For example, the Lowood Community Service will use the funding to enable it to employ a coordinator, who will work out of two child-care services, plus provide advisory services throughout that district. In Mount Morgan $205,000 will go towards building a new child-care hub in that town. In Thuringowa, $184,000 will be given to establish a new child-care hub to provide intensive family support and early intervention and prevention work in that city. Families have been telling us that they wanted individualised services that are cost effective, that are child and family focused and that are responsive to their needs. The child-care hub strategy is truly a success of the Beattie government, and I am pleased that this money that I am announcing today will provide new services throughout the state. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Southern Downs I welcome to the public gallery the students and teachers of the Acacia Ridge State School, which is a venue, of course, for Steven Bradbury's skating exploits.

Coronial System Mr SPRINGBORG: In the absence of the Attorney-General, I refer the Honourable the Premier to the government's continued procrastination over the introduction of a modern Coroners Act and an office of state coroner. Amongst other deficiencies, given that the current antiquated act only allows a coroner to investigate the cause of death and not the full circumstances surrounding the death, particularly of those who have died in care; given that there is no efficient or effective process of central data collection or the evaluation and reporting of that data, nor is there any proper monitoring of the progress of recommendations made by coroners to avoid injury or death; and given that this morning he said that we need to find better and more 7 Mar 2002 Questions Without Notice 469 modern ways of doing things, I ask: when will he match his Smart State rhetoric with action and give us a smart Coroners Act which is relevant to the 21st century? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for what is a very important question. An opposition member: Good question. Mr BEATTIE: And a very good question. Frankly, it is the sort of question that should be asked by the opposition. It is a sort of model question and others could, I think, learn from that. But let us get the facts right. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member for Southern Downs is underemployed. Let us be honest about this. He is a man with enormous potential. He is underemployed and I want to see him in full employment. Let us get back to this very important question. I do not want my mirth to in any way downgrade this question, which is the sort of question that the Leader of the Opposition should have asked. Let us get the facts right. Right now the Brisbane coroner acts as a de facto state coroner and we have 75 magistrates throughout Queensland with powers to act as coroners and hold inquests. Establishing a permanent and separate office of state coroner is not necessarily a panacea for addressing issues concerning the coronial system. We have recognised for some time that the system is not perfect, and it has been our government that has been driving efforts to modernise the coronial system. It was our government that initiated the consultation draft of a new Coroners Act and it has been our government that has been talking to all the stakeholders about making the right changes. Mr Foley: That's right. Mr BEATTIE: The former Attorney is well aware of that; he was actively involved in it. Mr Foley interjected. Mr BEATTIE: In fact, the former Attorney released it. In fact, the first discussion paper responding to recommendations from the 1991 royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody about a coronial inquest was released by the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Dean Wells, in 1993 to facilitate public input to the development of new coroners legislation for Queensland. The coalition in its term of office did nothing to advance that work started in 1993 and it was our government that had to again pick up the ball. The Attorney-General has been working on reforms of the system and a new coroners act for some time and has been consulting widely. The consultation draft was released by former Attorney-General Matt Foley in 2000. Since that time we have received over 90 submissions. The comments that we received confirmed the need for enhancements to the coronial system irrespective of whether there is an office of state coroner. An office of state coroner is only one of many strategies that we are considering in relation to the current coronial system. It is important that we reduce the delays between the incidence of death and the decision about inquest, give our coroners greater investigative powers, improve the quality of information and the evidence supplied to coroners and, most importantly, improve family satisfaction with the system. These are the changes that will underpin a better coronial system. They require coordination across a number of government agencies and close cooperation with all stakeholders. We intend to make Queensland's coronial system the best in the country. I am happy to ask the Attorney-General—and as members know, he is at a ministerial council meeting with other ministers from other parts of Australia—to keep the member briefed on what we are doing in this area. We know that the member has a genuine interest in this issue, and so do we. We will keep the member informed.

Apprenticeships and Traineeships Mrs CROFT: I direct a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth. I ask: is the government encouraging Queenslanders to take up apprenticeships and traineeships as another option for training? Mr FOLEY: We most certainly are. Yesterday, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research released its quarterly figures on apprentices and trainees. Over the past year, Queensland has actually increased its number of apprentices and trainees to a two and a half 470 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2002 year high of 55,570 in December 2001. This represents a growth of 11 per cent over the previous year. That shows that apprenticeships and traineeships are becoming an increasingly popular training option for Queenslanders and that the Beattie government is getting it right. I contrast the number of commencements of apprenticeships and traineeships that occurred during the term of the previous coalition government—a mere average of 2,102 per month—with the figure of some 3,546 per month in the 12 months to December 2001. That is a spectacular difference in the achievement rate of the commencements of apprenticeships and traineeships in this state. Queensland's figures are based on the latest estimates— Mr Horan: We are running last in the unemployment rate. Mr FOLEY: The honourable member wants to talk about unemployment. Let us talk about unemployment. What did he do during the term of his government? What can a government do? It can help to generate jobs and it can care for the disadvantaged. How many jobs per month did the previous coalition government generate? On average, 985! How many jobs have been generated per month under the Beattie Labor government? One thousand three hundred and twenty! So I will let the member talk about employment and unemployment. The member wants to talk about youth unemployment. In January 1997, when he sat around the cabinet table, the unemployment rate for young people was 35.4 per cent—26,900 young Queenslanders. As the Premier said, that rate has dropped significantly to 27.9 per cent—still far too many. That is why we need to give those opportunities for earning or learning to those young people. That is why we need to introduce a profound change to our system for transition from school to work. Just over the past couple of days I have been talking to young people and mature-age people in Ipswich, on the Gold Coast and in Toowoomba. In common with the Honourable the Minister for Education, I have been talking to the people in those TAFE colleges who are actually at the cutting edge of training and getting their feedback. Whoever the honourable the Leader of the Opposition has been talking to, I have to say that he has not been talking to people in TAFE colleges. He has not been talking to the trainees. He has not been talking to those young people who were delighted with the government's proposed initiatives in education and training.

School Retention Rates Mr QUINN: I refer the Minister for Education to the Schools Australia report released late last week that showed that only two years ago both Queensland and Victoria had approximately the same level of success when it came to retaining students in our schools beyond year 10. I ask: can the minister explain why just two years later Victoria now has the highest high school retention rates in the nation, some two per cent higher than Queensland? Why is this so-called Smart State not keeping pace with Victoria on this critical issue? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Robina for his question. Can I say that a number of years ago our government set ourselves a target. We said that the retention rates in our schools into year 12 or equivalent were not good enough—68 per cent was far too low. We set our sights high. We said that by 2010 we wanted to increase that to 88 per cent. That was a very ambitious target. This week, we have said that we want to do what we can between now and 2010 to accelerate those retention rates. Since we set the target, we have moved from 68 per cent in 1998 to 73 per cent in 2001. In anybody's books that is a significant leap forward in a very big system. I congratulate the state high schools of Queensland, I congratulate their principals and I congratulate the directors of TAFE colleges and training providers who have worked creatively to make sure that we move to pick up those extra young people. In common with what the Premier and my colleague the Minister for Employment and Training said this morning, we are not going to rest on our laurels. We are not satisfied to make one leap forward. We are determined to make continuous leaps forward until we not only lead Australia but also that other jurisdictions around the world look to Queensland to see how they might make similar improvements. Our horizon is beyond the other states of Australia. We set our horizon internationally. Yes, from time to time other states will do things that will put them ahead of us. We are going to learn from them. We are not going to sit on our laurels and we are not going to accept that young Queenslanders, whether they are in a training environment or whether they are in a 7 Mar 2002 Questions Without Notice 471 classroom environment, should have a preparation for the workplace that is anything less than the best. I am delighted to have an opportunity to tell members of the House again how the initial reaction to our proposals over the past couple of days had certainly heartened my thinking on this issue. I was certainly concerned that people may not understand the proposals at first; they are quite complex. I can tell members that when I have been at schools and in communities over the past three days, I have found that those people throughout the state who are associated with education actually understand where the government is coming from. They share our wishes, they share our desire to give young people a hope that they have not had before. I have to say that it would be useful for the member for Robina to spend some time in the high schools in his own electorate, which I have to say are doing an excellent job in improving their retention rates of young people—as, in fact, are many of the schools on the Gold Coast. I know that— Mrs Reilly: He never turns up to Robina high; I have to go there. Ms BLIGH: Apparently the member never turns up at Robina State High School. But I know that the schools on the Gold Coast are very pleased with the new members for that area. Whenever I talk to principals at the schools on the Gold Coast, they tell me that they have seen their local members for the first time in years.

Private Health Care Premiums Ms BARRY: I direct a question to the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy. The Commonwealth recently approved increases in private health insurance premiums of nine per cent and higher, and I ask: can the minister inform the House whether this increase is in line with the increases the states receive to run our public hospitals? Mrs EDMOND: There is another new member who is showing just how much more she knows about health care and health costs than all of those members sitting opposite. I must say that I am delighted— Mr Johnson: You should give her your job. Mrs EDMOND: If I were the member, I would be watching my job—and the bloke sitting next to him. They are the ones who are under threat. I am delighted that the Howard government has finally acknowledged that the costs of health care are exceeding the increases in the consumer price index. Last year, the federal cabinet was forced to admit that was the reason for approving increases for private health insurers averaging seven per cent but reaching as high as 15 per cent. That is a vindication of the argument put forward by all health ministers for four years—that health costs have been rising above the increases in the CPI. But how did they deal with it in the past? Howard and Costello repeatedly ignored our figures, which last year showed that Queensland was entitled to an extra $102 million—as assessed not by me, but by the independent arbiter appointed to review the appropriate indices for health. The arbitrator advocated indexation of CPI, plus 0.5 per cent, yet the states received half of that. These current increases for the private health insurance funds are more than twice the CPI at a time when fund profits are at record levels. The double standards of the coalition in Canberra have been exposed and so too has its real agenda: the destruction of Medicare. Australians will now be paying an extra $150 million a year just to maintain the 30 per cent private health insurance subsidy, which costs a staggering $2.5 billion each and every year. Queensland taxpayers' share of that is $500 million a year, money which should be and could be going into our public hospital system rather than into the private health funds. That is five times the amount the Howard government has denied Queensland this year under the HOCI assessment. Imagine the impact that amount of money would have on reducing waiting times, on oral health services, on aged care services or on children's health services. I would like to see some of those funds used to increase the Medicare rebate for general practitioners. The dramatic decline in the number of GPs who bulk bill under Medicare has led to overcrowding in the emergency departments and overcrowding for generalised outpatient services. GPs report that the rebate has not changed for years and that it simply does not cover their costs. It is time the federal government showed some accountability for the bucket loads of money it pours down the drain. I look forward to some real honesty from the Commonwealth in our coming negotiations on the next health agreement. 472 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2002

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Cunningham, could we welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from the MacGregor State High School in the electorate of Mount Gravatt.

Child Death Review Team Mr COPELAND: I refer the Minister for Families to her decision in December last year to initiate a child death review team to investigate the deaths of children who come to the notice of her department. Considering there have been the deaths of 49 children with a history of contact with the minister's department over the last three years, I ask her to please advise the House if the positions on the child death review team have been filled since the expressions of interest closed on 1 February 2002, when this team will commence its investigations, will all these deaths be investigated, and when will the findings of these investigations be made public? Ms SPENCE: I am happy to talk about the child death review team. When I became minister, I realised that child death reviews were automatically conducted by departmental officers. The reviews looked at the processes followed by the Department of Families whenever a child death took place. Those reviews were being done by senior departmental officers, but usually officers from outside the region in which the death took place. After some thought about that process, it seemed to me that we needed more independent reviews of child deaths. Last December we advertised for expressions of interest and we have received a number of applications for those positions. There is now a team of people throughout the state who have put themselves forward to conduct those child death reviews on behalf of the department. At present, two reviews are under way and I am waiting to receive those reports. In the future, the review of the conduct of the Department of Families whenever there has been a child death will be a more transparent and independent process. With respect to the other matter raised by the shadow minister, it is clear that he failed to listen to my ministerial statement this morning when I spoke about the number of child deaths in Queensland. Mr Johnson: He knows more about what's going on than you do. He knows more about it than you do. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms SPENCE: The member needs to settle. Mr Johnson: You're not giving credit where credit is due. Ms SPENCE: Why won't the member for Gregory settle? Mr SPEAKER: The member for Gregory, order! We will listen to the answer. Ms SPENCE: Just listen to this. Mr Johnson: We want an answer. Ms SPENCE: That is exactly what I am doing. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms SPENCE: Contrary to media reports, the statistics show that the number of child deaths in this state has been fairly static over the last six or seven years. I am sure that each and every one of us would agree that one child death in this state is one child death too many. However, may I remind members of the reality. In 1995, there were 24 children under the age of 12 who died and who had come to the attention of the Department of Families. I was not the minister in that year; I believe Mr Lingard was. Mr Johnson: No, he wasn't, not in 1995. Ms SPENCE: Yes, he was. In subsequent years, the figures were 13 in 1996, 8 in 1997 and 11 in 1998. Then the reporting requirements were changed. For those years only deaths of children under 12 years of age were reported. Currently, deaths of children under 18 years of age are reported. However, the figures have remained fairly static. It is time the opposition stopped trying to score political points and to scandal monger in relation to this very serious issue on which this government is committed to improving its performance. 7 Mar 2002 Questions Without Notice 473

Reconciliation Management Plan Mr PITT: I refer the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to the recently released Reconciliation Management Plan and I ask: can the minister outline the aims of the plan and the benefits it will deliver to indigenous Queenslanders, especially in relation to training and employment? Mr SCHWARTEN: It is great to see the honourable member for Mulgrave on his feet again in this House, standing up for his constituents at Yarrabah. I am very proud to be part of a government which recognises that one of the cornerstones of reconciliation is to actually examine the past, feel regret that it has occurred and place that on record. Of course, there is another pathway after that process and that is to plan for the future. Again, I am delighted to be part of a government, through the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, that has put on the table a ten-year partnership plan between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the Queensland government. This document distils all of that down to the Department of Public Works. That department, which is the largest trainer of apprentices in this state, has huge training responsibilities. It is no coincidence that it is the first department to embrace the concept of a reconciliation plan which sets out in chapter and verse the direction for the next five years. For example, it provides for a real interventionist model of providing five scholarships for the business course at Southbank TAFE that will be paid for by the Department of Public Works. It provides for real work experience, which will also be paid for, to be offered to five students who I had the great pleasure of meeting last week when this plan was launched. It provides for an apprentice program, which I established in 1998, which is unique to this state. It is a very successful program. It intervenes in situations in communities, which I have seen first-hand up in the Torres Strait and in the cape, to provide apprenticeships for Aboriginal people. It also states that when construction occurs in Aboriginal communities, if all that is left at the conclusion is a building and the locals have no skills to maintain it, we have done a disservice to those communities. That is why the program specifies that 20 per cent of all employees on those projects must be local labour. This plan also sets out a target rate of providing indigenous employment opportunities within the department. It is a very welcome document in terms of reconciliation. It outlines what this government plans for the future. Before I am criticised for it, yes, it contains a foreword by me. I am delighted to have a foreword associated with this plan and to show my support and this government's support for the intervention process to ensure that reconciliation means something to the people of Queensland.

Barron River Draft Water Resource Plan Ms LEE LONG: I direct my question to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines. My electorate is currently considering options with regard to the Barron River Draft Water Resource Plan. The Walsh River arises on the Tablelands and future plans for the Walsh influence opinions concerning the Barron. I ask the minister: what plans do the minister and his department have for the Walsh River and what is this government's attitude to government construction of water storages in general and in particular on the Atherton Tableland, an area of usually reliable rainfall? Mr ROBERTSON: The purpose of the water resource planning process is not to put forward the government's agenda in relation to the building of any dam, weir or barrage. The purpose of the water resource planning process is to identify current usage patterns, that is, how much water is coming out of a catchment, where it is going and for what uses, and also to assess the need to protect the health of the river system. The water resource planning process and the draft water resource plan that has been released for the Barron, which includes the Walsh and the Mitchell, if I remember correctly, is about putting forward those facts to and getting feedback from the community as to whether additional water is identified for usage under those plans and for what purposes it might be used and whether, as a result of that, a need is identified for additional infrastructure, in this case a proposal for a Walsh River dam. It is not my role as part of the process to go around promoting any particular proposal. It is very much about listening to the community and getting its feedback. If as a result of the planning process additional water is identified which may lead to consideration of infrastructure such as the 474 Questions Without Notice 7 Mar 2002

Walsh River dam, the next part of the process is to determine the cost of such infrastructure and, as a result of that, the price of the water that would be made available from that infrastructure. In these post national competition policy days it is no longer the case that we just build dams willy-nilly without proper regard for the cost of that infrastructure. That needs to be factored into pricing arrangements for irrigation, industrial use and so on. I would urge everyone in that catchment to make their views known during the planning process. We have no secret or hidden agenda in relation to this. This is about good planning which provides security for existing users and also plans for the future. These plans, once finalised after we have been through the planning process and we move into the resource operation planning process, last for 10 years. That type of security is unheard of in the history of Queensland. That is why we do this planning process and that is why we encourage maximum input from the communities and those who have an interest in the water planning process.

Mr C. J. Gabriel Ms MALE: I ask the Minister for Police and Corrective Services: could he please inform the House about the situation with respect to Claude Gabriel and his parents? Mr McGRADY: There is no evidence of which I am aware to suggest that Claude Gabriel has returned to Australia. As far as I am aware, he is still residing in Italy. However, I received verbal advice this morning that Victorian police have served summonses on, and they have been received by, the legal representatives of Claude Gabriel's parents to answer charges at a Queensland court later this month. I am sure the House will understand that I cannot make any further comments at this stage.

Queensland Ambulance Service Mr MALONE: I refer the Minister for Emergency Services to an episode involving the Queensland Ambulance Service. Inala resident Scott Thomas was involved in a car accident on 1 September on the Gateway Bridge. He was unhurt but an ambulance attended. Mr Scott told the ambulance officer three times that he was uninjured and that he did not want to get into the ambulance. Finally, he agreed to get in, expecting a quick check over. Instead the door was slammed shut and he was whisked off to hospital. At the end of the day, his only injury was to his pocket, when he was later hit with a $706 bill because, unbeknown to him, his subscription had run out six weeks before. I ask: has QAS management directed officers to force uninjured people into ambulances? Why did the minister not exercise his discretion and have the fee waived when the matter was brought to his attention some time ago? Has the minister got the QAS budget into so much trouble that ambulance officers have been told to hold uninjured members of the public to ransom? Mr REYNOLDS: The last part was a bit of a dorothy dixer. As the member would be aware, I am not able today to give the exact answer to his question. Mr Malone: You know about it, don't you? Mr REYNOLDS: I do not have all of the details with me today. If the member would like to write to me regarding this matter, I would be only too happy to respond. But can I go to the essence of what the opposition spokesperson on emergency services has asked about today. He asked about the care that ambulance officers give hundreds of thousands of prehospital patients every year. I am very proud of the officers and intensive care paramedics who make up the Ambulance Service. In terms of the member's interjection, he should raise his concern and I will get back to him very quickly. I feel very proud of our ambulance officers, as does the Queensland public. The last client survey indicated 95 per cent to 96 per cent satisfaction with the Ambulance Service. If there is a concern in relation to a particular incident, the member can rest assured that, as minister, if I know of that concern I will be asking the commissioner to give me a report on it. In relation to the ambulance budget, I do not know why every now and again the member for Mirani forgets the detail that I have given in the House many times. Let us hear the figures again. Under the coalition four years ago the ambulance budget was $158 million. This year the ambulance budget is $235 million. That is a $77 million increase. As we know, it is one of the biggest increases the Ambulance Service has ever had. I assure the member once again in a very sincere way that, if he gives me that information today, I will respond to him very quickly. In relation to his question, our ambulance officers and paramedics have been trained very well over the past 10 years. The response time for getting 7 Mar 2002 Ministerial Statement 475 people to hospital alive has also improved dramatically over the past 10 years. That is what we are about. If there is a concern over the payment of a particular bill, the member should raise it with me and I will come back to him promptly.

Mount Morgan-Kabra Road Mr PEARCE: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, in November 2001 that the Commonwealth would provide $1 million towards the upgrade of the Kabra-Mount Morgan road as a road of national importance, and I ask: can he inform the House about what he knows of this commitment and what can be done to ensure that this important road is upgraded? Mr BREDHAUER: Just prior to the federal election last year, the National Party leader pulled a stunt by announcing that a million dollars would be allocated to that road by both the Commonwealth and state governments. I say that it was a stunt because he did not even pay me the courtesy of letting me know that he had the intention of spending money on the road. Notwithstanding that, my department has worked closely with the member for Fitzroy and the Fitzroy and Mount Morgan shire councils in relation to the Mount Morgan-Kabra road. We are prepared to accelerate funding for that road. We have put money into that road in the past. But it will be totally dependent on the Commonwealth government honouring its commitment to put the million dollars into the road and doing so in this budget in this current financial year. If it does, we would be able to seal the unsealed gravel sections of the road by the end of this year, subject to the council work force capability. We would also be able to upgrade the substandard sealed sections next year. I reiterate that the challenge is now for the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, and National Party federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, to honour the commitment they gave prior to last year's election that they will make $1 million available through roads of national importance funding in this year's federal budget, for the next financial year, so that that work can be undertaken. The Fitzroy and Mount Morgan shire councils have worked closely with us. The member for Fitzroy has left no stone unturned in his representations to me and to the local officers from the Department of Main Roads. It will be an important road link because of the development of AMC at Stanwell. I say again that the challenge is now for the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, and the Commonwealth government to put their money where their mouth is. I will give a commitment to this House, to the Fitzroy and Mount Morgan shire councils and other people interested in that road that, if they do so, we will come up with a package that will see that job undertaken. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT SunWater Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (11.30 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday the member for Callide stood in this place and made allegations regarding the new accommodation deal for SunWater. I take this opportunity to correct the record so that the member's misleading statements will receive no further currency. The member for Callide alleges that there has been a significant blow-out in accommodation costs as a result of SunWater signing a new tenancy deal at the Hall Chadwick Centre, thereby moving from its current accommodation in Mineral House. What the member fails to understand is that currently SunWater is paying rent—as do all government departments—for its current accommodation. The current cost in relation to the three floors that SunWater occupies—not two but three floors—is $988,493, comprising floor space lease costs of $906,300, parking of $53,592 and off-site document storage of $28,601. These current rental arrangements are due for a two- yearly review, which would result in an increase in accommodation costs from July next year—a usual indexing arrangement that applies in most circumstances. So how does that compare with the new arrangements at the Hall Chadwick Centre? The honourable member is simply relying upon a press report. SunWater has leased three floors at that building. There is a gross rent of $936,000 per annum over a seven-year contract—$936,000 fixed for seven years. I ask members to compare that to $988,000 which gets indexed every two years. SunWater will be paying substantially less than this figure. This is where the commercial-in- confidence regulations apply, because whereas that is the advertised— 476 Agricultural Colleges Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! The member for Callide will cease interjecting. Mr Horan interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr Seeney interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Callide under standing order 123A for persistent interjections. Mr ROBERTSON: As every member in this House would know, there is an advertised price and then the parties enter into negotiations. The reason they do not publicise the outcome of those negotiations is that it would prejudice the interests of the building owner every time it sought a new tenant in the building. That is why they do not advertise the costs. But I can assure the member that, in September last year, after an extensive survey of accommodation in Brisbane, SunWater wrote to me and to the Treasurer advising of this new arrangement and advising that overall the reduction in net present value costs by moving to this new accommodation would be 22 per cent. It was on that basis that the Treasurer and I wrote back to SunWater shortly after receiving that advice, ticking off that deal and noting the significant savings in the new accommodation arrangements. Had it been any different, we would not have done so. The member for Callide is wrong. He is misinformed. The saving for SunWater and, therefore, irrigators and taxpayers is 22 per cent on what SunWater is currently paying in its current accommodation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I call the Honourable the Attorney-General. I am sorry, the member is not that at all. Mr FOLEY: You are living in the past, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been living in the past for a long time. I have even lost my marbles. Mr FOLEY: Greeks have a habit of losing their marbles. But hopefully, the Blair government might heed the call of the Premier and return the Parthenon marbles.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AMENDMENT BILL Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (11.35 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Agricultural Colleges Act 1994. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (11.36 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This Bill will make a number of important amendments to the Agricultural Colleges Act 1994 to enhance the delivery of vocational education and training in Queensland's rural communities. The Agricultural Colleges Amendment Bill 2002 responds to significant changes that have taken place in the rural training sector since the act was introduced in 1994. These legislative amendments reinforce the fact that vocational education and training programs and the state's public training providers are evolving with the changing needs of industry in the Smart State. These amendments complement the major education and training reforms announced three days ago by the Premier, the Hon. Peter Beattie, the Education Minister, the Hon. Anna Bligh, and myself to ensure young people are earning or learning and to improve the transition from school to work. The Queensland government is committed to providing Queensland's regional and rural communities with the skills necessary to ensure the continued prosperity of our state's rural industries. Since coming to office, this government has made significant improvements to the 7 Mar 2002 Agricultural Colleges Amendment Bill 477 vocational education and training system so that all Queenslanders can be assured of industry relevant training that leads to real jobs. As public training providers, Queensland's four agricultural colleges, the Australian College of Tropical Agriculture, Dalby Agricultural College, Emerald Agricultural College and Longreach Pastoral College, deliver targeted training to rural industry and communities. More than 90 per cent of full-time students obtain employment or continue on to higher level studies upon graduation from an agricultural college in Queensland. To maintain this high graduate uptake, the colleges must continue to effectively respond to an increasingly competitive training market. To do so the college must offer training that matches the immediate and future skill demands of prospective employers and the diverse employment aspirations of its students. The Queensland government sees this shift as a timely opportunity to enhance training opportunities throughout rural Queensland. Naturally, improvements to the quality and breadth of training have impacted on the way agricultural colleges operate. The amendments to the bill will ensure that the training delivered by agricultural colleges is consistent with the national training framework—giving graduates nationally recognised qualifications. The amendments will also enhance the ability of a college board to provide appropriate leadership and direction to its college, and the amended functions of an agricultural college board will result in a stronger, more strategic focus. The functions enhance board accountability, provide consistency with the national training agenda and clarify the responsibilities of a board, including the key priority areas of: ¥ providing access to training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other people with particular needs; ¥ supporting students in transitioning from school to work; ¥ developing closer links between the agricultural colleges and industry; and ¥ providing pastoral care for agricultural college students. The Queensland government recognises the importance of equipping our young people with the skills necessary to lead fulfilling working lives. But it is only part of the picture. The government also recognises that caring for and supporting students throughout their vocational education enhances their professional development and improves their job prospects. For this reason, the amendment bill supports the college boards in their provision of appropriate pastoral care for students, especially those residing on campus. The amendment bill will also clarify the powers of an agricultural college board in fulfilling its responsibilities as a board of trustees. The bill implements the recommendations of a report by the Queensland Auditor-General to improve the accountability and financial operations of a college board. It also implements the Auditor-General's recommendation to enhance the skills and experience mix of a college board. While retaining a focus on rural experience, appointed members are able to be drawn from a wider spectrum of the area served by the college, enhancing the skills and experience of a college board as a whole. I now turn to a couple of key reforms implemented by this bill. The bill inserts new part 2A that will allow for the appointment of an administrator if a board has stopped functioning effectively. Examples of where this may occur include: ¥ an inability to achieve a quorum; ¥ the resignation of a majority of board members; ¥ a continuing impasse in board decision making on major areas critical to the operations of a college. This is an important provision that will allow urgent action to protect the interests of students and the public if a board loses its ability to function effectively. In accordance with the Beattie government's strong focus on our young people, the bill also introduces a framework for the establishment of student advisory councils at each college. These councils will have a majority membership of students and will be chaired by a student, enhancing youth representation in the agricultural colleges and supporting effective youth representation on the college boards. The Agricultural Colleges Amendment Bill implements reform in four key priority areas: ¥ providing equal access to training for all persons; ¥ assisting students in their transition from school to work; 478 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

¥ establishing closer links with industry; ¥ providing pastoral care to all agricultural college students. Overall, the amendments will enhance the agricultural colleges' ability to provide quality training for young Queenslanders in regional and rural communities. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Malone, adjourned.

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 21 February (see p. 256). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.41 a.m.): The Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill before the House today has been made necessary because the minister is the captive of his department and is out of touch with the people he is supposed to represent in this place. The situation the minister is trying to retrieve today he brought upon himself. I will resist the temptation to say I told him so. What the minister has failed to make clear is whether the imposition of an automatic six- month cancellation period for everyone who failed to renew their licence was intentional or an error. Of course, it does not matter to licence-holders what the minister's intentions were, but it would give us an insight into just what has been going on here. The minister has a choice between having been snowed by his department and being out of touch with the real world. He can take his pick. The situation this minister and this department have imposed upon drivers is that, if they fail to renew their licences and are found driving, a magistrate has no choice but to disqualify them from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for six months. Such a penalty is a very serious imposition on anyone in today's mobile society. In many cases, licence disqualification means that a person is unable to earn a living. This is a very serious issue. Drink drivers, who risk their lives and the lives of others, are entitled to apply for a work licence, but those whose crime has been a failure to renew their drivers licence cannot and they must also kick in their contribution to the fast diminishing coffers of the Treasurer. The previous discretion on the part of a magistrate to take into consideration extenuating circumstances that may have contributed to the offence is not available in this instance. The basic bureaucratic assumption is that people know when to renew their drivers licence because a renewal notice is issued by Queensland Transport. The first assumption is that the mail actually reaches the licence-holder in question. Can the minister stand in this House and say that he has never had his mail go astray or that he has never failed to pay a bill because he has forgotten about it? In business, the thing to do is to send a final notice. Even the Transport Department will send a follow-up notice if people fail to pay a traffic fine, but this does not apply to people who fail to renew their licences. If the department were fair dinkum about a renewal notice being such an important document it would use registered mail. That would cost the taxpayer even more, and we do not expect that to happen. Certainly a follow-up notice is appropriate in this situation. I can understand that the minister wishes to reduce the incidence of unlicensed driving. The opposition totally supports that. On any issue relating to road safety or uniform driving laws we are prepared to offer bipartisan support. I urge everyone to know when their licence expires, because the penalty we are considering today is nothing compared with the potential legal and insurance consequences of unlicensed driving. That is another matter. The legislation has to reflect a reasonable expectation of the system. We have to acknowledge that people make mistakes and that the system is not perfect. The simplest way to ensure that is to allow magistrates to use their discretion and enable a driver to put their circumstances forward. The opposition would have preferred a reversion to the previous provisions of the Transport Operations Act, but at least the minister has chosen to remove this current serious penalty on persons whose licence has been expired for less than one year. In his second reading speech the minister actually acknowledged that— ... the great majority of these drivers find themselves in these circumstances more by genuine oversight than any conscious decision not to renew. I am intrigued, therefore, that the minister thinks that after 12 months this failure automatically becomes such a serious offence that it warrants an automatic six-month disqualification. 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 479

The opposition would be interested to know how many people have been prosecuted under the revised section 78 since its implementation last December. In particular, it would be pertinent to know how many of these drivers had licences that were expired for longer than 12 months. The opposition would prefer the previous situation to apply—that is, a person with a licence expired for over 12 months be permitted to present extenuating circumstances to a magistrate. I note that the bill before the House solves another practical difficulty with the administration of the legislation relating to unlicensed driving. If a police officer detects a driver on an expired licence and issues an infringement notice, what is the driver supposed to do? Obviously it is not appropriate to leave a person stranded at the side of the road, so provision has been made for a permit to be issued to allow the person to complete their journey. This is something the opposition applauds. I congratulate the minister on putting that provision into this piece of legislation. In a briefing with departmental officers I raised the issue of what happens interstate—whether a Queensland driver with an expired licence is allowed to progress to somewhere to get their licence renewed, to get a permit or whatever. In this day and age we talk about uniformity throughout the nation. I think this is one issue in which it is appropriate to have uniformity. I applaud this practical solution but note that no such provision has been made for a situation where the licence has been expired for more than 12 months. Does this mean that these people are to be left stranded to find their own way home? I ask the minister to explain what he would expect to occur in these circumstances. This legislation is retrospective, so persons who have been disqualified will be entitled to get back their licences. We support that and we are very grateful for it. The opposition supports the retrospectivity of this amendment bill, as it is designed to put right what should have happened in the first place. However, the minister needs to clarify if the licence disqualification will be removed from the licence record as well. I ask the minister to respond to this matter when summing up the debate so that drivers who have been unfairly disqualified can be assured that there will be no discrimination against them because of that disqualification remaining on their record. In other words, those drivers do not need to have that blemish on their records. This is a very important aspect of this mess, because anyone who reads this amendment bill and the explanatory notes will be aware of the significance that a previous disqualification means if another inadvertent situation should arise. I also ask the minister to address the current system and ensure that persons who fail to renew their licence within a month receive a follow-up letter. With the millions of dollars that have been spent on the TRAILS integrated database, it is also possible to identify a client whose licence has not been renewed but whose registration is due. It should be possible to include a licence renewal reminder with any associated vehicle registration documentation. I note that this legislation also seeks to clarify that situation in relation to an absolute disqualification. The couple of points I have raised in the debate today are all pertinent to this legislation and should be addressed. But the most important factor in this whole sorry saga is that the record of the driver in question should not contain a mark against their name and that the record be set straight. However, there are a couple of other issues I want to raise while I am on my feet during this debate. This morning in the House the member for Fitzroy asked the Minister for Transport a question in relation to the Mount Morgan-Kabra road. Before the last federal election I spoke with the member for Hinkler about this road and the fact that the federal government would inject $1 million and make it a road of national importance. I would be disappointed if the minister has not been consulted about this, but I can assure him that I will follow this through with my federal colleague and the member for Fitzroy. Mr Bredhauer: To this day there have been no attempts to contact me to ask me about this. Mr JOHNSON: I was contacted and wanted to put that on the record today, because the minister knows how I operate. I am up front and straight to the point. I will make absolutely certain that the minister's office is contacted so that this can be righted to enable that money to be forthcoming, because it was agreed to. At the time, the federal member for Hinkler, Mr Neville—he is a very worthy gentleman and a man of his word—said that the federal government would match the state for the project on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Another issue I want to touch on today relates to the ongoing saga of railway wagons in western and northern Queensland. The minister represents an electorate that is similar to my own in that it is a big cattle producing area, although his electorate does not have the rail 480 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

infrastructure that exists in the west and the north-west of the state. Many people are concerned about the railway cattle wagon issue and the railheads, which I mentioned to him in the House yesterday. In response to that question the minister said that he is currently negotiating with Queensland Rail and that no final outcomes from those talks have yet been reached. However, I urge the minister to make absolutely certain that there is full retention of the major trucking facilities at Quilpie, Winton and Cloncurry for the ongoing viability of not only the cattle industry but also Queensland Rail's operation. The minister knows full well that one of the most serious impacts on our road infrastructure today comes from heavy transport. It impacts on road pavements everywhere, whether it is western Queensland, the Wet Tropics or anywhere else. I believe that the government, industry and local governments should work hand in hand with Queensland Rail to make absolutely certain that an outcome is achieved in this respect that is advantageous to everybody in Queensland, whether it be the producers, the government, QR, meat processors or the people who sell their cattle through saleyards. There are a lot of jobs at stake. In his negotiations and exchange of dialogue with the responsible bodies, I urge the minister to make absolutely certain that the outcome will be advantageous to all parties. The opposition supports this bill. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (11.54 a.m.): I rise to support the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 2002. This bill promotes a practical solution to the question of an appropriate penalty for persons found driving unlicensed simply because they neglected to renew their licence. It is of course important for all drivers to make sure they have a current licence before they drive a motor vehicle. Renewing a drivers licence ensures that information connected with the licence, such as a photograph ID and address, are up to date. If a driver is involved in a traffic accident, the information contained in the licence helps the police to conduct their investigations as efficiently as possible. Clearly, this benefits the whole community. The process for renewing a drivers licence can also serve as a reminder to the driver holding a drivers licence that it is a privilege that carries with it ongoing obligations, including the obligation to drive safely. But, clearly, unlicensed drivers who have merely let their licence expire should not be treated in the same way as drivers who have lost their licence for safety related offences or those drivers who have never bothered to obtain a licence at all. One of the achievements of this bill is that it paves the way for subsequent regulations to allow an infringement notice to be issued in such circumstances where a person is found driving on an expired licence. I note that these circumstances are to include where the driver is found driving on a licence that has been expired for less than 12 months and the driver has not previously had unlicensed driving convictions in the past five years. Importantly, the infringement notice option will not only be available to first-time offenders; it will be exercised at the discretion of the intercepting police officer. There are many benefits in using the infringement notice process for less serious offences. Because the infringement notice is often issued at the time the driver is intercepted, this serves as an instant reminder to the driver that their licence is to be renewed. It is also a deterrent from driving again before they have renewed their licence. An infringement notice will allow the driver to pay the penalty without having to undergo the time and expense of attending court. This has the added benefit of freeing up the courts so that court resources can be dedicated to more serious matters. Importantly, even if an infringement notice is issued, the driver still has the opportunity to elect to use the court process if they believe they are not guilty or have extenuating circumstances that may mitigate the penalty. This bill reinforces the established view that unlicensed driving, whether through intention or through oversight, should result in a penalty. While it is often a difficult process to gauge the appropriate penalty for an offence, I believe this bill succeeds in achieving that delicate balance, particularly for drivers who have merely let their licence expire due to oversight. I commend this bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.58 a.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill. I am pleased that the minister has introduced this amendment bill to clarify that Queenslanders will not receive an automatic six- month disqualification of their drivers licence simply because the person's drivers licence expired as a result of the driver's failure to renew it. I note that clause 5 of the bill effectively sets aside any six-month disqualification imposed since the current law, the subject of this amendment bill, was introduced last year. In his second reading speech the minister referred to the department's policy of posting drivers licence renewal reminder notices approximately six weeks before a person's licence was 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 481

due to expire and that the new drivers licence can be obtained at any time up to five years after the licence has expired without the requirement for a person to undertake a driving test to assess their knowledge and/or driving skills. In relation to the opportunity to renew a Queensland drivers licence before it is due for renewal, I ask the minister: why are Queenslanders refused the opportunity to renew their drivers licence earlier than that if they are to be absent from Queensland, perhaps whilst on holidays, during the normal lead-up time for the renewal of a drivers licence in Queensland? I will be supporting the bill and I thank the minister for responding so quickly to rectify a clear anomaly in the current legislation. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.00 p.m.): This bill is important because it not only deals with the issue of people driving on an expired licence but goes further and clarifies what to many people is a confusing issue. I am referring to the removal of the absolute disqualification provision and its replacement with a two- to five-year disqualification for people who have been convicted of driving while disqualified by a court order. Court disqualifications result from serious road safety related breaches such as drink-driving or dangerous driving. It is important that transport legislation reflects and supports the authority of the courts. Disregarding a court order must have an appropriate penalty. The new provision allows the court to decide an appropriate period of disqualification between two and five years. This change will clarify the confusion surrounding the absolute disqualification provision. Many people in the community believe that an absolute disqualification means that the person is not able to obtain another drivers licence for the rest of their life. In effect, however, the transport legislation provides for a person to apply to a court for the removal of the absolute disqualification after serving a two-year disqualification. This has caused distress to some families who have had a loved one killed by a drink driver. They see no justice in the person being able to apply to the court after serving a disqualification of only two years. In other circumstances of which I am aware there are people who do not know that they can apply to the court for the removal of the absolute disqualification after two years. This has resulted in some of my constituents thinking that they will never be able to drive again. This has had serious consequences for their employment prospects and has inhibited their lifestyle significantly. It is no wonder that some of these people drive anyway and then risk being detected for unlicensed driving. The new provision allows a magistrate to decide at the time of conviction to apply a period longer than two years if they think it is appropriate. The person will then leave the court knowing that they have a three-year disqualification if that has been decided by the magistrate. I suppose that the change could have gone beyond a five-year disqualification to 10 or more years, but in this case I think the five-year maximum disqualification period gives sufficient time for an offender to contemplate the seriousness of the offence they have committed and to rehabilitate themselves. Naturally, some people blatantly disregard any sanctions imposed on them. These people will be dealt with by the courts and given appropriate penalties. We should all hope that these people are in the very small minority of offenders. I believe that this bill is a positive step towards encouraging all drivers to behave responsibly on our roads. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (12.03 p.m.): In rising to speak on the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill, I say that I have general support for the bill because I think it is badly needed. Unfortunately, because of poor consideration in relation to the drafting of the legislation, the act contained a major deficiency, particularly in section 78(3B). I think the bill will rectify these problems, and the general essence of the rest of the bill is sound. As far as the opposition is concerned, the principles involved are certainly suitable, and the shadow minister has indicated that. Section 78(3B) had nothing to do with road safety. One of the concerns in the community was that people were being treated unfairly because of that section. It was unfair that those drivers who had erred and had not renewed their licences were being put in the position of having to go before the courts, and I will cite an instance shortly of a young person in my area who was unfortunately pulled up for not stopping correctly at a stop sign. He then had to go through the rigmarole of going before the courts and seeking representation and the implications that go with that. That is the whole problem. If people are pulled up for a minor offence—it could be to do an RBT or something of that nature—they have to produce their licence and if it was found that their licence is not valid because it has expired they then have this major problem of 482 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

having to deal with a six-month suspension of licence. Unfortunately, the magistrates had no discretion to hand down another order because of that particular section. As I have indicated, I believe the minister's second reading speech was quite reasonable, but why did this occur? Why were people subjected—and I will quote the circumstances of this young person in my electorate shortly, and I believe there are a few hundred such examples throughout the state—to unnecessarily having their licence disqualified for six months? I will now outline the circumstances surrounding the case of this young constituent who did not renew his licence prior to the expiry date on 1 June 2001. He claimed that he did not receive a renewal letter and that his address had not changed as he still received his mail at his parents' address. I understand that the department is going to send out renewal notices six weeks prior to the expiry of a licence. I think that is great. Of course, the onus is on people to inform the department of any change of address. I am aware of instances with regard to another piece of legislation in which a person just left a forwarding address and hoped that would be good enough. There is an obligation on all drivers to make the department aware of any changes to their address. A few months after the expiry date this young chap was pulled up by the police for failing to stop at a stop sign in Townsville and he was fined. It was then that the police discovered that his licence had expired and he was told that he would need to appear in court. When he first went to court the case was adjourned and he was advised to go and seek legal aid. Legal Aid said that as a six-month suspension was the law they could not help. He went to court again with a solicitor and the case was again adjourned as the solicitor had heard that there had been complaints regarding this issue. He suggested that his father seek assistance from his local member. The case is now going to be heard on 19 March. I am not sure whether he is going to be able to receive the advantage of this particular legislation— Mr Bredhauer: That's the whole idea. Mr ROWELL: That will happen as long as it is passed and assented to by that time. There is only about a week or 10 or 12 days before it has to receive royal assent. Mr Bredhauer: That's why we are debating it today. Mr ROWELL: I understand that. If this young chap is in the position of missing out on the protection of this amending bill by only a day or two I would certainly like that to be considered. I do not know if that is possible. Mr Bredhauer: Some magistrates are deliberately holding the matters over so that the legislation can be amended, so that they can be dealt with under the amended legislation. Mr ROWELL: I am aware of that. This particular young person is a full-time university student living away from home and he depends on his parents. He works a couple of part-time jobs and he needs a vehicle and a licence to attend both university and work. He does not live on campus. Due to the fact that his parents live in Ingham, about 120 kilometres away from James Cook University, it is necessary for him to have a licence to be able to drive home at weekends to visit his parents. The six month penalty is unreasonable for such a minor offence, particularly for a person living in regional Queensland, as there are limitations on commercial transport in such areas. I am sure that the minister would realise that it is a vastly different situation for people living in Brisbane where there are regular services and subsidised transport. In regional areas, people cannot jump on a train or a bus and head off at short notice as very often those services are only daily or sometimes every two or three days. Of course, there is also the issue of the cost of the fares. For a young person who is at university, this additional cost is some imposition on him. His parents' concern is about the length of the suspension because this young person was forgetful. They understand that their son did the wrong thing by not renewing his licence, but often drink-drivers lose their licences for a shorter time. Yet they are breaking the law and putting lives at risk. So there is a considerable inequity with the act as it stands at present. I am well aware that this legislation will rectify the situation. The young person's mother has phoned the minister's office and faxed her concerns. She also contacted the Premier's office, but I am not aware if there has been any response received. A member of the Hinchinbrook Road Safety Committee came to my office after a meeting and advised that the issue of licence suspension for not renewing a licence was discussed. The canegrowers were going to be asked to lobby on the issue. The sugar industry involves some people who are working seven days a week, which makes it difficult for them to attend traffic offices during working hours. Those people require licences to retain their employment as working 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 483

on haul outs and harvesters is part of their job. It is essential that they are advised of the expiry date of their licences as there are demands on the time available to them to renew their licences if the renewal date occurs during the harvesting season. The member for Nicklin raised quite an important issue. As the minister would be aware, the seasons last for about five months. Of course, recently they have been considerably shorter because of the nature of the seasons that we have had. But it would be appropriate if those people whose licences are due to expire in November could make sure that they completed the necessary documentation involved in renewing the licence earlier in the season, say, in June. I think that would be a big help. There could be considerations given to groups of people who work extended periods—and they work for very long hours; 12 and 14 hours. Unfortunately, they cannot always get into town to the office, because they work some kilometres out of town. I think it would be very beneficial if consideration could be given to extending the period of six weeks to which the minister referred in his second reading speech. As I have indicated, these people have to travel long distances and the demand on their time is very strong during the harvesting season. Although it is necessary for these people to renew their licences, sometimes the expiry date slips past them. If consideration could be given to them receiving their renewal documentation prior to the season starting, that would be a major benefit. The cane harvesters' organisation is following up this matter. I think it is good that we have had this acknowledgment of the severity of the six months suspension, and retrospectivity is an important issue. As the minister said, in the case of this younger person, retrospectivity would be considered. Of course, there is no certainty as to how the court will rule. I do not think we can take that consideration for granted. However, the whole concept of what we are putting forward in this legislation is significant. On 11 February I sent a letter to the minister about this issue and I have received an interim response. At the time we were very concerned about the provisions of the act, but the minister moved relatively quickly and introduced this amending legislation. I am absolutely certain that if the minister had not done that, the opposition spokesman would have introduced a private member's bill to amend the act. The discretion of the court when handing down penalties is quite important in issues such as this, particularly when the infringement did not involve a severe breach of road safety. I read the committee stage of the passing of the previous legislation and I noted that the minister raised the issue of safety. I do not believe that in this case there is a safety issue in terms of new section 78(3B). It is important that we deal with this matter. It is good to see that the minister has introduced this amending legislation quickly. I only hope that the legislation is proclaimed in time for some people who have been trapped by the current legislation so that they do not receive a severe penalty as a result of a minor infringement. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (12.15 p.m.): I rise to support the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill. The bill offers an opportunity for those people who have inadvertently erred in not renewing their drivers licence to be given a fairer penalty. Clearly, those who have been through the processes of obtaining a drivers licence by passing the necessary test are in a different category from those drivers who have never obtained a licence or who wilfully drive when they have been disqualified. It is an important step to distinguish those people who are driving when their licence has expired from those who do not comply with the licensing requirements. In this case, it is not a question of whether the person has the ability to drive but rather that they have committed no offence other than the failure to renew their licence. I recognise that unlicensed driving is a serious offence that can have huge social and economic impacts on society. If a person is unlicensed, there is no guarantee that they have the necessary driving skills, medical fitness or knowledge of the road rules to ensure the safety of other road users. Where an unlicensed driver has been involved in a crash and there is property damage, personal injury or death, the impacts are likely to be on the families who suffer the loss of loved ones and the additional trauma of financial and property loss. Motor vehicle insurers do not usually honour claims where the driver at fault was unlicensed. The pressure on the Nominal Defendant to pay third-party insurance claims as a result of incidents caused by unlicensed drivers eventually impacts on all Queenslanders and results in increased motoring and insurance costs. When we are dealing with unlicensed drivers, we must be mindful of the road safety consequences for all users. 484 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

The parliamentary Travelsafe Committee dealt with the issue of unlicensed drivers in its report No. 27 issued in July 1999. The report highlights the difficulties involved in dealing with unlicensed drivers and in providing sufficient enforcement capability and incentives for people to obtain licences. It also includes a recommendation that a penalty infringement notice scheme be considered. I am pleased to see that a penalty infringement notice has been introduced for drivers whose licences have expired, as I believe that these people present far less risk to other road users. On the other hand, people who are unlicensed owing to the accumulation of demerit points have committed safety related offences such as speeding or disobeying traffic signs. Others have unpaid fines and have a licence suspension through the state penalties enforcement provisions. These people are already suspended from driving under the regulations and, therefore, a six-month disqualification for driving whilst disqualified under the regulations is most appropriate. Similarly, people who drive but who have never held a licence need to realise the seriousness of the offence. In the past, there has been no disqualification sanction, merely a fine. The six-month disqualification for these people will enable them to reflect on the consequences of their unlicensed driving. Hopefully, it will prompt them to obtain a licence and to prove that they meet the road safety knowledge standards and practical driving skills required by our society. There should be appropriate penalties for unlicensed drivers and road safety should be our primary concern. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.18 p.m.): I rise in support of this legislation and I commend the minister for acting swiftly in circumstances where there were unintended consequences from the legislative changes last year. I had, as did most members of this House, constituents come to the office after the legislation was passed to say they had encountered problems. One younger person who came and saw me had perhaps less reason for complaint than others, but in most instances people had inadvertently overlooked the expiration date on their licence. As the minister has acknowledged, this can happen for a number of reasons, for example, shiftwork or long working hours. People of more mature years may have just forgotten to look at the date their licence expired. Fortuitously, most people's licences expire on their birthday—although some would prefer not to remember their birthdays—and, therefore, it is easy to overlook. As the minister has said, many magistrates have been holding off dealing with offences of driving with an expired licence until finalisation of these amendments. I commend the magistrates for recognising the fact that changes were afoot that would ameliorate the otherwise negative history of those unlicensed drivers. I commend the minister for the provision of police permits. It is a practical response to a situation where someone realises for the first time that their licence has expired when they are pulled over and the policeman says, 'Show me your licence,' and when they do, the policeman says, 'Excuse me, but it expired three weeks ago.' After they have finished having a nervous breakdown, they do not need to wonder how they will get home. I do not intend to sound sexist, but that is particularly so if it is at night and it is a woman or a young person who is well away from their destination and they have no other way of getting home. If a person lives in the country, they often have no alternative way of getting home. If the driver has not committed a serious offence, the police permit is certainly a practical response to that situation. I commend the minister for the inclusion of the clarification of sanctions for people pulled up and found to be driving while disqualified. Those people know that they are committing an offence. It is not something that has slipped by them. They have been through the court process for the disqualification. They need to be dealt with and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, they need to be dealt with harshly. I have perhaps a slightly softer view of people who have accumulated points than I do of, say, drink drivers. However, in both cases they know that their licence has been lost. If they have been through the court process, they have been clearly advised that they have a suspension for a period of time. I commend the minister for his prompt action in addressing the consequences of the previous legislation. I thank him for the practical result of this amendment and I look forward to the bill being passed. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (12.22 p.m.): I rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill. It maintains Queensland Transport's commitment to road safety and the community expectation that drivers must demonstrate an appropriate 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 485

standard of personal responsibility. At the same time, the bill meets community expectations regarding the fair treatment of individuals, particularly where the ordinary citizen has made an inadvertent error. This bill also takes the opportunity to streamline the administration of justice. The government is committed to ensuring the fairness and effectiveness of state legislation for all Queenslanders. On 3 December last year, the act was changed to rectify an important inequity with absolute disqualification. The act was amended such that there is now a clear difference in the handling of a person who continues driving after their licence is suspended for accumulating excess demerit points, as compared with a person who keeps driving after being the subject of a court-ordered disqualification. Under the new provisions, if a person is detected driving with a licence that has expired for less than 12 months and they have not had a previous unlicensed driving conviction within the past five years, a roadside penalty infringement notice will be issued. I believe that this infringement notice is an appropriate penalty in the circumstances. The provisions are intended to ensure that the treatment of drivers who have temporarily failed to renew their licence is not excessively onerous. The new provisions strike an appropriate balance between the need to provide equitable treatment to individuals while maintaining efforts in relation to road safety. Road safety is of paramount importance to us and, in fact, I believe to the majority of Queenslanders. These provisions meet community expectations that drivers should demonstrate an appropriate standard of personal responsibility. Queensland licence holders should be aware that drivers are sent renewal notices approximately six weeks before their licence is due to expire. It is then the driver's responsibility to renew the licence before it expires. It is also a driver's responsibility to notify Queensland Transport of any change in address. A new drivers licence can be obtained at any time up to five years after it has expired without the requirement for the person to undertake a driving test to assess their knowledge and driving skills and without incurring any penalty. Given the relatively unique circumstances of the introduction of this legislation and its potential to be repealed within a short period of time, it would seem reasonable to introduce retrospective arrangements to manage this issue. Retrospective provisions for expired licence drivers provide no allowance for compensation, but lift the six months disqualification period which has been automatically applied. I will touch on another issue of importance to Sunshine Coast residents. I thank those involved with the Sunshine Coast Daily, our local newspaper, for providing good coverage of road issues. Mark Furler is one of the chief reporters there and Peter Owen is the editor. Recently, the Department of Main Roads made an announcement regarding the installation of electronic message signs near Sunshine Coast roads. That is part of an overall upgrading of intelligent transport systems. The signs will benefit all motorists, allowing the department to advise them of road conditions up ahead, including accidents, delays, roadworks, diversions and hazards. The messages will keep motorists informed, reducing the possibility of secondary accidents and alleviating traffic congestion. One is proposed for my electorate of Kawana. With these signs, people driving along the road can be notified if there is congestion on the motorways or problems with access to the Bruce Highway. My electorate is a tourist area, but this goes for all of Queensland. These signs can notify the motoring public of possible delays with traffic, possible dangers up ahead and so forth. Consideration is being given to siting them northbound on the Nicklin Way at Minyama, eastbound on the motorway between the Bruce Highway on-ramp and the Buderim off-ramp and further north on the motorway. In closing, I mention that the media, including Channel 7's Richard Bruinsma, have provided the department and the Queensland government with good coverage of the construction that is about to commence on the Kawana arterial. Once completed, that will significantly reduce congestion in and around the electorate of Kawana and, in fact, in all of the Sunshine Coast. The media should be praised for their efforts in spreading the message to the public. They help not only to drop the road toll but to assist in correcting situations, as we are today, where a matter has been overlooked or a loophole exists. The media should never be overlooked as a means of providing help with road traffic and safety, the construction of new roads and public consultation, because I believe all Queenslanders want to see a drop in the road toll. I commend the minister and his department, and I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.29 p.m.): I rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 2002. It is good to see that the government has seen the error of its ways and seen fit to rectify this part of the bill, which was 486 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

passed in only December of last year. It would certainly not be a vote winner to have someone put off the road for six months for simply forgetting to renew their drivers licence. Because of our increasingly hectic lifestyles, ordinary people sometimes forget that very important date which comes around only once in every five years for most of us. I note that this is still too often in many people's minds. Even though the Transport Department sends out notices six weeks before the due date—and I am sure everyone is thankful for that—we are after all merely human, and that means many people still forget. Being away on holidays or for other reasons can also mean that the notice is simply not received. We also have a very transient society these days and during any five year period people have often shifted a number of times. I am sure many of us would be aware of the problems that can occur through a change of address and the mail not getting through or being lost. So it could be the case that the renewal notice has not even been received. Looking at the licence to check the renewal date is certainly not the sort of thing one does on a regular basis. I am pleased that this amendment is being made so that those who are normally law- abiding citizens do not come up against such harsh treatment as outlined in the previous legislation. After all, they are not the sorts of people who would cause any increased risk to other road users, and road safety in general would not be compromised to any great degree. Forgetting a licence renewal date is not, I think it is clear, in any real way similar to drink-driving, speeding or breaching any of the rules governing our driving behaviour. Another problem that has been brought to my attention is the difficulty with the renewal process, particularly in the city of Brisbane and the larger centres, because of the lengthy time it takes for workers to renew their licences in their lunch hour without having to take time off. For example, if they are expected to utilise public transport to access the Transport Department, by what means are they expected to do this in the short time frame of a lunch hour? The Transport Department does not open on weekends. One has to personally attend and cannot use a credit card. Also, the Transport Department opens only at around 8.30 a.m. and closes around 4.30 p.m. and payments cannot be made electronically or via the Internet. Finally, I say that I am heartened by this government's readiness to correct its errors, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (12.31 p.m.): I wish to make a few brief comments about the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill. Many of the issues have been covered by other speakers, but for the sake of completeness I will mention some of them again. Queensland motorists do have a responsibility to ensure that they have a current drivers licence when driving a car. Late in 2001 the government introduced some important changes which made a clear distinction between how to handle a person who drives after their licence has been suspended for accumulating excess demerit points and also people who drive after court-ordered disqualifications. One of the unfortunate consequences of that was that many people who inadvertently forgot to renew their licence—and I might add that this is something any of us can fall foul of—were receiving an automatic six-month penalty. It is important to acknowledge that the department sends out written advice of renewal some weeks before. However, a number of people were caught and received the automatic penalty. I have at least one such person in my electorate who suffered significant disadvantage as a result of that. However, the government has acknowledged, rightfully, that the majority of people in that category who fail to renew do not do so deliberately—there is no malice in it—and also that it does not necessarily increase risks in terms of public safety. It is also important to recognise that the holding of a licence in itself is one facet of the department's approach to ensuring safety on our roads. Licence holders are expected to obey the law and also drive safely. A number of systems are in place to ensure that the licence contributes to that—obviously, the system of demerit points for which we can lose points for a range of reasons and also court action in cases of dangerous driving and the like. Licences can be suspended to remove unsafe drivers from the road where that is justified. However, given the relatively minor nature of these offences, this amendment has been proposed and its effect is that if a person is detected without a valid licence that has expired for less than 12 months and has not had an unlicensed driving conviction within the past five years, the police can issue a roadside infringement notice. That is a fair response. Unfortunately, we are not able to totally undo the penalties that are imposed on motorists who have received it to date. Whereas the legislation will remove the six months' disqualification and people will have their 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 487

licences returned, it is not possible to compensate them for any loss that has occurred in that period. I wish also to refer to a couple of other issues of importance to my electorate. I will not make any specific comment about the 30 kilometres an hour school zone trial, because I have made the views of my constituents known to the minister on that. Speed is one issue. The critical issue that I see for school safety is creating an awareness among motorists of the need to drive safely around schools. A number of initiatives have been taken to date that assist in that regard. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: Signage is one issue. The signage around school zones needs to be much more distinctive. As I said, for me the key issue concerning safety around schools is creating an awareness in all drivers that they need to drive safely. The speed limit is one issue. Public awareness is heightened by road markings, and I support the department's installation of bright red road markings. The flashing lights have been on trial for a number of years outside St Dympnas, but hopefully they are a permanent fixture. Raising the awareness of the presence of schoolchildren is a significant factor in contributing to safety around schools. The speed limit signs need to comply with the departmental guidelines in terms of their design, but there is also a need for additional, more creative and high-impact signage which assists in creating that awareness. I have made those submissions to the department through the minister's office on other occasions. I wish also to acknowledge the minister and the department for the Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme, or TIDS, funding for my electorate. The Boondall State School set-down and parking zone was completed earlier in the year. That has greatly improved safety for students and parents when dropping off kids at that school. The Roads Implementation Program for next year indicates funding for a new drop-off and pick-up zone at Virginia State School. That program of installing drop-off and pick-up zones is a joint program with the Brisbane City Council. It is an excellent example of a good strong partnership between local government and state government where there is fifty-fifty funding. I thank the minister and the department for the funding for the two schools in my electorate. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (12.37 p.m.): I rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 2002. I am pleased to see the minister responding so quickly to concerns that have been raised by the community over the unlicensed driving provision in the 1995 transport operations legislation. Late last year the act was changed to rectify an inequity in the handling of a person who continues to drive after accumulating excess demerit points and resultant suspension as compared with a person who keeps driving after a court- ordered disqualification, and so this becomes a very important reform. Unfortunately, one of the unintended results of this amendment was a severe impact on those people who had simply failed to renew their licence. My office was contacted several weeks ago by one such person who, rather absent-mindedly, had received his renewal notice but had simply forgotten to renew within the time frame. I was pleased to be able to inform him that the government had just introduced an amendment bill which would treat him in a much less onerous fashion than the automatic imposition of a six months' suspension and that it would be made retrospective. This young person fell into the category of having an expired licence for less than 12 months and no previous convictions. Things should turn out all right in his case. The new provision provides for equitable treatment of individuals for what usually amounts to just an oversight. This provision in no way denigrates the government's commitment to road safety. I am working hard in my electorate to ensure that all road safety messages are getting out to the community, where they need to be. I am working with many schools and local police in an effort to ensure road users obey speed limits and safe parking requirements around schools. The partnerships that have been and are continuing to be developed by school communities—that is, the teachers, the principals, parents and children—Queensland Transport, Queensland police, Main Roads and our local councils are leading the way in ensuring that road safety messages get out there, making it safe for all of us. Last week, the Peachester State School in my electorate of Glass House formed a school safest committee to progress its safety issues. I congratulate Frances Gonano and the principal, Greg Sweetman, on their proactive approach to road safety. They mentioned that they wanted to talk about the issue of flashing lights outside schools to alert motorists. Peachester is a beautiful little country school set slightly off the main road and surrounded by large trees, so unless you 488 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

knew it was there you would miss it. The problem with motorists and big logging trucks is that they do not realise that there is a school there and they do not necessarily slow down to the speed limit. This creates quite a dangerous situation for our young people. So the school has formed a school safest committee and is working actively to try to get adjustments made to the roads in that area. The flashing lights are on trial, and I hope that that trial will be extended. It has been very successful outside the Glass House Mountains State School, and I look forward to seeing whether we can access a similar trial for the Peachester State School. It is important to remember that we must all be ever vigilant in our efforts to reduce the road toll, which is always too high. That being said, I congratulate the minister on his speedy resolution of this particular issue. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads is again demonstrating his commitment to fair and equitable laws in Queensland, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (12.41 p.m.): I am pleased to support the bill before the House. I commend the minister on his action in trying to amend this legislation once the anomaly became evident quite quickly after the legislation was passed late last year. As the minister has said, it was an unintended consequence of the legislation. But unfortunately, in the time it has taken to come back to the House with this amendment, a number of people have been caught by this legislation. One of my constituents rang me some time ago. He was probably one of the first people to be caught in this situation. I have written to the minister since then, and perhaps he can clarify for all members some of the practical procedures for those people who have been caught as to how they can rectify their situations once this legislation is passed. This fellow's licence was due for renewal on 28 November. His licence had lapsed by five days and he had inadvertently failed to renew it. On 5 December—only two days after the legislation was enacted—he was pulled over and booked. So he was pretty unlucky. Mr Bredhauer: What was he booked for? Mr COPELAND: I do not know off the top of my head. But regardless of whether or not he should have been pulled over and accepted the consequences of his actions, he was caught up in the legislation that members are debating. As I said, on 5 December—only two days after the legislation was enacted—that fellow was pulled over and booked. On 14 January he appeared before a court and had his licence disqualified for six months. He is a self-employed plumber who works on his own. So this has had very extreme consequences for him in terms of his being able to operate his business and obviously to earn an income. We have been in constant contact. As I said, I have written to the minister to see what procedure that fellow should follow. Perhaps the minister could clarify the practical procedures to be followed by those people who have been caught by this legislation; and given that it is retrospective, if everyone who was caught in the web since 3 December has their disqualification period lifted, that would be a great benefit to all members who have had a number of those people visit their offices. I realise that there is no provision for compensation, and that is a bit of a shame, because that fellow lost significant income by being unable to drive in his own business for that period. Road transport and road safety are obviously of the very highest concern to all of us. The road toll—the number of people killed on our roads each year—horrifies all of us. The other factor that largely goes unreported is the number of people who are severely injured in road accidents. This is something that affects everyone. We all know someone who has a family member or a friend who has been killed or injured in a road accident. This is something that we really must continue to try to address, and it is supported by members on all sides of this House. As I often do, I travelled between Brisbane and Toowoomba last Saturday morning in very heavy rain. It is quite a good road in most parts between Brisbane and Toowoomba, other than the Gatton bypass, which has a history of accidents. Fortunately it has been targeted for upgrades, with funds provided by the federal government and with the state government's assistance. I passed five accidents between Brisbane and Hodgsonvale on Saturday in very heavy rain. By the look of them, two of those accidents were extremely serious, because ambulances were departing the scenes with their lights flashing and their sirens on. So I can only conclude that someone was at least injured in those accidents. This is something that happens every day, and it is something of which we have to be mindful. Obviously, the standard of our roads is something that contributes to the safety of our travel. We can never have too much money to spend on our roads, but we must target those roads with 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 489

black spots and those on which accidents occur. We must continually try to upgrade roads right across the state. There are a couple of roads in my electorate that I would like to mention briefly. A great deal of roadwork is done in my electorate from time to time, and many very heavy transport vehicles travel through my electorate south-north and east-west. The Gore Highway and the New England Highway are very busy roads that carry a lot of heavy road transport into New South Wales and Victoria. Those vehicles give us more things to take notice of. B triples and B doubles travel on the Gore Highway every day, and road trains use the roads further south. This is something we need to keep an eye on. For example, the road between Pittsworth and Toowoomba is a single-lane highway with very few opportunities for overtaking. There is a major roadhouse at the top of a hill on that highway, and motorists need to be aware of road trains entering or leaving that roadhouse or people waiting to enter that roadhouse. There is another issue that arises in my electorate. There are not a lot of gravel roads in the Cunningham electorate, but we have an awful lot of single-lane bitumen back roads or local roads. Many local governments are struggling to maintain those roads. On a number of occasions local governments have had to rip up the bitumen because they cannot continue to repair and maintain it, and they are returning those roads to gravel. That is a very sad situation. Even though they are single-lane bitumen roads, in many cases all that is required is a single lane. In my view, returning those roads to gravel is a dreadful waste, but it is something that I believe will continue to happen. We need to focus on that. Other members have mentioned the special focus that has been placed on road safety around schools. That is an issue of great concern to all of us. I would like to mention two schools in particular in my electorate. One is the Millmerran P-10 school on the Gore Highway right across the road from the Millmerran sports centre and the Millmerran swimming pool. So a lot of schoolchildren cross that highway. As I said before, a lot of heavy transports use that highway, such as B doubles, B triples, semitrailers and road trains. It is a very busy highway, so it is of great concern to that school community and to the community of Millmerran that schoolchildren regularly cross that road with relatively little protection. That is something that the community has been working hard to try to address. The other school that I wish to mention is the Martin Luther Primary School in Toowoomba, which is located on Hume Street—quite a busy road. The school has been working with local departmental people to address their problem. Especially for southbound traffic along Hume Street, there is a relatively blind crest immediately before the school's pedestrian crossing. That in itself poses some problems which the school has been trying to rectify, but I know there will continue to be some problems around that school. Obviously there are other issues relating to other schools and other roads within my electorate. The last one I would like to mention is the New England Highway between Hodgsonvale and where it joins Ruthven Street at the southern entrance to Toowoomba. All the roads that go through Toowoomba are fairly major highways. No matter in which direction you head from Toowoomba the road leads to a major interstate highway or a major highway to the coast. The entrance on the southern side of the city is probably the worst serviced in terms of highways. It is a single-lane highway that goes through an outer suburban area of Hodgsonvale into Ruthven Street, a major divided street. There are some problems that probably will have to be looked at in the long term, because that road will definitely need to be upgraded to a suitable standard. I commend the bill to the House. As I said, I am pleased that the minister has acted so quickly on this issue. I would appreciate it if he could let us know in his reply just how people who have been caught by the legislation since it was enacted on 3 December can practically address this issue. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (12.50 p.m.): I rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill. Over the past two months in particular it has been brought to my attention that a number of my constituents were found to have been unintentionally driving with licences that had expired. Whilst it is accepted that unlicensed driving is illegal, the penalty was particularly harsh on people who simply forgot to renew their licences. This bill promotes a solution to the problem of imposing an appropriate penalty on such persons. Before speaking on the mechanics that will address this issue, I acknowledge how swiftly the minister has responded to my representations. I thank him and his staff for the assistance I received in relation to this matter. I know that my constituents have welcomed these 490 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

amendments. In saying that, I know that the situation my constituents and I were confronted with has highlighted the need for people to be knowledgeable of their licence expiry date and the reasons it is important to keep their affairs up to date and correct. Renewal of drivers licences ensures that the photo identification, address details and further information is kept up to date. The information contained on the licence is helpful for police when they are conducting investigations. While this alone benefits the community as a whole, for insurance purposes it is crucial that drivers renew their licences when necessary. This leads me to the point that the actual process for renewing a drivers licence provides a time for drivers to be reminded that they have an obligation to drive safely. In many cases where people were found to be unlicensed, they were initially pulled over by the police for safety related offences or were found to have never actually had a licence at all. However, it is not fair for those who have simply forgotten to renew their licences to be penalised in the same way as are drivers who have subsequently lost their licence for safety related reasons. As members can see, the mechanics of this bill need to balance the unintentional action of non-renewal with intentional unlicensed driving. I am proud to see that this bill does achieve just that balance. In the circumstance where a person is found driving with a licence that has been expired for less than 12 months and they have no unlicensed driving conviction in the previous five years, a roadside penalty infringement notice will be issued. Infringement notices will only be issued for first-time offences and at the discretion of the police officer. This is opposed to the minimum two-year and maximum five-year disqualification for those people who are intercepted and found to be driving when they are already disqualified from driving for unsafe driving offences. It is important to stress that Queensland drivers must accept that it is their responsibility to renew their licences before they expire and to notify Queensland Transport of a change of address. I urge all residents of the Broadwater electorate to take out their licences and check their expiry date as, depending on when they last renewed their licences, the expiry date may not necessarily be on the driver's birthday, as in most cases. I am satisfied that this bill ensures that those drivers who have temporarily failed to renew their licences are not treated unfairly. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.53 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill and congratulate the minister on taking prompt action in an attempt to correct concerns that have been raised. Clearly, the bill we are considering attempts to balance community expectations that drivers will act responsibly and maintain proper standards with fair treatment for individuals who are guilty of nothing but inadvertent error. By and large, I think the bill goes a long way to achieving those aims. The bill comes about as a result of concerns in relation to the passing of the amendment bill on 27 November in this place. Those concerns were that those amendments may affect persons whose drivers licence had lapsed because they had not renewed it. There were media reports in relation to the issue. Those media reports focused on the alleged removal of discretion by magistrates—discretion which enabled magistrates to consider all circumstances when dealing with persons driving without a valid licence. Consequently, drivers whose licences were expired would have been disqualified for six months. The media reports referred to drafting oversights and so on. The RACQ also issued a press release in relation to the matter. As I said before, the legislation now before the House is designed to correct any anomalies arising from that situation. I instance one case of recent times. A constituent telephoned my office advising that he had been pulled over on 8 January—I do not know for what reason—and it was then discovered that his licence had expired. He was told in the court that he would automatically lose his licence for six months. In that situation, providing that person had not been disqualified at the time and providing the oversight of not renewing the licence had not been for a period of more than five years, then the effect of this legislation, as I understand it, is that there will be no further disqualification and disqualification will have no further effect. As has been said before in this debate, there will be no compensation payable, which is consistent, I think, with most corrective legislation of this nature. I think most people who have been unfortunately treated will be pleased enough that the anomaly has been addressed and addressed promptly. I have some concerns that the legislation perhaps does not go far enough. In that regard I refer briefly to the facts of a lady whose circumstances were brought to my attention. This lady was pulled over by Toowoomba police on 8 December for failing to give way and has been 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 491

subsequently charged with unlicensed driving under section 78. The circumstances briefly are that this lady first visited Australia in 1982 on a visitors permit. She applied for her permit at the Australian Embassy in San Francisco and was advised that her drivers licence from the United Kingdom was sufficient for her to drive in Australia. The licence was issued in Great Britain in 1974 and does not expire until 2024. This lady visited Australia a number of times on a visitors permit. In 1985 she entered Australia pursuant to a residents visa and has subsequently been granted Australian citizenship. She does not recall ever receiving any paperwork over the years in relation to the issue of her drivers licence. In particular, she does not recall receiving any notification when she was granted residency status or Australian citizenship that she needed to obtain a Queensland licence. She has at all times believed that her UK licence was valid for the purposes of driving in Queensland and Australia. My understanding of the proposed legislation— Mr Bredhauer: It doesn't deal with that case. Mr SHINE: No, it does not deal with that case, unfortunately. I would ask that further consideration be given to closing that sort of loophole, which may be more extensive than might at first be thought. Otherwise, I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): I am happy to rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 2002. In fact, it is appropriate for me to speak in the debate today, because I am happy to announce that a couple of hours ago I was informed that my 17-year-old daughter received her drivers licence. We are very proud parents, particularly because we will not have to drive her to uni and everywhere else. We are now parents who are free to get on with their lives—we wish! Mr Terry Sullivan: Now you have to start to worry until she gets home! Ms KEECH: Absolutely. Mrs Lavarch: Has she got a car? Ms KEECH: She has a car, so it is even more of a worry, isn't it? No, it is not really, because she had very good driving lessons from her parents and the excellent driving instructors at Beenleigh. However, the reason for the amendment bill before the House today is to rectify the current arrangement of the imposition of an automatic penalty of six-months disqualification for drivers who have not renewed their drivers licence. As we have heard today in this debate, this penalty was considered too harsh. Given that both our work and family lives are incredibly busy, it is very easy on occasion to simply fail to renew a licence when it is due. Because of these work and family commitments and despite the fact that the department gives advance notice, sometimes there is still a failure to renew a licence. I congratulate the minister, the Hon. Steve Bredhauer, for acting so quickly to ensure that this anomaly in the current act is amended. The members for Nicklin and Hinchinbrook both spoke about the need for there to be a facility to get a licence in advance for a variety of reasons. The member for Nicklin raised this issue in the context of when people go on holidays. It is great to see that the member for Nicklin is so concerned about constituents who go on holidays, because last year he introduced a private member's bill in the House in an attempt to assist his constituents planning to be on holiday during an election and hence their need to vote. Obviously many people in Nicklin go on holidays, so the member is very lucky to live in such an electorate. In that case it was very easy for the government to offer an option for those members of his electorate to not only go on holiday but also vote. We suggested that fixed four-year terms would make it a lot easier for his constituents. I am happy to say that the Department of Transport and the minister have also made it very easy for people who wish to go on holidays to renew their licences, particularly overseas holidays. If a constituent plans to go overseas on holiday, they can contact their relevant customer service centre and can in fact get their licence renewed six months earlier. For other individuals who, for a variety of reasons, want to get a drivers licence early, they can get it six weeks in advance. However, I do share the concerns of both the member for Nicklin and the member for Hinchinbrook that sometimes even being able to get a drivers licence six weeks in advance is not enough. Members who have spoken previously in this debate raised the issue of cane harvesters. I certainly support their concerns, coming as I do from a cane-growing area such as Albert. Since the department, the minister and the cabinet are working towards solutions to a variety of problems through Smart State initiatives, I look forward to the day when we can renew 492 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

our drivers licence on the web. It might be hard at the present time, because we not only have to pay for a licence renewal—although that could be done easily with a credit card—but we also need a photo. That is a little more difficult to achieve. Perhaps in the future as we work towards smart initiatives and smart solutions to these problems raised by previous speakers in this debate we will come to a solution. I am also happy to note that in my electorate there is a south-east Queensland review of customer service centres, involving the customer service centre in Beenleigh. There has been consultation with staff, managers, me and the member for Waterford to raise any concerns or issues we have. I draw to the attention of the House the excellent work done at the Beenleigh customer service centre. It is full of hardworking staff who give their best in a very busy environment. In fact, my daughter who passed her driving test today received her licence from a driver licence tester who comes from Woodridge each day to Beenleigh. There is only one such tester in Beenleigh, so members can imagine that there is quite a delay and a lengthy queue for booking tests. In fact, even before her test today my daughter was already worried about not passing because of the delays but, fortunately, she does not have to book in for another test. In closing, I congratulate the minister and his department on acting so swiftly in introducing these new amendments. They will certainly continue to ensure that the safety of the driving public is upheld. I commend the bill to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (2.37 p.m.): I rise to support the bill before the House and congratulate the minister on taking these practical steps to rectify a situation that was never the intention of the government through the initial legislation. The disqualification of a licence is a major step and a very necessary step to act as a deterrent for irresponsible drivers, but we note that there is a major difference between an administrative oversight and the deliberate flouting of a requirement of a payment or penalty. The minister has noted that difference. This legislation helps to overcome that administrative oversight that could cause an effect that was much more severe than would have been intended. I believe that this particular piece of legislation in this portfolio highlights a growing problem arising from legislation that passes through this House. In many departments, for all the right reasons, we issue a licence to people for specific purposes. The overall effect, however, is that ordinary Queenslanders are faced with a large number of licensing or payment regimes. Apart from the regular rates, phone, gas, electricity and the membership of sporting, community groups or political parties, we also have building permits, business licences, gun licences, licences to register our dogs, our car and to pay insurances on our home and contents. If a letter goes astray or, in the busyness of life, a letter is misplaced and a certain payment is not made, the effect of that can be disastrous if there is not a proper notification and reminder regime. Because we are such a mobile society and the change of address is much more common in our society than it is in many others, the actual contact with a person can pose some difficulties. Queensland, with its vast size and highly decentralised population, probably has a greater percentage of persons who can be more difficult to contact through the post. Therefore, we as a government must ensure that a proper regime of initial notification and, more importantly, follow- up or reminder occurs in all government departments. I would hope that this example which has been rectified may act as a spur for the government to look at a general regime of ensuring that a notification and reminder practice is instituted in all government departments. We have had the example for many years of registers of professionals, such as teachers and nurses. As a former member of the Board of Teacher Registration, I know that without registration a person may not teach legally in Queensland and, therefore, cannot earn a living. If someone failed to pay their registration a first notice and then a second notice went out. If a letter came back saying 'not at this address' that would trigger a problem at the board. It would then take special steps to notify the person because it knew that lack of registration affected their whole lifestyle. At the moment I am dealing with another minister about a constituent who, because he did not receive or misplaced a particular form and did not pay a $65 fee which he has paid for a number of years, is now unable to operate in his particular line of work as a small businessperson. A $65 payment has now stopped this family from earning a living. Mr Livingstone: Hear, hear! Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I congratulate the minister who is acting on behalf of this constituent, and I hear an interjection of support from the member for Ipswich. He is aware of this particular circumstance, too. This has highlighted that in at least two situations where this tradesman has to 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 493

be registered there is a very poor system of notification and follow-up. Because of that there is a family that now does not have access to an income while they await an administrative decision to see what can occur in relation to this licence. This is the sort of thing that the Minister for Transport heard from the motorists whose licences had been cancelled. He realised that that was not the intent of the initial legislation and he has taken these practical steps to sort it out. Mr Pearce: A commonsense approach. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: It is a very commonsense approach. I think it shows that the government is listening to the legitimate concerns of people without lowering the standards of proper driver education or proper law enforcement which, as the chair of the Travelsafe Committee, the member would know. As a former member of that committee, I support that and I support the minister in his efforts to improve road safety. The legislation before the House demonstrates the necessity for serious penalties and deterrents for people who are recalcitrant or simply flouting the law as opposed to those who inadvertently overlook the making of an application. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the government to introduce a standard practice of specifying the notification and renewal processes that have to occur in all government departments. If we are to become the truly Smart State we then need to develop ways of sharing information between government departments without making it a Big Brother operation so that this can be easy for people who, in their busy lives, have so much paperwork to complete. I congratulate the minister on this step and I support the legislation. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (2.43 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 2002. The objectives of this bill are to redress the situation in which driving a car without a licence would see a person penalised and to amend the penalty imposed under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The reasons for the bill are reasonably straightforward. They are an acknowledgment that, since this scheme took effect, there has been significant feedback to the department and also within the community to indicate that the automatic penalty of six months disqualification for those who neglect to renew their drivers licence is quite simply too harsh. There is a reasonable consensus out there in the community that the vast majority of expired licence offences are not deliberately committed and they do not result in an increased risk to public safety. As a consequence it has been suggested that we recognise driving under an expired licence as a separate offence and that different penalties are to apply depending upon how long the licence was expired and whether or not it was a first offence. The police will also be able to authorise persons detected with an expired licence to continue their journey under certain circumstances. In other changes the courts are to be given discretion in the sentencing of persons convicted of driving when already subject to a court imposed disqualification. Persons detected driving on an expired licence since 3 December 2001 will have any disqualification removed according to this new legislative scheme. I think this legislation is entirely sensible and is not in any way being introduced too soon. A constituent approached me just recently in, I imagine, a similar circumstance to that described by the member for Stafford. They have operated a small business from their own home in St Lucia for a number of years. Every year they receive a form in the mail to renew their licence. For some reason the form did not arrive this year. Whether it was a failure on the part of the department or Australia Post or even local scallywags getting up to mischief with the mail, who is to say? The fact of the matter is that with all the goodwill in the world they intended to renew their licence. As soon as they realised that their licence had expired and that they had not received a renewal they contacted the department and were told that they would have to pay a fee for having allowed their licence to lapse. I think this legislation is exceptionally sensible in that regard. I would also like to echo the sentiments of a number of members who have discussed the wonderful state of transport in Queensland throughout the debate. I am one of those members who is lucky enough to have a beautiful green bridge through the centre of my electorate, the Jack Pesch bicycle bridge, which was opened by the Minister for Transport a number of years ago. I believe Jack himself was there. Jack used to have a little bicycle shop up on Petrie Terrace called Rocket Cycles. He was one of the few genuine bicycle frame makers in Queensland. I had the pleasure of racing against his grandkids on a number of occasions when we used to race bicycles. The bridge is used by a large number of local cyclists in my electorate. I imagine that a young man by the name of Samuel Lee, who is a student at the Christ the King Primary School 494 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

in Graceville, uses it on occasions. Sam did us all proud by taking out a bronze medal at the junior state track championships at Chandler recently. I imagine also that James Woods, another student at Christ the King Primary School, uses the bridge on occasion, too, in training for the bike leg of the triathlons he competes in. James won a gold medal at the Kids of Steel triathlon a short time ago. I would also like to draw to the attention of the House a flyer that I have just received advertising the South-east Queensland Cycle Forum, which is to be held on 21 March 2002 at the Novotel Twin Waters Resort, Ocean Drive, Twin Waters on the Sunshine Coast. The intent of the forum is to address a number of cycle and transport related issues. It is to look at new initiatives to encourage cycling, local council activities, sharing the road and, importantly, infrastructure and planning. The forum will provide an opportunity for local and state governments, bicycle users and the bicycle industry to come together to celebrate achievements, progress and initiatives that have increased cycling; to communicate new ideas, information and experiences; and to investigate opportunities and challenges. The forum will also offer a mix of speakers and workshops focused around those themes. This is a wonderful initiative of the Department of Transport. If honourable members would like some more information they can contact the State Cycle Unit at Queensland Transport. They can email it at [email protected] or they can look at its web site at www.transport.qld.gov.au/cycling. It is suggested that the people who should attend include local government engineering, planning, parks and recreation and community development and health staff; local councillors; state government staff; bicycle user groups; school principals; and parent groups. In my electorate I have a number of school transport safety groups that focus quite significantly upon cycle safety. Late last year we had the pleasure of receiving again from the Minister for Transport some wonderful brochures focused on cycle safety. It was a wonderful initiative of the Department of Transport. Also encouraged to attend the forum are bicycle retailers and other businesses that want to encourage cycling and of course—and I think quite importantly—tourism operators. This is a great opportunity for us to encourage people to come to Queensland to make use of our roads for cycling holidays. Prior to closing, I would like to acknowledge a number of people with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the past 10 months: Ben Wilson and Bill Loveday from Bicycle Queensland and John Kerr and Ray Sketcher, who are local residents who have been invaluable in providing me with advice and assistance when it comes to these sorts of transport issues. I would like to draw to the attention of the House also a publication produced by the University of Queensland Cycle Club. It is called Unicycle and it can be found on the web at www.uqcycle.com. This is a wonderful cycling club based in my electorate. The executive, Geoff Pennisi—or Rocco—Paulie Owen, Shiralee Lubke, Richard Marsden, Russell Griggs and Mark Verstege do a wonderful job. They have a proud record of achievement. They get some great race wins. In fact, the men's 400-metre pursuit team of Michael O'Donoghue, Mike Moloney, Peter Herzig and Ben Litchfield claimed silver at the state track titles this week. Also Ben Litchfield amazingly placed third in the New Years Day criterium on the Gold Coast behind professional riders Jason Phillips and Robbie McEwan, who I think we would all know. In closing, it is worth mentioning the second place by Michael Skroblin in the national cross- country mountain biking championships. The University of Queensland Cycle Club is a marvellous cycle club. I often see them training throughout St Lucia. I think that their race results and their records speak for themselves. I would like to commend the minister on producing such a sensible bill and I am very proud to support it. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (2.51 p.m.): I would like to contribute to this Transport (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 2002. I am very pleased to see that the minister is seeing commonsense and amending the restrictions that were contained in the legislation that he introduced. There is no doubt that very honest people can forget to renew their licences. As the minister said in his own explanatory notes, that breaking of the transport laws is not committed deliberately and, in most cases, just because a person has not renewed their licence does not result in an increased risk to public safety. I am also pleased to see that this legislation will be retrospective. I would like the minister's assurance that anyone who was booked under the old regulation for driving with an expired licence will be covered by this amendment bill and that, accordingly, justice will be done for them. I take this opportunity to mention the need for road infrastructure in my electorate of Caloundra and on the Sunshine Coast in general. For many years we have been championing 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 495

the cause—and I certainly had the agreement of Mr Johnson when he was the minister and also before the last election we went through all the funding that would be available for transport—to upgrade the remainder of Caloundra Road to four lanes. This is really a priority. The former coalition government allocated funds to upgrade the road from Pierce Avenue into the city of Caloundra. But then drivers come off a two-lane road to go out to the Bruce Highway which, as all members know, is four lanes—two lanes each way. The population of Caloundra city and the general area is growing. So it is not that I am asking for something that is not needed. This section of road creates quite a bit of traffic havoc, particularly during peak hours, when people come off a four-lane highway and go onto a two-lane road before they go back onto a four-lane highway again. It is commonsense that that road needs to be widened. The former coalition government put aside money for the planning of that road. I remember that the member for Gregory came to the area and we held a public meeting to decide on options. In that regard the Department of Main Roads had done a lot of very good work. I must take this opportunity to say that I find the officers of the Department of Main Roads very good. They are very helpful and are really prepared to listen to the concerns of the local members and the people. So we had this public consultation, maps went up in the civic centre, we had to look at various routes—whether the other two lanes would go north or south of the two-lane road—and environmental concerns became an issue. It was agreed that option B would be the best route, because it had the least environmental impact, and that it would go ahead. Those plans have not gone anywhere. I noticed in the most recent integrated plan for Main Roads that there is still no money allocated in the five-year program for that, which means that it really is on the never-never. I just cannot understand why. I understand—and the minister may think that I do not—the problem of allocating enough money to maintain and build new roads in a vast state such as Queensland because of our environment, particularly up north and out west where we have many floods and where a lot of money goes into repairing and maintaining roads. But that does not mean to say that we can overlook the road needs in urban areas. I am not the only person who talks about road infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast. The media in general is also talking about it, and I am sure that the minister is aware of that. The members of his party who represent areas on the Sunshine Coast must tell him that. The Sunshine Coast has really lagged behind in road infrastructure. I know that the former coalition government had to put hundreds of millions of dollars into building the road to the Gold Coast. That was an imperative and the general understanding was that, when that was done, there would be money put into doubling sections of the Bruce Highway and certainly, first of all, to double sections of the Nicklin Way, which is really essential. Twice this week I have had to travel to Maroochydore and further north at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. It was chock-a-block. On many segments of that road I do not think that I moved faster than 35 kilometres an hour, and that is a 100 kilometres per hour section of road. Mr Bredhauer: Slowing down in your old age, Joan? Mrs SHELDON: It was impossible to go any faster. No matter what people were driving—cement truck or sports car—they still had to sit there. I think that that indicates the real need—and there is a need—for the duplication of that section of the Nicklin Way. We had certainly said that it would be put in place. In fact, the previous member for Mooloolah, Bruce Laming, had a lot to do with getting the road built in conjunction with Lensworth Kawana Waters from a roundabout at the back of Kawana Waters up through and onto the Sunshine Motorway. That is going ahead and it is really needed. It will relieve some of the congestion on the Nicklin Way between Kawana or Wurtulla—or further north than Wurtulla; Bokarina most probably—through to the Sunshine Motorway, but it does nothing about congestion from that point south where there is a lot of congestion, particularly during holiday times. Those members who go to the Sunshine Coast for their holidays—and I know a number of members opposite do that—would realise how congested the Nicklin Way gets during Christmas and Easter. There is a multimodal corridor in place. The former coalition government made sure that that was put in place and this government has left it in place. Originally, the multimodal so-called corridor, which came from Corbould Park racecourse across the road and then swung in around the back of a lot of that new development of Kawana up to the roundabout that I mentioned where the other new road is to come in, was to cater for road and rail. As we know, the CAMCOS corridor has now been changed. However, that road is still planned. There is a resumption notice over people's land, although they have not yet been paid for the land. If that road can be put through, which would come off the new four lanes at Caloundra Road, it will relieve a lot of the 496 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

congestion along the Nicklin Way, which really cannot be widened any more because there are houses along both sides of it. That road would also stop heavy traffic going along the Nicklin Way. It is long past the date when that road can be used for the original purpose that it was built. I will not comment on this in any detail except to say that the access road into Maroochydore is, of course, a major political issue. Access to the plaza at Maroochydore to do one's shopping, et cetera, is a nightmare. It does not take much looking at that whole area to realise that it needs attention now. Unless plans are made and funds are allocated in budgets to build these roads, it just will not be done. The minister must realise the needs of the area. People on the Sunshine Coast are saying, 'Okay, we have waited our turn.' It is only fair that funding is provided for roads. There is not much point in the government saying, 'Yes, we know it is needed.' The funding must be made available now so that this road infrastructure can be put in place. The Sunshine Coast is one of the greatest and quickest growth areas not only in Queensland but in the nation. It is only equitable that the government provide services where there is the greatest need and the greatest population growth. My electorate contains a lot of schools and is a fast-growing area. As I mentioned yesterday, since I became its member in 1990 my electorate has twice been downsized considerably because of population growth. First of all, it was cut in half. Mr Johnson interjected Mrs SHELDON: The member for Gregory's electorate may cover more area, but I do not believe he has as many constituents to serve as I do. We have quality people on the Sunshine Coast, particularly in the Caloundra electorate. I draw this to the minister's attention because it is essential that this happen, that it happen now, and that people see that it is happening now. Possibly the biggest regional issue on the Sunshine Coast is road infrastructure. There are a number of important issues and certainly health services comes a pretty close tie, but road infrastructure is vital. Accordingly, it has to be planned and funded now, and incrementally over the years when these roads will be built, or we will not have them at all. I ask the minister whether there has been any progress on the CAMCOS railway. A private group was interested in putting a rail link along virtually the same route as CAMCOS, from the QR railway lines out near Beerwah, and continuing through. I do not know whether they have contacted the minister. I saw them before the election but I have not heard from them recently. I am aware that they have spoken to local councils. If they are still interested and if they have funds available, it would seem to be commonsense to use private capital to build such a road instead of the government using taxpayers' money. We need to look at partnerships—as, indeed, we did when we were in government—between private enterprise and government for some of the vital infrastructure that we need in this state. We are a big, growing state and there is a constant demand for infrastructure of all sorts. I hope the minister has listened to my plea for these roads and will act accordingly. Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (3.02 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. As is the case with all debates on transport bills, it was a wide-ranging debate. Honourable members have taken the opportunity to speak not just about the bill itself but about a range of transport issues in their electorates. I assure members that I have listened very attentively to all the issues that they have raised. At the outset, I will say that holding a drivers licence is a very important road safety issue. It is regarded by myself, the government and Queensland Transport as critical to helping encourage road safety that drivers on our roads are currently and properly licensed. I echo the issues raised by many members in respect of road safety and the requirement for people to have a current drivers licence. It is every driver's responsibility to ensure they have a current drivers licence. Through Queensland Transport, we attempt to assist people to remember when their licence is due to expire. Bear in mind that not everybody has a five-year licence. Under the current arrangements, people can obtain a drivers licence for anything from one year to five years. Mr Johnson: About 20 years one time. Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, but I think that was a UK licence. I will have that one looked at separately. People are sent reminder notices. I admit that some notices do go astray because people have changed their address. However, it is the person's responsibility to advise 7 Mar 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill 497

Queensland Transport of their change of address so that records can be adjusted accordingly. It is very important. Amendments were brought in on 3 December last year to improve issues relating to drivers licences, driver suspension and driver disqualification. Notwithstanding that, there was an unintended consequence. The member for Gregory referred to this consequence and asked how it came about. It was the magistrates, in the first instance, who thought we should differentiate between those people whose drivers licences had been suspended through the accumulation of demerit points, as opposed to those people whose licences had been suspended as a result of a court-ordered suspension. They believed that there should be a differentiation there. We agreed. We sought to put that in place in the amendments that went through parliament on 3 December last year. We consulted with a range of people, government departments and, in fact, with the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate at the time, but the consequence that emerged was unintended, and I gave a commitment at the time that we would move very quickly to correct that. In our first week back in parliament I introduced the amending legislation and here we are in our second week back in parliament debating and, with a bit of luck, passing that legislation. The member for Gregory and a number of other members, including the member for Stafford, raised the issue of whether we should send out more notices, whether we should send notices by registered mail, and whether we should send reminder notices to people after the expiry of their licence. I would make the point that the system of driver licensing in Queensland does not operate on a full cost recovery basis. That means the fee that we charge people for the issuing and renewal of drivers licences does not actually cover the cost of providing and administering that system. Therefore, any additional costs that we impose would have to be met by an increase in drivers licence fees so that we could afford either the registration of the mail or additional reminder notices or follow-up notices afterwards. It is a matter, I guess, of balancing the cost to the community of undertaking further notification or notification by registered mail, as opposed to the issue of sending out the renewal notice, which we do, and trying to keep down the cost to motorists of renewing their licences. The member for Gregory also asked whether the disqualification would continue to appear on the driver's record. That will not be the case after this legislation has been passed. The member for Cunningham asked what the arrangements will be once the bill has been assented to. We will begin sending out letters to all of those people who have been affected to advise them that their disqualification is no longer current if they are in that category where the disqualification no longer applies after the passage of this legislation. As soon as the bill is assented to, we will be sending out letters to people to let them know that that is the case. Basically, I think most of the other comments made during the debate did not relate specifically to the bill, so I do not intend to respond to each and every one of them. I thank all of the honourable members for their contributions. I think this is an important amendment as it ensures that those people who have inadvertently forgotten to renew their drivers licence do not suffer an automatic six months suspension of their drivers licences. I support the bill before the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr JOHNSON (3.10 p.m.): During my contribution to the second reading debate I made a brief reference to clause 4, which states— (2) The police officer may issue a permit authorising the person to drive to a stated place. What is the situation in relation to drivers from interstate found driving unlicensed in Queensland? Is there any uniformity in the treatment, for example, of an unlicensed Queensland motorist found driving in New South Wales, South Australia or the Northern Territory? Mr Bredhauer: About where they can drive to? Mr JOHNSON: Yes. 498 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for raising the issue. If the driver is picked up on the Queensland border at Tweed Heads and he lives on the other side of the border, the police might be able to issue a permit enabling that person to go home. However, if they are found driving in Cairns, the police will not issue them with a permit to drive back to, say, Sydney. The member for Gladstone also mentioned this in her contribution. If the police pull over someone late at night and find that they have an expired licence, technically that person is not allowed to drive home. In the past, the police have used their discretion to allow a person to continue to drive even when not properly licensed. We believe that situation needed a bit of tightening up so that the police can issue a person with a permit to drive to a nearby destination. It is only within Queensland. They can only be authorised to drive somewhere within Queensland. The comment I was going to make was that an interstate visitor staying at a pub in town, at grandma's place down the road or wherever else would be given the okay to go to that point. However, the permits are applicable only within Queensland. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 1 November 2001 (see p. 3339). Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (3.14 p.m.): Today I rise to speak to the Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. It seems like a long time since this bill was introduced into the House and we are finally getting to debate it today. Firstly, I thank the minister for making available staff from her office and department to provide a briefing to the opposition. Given the complicated nature of the legislation, it was certainly helpful to be briefed fully on the proposed amendments. However, I was disappointed that in an interview with Susan Mitchell on the ABC on 22 January 2002 the minister said that I had not taken up her offer of a briefing on this legislation. In fact, I and my staff, along with the member for Southern Downs, were briefed by a senior staff member from the minister's office and the relevant departmental officer on Wednesday, 7 November 2001, as soon as was possible after the legislation was introduced into parliament by the minister on Wednesday, 31 October 2001. I thank also the Parliamentary Library staff for the detailed briefing undertaken on the bill, which proved very useful when considering the reasons for the proposed changes and the bill's wider implications. I am sure this briefing will have been used widely by other members in the course of their deliberations also. Before I address the changes to the legislation, I would at this point like to express my disappointment at the cessation of funding to the Domestic Violence Resource Centre by the state government. Apart from the obvious gap that the removal of the DVRC will leave in the community, the minister has also removed a major supplier of services to victims of domestic violence with no real time line given for a replacement. The Domestic Violence Resource Centre has been providing counselling services in Brisbane and throughout the state for the last 13 years. The centre is recognised world wide and, aside from the invaluable counselling service it provides to the Brisbane community, it is also involved heavily in providing research internationally. I cite as an example the project it is currently undertaking in conjunction with Harvard University. To highlight the importance of the DVRC to the community I wish to quote from Mrs Gwen McIlroy, chairperson of the centre's management board, who when addressing a community meeting on 11 February stated— The organisation has throughout its 13 years focused on factors and forces that condition women's social, economic and political security within the context of the violence against women and in sequence that of children, men, families, communities and societies. Since 1990 the DVRC has dealt with over a quarter of a million contacts via a range of entry points including face-to-face contacts, telephone, fax, mail, e-mail, information displays, training and community education activities. 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 499

With such an incredible wealth of knowledge and both world-wide and community recognition it is difficult to understand why the government has seen fit to go down the road it has. The consultation process that the government undertook in assessing domestic violence services appears to have been incomplete. The consultation process was supposed to have involved five steps. However, steps four and five were not undertaken. I understand that the consultation committee did not even see the draft document before it was made available publicly. The consultancy process was cut short, with little or no explanation. On 21 December last year the DVRC submitted a proposal to the government. It was assessed as a submission and the minister then advised the centre that it did not meet the necessary criteria for the new policy direction of the government. This is an interesting example of this government advising a service delivery organisation that it does not meet the new policy direction of the government when that policy direction is linked to legislation that has not been passed by the parliament, let alone debated fully. In pushing for this agenda, the department has left the community without vital services. This process has also seen the government employ its usual tactics so that the staff and those involved in these and other centres are unable to speak out because they are scared of political retribution. One must question why the government has ceased funding the Domestic Violence Resource Centre and whether that is tied in any way to the centre's inability to support the new legislation. On Tuesday, 19 February the minister issued a press release stating that the Queensland Domestic Violence Telephone Service was being taken over by Crisis Care, run by the department. It is difficult to understand how clients accessing domestic violence services will be as comfortable getting advice from those working within the Families Department. They are more comfortable talking to people who are out in the community working with domestic violence victims on a daily basis and know the issues involved. In situations like domestic violence counselling trust is paramount, and the existing relationships clients have built with counsellors have all but disappeared overnight. This trust has virtually been destroyed. This is a backward step and people in desperate need will not receive the same help that they currently enjoy. There are real questions of continuity of service that I do not think have been addressed. It appears that a move from an existing service to an interim service provider to a new service provider involves an unnecessary and potentially risky interim step. This is also a concern that has been expressed, for example, by the Women's Legal Service. The legislation before the House is designed to amend the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act 1989 by extending the coverage of the legislation to include people who are abused within intimate personal relationships, personal relationships, by their relatives and within informal care relationships. Domestic violence is an extremely serious issue in today's society. We all abhor the incidence of domestic violence and the effect that it has on our community. It is our duty as community leaders to ensure that we do all in our power to arrest the incidence of domestic violence in our societies and address the problem at its base level. While we acknowledge the importance of stamping out domestic violence in our communities, I would like to state at this stage that the opposition will not be supporting this legislation for reasons I will detail through the course of this debate. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 23 per cent of women who have ever been married or in a de facto relationship have experienced violence by a partner at some time during that relationship. In 1996, 2.6 per cent of women who were married or in a de facto relationship had experienced violence perpetrated by their current partner in the past 12 months. The most recent state government annual action plan for women, Women and Girls in the Smart State: Annual Action Plan 2000-2001, provides further statistics that reinforce the need for effective responses to domestic violence, such as: in 1996, 39.7 per cent—or 492,204—of Queensland women had experienced physical or sexual violence by a male perpetrator since the age of 15. Almost two-thirds—63 per cent—of perpetrators of physical violence were either former or current partners. In 78 per cent of sexual violence experiences perpetrators were known to the victim. Only 22.8 per cent of physical assaults and 11.1 per cent of sexual assaults were reported to the police. Aboriginal people are 4.6 times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than non-Aboriginal people, and approximately 75 per cent of Aboriginal victims are women. Aboriginal women living in remote and rural areas are 45 times more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than the non-Aboriginal population. In acknowledging these statistics, it is also very important to note that it is a widely held belief that most statistics about domestic violence are underestimates. This is largely due to the fact that victims often are reluctant to speak about 500 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

domestic violence because of feelings of shame, fear of retribution from the perpetrator and/or negative community attitudes towards the victims. Domestic violence is an abuse of power in a relationship or even after separation. Domestic violence can take a number of forms, including physical and sexual abuse, psychological, emotional and social abuse and economic deprivation. It is a phenomenon that is present in all areas of society irrespective of socioeconomic status, geographical location, culture or religion. Legally, domestic violence refers to its legislative definition. The current bill defines domestic violence in spousal terms, with the proposed bill changing that definition to encompass both spousal and non-spousal violence. The Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act 1989 introduced by then National Party minister the Hon. Craig Sherrin, was implemented to provide protection against domestic violence and to prevent violence occurring in spousal or spouse-like relationships. The then minister stated in his second reading speech— The incidence of domestic violence is too costly, in terms of human suffering. It is also too costly in terms of the expenditure involved on related health, welfare, corrective and other services. Society can no longer be complacent about the problem. This sentiment is just as true now as it was then. The current act provides a mechanism whereby a person, someone authorised on behalf of the person or a police officer may apply to the court to obtain a domestic violence order. A domestic violence order is a civil order which includes conditions that restrain, restrict or prohibit the behaviour of the perpetrator of domestic violence—the respondent—to a domestic violence order. Children, relatives and associates of the aggrieved named in a domestic violence order can also be protected by being listed on an order. Where a respondent to a domestic violence order breaches that order, the breach constitutes a criminal offence for which the respondent may be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment. The Queensland Domestic Violence Task Force's report Beyond these walls published in 1989 recommended civil domestic violence legislation and enhancing non-legislative responses to spousal domestic violence. The report, while focusing on violence in spousal relationships, also recommended that the proposed Queensland Domestic Violence Council examine and report on non-spousal violence involving adult members of households. The then Queensland government established the Queensland Domestic Violence Council which, in conjunction with the then Department of Family Services, commissioned Susan Currie to identify possible potential legislative responses to non-spousal violence. The terms of reference define non-spousal violence as including abuse in lesbian and gay relationships, abuse of older people, dating violence and abuse by relatives. Susan Currie's report in 1996 outlined and examined options for legislative reform, preferring to extend the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act to include all domestic relationships rather than leave the act as it was and provide for other domestic relationships in a separate act. Currie suggested that the most compelling argument against her preferred approach of dealing with all domestic relationships in extending the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act was that it could undermine the extensive work that had been done to make domestic violence, that is, violence against wives, visible and prominent. In November 1999 the Queensland parliament amended the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act to change the definition of spouse in the act to encompass same sex spousal or spouse-like relationships. Following this amendment to the act, the then minister, Anna Bligh, called for community consultation to widen further the group of people able to access the domestic violence legislation. The Department of Families conducted over the past five years a review into the existing act. The explanatory memorandum states that the review identified the need to provide a civil legislative response to abuse between family members, abuse of people by their informal carers and abuse in some dating relationships. The aim of the proposed legislation, therefore, is to ensure the safety and protection of people who have been abused in spousal relationships, intimate personal relationships, family relationships and informal care relationships. The amendment also allows for the expansion of the classes of people able to rely on the provisions for protection from further or threatened violence. This bill will also seek to make further amendments to the existing act to strengthen provisions about temporary protection orders, transfer most of the sections about weapons to the Weapons Act 1990, clarify some provisions relating to weapons, extend the police duty to investigate suspected incidents of domestic violence and transfer the police duty to seize weapons when a domestic violence order is made 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 501

to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Under the existing act, a spouse suffering acts of domestic violence, or somebody on their behalf, can apply to the Magistrates Court for a domestic violence order that places restrictions on the behaviour of their violent spouse. The bill has raised many concerns throughout the community, and I note the general lack of support that this legislation seems to have, particularly from the peak domestic violence support groups, the Police Service and the magistracy. Among others, the Queensland domestic violence service network has stated that only intimate spousal and spouse-like relationships should be contained within the domestic violence legislation and that other relationships should be protected through parallel legislation. There seems to be a consistent concern throughout the community that to broaden the definitions of people covered by this legislation is seen to be in a sense devaluing the seriousness of domestic violence in the community. Under the proposed legislation, the nature and extent of domestic violence is to be subsumed within the broader definitions of personal violence. The 1999 consultation paper proposed two options for broadening legal protection for people experiencing family violence: abuse by informal carers and abuse within dating relationships. The QDVSN maintained that throughout its consultation on the issue there was support for the first option of the consultation paper, that is, a separate act to provide 'legal protection to the sub-groups now contained in the draft bill'. It appears that the government, in selecting the alternative option of broadening the definitions of those covered by the bill, has lost some community support for the amendments. Since its inception in 1989, the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Bill 1989 has been amended significantly to rectify some practise and technical problems. It has been pointed out that even after 11 years of operation there are still some sections of the legislation that are difficult to consistently translate into practice within the community. It is feared that the further broadening of definitions will further exacerbate these problems, leading to a reduction in the protection afforded to men, women and children since the original act was enacted. The opposition agrees with the viewpoint of the domestic violence support groups that further widening of the groups to be covered by this legislation will create more confusion and put greater pressure on the magistracy and the Police Service, with no suggestion of increased resources. We are concerned about the lack of public support for the bill and believe that, while consultation has been carried out, the minister does not have the necessary support in the support service sector or the wider community. The opposition, however, is not yet convinced of the need for parallel legislation to cover the broader areas contained in the amendments, as we believe the sectors covered in the amended legislation should be protected by the provisions already available in the existing Criminal Code. The opposition has concerns with several aspects of the clauses. I will deal with those concerns clause by clause and will speak to them further in the committee stage of this debate. Clause 9 replaces section 10 and section 11, section 11 being the definition of 'domestic violence'. It remains the same, except that it is not limited to spousal violence. Clause 9 also inserts an amended section 11A, which defines the new concept 'domestic relationship'. A domestic relationship is either a spousal relationship, an intimate personal relationship, a family relationship or an informal care relationship. This clause also states that the relationship must exist between two persons and that either one aggrieved or an authorised person for one aggrieved may make application for a protection order naming one or more than one respondent. Proposed section 11A specifies each of the following as a domestic relationship: a spousal relationship, which is already covered by the act; an intimate personal relationship; a family relationship; or an informal care relationship. The opposition does not support this clause, as it incorporates the widening of the definition of 'relationships' covered by the act. As stated previously, we feel that any widening of that definition leads to ambiguity and a stretching of resources to cover further cases. Clause 11 inserts the new sections 12A through to 12F. In the existing act the reference in section 11(1) is to acts of domestic violence that are perpetrated by a spouse. Proposed new section 11(1) defines domestic violence as acts of domestic violence that a person commits against another person if a domestic relationship exists between the two persons. Proposed sections 12A, 12B and 12C follow the same general points. That is, they are defined in gender neutral terms, such as the existing section 12 definition of 'spouse', therefore enabling both men and women to be applicants and respondents to domestic violence orders. The family relationship category also applies to people under the age of 18, as does the existing 502 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

section 12 definition of 'spouse'. They do not require that two people live together. Apart from familial relationships, the theme of the bill's approach to domestic violence is that the intimacy of a relationship is critical, not whether two people are living together. Section 12A, 'What is an intimate personal relationship', introduces a new definition of 'intimate personal relationship'. The clause covers two types of relationships. The first type is relationships where the persons are or have been engaged to be married to one another. This includes a person who is promised or betrothed under a cultural or religious tradition, such as in non-English-speaking background communities, or someone who may be betrothed through parental agreement in traditional Aboriginal culture. The second type is persons who are dating or have dated each other and whose lives have become enmeshed so that the actions of one of them affect or affected the actions or life of the other. The relationship does not have to be of a sexual nature, and same sex relationships are included. The example of the second type of relationship as provided in the explanatory notes is of a girlfriend and boyfriend who, although not engaged and not living together, have been dating for 10 months. The couple have joint bank accounts and are saving money to go overseas together for three months. It is also stated in the explanatory notes that this clause is not intended to cover those people who have merely dated on a number of occasions. Even taking the clarification in proposed section 12A(5) into account, the opposition believes that the term 'dating' is open to interpretation and to abuse. We do not believe that the briefing we received put to rest any of the concerns we had with the loose interpretation that could be taken of the term 'dating', nor do we believe that the definition of 'dating' specified in the legislation or the examples given provides a clear-cut definition which is not open to abuse. The same situation applies to the use of the term 'enmeshment', which is a very subjective term and also open to interpretation. We believe that this ambiguity will serve only to weaken the existing legislation and put further strain on the services in our community and the magistracy dealing with the grievous problem of domestic violence. Even the broader terms of 'intimate', 'personal' and 'relationship' are highly subjective in nature. I note that the QDVSN states that its belief is that these terms will present significant problems in interpretation by law enforcement and the legal system, as well as advocacy groups. Further, the QDVSN states that it believes these terms could lead to legal system procedures which are invasive and judgmental. It goes on to state that the terms could result in the inclusion of people, particularly young people, who may require the protection of the law from violence but who may not describe their relationship in those terms. The QDVSN also states that the subjective nature of the terms could lead respondent persons to contest the applications on the grounds that they do not believe the relationship to meet any of that criteria. The QDVSN states that it is of the position that the intimate personal relationship category is the part of the bill which relates in particular to violence and abuse within the context of dating behaviour and that those terms pose significant barriers for young women subject to violence accessing protection. It is also interesting to note that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in its appraisal of this legislation states that the concept of 'intimate personal relationship' being defined in general terms considers that questions may arise on occasions as to whether a particular set of circumstances constitutes such a relationship. Proposed section 12B, 'Meaning of family relationship and relative', defines a family relationship and relative. A family relationship is defined in the legislation as the relationship between relatives, and a relative of a person is defined as someone who would ordinarily be considered to be or to have been connected to the person by blood or marriage, or someone who is reasonable to regard as a relative, especially considering that for some people the concept of a relative may be wider than is ordinarily understood. It is also stated that the relatives of a person living in a de facto relationship are to be determined by treating the person as if they were married to the de facto partner. This means that the partner's parents would be relatives of the person. The opposition maintains that this again broadens the definitions and further weakens the existing legislation. Existing legislation, for example in the Criminal Code, does cover these categories. Proposed section 12C, 'What is an informal care relationship', means that informal care relationships will now be covered by the act, therefore enabling people abused by informal carers to apply for domestic violence orders. An informal care relationship as defined in proposed section 12C(1) of the legislation exists between two people if a person is or was dependent on the other person, the carer, who helps the person in an activity of daily living—a personal care activity such as dressing, preparing meals, shopping for groceries or telephoning a doctor to 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 503

make an appointment for the person. Proposed section 12C(2) states that the personal care activity must be required, or have been required, because of the person's disability, illness or impairment. 'Illness' here suggests a less long-term condition or an episodic condition. Proposed section 12C(3) states that an informal care relationship does not exist if the relationship between the person and the carer results from an arrangement between the person and a third party, whether or not a fee is or was paid. For example, a relationship between a person and a nurse who visits each day to help the person would be excluded if the nurse visits under an arrangement between the person and a community care entity. In relation to proposed section 12C(6), an informal care relationship exists if the person did not enter into an arrangement with the carer involving a payment of a fee for the care. But 'fee' does not include a pension or allowance in the carer's name from the Commonwealth government for providing the care, or money given by the person to the carer to cover the cost of goods—for example, milk and bread purchased for the person—and so long as the money does not exceed the price of the goods purchased. Proposed section 12C(5) states that an informal care relationship is not a parent-child relationship. The Domestic Violence Resource Centre, amongst others, believes that, in attempting to fit issues pertaining to abuse by informal carers into this legislation, significant issues pertaining to neglect and other acts of omission have been left without clear response. It states that the definition of 'domestic violence' contained in section 11 of the bill makes no reference to those types of activities. The DVRC feels that this is a serious flaw and that it will affect the relevance of the legislation to a range of individuals, including individuals under 18 who may be incapacitated or disabled and who may be in the care of a parent or parents. The DVRC believes that legislation of this nature creates little if any opportunity to respond appropriately to acts of omission and has serious implementation flaws. The DVRC, in discussions with the Elder Abuse Prevention Unit, has concluded that to meet some of the needs of elder people would seriously compromise the safety of women and men seeking application under the act as it is currently understood. The opposition maintains its consistent view that the inclusion of informal care relationships will weaken the existing legislation while not offering the proposed protection to these particular groups of people. Proposed section 12D(1) states that a child may be named as the aggrieved or the respondent in a domestic violence order. However, proposed section 12D(2) states that a child may be an aggrieved or respondent only if sections 12, What is a spousal relationship and who is a spouse', 12A, 'What is an intimate personal relationship', or 12C, 'What is an informal care relationship', otherwise apply. In this section, the bill allows for child protection matters for the Child Protection Act. The government's consultation paper stipulates that, in relation to the proposed intimate personal relationship provisions, while people of all ages date, many young people are in dating relationships and extending protection order legislation to young people must be carefully considered. Also included in the bill are introductions or clarifications of special procedural requirements when children are involved, these being: requirements concerning the delivery of documents under the act to children as contained in proposed new subsections 12D(4) to (7); a provision clarifying that an aggrieved is entitled to have an adult with them during court proceedings as contained in proposed new section 81(3) and requirements about the proper representation in court of children named as the aggrieved or respondent as contained in proposed new section 12E; and a bar on children being called as witnesses or asked to swear affidavits unless ordered by the court. If the court makes such an order, it must consider the appropriateness of the child giving evidence via video or other electronic means as contained in proposed new section 81A. With regard to these special provisions for individuals under 18, it is noted that some groups, including the DVRC, believe that a provision that allows a parent to make an application against a child without provisions for the child to do the same could lead to a significant misuse of these provisions. They supply the example that, amongst their client groups, there are a high number of individuals within this age bracket who have used violence to protect their mothers or siblings from violence from fathers or stepfathers. They say that the provision as currently framed would penalise the young person without providing the child with the opportunity to make an application against the primary aggressor. The DVRC also states that it is its consistent experience that women who are subject to violence by their adolescent children following a marriage breakdown are highly unlikely to make an application against their sons or daughters under the Domestic Violence Act. It states that this is particularly so when there has been a history of spousal violence. 504 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

The DVRC also specifies problems that it foresees with proposed section 12D(5), the clause which specifies the requirement of documents to be given to the parents of an individual under 18 such as the impingement on an individual's right to make choices about their life. It goes on to say that individuals from non-English-speaking backgrounds who may be in a relationship with a person of another culture who requires protection may come under further risk when this becomes the knowledge of their parents. This ambiguity identified gives further credence to the opposition's assertion that widening the parameters of this legislation does not provide the protection that is required. It is interesting to note from the library's research paper on this legislation how domestic violence legislation is dealt with in other Australian states. It is noted that Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory have legislation which allows that 'a person who has or had an intimate personal relationship with the perpetrator of the violence may apply for a protection order'. Domestic violence order legislation in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory does not contain references to intimate personal relationships, although the ACT legislation does contain reference to people who normally reside or normally resided in the same household as the other person. Tasmania and Western Australia do not have legislation directed specifically toward domestic violence. In these two states, people suffering abuse in domestic relationships apply for protective orders under generalist legislation that enables a person to apply for restraining orders against another person. It is important to note in this context the comments made in the New South Wales Judicial Commission's report in 1999 that pointed to the magistracy's position that violence perpetrated in spousal relationships was different in dynamic and risk factor to violence in other relationships. It is also understood from service providers in New South Wales that their state legislation, which attempts to respond to a range of relationships and violence issues, has not been particularly successful. Applications for protection by people in non-spousal relationships remain low according to them. This is not so much due to low occurrence of abuse and violence but the failure of the legislation to deliver contextual and appropriate legal protection. In light of the arguments put forward by the peak support bodies dealing with domestic violence in our society and the National Party's policy stance on this issue, we cannot support this legislation. As I stated at the outset, the definition of domestic violence as stipulated in legislation specifies who is and who is not covered by the laws. If ambiguity is allowed to be written into legislation, then the system is not only open to abuse but leads to the system being stretched beyond its limits and people falling through the cracks. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that this does not happen. Legislation such as the Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill does not serve the community well. It will lead to ambiguity through the court system and overloading of current magistracy and police resources. The opposition cannot support such legislation. That is not to say, however, that we do not abhor the incidence of domestic violence in our communities. We do. We do not believe that this amending legislation will serve the community well. The legislation is flawed as it broadens the limits of domestic violence to dangerous lengths. The broadening downplays the importance of domestic violence perpetrated against the traditional victims of violence—women and their children. Men are also victims of domestic violence, and its incidence has an even higher unreported rate. But it is fair to say that the highest rate of domestic violence is against women and children. There is no doubt that there must be protection from abuse for those in the community specified in this legislation, but we do not agree that it just be included in amending the original bill. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (3.46 p.m.): There are events in our lives that have a profound impact on us and the direction we take. When a young baby, Kiah Bettridge, her mother and grandfather were gunned down outside their house in Camp Hill about 10 years ago by Kiah's father, I was working at the Domestic Violence Resource Centre in Brisbane. I met Kiah's grandmother a few months after this horrendous family tragedy. To see the suffering and grief that Mrs Bettridge was enduring because her loving husband, daughter and grand-daughter had been gutlessly gunned down in front of her made me more determined than ever to fight for tough laws and penalties against domestic violence, and to fight for the best possible support and prevention services that this state could provide so that the silent suffering of victims of domestic violence and their families could end. I cannot understand the sensitivity—the gross stupidity—of people on the opposition benches for not supporting this bill. The opposition says that it will not consider offering some sort of parallel legislation. What is it going to do? Is it going to leave these people out in the cold? I 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 505

am sure the shadow minister has met people suffering like this. Surely he has met older women who might have been knocked around by their sons. Surely he has met disabled people living in caring relationships who get abused and violated. What is he going to do about them? He did not give any answers in his contribution to the debate today. I will come to the arguments he used, but firstly I want to give a bit of background. I worked in the domestic violence support service sector from 1986 through to 1991. In 1986 no domestic violence legislation existed. Domestic violence was largely seen as a private family matter, and thousands of people suffered in silence. Through the efforts and courage of many women with the help of a small but determined group of men in this state, specific domestic violence legislation was introduced in Queensland in 1989. That was a major watershed, and there has been lots of change since then. To the credit of the National Party and opposition members in this state, there has been a significant shift in the attitudes they had 10 or 12 years ago, and I give them credit for that. It was enormously difficult to pass those new laws in 1989. It was enormously difficult to overturn some of the very negative and disturbing attitudes members of the National Party and Liberal Party had at that time. To their credit and after listening to the shadow minister, those opposite have come a long way, but they have a long way to go. That was the beginning of major changes in attitudes and behaviour in Queensland. The police at that time had real difficulty dealing with issues of violence in intimate relationships. They have improved significantly. Hospitals, doctors, nurses and teachers—all sorts of people—had enormous difficulty in intervening in what was seen as private family matters. Things have changed. Thankfully, people are responding with a lot more decency and understanding in these sorts of situations. The Families Minister, Judy Spence, is continuing this wave of reform with this bill. I applaud her commitment to making sure that people do not have to be married or be de facto partners to receive the protection of the law when they are suffering violence at the hands of someone known to them. In my work I received calls from many young people who were in a dating relationship and were copping physical and sexual violence. However, they were not living with their partner and they did not have the coverage under the act. Yet the prevalence of dating violence is much higher than many of us would expect. In a recent survey almost one-third of 19- to 20-year-old Australian women reported physical violence in a dating relationship and of these 30 per cent had been frightened or hurt by the instances of violence in their dating relationship. Six per cent of Queensland women had experienced sexual violence at the hands of a boyfriend or date at least once since the age of 15. I am disturbed but not surprised by this high rate. At the DVRC in the early nineties the staff and I undertook a survey amongst school students on attitudes to sexual coercion. It was alarming to find that about one in 12 boys believed that it was okay to force a girl to have sex if she had let them touch her above the waist. Forcing a girl to have sex in any circumstance is rape. Yet when we talk to the boys about this—and the guys in the single-sex schools had the worst attitudes—they did not accept it as that. They thought it was okay to do this coercive stuff. Those figures on dating violence do not surprise me at all but they do disturb me. The results have been backed up by more recent surveys reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2001. So what is the shadow minister going to do about this? He did not come up with answers in his speech. The minister is making a genuine effort to try to get coverage for people in these sorts of intimate relationships and he is saying, 'Don't do it.' He is going to vote against it tonight. He is going to leave these sorts of people out in the cold. He is leaving 15-, 16- and 17-year-old girls out in the cold. Do we have a Dr Hollingworth in our midst here? Is that the sort of attitude? It is appalling from them to say that they are in this House today and they are not going to support this legislation. Mr COPELAND: I rise to a point of order. I take offence at the inference— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Ms STRUTHERS: In my work I knew of many people who did not get coverage and now they will. It is so important that they do. I heard of gay men in these sorts of relationships who were being bashed and needed support. I met older women and men who had been knocked around by violent sons. They were extremely fearful and wanted their sons to be ordered to stay away. They did not want to pursue assault charges. They did not want to use the Criminal Code, as the member suggested earlier. Often it is too difficult for people in those intimate, loving 506 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

relationships to take that sort of action and to seek assault charges. But getting a protection order is seen by many of them as a softer but effective way of getting protection. I knew of disabled women whose carers were subjecting them to gross neglect or physical abuse, but they too were getting little joy from the legal system. One of the most significant features of this bill is that it extends coverage to include people who are abused by their relatives or others in informal care relationships and intimate personal relationships. I accept that this area is difficult. It is difficult for people to pursue action against people about whom they have cared in some form. Deciding whether to take legal action against someone to them is gut-wrenching stuff. It is even more difficult if they are reliant on those people for their care. It is the sort of area that needs sensitivity. It is the sort of area that needs for people to give things a go. I urge the member to give this a go. If it is not working over the next 12 months, let us have a look at it again. That is what we are here for. The government will not always get it right. The minister is making a great effort here. She is supported well, including by her departmental officers. We have to give this a go. I am also very encouraged that this bill fixes up inconsistencies between the Weapons Act and the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act that have enabled some domestic violence offenders to gain access to weapons when they should not be let anywhere near a gun or other dangerous weapon. I know that we have some pro-gun champions amongst our opposition benches who believe that it is the right of citizens to own a gun. I vehemently oppose this view. Access to weapons is a privilege that comes with enormous responsibility. It is not a right. Far too many—and again I use the word—are gutless. That is what I think a lot of these people are. They are wimps. They threaten their partners and family members with guns and other weapons. I remember one woman rang me from a western Queensland town saying that her partner usually cleaned the guns right on the kitchen table in front of her and would often threaten her and say that if she ever left him that is what she would cop: she would cop the end of the barrel. He was using that as a form of intimidation. She was subjected to a range of other forms of violence, but that threat of the gun being used against her hung over her head all the time. Based on 1998 data, of the 76,000 or so protection orders that have been taken out under the act since 1989, 15 per cent of applicants had been threatened with or had weapons used against them. A further disturbing fact is that six per cent of children aged 12 to 20 had witnessed their mother or step-mother threatened with a knife or gun by their male partner. This is the sort of thing that a lot of our kids are seeing. Those guns should be nowhere near those violent offenders. In the time that I have available I want to touch on a few other issues, firstly, the issue that the member for Cunningham raised earlier. The member for Cunningham is quite genuine in what he is trying to achieve, but he has been misadvised or he is going about it the wrong way. He has relied heavily on one service for his information. That was very clear. I do not want to appear disloyal to a service that I actually helped set up and worked at for six years of my life, but he has to talk to the Australian Pensioners League and find out about elder abuse. He has to talk to the disability groups and find out about the lack of support to young women and men in caring relationships who are not getting the sort of care they deserve and should have. He has to talk to a range of people to get a good understanding of what needs to happen to support these people. I really urge him to do that. I urge him to get on the phone this afternoon. I think he would probably vote in support of this bill if he canvassed his views more widely. I am sympathetic to the issue that the current DVRC is subjected to some significant changes. It has been under review. It has had discussions with departmental officers for quite a significant time now. It will be running a domestic violence regional service, but its state-wide functions are up for tender. I personally think many positive changes can come of that. Since the days when the DVRC began on a $60,000-odd budget and two and a half staff, it has grown to now have a budget or access to funds of around $1 million or so—some of their own source funds and government funds. Frankly, as someone who is very committed to this area, I cannot see what value it is getting out of that $1 million or the $800,000 or so coming from government. It has concerned me for a number of years. I have raised it informally with a few people. Today, because I did not realise the opposition was not supporting this legislation, I feel the urge to put on the record that I think the shadow minister has been misadvised. I think he has to get out there, get on the phone this afternoon. I am sounding like those ads telling us to go and buy the K-Tel washing machine. He should get out there and go and talk to more people. He is the shadow minister for families. He has to do his work properly. He should not rely on emails and 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 507

faxes from one service; he should get out there and talk to people. He should travel around the state and find out exactly what is going on. The question has been raised: does legal intervention work? That is really what we are asking here: will new laws fix this problem? It is a very hard question to answer and it is very difficult to know for sure, but at least people need the option of getting more effective protection. In a national survey of women in 2000 it was found that women who obtained help from both police and the courts in instances of domestic violence suffered no increased severity of violence and most of the group surveyed in this national survey experienced substantial reductions in violence against them. Again, they are statistics; we can take them as we like. I certainly see it as a positive sign that legal intervention in these sorts of cases does work. Resources—and I know the member for Cunningham touched on this—is a very important issue. We are making significant changes through this bill. It will put a lot more pressure and workload on key areas: the courts, the police, the court services—a range of areas. I urge the Cabinet Budget Review Committee members and others who will have some decision-making role over the state budget to find money to make sure that the provisions are implemented effectively. I know that we are giving priority to families in our state budget. We have to continue to do that. People who are suffering violence in intimate relationships have to be our number one priority. That includes the effect on thousands and thousands of children as well. Tomorrow is International Women's day—8 March, a very important day on our calendar. These days we are getting a lot of support from men for our international day. I want to end on a more positive note. I want to pay tribute to a lot of people who have contributed to the very, very significant change in support services, attitudes and responses to domestic violence and other forms of violence within intimate relationships that we have seen over the past decade or so. So with International Women's Day happening tomorrow, let me pay tribute to all of those many survivors of abuse, their family members and others who have suffered a great deal. Let me pay tribute to the domestic violence support workers, the staff who have worked at the Domestic Violence Resource Centre over the years, the regional services around the state and the domestic violence telephone services. All of those services have been very important links in this chain of providing support for people. Refuge workers have been doing it tough for a number of years. They have continued their work. They do a wonderful job. Many thousands of police around our state have really taken this issue seriously and have welcomed strong legislation backing the work that they do in this area. The Domestic Violence Prevention Branch in the Department of Families has played a big role in the legislative changes that have occurred over the years and in the current bill before the House. Over the years I have worked with a lot of people, including a lot of men, on domestic violence—Mick Devlin, a number of people within churches, within hospitals, and others who have really gone out and championed some of these issues and have helped change the attitudes of people who formerly had fairly negative attitudes towards this issue and who wanted to keep domestic violence and intimate violence as private matters. I congratulate all of those people and say particularly to those women who are celebrating International Women's Day tomorrow that they have helped in this fight against domestic violence. We have not won it, but we are getting there. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (4.01 p.m.): I have neither the extensive experience nor the profound experience of my colleague. However, I will not do what the member for Cunningham did—and quite ineffectually, I think—and pretend to have this wide, profound and extremely moving experience that the member for Algester has. I am going to stick to some things that I have some knowledge about. I want to start on a positive note in supporting these amendments to the Domestic Violence Legislation Bill. Recently on Saint Valentine's Day—and for the non-romantics that is 14 February—I attended a very special event. I was honoured to officially launch the Gold Coast sexual assault support services Reject the Violence, Protect the Peace poster and promotional campaign. This campaign was launched at Nerang State High School where the senior students took the matter very seriously. There was some mirth and enjoyment among them when I talked to them about Saint Valentine's Day because they were in the process of expressing their romantic feelings towards each other as young adults—some involved in relationships or hoping to be involved in relationships. They took the opportunity on Saint Valentine's Day to make and sell special Saint Valentine's Day chocolates at the school and to give each other cards, flowers and that sort of thing. 508 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

The Gold Coast sexual assault support service specifically picked that day to launch this project to bring to the attention of these young people the importance of safe and healthy relationships. The Reject the Violence, Protect the Peace campaign involves the production of posters, stickers and leaflets aimed at young people. They were designed by a graduate of Nerang State High School who last year was an art student who designed a very poignant artistic piece, which is the keystone of this campaign. The campaign aims to raise awareness among young people of issues surrounding sexual assault and domestic violence and to encourage safe, healthy and supportive relationships based on mutual respect and dignity. It was not easy to face 40 or 50 young adults on a day such as Saint Valentine's Day and say to them, 'Think about the relationships that you are in. Think about the respect that you have for each other and that you should have for each other in these relationships.' It was not easy because I remember very clearly being a young adult. Believe it or not, it was not all that long ago. I know how completely subsumed by matters of romance a young 15- or 16-year-old woman certainly is—and sometimes young men are as well. In my situation, as I attended a Catholic single sex school, it was very hard not to be obsessed by boys and romance and all of those things simply because boys were not in the classroom to demonstrate to us their very many faults and human foibles. However, I stood up to speak to these young people and I was impressed and delighted with their interest and their response to me and to what I was saying. These children take this matter seriously. They are paying attention to the kinds of relationships that they are in. Young people, young women especially, now feel, and we want them to feel, that they can come forward, that they can disclose when matters are not right, when they feel that they are being abused in relationships by their boyfriends, girlfriends—whoever—or at home. That is what we want to be able to tell young people to do. That is part of the aim of this legislation. I want to cover one very important area that this bill addresses, knowing that many other speakers to this bill will follow me and cover the other areas specifically. That area is the extension of coverage to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Frankly, I cannot believe that the opposition has deemed to oppose that. The Queensland government is committed to addressing violence in indigenous communities and legislative reform is a crucial element in ensuring that this occurs. In its 1999 report, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women's task force on violence, chaired by Boni Robertson, recommended legislative changes. The report drew attention to the prevalence and serious nature of domestic and family violence that has so profoundly affected almost every indigenous family and community in Queensland. Furthermore, the recent Cape York study conducted by Justice Tony Fitzgerald indicated that indigenous women were 45 times more likely to experience violence, 30 times more likely to be hospitalised than non-indigenous women and 10 times more likely to die as a result. The member for Cunningham referred to these figures, yet in some leap of logic managed to come to the conclusion that no matter how serious this matter is, he cannot support this legislation because it may go some way towards addressing this issue. Indigenous men are also 10 times more likely to be hospitalised than their non-indigenous counterparts. It is now understood in the broader society that indigenous communities have found the levels of violence within the family so intolerable that they are demanding attention. This bill ensures that the incidence of violence will no longer be concealed and left unchallenged where the offence occurs between members of a family, as it so often does. This government has listened to the indigenous community and its concerns. It has also listened to the concerns regarding the high rate of incarceration of indigenous people. This bill is designed to provide protection to indigenous people under civil legislation thereby ensuring that criminal penalties will apply only if the civil protection order is breached. This government recognises also that although domestic violence is being characterised by abuse directed towards a spouse, the term 'family violence' is what is preferred by indigenous communities. It recognises that violence occurs not only between adult partners but also other relatives can be victims, for example, elders, aunties, uncles, cousins, informal carers, parents of adult children, and people who may not be related directly but who are considered by the community as family. In these communities, the idea of family is something that is very different from the idea of family that many of us grew up in—and I would say, given his reaction to this bill, particularly different from the family that the member for Cunningham grew up in. But that is no reason for us to ignore, to not take into account and to not be responsible for these very significant kinds of families who are the ones who are recognised by Aboriginal communities. 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 509

Some of the proposed amendments in this bill are designed to expand the scope of the act in recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples kinship and extended family relationships. Although it is recognised that the inter-connectedness within indigenous communities can deprive the victim of a safe base in which to recuperate, I believe there are provisions in the amended legislation which are a step forward in ameliorating this situation. This bill enables protection orders to be applied for by a person against a relative or someone who is considered a relation, whether they live or have lived in the same household. Protection orders can also be applied for if the person was intending to marry or is betrothed to the perpetrator. I have spoken about this bill today with the peak body for the Gold Coast's indigenous community, the Kalwun Development Corporation, and described the provisions in it. They are absolutely delighted with the proposed amendments. On an almost daily basis the Kalwun Development Corporation provides support, counselling, advice, emergency assistance—you name it—to Aboriginal victims and families who experience domestic violence in the Gold Coast area. They regularly assist women and families seeking shelter and support and are well-placed to comment on domestic violence legislation and programs. While they are unreservedly happy with the amendments set out in this bill, they have ongoing concerns about the matter of safe bases for victims. There is always a crisis in the availability of crisis accommodation and, indeed, of culturally appropriate shelters for women and children who are victims of domestic violence. Like other urban based Aboriginal organisations, they find it hard to have a voice when issues of concern to indigenous communities, such as domestic violence and alcohol abuse, are raised in public debate. In part, this is due to their relatively small population and their location within a big city or the region of south-east Queensland and, therefore, their perceived position within mainstream society. Grants programs designed to help indigenous communities to develop domestic violence programs and other matters are difficult for these urban groups to access because, in the main, they are established to help communities which are most at risk and suffering the most—as these programs need to be—and those communities are in far-north Queensland. That makes it hard for these other groups to gain access to them. They also have difficulty accessing mainstream domestic violence programs because these are often just not culturally appropriate. I know that the minister is aware of these issues. The spokesperson from the Kalwun Development Corporation certainly did not wish me to make any criticism as such but asked that I raise the matter of the availability of safe bases for victims. In a small community such as the Gold Coast's Aboriginal community, rest assured that any family member or friend who is a victim of domestic violence and her family could possibly seek shelter with would certainly be well known to the perpetrator. So difficulties definitely arise in those circumstances. Tomorrow, on International Women's Day, I will be fortunate enough to pay a visit to the Numinbah Correctional Centre in my electorate of Mudgeeraba. I will visit the women's facility to share with the sisters inside a family celebration of International Women's Day. It is a very sad fact of life that many women, if not all, who find themselves incarcerated have had some experience of domestic violence. Many have found themselves in violent and abusive relationships with men over whom they had little control. Many found themselves coerced into becoming accomplices in crime, if not perpetrators of crime. That is the reality of how they have often found themselves in these positions. Indeed, some have possibly found themselves in jail for perpetrating violence in retaliation against violent partners. I will be giving a great deal of thought to these women when I meet with them tomorrow. I will talk to them about what International Women's Day means to them. I will discuss with them the outcomes of today's debate and I will let them know that this government is indeed committed to stamping out domestic violence in all its forms and for all its victims. This government is proud of the introduction of this Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 because it better protects and provides safety mechanisms for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, for older people, for people with disabilities and for the most vulnerable people in our society, including young people starting out in their first experiences of intimate relationships with other people. For all those reasons, I sincerely and heartily commend this bill to the House. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (4.14 p.m.): Domestic violence is a major issue in our community and one which causes a lot of concern to women, children, families and anyone involved in a domestic situation. There is no doubt it is a growing problem in our community. A combination of the problems of unemployment, the breakdown of the institution of the family and of many family organisations, the economic non-viability of many families, the pressures on 510 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

partnerships and families, and the effects of alcohol abuse all add up to a situation where families operate in an atmosphere which can only be described as violent. Children who experience this violence, in turn, perpetrate it in relationships of their own. It is often said that we should concentrate on solving domestic violence issues at their source; in other words, preventing the causes. I could not agree more. While we must work to improve the situation in our society, nevertheless, we must treat, fund, help and resource those people caught up in what are sometimes truly horrific situations of domestic violence. I support, as does the Liberal Party, the concept of broadening the scope of the bill. I agree with the change to definitions in the Weapons Act and the Domestic Violence Act. They were needed. We will be supporting the general thrust of this bill. However, I have grave concerns about some of the concepts. I have spoken personally and individually to representatives from some of the major organisations involved with delivering domestic violence services and I know that they have concerns as well. Surely the minister must acknowledge their concerns and the fact that they really feel they have been quite abused in this process. They feel that their integrity and their performance has very much been brought into question. They feel degraded by the portrayal of them as not having delivered a service. In other words, it has been said that their performance criteria has not been met. There is no doubt the criteria has changed. All I can say is that centres such as the Domestic Violence Resource Centre and the telephone service on the Sunshine Coast have over the years done their very best. Because the terms of reference have changed, in many instances this has not been telegraphed articulately to them. They have provided the service as they were directed and as their own funds allowed them. All of them have agreed that domestic violence is not just a situation that occurs between spouses, as in a man and a woman; it does occur in the broader community and it does occur very obviously in indigenous communities, which they have been attempting to access, assess and help. It does occur in all forms of the extended domestic situation. However, if we are to create the utopia—and I do not say that in any derisive sense—as the minister is trying to do, then she is going to have to have considerably increased funding to do it. When I was the minister for women's policy, I looked at this whole question of domestic violence. Through the women's policy unit, the Office of Women's Affairs, we issued one of the first comprehensive reports that had been released for many years. The next step was to make that office a department in its own right. I for one am very concerned that that in itself appears to have been downgraded. It is now a policy unit under the Premier's Department; it does not have the structures, the foundations, the thrust and the independence it had when we were in government. Ms Spence: It wasn't a department in its own right. Mrs SHELDON: I did not say that it was a department in its own right. I said that it was an office in its own right. The minister would have to agree that we broadened that and increased its funding and scope. The next step was to make it a department in its own right, just as we did with Arts. It was my policy, which I am pleased the Minister for the Arts adopted, to turn the Office of the Arts into a department in its own right. It deserved it. I had all of the papers put together. We had the whole draft put together, and I notice that the minister used that. That is fair enough. It was good policy. I do not mind someone plagiarising that policy. I think the Office of Women's Affairs should similarly be a department in its own right. It should not be under the protection of the Premier. It does not need male protection. It needs its own department. I hope the minister can work in that direction, but I do not know whether her hands are tied in that regard. I have been told, 'Well, men don't have their own department.' But we live in a world that has progressed from communities where women by and large stayed at home, did not have to earn income, looked after children, had a more sustainable lifestyle and were provided for. That has changed a lot, and so it should. We live in a changing environment. Women often find themselves in dire economic straits when they have to look after children on their own. They have to work and expand into what is an ever broadening and more demanding horizon. I wish to quote some of the concerns of the DVRC. As I am sure the member for Algester, Mrs Struthers mentioned—she worked with that service for some years—the Domestic Violence Resource Centre was at the forefront of doing a lot of this work and should be congratulated. As I mentioned earlier in this speech, the centre feels as though it has been looked at askance. It was said that its submission did not cover the issues envisaged under the legislation. As it rightly said, a lot of those issues were not spelt out. It feels that the goalposts have changed considerably since December and since its submission went in. 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 511

It held grave concerns that its tender for the proposed centre of excellence would not be looked at properly. Also, in a briefing paper it set out its real issues of concern very clearly. No doubt the minister has that paper and has referred to it. It states— The proposal, which we prepared prior to Christmas, was presented to the Department with the intent of dialogue and negotiation rather than as a submission to be assessed. As you are aware the proposal was not written against agreed upon criteria for change but was our organisations' response to addressing the serious gaps in the current services to women, children and families affected by domestic and family violence. That has certainly been the focus—women, children and families. It continued— Clearly the foundations of this proposal were about strategies to address spousal violence as up until this week the Domestic Violence Sector has been primarily based on the safety and empowerment of women and children. The involvement of men has been in this context. No-one would debate the issue that men are subject to domestic violence. But there is also no doubt that nine times out of 10 they are the perpetrators. It goes on to state that neither the sector nor DVRC has been given— any direction from government about whether the inclusion of men as victims of violence from informal carers, date rape and elder abuse are to be incorporated into service responses. Secondly, there has been no direction from government as to which sectors such as the Domestic Violence Sector, the SAAP refuge sector, the Disability and Aged Care sectors, Sexual Assault Services are going to be given the mandate or the resources to address the impact of this legislative and policy shift. The inclusion of women who experience violence and abuse in these contexts is in itself a significant resource issue but the confusion around how male victims are to be incorporated into women's services is raising just cause for alarm. We do need more crisis centres. I am aware that they require funds. To my knowledge, they have been only for women and children. There has been a great need for that, because women and quite young children often find themselves in a non-sustainable situation where, if they do not get out, even where domestic violence orders have been put into place, they will suffer physical violence. Naturally, they are very concerned about this. Are we going to build and resource centres for men? I know that some of the non- government organisations also feel that their funding will be cut. I refer particularly to the Catholic church and other religions that have set up—and I know of one in my area—a home where male perpetrators of violence can undergo a cooling-off session, take advice, discuss the causes of their violence and undertake programs to try to help them through it. This is a fledgling service and it requires funding. I do not know whether the minister intends to include this sort of service in the funding or whether everything will be poured into this major centre. I would strongly suggest that the funds be distributed widely. There is no doubt that community groups—the ones with their hands in the soil, so to speak—can spend their dollar better, understand the reasons for a problem, and can get to the cause of a problem and provide resources and help a lot more cheaply than can be done by a conglomerate in the city. That has been demonstrated across a whole range of services. Unfortunately, a trend is evident in the government—and I do not know whether it is a conscious trend—of dragging everything back into departments and not adequately diversifying services. The government will find that in the long term this will not work. History has shown that it will not work. That is why the mega departments were broken down into more regionally based services. The DVRC went on to state— The confusion has been always not so much about the inclusion for protection by legislation but where and how policy formation, design and implementation of programs will occur. There is no clarity or direction from government on these issues. Therefore, if DVRC was asked to submit a proposal about how state-wide services would address these issues our response would have been significantly different. Our proposal was based on generating discussion about possible strategies to address the issues which were in the content of the consultant's report around pathways for women, children and families whilst attempting to incorporate the recommendation for a Centre for Excellence. The intention was to form the basis of options for negotiation. The consultancy was not based on how statewide services would meet the requirements of the new legislation, and nor was the proposal for discussion which we presented. It is confused, as is the call centre on the Sunshine Coast, about the alleged change in policy and strategy directions. It states— There is not a huge perceptible difference in the tender documents. The changes are not such that they could not have been negotiated with the DVRC. 512 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

They state further— Our experience in this matter has been a continuous changing of goalposts: The Consultant's brief was changed mid-stream with no information to the DVRC nor to statewide services. The Consultancy process was cut short with no explanations. The information given to DVRC at meetings with Minister as well as departmental staff since 4 December changed continuously. The Consultant's report looks at ways to deliver more effective statewide services, not how agencies will deliver under the amended ... legislation. They state that there is no significant difference in what they have been trying to achieve. I know the minister has said that neither men nor indigenous communities were incorporated in this. Before we came into government—in fact, when I first came in here—one of my shadow portfolios was Aboriginal and Islander affairs. At that stage I did not know much about the Aboriginal community so I arranged to go into every Aboriginal community in Queensland, the cape and also into the Northern Territory. By the end of that fairly extensive tour I knew a lot more about it. I spoke in particular to a lot of Aboriginal women, which is what I wanted to do. That was my whole focus. At first the men were not too happy about that, but they saw that I was determined to do so. There is no doubt that domestic violence and family breakdowns are a major issue for those communities. A lot of it is based on alcoholism. I do not see how one service based in Brisbane is going to cover all of that. Possibly the minister does not intend it to. I believe that there needs to be a whole coordinated Aboriginal domestic violence service and then an interaction between that and the service that the minister is basing in Brisbane, because it needs a lot of funding in itself. The women there do need support. Many of them are moving against what was a male dominated culture into speaking out and creating welfare services for themselves, for their children and for other women. Surely the funds required must still come from Aboriginal and Islander Affairs funding—from ASIC funding—and be ferried back, if you like, through the domestic violence service. But there is no way the minister is going to be able to fund that adequately and provide those services to those Aboriginal communities via a resource centre of excellence here in Brisbane. Whereas the minister's intention is no doubt good—and I mean that; she should be congratulated on seeking to extend the service—I am not too sure that the parameters of how this will be delivered are actually going to work. That is a major concern. I also have a major regional concern in relation to the telephone resource centre based on the Sunshine Coast. It was doing a good job, and one could not fault those people or their ethics. That domestic violence resource centre is going to be closed down and those jobs will be lost. But although that function and its terms of reference needed to be extended, that could have been done and funding extended to it. It is quite often said that the conservative coalition government did not do much about domestic violence. Yes, we did. As I said, I commissioned a report, which I received, and I think part of it has been acted upon by the Labor government. In 1997 I also increased the budget by an extra $150,000 to be used particularly in regional areas. It was a progressive situation. It certainly was not the cure to all ills, but at least it was a recognition that a problem existed. We recognised the problem and were moving towards resourcing the situation as well as we could. I know that there is a great demand on government resources, but if the minister is to be able to fulfil what is in this legislation and in her policy document, she has to be adequately resourced. I really wonder whether the minister is going to be adequately resourced under the budget process; or is she going to be left carrying a lemon, having raised the expectation in the community that all this is going to be delivered and then not be able to deliver it? The minister will be called to question if, indeed, she cannot deliver that service. In general, I do think this is a move in the right direction, but it needs considerably more work. It certainly needs more resources. It needs a determination by this government that it is going to fund this. Then in time we will see whether or not it works. I would certainly like a commitment from the minister that a time frame will be put on the review and that, if it is shown that the sections that have been put in are not working or the services are not being delivered, they will be reviewed and action taken accordingly. If things are left to go on indefinitely it will be very difficult to change a situation that is not working to one that adequately provides services that are needed. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (4.33 p.m.): This legislation brings to all Queenslanders a new era in the fight against domestic violence. This important, modern piece of legislation recognises that all Queenslanders are entitled to live free of the fear of domestic 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 513

violence. In our increasingly complex and ever-changing world, the concept of the traditional family unit has, like it or not, changed dramatically. The conventional image of a family consisting of a married father and mother and the average 2.4 kids is no longer as normal as it was in the past. External environmental factors and internal pressures within families are the major contributors to this change. Divorce, employment opportunities, education opportunities and the inadequacies of our aged care system are just some of the influences that have changed the shape of families in the 21st century. Today we see many different types of families: single parent families; young single flatmates living in households; de facto partners living together; grandparents living with families; children living with indirectly related relatives; and families joined or thrown together as a consequence of second marriages. Therefore, because of the variety of family structures in today's society we do need modern legislation that reflects the diversity of 21st century families—legislation that provides uncompromising care and protection for Queensland families. This is what the provisions of this domestic violence legislation do. Domestic violence itself is traumatic, complex and unfortunately very widespread. We could not be unaffected by the heartfelt descriptions of the incident given to us today by the honourable member for Algester. Most people consider it to be an abuse of power perpetrated usually by men against women in a relationship before or after separation. It takes numerous forms, including physical and sexual violence; psychological, emotional and social abuse; and economic deprivation. Domestic violence occurs in all areas of society regardless of socioeconomic status, geographic location, culture or religion. What we are starting to see is that domestic violence is widespread in numerous different types of relationships: between husbands and wives, parents and adult children, de facto partners, same sex relationships, carers and patients, adult brothers and sisters, and flatmates. This bill addresses the many forms domestic violence takes in our society and demonstrates that this government does not tolerate any of the diverse shapes it takes. Traditionally, domestic violence has been viewed as abuse to a female by a male spouse. The Queensland police and law enforcement agencies have, if not now certainly in the past, reflected this ideology in the terminology used in domestic violence cases. The victim is commonly referred to as the aggrieved spouse and the perpetrator the respondent spouse. Statistics further support this belief about domestic violence traditionally being the act of a husband abusing a wife. In 1996 the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 23 per cent of women who have been married have experienced violence by their partner during the relationship. However, more recent research, including the state government's annual action plan for women, Women and Girls in the Smart State: Annual Action Plan 2000-2001, has proved that the widespread abuse of women is not solely done at the hands of their husbands. These statistics include that in 1996, 39.7 per cent of Queensland women had experienced physical or sexual violence by a male perpetrator since the age of 15 years. In 78 per cent of sexual violence experiences, perpetrators were known to the victim. Further, the Queensland Parliamentary Library's 1998 research bulletin, 'Non-spousal Domestic Violence', contains more statistics that show that domestic violence is not just restricted to married couples. It deals with the underestimated prevalence of the abuse of older people, abuse of disabled people, abuse in dating relationships, abuse in same sex relationships and abuse by relatives in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and in families from non-English-speaking backgrounds. While thorough research into non-spousal domestic violence is limited because many incidents go unreported, this research paper concluded that domestic violence in same sex relationships is relative to that in heterosexual relationships. Twenty per cent of couples are affected. It also found that violence inflicted on the elderly by close family member carers is extremely widespread and mostly takes the form of material and psychological abuse. It also found that disabled people are one and a half times to 10 times—I concede that is a wide variation—more likely to be victims of domestic violence than non-disabled people. Ms Spence: And they are the people the opposition is not going to support today. Mr SHINE: I take that interjection from the minister. The research paper concluded that violence within dating relationships is widespread and that the majority of cases go unreported because the victim feels disempowered by the law because they are not in a marital or de facto relationship. Abuse of parents by their children when the parent is not an older person is a form of domestic violence as that child often adopts the behaviour from a violent parent. Indigenous Australians are 10 times more likely to be victims of homicides than non-indigenous Australians because of the amount of family fighting within communities. Immigration stresses, culture 514 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

clashes, traditional cultural perception of women and difficulties in seeking help are major contributors to the prevalence of domestic violence in non-English-speaking households. Clearly, therefore, we need to admit through our laws that domestic violence is not restricted to married partners, with wives being the main victims. We must provide adequate care and protection to not just people within spousal relationships but also those in any intimate personal relationship, family relationship or informal care relationship. This is what the legislation before us, I believe, seeks to achieve. I hope this bill will go a long way in reforming the community services offered to domestic violence victims. For many years now, as a consequence of traditionally defining domestic violence as abuse within spousal relationships, the services and shelters offered to the abused have been predominantly for wives with children. Abused husbands, de facto partners, parents abused by adult children, and the elderly and disabled who have been abused by carers have often been marginalised in the past—left to seek shelter, counselling and services because they did not fit the traditional archetype of the domestic violence victim. Even within my own electorate of Toowoomba North, while community groups provide emergency accommodation—they are to be commended for what they do—to these types of victims of domestic violence, local shelters and counselling programs are limited. The call on the public purse for programs of this nature and for many others is almost endless. In particular, there is only one hostel in Toowoomba for women affected by domestic violence. It is for women over the age of 18 who have children and who identify that they are victims of domestic violence and need shelter and help. Everyone else—the men, the elderly, the young, the disabled, the women without children and women who cannot identify that they are victims of domestic violence—is left to find some other alternative. The problem also with this one hostel is that from time to time there are not enough beds to accommodate the high number of women affected by domestic violence. During the last financial year 670 assaults were reported in Toowoomba. This clearly indicates that the need well outweighs what is perhaps currently being provided. Consequently, when beds are unavailable women seeking shelter have to be transported to other areas or regions where shelters are available. This, of course, is a costly and unsatisfactory process. Problems also exist for local shelters as public liability insurance and other costs escalate. Numbers have to be cut back to compensate for these extra expenses. Reduced staffing numbers also mean that there is a limit to the number of people working in domestic violence services who understand the complexities of domestic violence. Consequently, victims with drug and alcohol problems or people who suffer from depression, have disabilities or are aged can sometimes end up marginalised because the resources and staff are not adequately available. These can at times be major concerns to many people in Toowoomba who deal with domestic violence and to the people who are devoted to fighting for the interests of people who suffer in this way. With these changes to the domestic violence legislation to further incorporate groups such as the elderly and the disabled, I hope we are able to find the resources in this budget to meet the increased need that I and many other speakers have mentioned today. Today I join those people who work in the domestic violence field in their crusade and hope and pray for the extension of the facilities to adequately cater for domestic violence victims in Toowoomba and elsewhere. I think this legislation will go a long way towards this goal, because it opens people's minds to the widespread nature of domestic violence and its complexities and proves that domestic violence in any form will not be tolerated by this government. I commend the minister and her department for asking the tough questions about domestic violence and addressing them for the betterment of all Queenslanders. I also commend her for delivering on this government's election promise to crack down on domestic violence and to increase community understanding and awareness of it. Domestic violence and violence in the home are not confined to married couples. The laws targeting domestic violence therefore should not be confined so narrowly, either. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (4.46 p.m.): I compliment you, Mr Deputy Speaker Fouras, on your fine portrait, which was unveiled yesterday. As I was listening to the previous speaker I could not help noticing that your position in the chair this afternoon is very similar to that in which you have been painted for posterity. I do compliment you. It is surely a special time for you. The important topic at hand this afternoon is domestic violence. Really, what a violent society it is that we live in. Australians would not generally endorse the statement, I suppose, that 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 515

we live in a violent society. Even if asked, their minds would spring more likely towards violence in the streets—thoughts of murders, drunken fights amongst those in nightclubs or robberies of tourists and others. Some others might think that we meant violence on television or in movies. But the horrible truth we are facing with this legislation and beginning to face in the broader society is that we are violent in our homes and have always been. We are not just violent, either, in terms of a man hitting a woman. Yes, of course, there has been much too much of that—and that has certainly been the majority of the business of the domestic violence legislation to date—but that is only part of the story. We know that there are women who are violent. We know that there are same sex couples in which there is violence. We know that violence extends through other members of the family—even from children towards a mother. Of course, in those close relationships such as informal care relationships, supposedly there can be violence. The violence sometimes is not just a matter of a punch, a hit or a blow that knocks somebody down. It can be verbal violence—day in, day out—verbal denigration, bullying, intimidation or threats that go on and on. These things damage all those who are involved—not just the victims. The perpetrators themselves are damaged with each occasion on which they commit their habit of violence. A lot of it is about habitual behaviour within a domestic situation. The people doing it probably do not even realise how bad, how ugly and how destructive it really is. It is a failure for most of them in terms of discipline. Where does it come from? We know from research that it comes from their having been privy to such scenes during their growing-up years. The more children are witness to violence of any kind—verbal violence, intimidation, bullying and outright physical violence, whoever it comes from—the more likely they are to accept that behaviour as 'normal' and the more at risk they become for engaging in that violence as an adult. They perpetuate those actions into the next generation. The legislation before the House this afternoon is about taking the next step. Members on the other side of the House have criticised, as is their wont. As the Premier says, we work, they whinge. That is what they have done again this afternoon. They have found ways in which, in their view at least, the legislation is not perfect. No, of course it is not perfect. This is another step for Queenslanders to face this dreadful scourge we have hidden from view. While we have gone tut-tut about public crimes and about too much violence on TV, there has been too much violence in our own living rooms. Admitting that and taking the next step is all that we can do for now. I have no doubt that we will need to take further steps as the years go by. Other honourable members have put on the record the statistics that give witness to the level of violence, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. They do not account for the habitual abuse and intimidatory behaviour that occurs day in, day out, because that is very hard to survey or quantify. There are a couple of specific things I want to mention. Over the last couple of years in Cairns there has been particular pressure from men's groups to work with women's groups engaged in dealing with the scourge of family violence and admitting that it mostly involves a male perpetrator, but not in all cases. They are also working together to admit that if we are to stop this cycle of violence the perpetrators need a lot of direct assistance to do so. Unfortunately, I have to say that some of the women's groups in Cairns have been resistant to this. They seem to be locked into looking after the victim via endless counselling and support for the truly dreadful things that that woman has put up with. While I am not suggesting that we stop providing some level of support, empowering the victims to protect themselves and their children from such incidents in the future is a better strategy. However, the most important move we can take next is to work with the perpetrators, mainly blokes and the few women who are also perpetrators. I commend the persistence of the men's groups in Cairns, particularly the indigenous men's groups which have taken the lead in this regard and piloted several programs. One program is in Cairns and another is in the cape community of Hope Vale, and these programs are quite successful. They allow men to admit the failures in their behaviour and begin to deal with that as their own problem. While this bill will protect Queenslanders of all ages in their homes from violence, the education program and the community focus will also make it easier for perpetrators to admit their problems and do something about it. In the end it has to be recognised that we have to give our kids a good start. No matter how good our public schools might be and no matter how much we upgrade our education system, they are not getting a good start if they go home night after night to yelling and abuse, generally as a result of excessive alcohol. Facing and dealing with these problems is what this legislation is trying to achieve. I commend the minister and all staff who worked on this bill, particularly for the consultation undertaken around the state. Sometimes there is resistance not because of the 516 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

letter of the legislation before us but more because of the reluctance there is in some sectors of our society to face the true level of the problem. There are a couple of other points I want to mention, and one of those relates particularly to indigenous people. Consultations over the last 18 months or so have indicated a great welcoming from those cultures to the notion of family violence. Domestic violence, particularly man-woman violence, has not been a concept that is as culturally appropriate to them as understanding a whole family context, including extended members of the family, and there is a need to educate the whole system. That is what this bill is about. I was also asked to clarify for a young woman in Cairns why there are domestic violence protection orders when in fact most of the violence that occurs would qualify surely as assault and therefore the perpetrator could be charged under the Criminal Code. The answer is that the circumstances in which the domestic violence takes place are generally quite different. Very often they are in circumstances where there are no other witnesses and, as a result, the high standard of proof required by the courts cannot be met. The other fact we have to deal with is that there are still women who are reluctant to bring charges against their men for assault or even report their violence at a lower level, because they know that if they do they will be at significant risk of facing a penalty for doing that. They still make excuses for the perpetrators such as, 'Oh, he had too much to drink,' or, 'He'd had a bad day at work,' or, 'He just loses it sometimes,' or, 'Sometimes he can't help himself,' and other such futile, pointless and weak excuses. It is more likely that a person who is treated badly within their own home is likely to take out a protection order for the future at this level rather than pursue it as a case of assault in the criminal courts. The bottom line for all members is not whether or not we are going to vote in favour of this legislation, because I believe that a majority of members will vote for it and that the legislation will be passed. The important point is that, even though it will pass despite the opposition's resistance, we are all charged as leaders in our various electorates with going forth and selling the message. We need to ensure that all of the people in our communities know that violence in their homes is not okay anymore. No matter who is doing it and no matter who they are doing it to, it is not okay. This legislation is working towards a Queensland in which all of us can feel safe and comfortable in our homes with all of our family members and carers. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (4.57 p.m.): In joining the debate on the Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill, I assure the House that I support the existing domestic violence legislation in Queensland, which I understand was the manifestation of an earlier Labor government. The minister would probably be aware that we came into this place at the same time in 1989 and that the law which we are debating today with a view to amendment was brought into being in Queensland at that time. I am going to make some points today which are probably going to be a little controversial but that nevertheless need to be made, because we should fully, frankly and openly debate these issues. One thing that does concern me is that sometimes the issue of domestic violence becomes one of a perceived gender warfare where it becomes a man versus woman issue and people tend to jump on the bandwagon one way or the other. In the past people from the men's rights organisations through to domestic violence protection organisations predominantly made up of women have talked to me. I listened to the contribution of the honourable member for Cairns, and I thought she made a very excellent contribution and pointed out in a very realistic way the issues we have to face and the difficulties we have to deal with. However, one thing that did concern me about her contribution was that she said that we on this side whinge and they work. All I can say to the honourable member for Cairns is that this parliament is the place to put forward our concerns. If we have a different viewpoint, that does not necessarily mean that our viewpoint should not be validly listened to; it just means that those opposite disagree with it. Subscribing to the idea that those opposite work while we whinge is not backed up by the fact that somewhat more than 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the legislation which has passed in the current term of the Beattie government has passed with bipartisan support and a preparedness on the part of the opposition to commend the government generally for the work it is doing. Mr Wilson interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: In response to the honourable member, let us face it: most issues we deal with gravitate somewhere around the centre which the community is generally in agreement with. However, when there are certain industrial matters or social policies there can be some differences. That is where we are at the moment. We should not lose sight of the fact that most things that go through this place are considered in the greater good. I understand where the 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 517

government is coming from with its legislation. I am not saying that it is not doing this without good consideration and without a great degree of goodwill as to what it is doing here today and a belief that what it is doing is right; it is just that I have some concerns. Ms Spence: On this occasion you haven't actually worked hard enough to put forward any amendments to this legislation, which you don't like. Mr SPRINGBORG: If we did, the government would not accept them anyway. In relation to putting amendments forward in this parliament, I have put forward a number of amendments in this place over a period and none of them have actually been accepted. I think it is a good ruse on the part of the government to indicate that it is bipartisan in its approach—and maybe it wants to be on some on occasions—but, as is borne out by the Hansard record, it has a reluctance generally to accept amendments from the opposition. If we think something is basically flawed or if the opposition has issues of principle, sometimes it is not even possible to move an amendment. The member for Cairns mentioned some other matters that I think also deserve support. She talked about some of the great work that is being done in indigenous communities. I know that in some areas around Queensland, for example, if men want to play in the local indigenous football team and they have been adopting antidomestic violence practices at home, they will not be playing in that football team. That is the sort of thing that is being done in those communities to try to address that issue, and it is very important. It is an approach that really works. Mr Schwarten: Woorabinda. Mr SPRINGBORG: I note that the Minister for Public Works mentions Woorabinda. The other issue is that not all instances of domestic violence are physical. Some domestic violence is verbal. Perhaps most domestic violence is verbal. I suppose it is very difficult to be able to get the data that concludes one way or the other whether we are dealing with physical or verbal violence when we are talking about domestic violence. I think we need to be honest and say that the greatest majority—the overwhelming amount—of physical violence which is perpetrated in a domestic relationship would be by male against female. I do not know what the breakdown would be in relation to verbal violence, but I know that gender does not necessarily dictate that someone is less capable of giving what they get. I note that there is certainly a subscription to the view that verbal violence has some very debilitating effects on people. It leads to a loss of self-esteem, general insecurity and affects the way that they react in the community in general. A very interesting editorial appeared in the Courier-Mail on 17 March last year which I intend to read into Hansard. I think it deals with some of the issues that we have to address when it comes to domestic violence and some of the problems that it causes for our courts. It followed a story in the Courier-Mail on 14 March last year in which a survey of magistrates was conducted relating to some of the difficulties that they had to face in dealing with domestic violence matters and making orders. They were asked whether they themselves believe that there is any abuse of this process. As I said, whilst I totally support the existing process, I think we also need to be aware of what the honourable member for Cairns said, that is, that it is an allegation made by one party against the other. I know that in 99 per cent of cases they are probably right, but it does not have the same standard of proof as a criminal matter. So we are dealing with a situation in which people have to go into court and orders are made. Of course, when orders are made there are always issues of liberties and rights and a whole range of other things that need to be considered as well. The editorial states— Domestic violence orders have unfortunately become a necessary feature of our modern society. They were developed mainly to provide some form of legal protection to women who feared being attacked by their husband or partner. Although the orders might follow an actual occurrence of violence, their intent is to prevent a future occurrence— I think it is very important that we remember that. It goes on— They also deal with apprehended—anticipated or feared—violence. And they mostly work. Men served with DVOs obey them more often than not. The orders do help prevent violence. However the fact that a DVO is issued does not mean a magistrate has found an assault has occurred. DVOs may be issued without the person they are directed at having had the opportunity to defend them. 518 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

This does not mean DVOs are issued lightly or without reason. The fact they have been issued means primarily that the court considers a person needs protection—not that some other person has committed an offence against the criminal law. How well the law works is a matter of some debate. There is relatively little hard evidence about its effectiveness and the debate has mainly consisted of assertions by feminists and contradictory claims by those advocating men's rights. However, a group of Queensland academics from the School of Justice Studies at QUT has now published a paper based on a survey of Queensland magistrates about their experiences in applying the law. The survey is based on a similar study by the NSW Judicial Commission of magistrates in that state. The two papers raise several important issues. Perhaps the most disturbing is that three-quarters of the magistrates who responded to the Queensland study expressed the view domestic violence orders were sometimes— and I emphasise the word 'sometimes'— used as a tactic in divorce and custody battles to deprive partners of contact with the children. The proportion of NSW magistrates who made the same assertion was a staggering 90 per cent. Queensland magistrates reported some women as saying their solicitor had told them to take out orders to gain more credibility in family law proceedings. While a large number of magistrates reported this occurred, they mostly believed the tactic was used only occasionally. There is no reason to doubt that such advice is given by some lawyers, and acted upon by some women. However the motivation for seeking the DVO should not—and apparently does not—affect the way magistrates approach their task of deciding whether a DVO should be made. It would be very disturbing, however, if the mere fact that a DVO had been issued was sufficient to persuade a Family Court magistrate or judge that the person against whom it was made should have limited or no access to children. The DVO is meant to be protective but it does not necessarily prove fault. While magistrates should not be reluctant to grant DVOs even when they question the motivation for them, the Family Court should be more careful in using them as evidence of the unfitness of a parent. The survey evidence suggests about 70 per cent of Queensland magistrates believe their main priority in assessing domestic violence applications is the safety of women and children— I would agree with that. It continues— At the same time a similar proportion considers that the procedures they adopt are fair to men. Yet about 60 per cent consider the disputes that come before them would be best settled privately between the parties— That is an interesting statistic. It goes on— It is useful to probe these attitudes among magistrates but to draw useful conclusions it would also be necessary to have detailed information about the decisions those magistrates have taken—what proportion of applications for DVOs are successful, the extent to which they are resisted and how long they remain extant. The researchers should also begin surveying the police, because often their attitude will determine whether an application for a DVO is brought to court at all. I think that editorial raises a number of really interesting issues that we have to deal with when considering domestic violence orders. In the past I have been concerned and traumatised personally by issues such as those raised by the honourable member for Cairns, that is, the reluctance of women to actually seek domestic violence orders and, in some cases, the reluctance of authorities to take them seriously. Such women are usually caught up in a relationship in which this cycle goes around and around. Incidents have also been brought to my attention in which there were arguments and as a response one partner hit out against the other. Domestic violence orders were then sought and granted and then there was a process of great regret. Those people have actually said to me, 'There was never any physical violence. We had a blue. We had a big argument. I was feeling really upset at the time. I thought I wanted to get even with my partner. I sought an order. A week or two later I thought that this was a silly idea.' Nevertheless, of course, the order does stick. Some interesting statistics suggest that in Queensland almost half of the orders that are brought are not brought by the applicant directly but are brought by police acting on their behalf. Basically, police attend in response to a phone call and an application is brought on the woman's behalf. I think that is very good, because in many cases the police are able to assess the situation and in an appropriate and forthright way can protect that person. But sometimes that does not always work. A couple of years ago a woman came into my office and said, 'We have 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 519

been married for 40 years. There has never been any physical issue. We had a verbal argument. I rang the police station to speak to a police officer whom I knew to say, "Can you speak to my husband? He needs to pull himself into gear." I spoke to another police officer there and then all of a sudden a domestic violence application had been brought. Basically, we did not know about it.' I think this issue is borne out by the fact that some people have not effectively defended the matter in court as well and the result is not what the woman intended. Mr Shine: How is the relationship now? Mr SPRINGBORG: I think that it has reconciled. I think they both understand that what happened was a mistake. But a DVO has other implications in terms of a range of things, including the ownership of firearms. That is an issue that I want to come to very soon. I know that it will probably create a cringe in this parliament and members will be ducking and diving under chairs with some degree of concern. Before I do that, I would like to talk just briefly about the abuse of domestic violence orders in some circumstances. I do not know how often this happens. I know that Zoe Rathus of the Women's Legal Service said that she has never come across it. But magistrates, both men and women, have said that they have come across it—70 per cent of magistrates in Queensland, 90 per cent of magistrates in New South Wales. All I will say is that during the term of the previous government as shadow Attorney-General I attended a major regional city in Queensland. I lined up a meeting with a group of solicitors in that town. They would have ranged in age from about late 20s to late 30s, maybe early 40s. There were about 10 to a dozen more females than males. We talked about a whole range of issues, including Family Court matters. Somebody raised the matter of issuing domestic violence applications as a tactic. I asked, 'Does this happen?,' and they said, 'Yes. We routinely come across it.' That was agreed by the male and female solicitors at that meeting. I found that somewhat concerning. There was no indication that it was an absolutely widespread practice, but those people said that they came across it, it was not unknown to them, and in some cases it was advised as a tactic by solicitors in family law matters. I note that the Family Court is becoming far more judicious in the way in which it is considering those issues in deciding access to or custody of children. I think that is not an altogether bad thing. A moment ago the minister mentioned a sensible amendment to legislation. One amendment in this bill will not be talked about because at the moment it is not politically palatable to talk about it. The current domestic violence laws in Queensland enable a magistrate, where there is no objection from the applicant spouse on application from the respondent spouse, to make a domestic violence order that enables the respondent, if they require firearms for their occupation, to be able to have them. To date, that has generally been agreed in domestic violence legislation in this state. There is some good reason for it. I understand the reason that that has been taken out by this legislation is not so much an absolute desire on the part of the state government to do it but because of the principles of the 10 May resolution following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. I would have preferred that provision, however scarcely it was used, to remain. I ask members to keep in mind that there are fundamental issues of justice and proof or lack of proof. Once a domestic violence order is made, the person that the order is made against is unable to have access to a firearm licence for five years. Although in the majority of cases I think that those people should not have access to a firearms licence, I am aware of one case in my electorate where an application had been sought and the magistrate had agreed to that condition in the domestic violence order. The applicant spouse did not have a problem with that. She said that there was not any physical violence. Although the couple had had a verbal argument, she did not feel in any great threat. But in that case the magistrate did not include that provision in the order. Once an order is made, it cannot be varied. However, because some notes were made in the Magistrates Court at the time of the granting of that DVO, the matter subsequently went to a higher jurisdiction. The order was amended so that this person was able to maintain his firearms. This man was one of the few people in my electorate who provides training for people who require a firearms licence. In another case, a woman came with her husband to see me. She said that they had had an argument and she rang the police. They were feeling pretty hot headed. There was no physical violence. A domestic violence order was taken out. At the time, the couple did not realise that the husband, being a farmer, could not have his firearms. They asked me what they could do about it. I said to them that they could not do anything unless the order was varied at the time. The woman said, 'I am going to go and take another one out and I am going to say to 520 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

the magistrate that I do not have a problem with him having his guns.' I said that I did not know whether the magistrate would come at that, that it was not a very good way of fixing the problem and that they would just have to live with the decision for five years. The point that I am trying to make is that we need to be very careful about the omission of this provision. Considering the standards of proof, the fact that a person is going to be impacted upon for five years by a domestic violence order and that there is no capability whatsoever for a condition to be placed on that order at the time that a person could have firearms for occupational purposes, this issue could significantly impact upon the livelihoods of a number of people. I am not saying that this would affect a lot of people. I suppose many members in this parliament would say, seeing only a few people would be affected, 'So what?' Some members would probably also think that it does not matter whether the domestic violence was physical or verbal, that there should not be any capacity to make a domestic violence order with such a condition. Mr Schwarten: Take the opposite view. You let them have the guns and then they kill the spouse. Who gets the blame? Mr SPRINGBORG: I am saying that in the past magistrates have had that capacity and they have used it very judiciously. It has been an issue only when the applicant spouse has had no objection. Mr Schwarten: But if you let them and it goes wrong, the magistrate will be wrong and you will be wrong. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am saying that the magistrates had the capacity to do that and it has been used only in the most judicious circumstances. I am aware of the issues, but I am saying that the capacity has been used very judiciously. I am not aware—maybe the minister's office has some statistics—of circumstances where, when the magistrate has made such an order, the decision has ultimately been proved wrong. I just think that is something that we need to be aware of. Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (5.17 p.m.): I rise in support of the Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. I am disappointed that the opposition is opposing the bill as a whole. I am even more disappointed that not only is the opposition opposing the bill but it is not even proposing any amendments to certain sections that it cannot agree with. It seems from the contributions of opposition members that the issue relates to guns. Mr Springborg: That's probably not fair to my colleagues. Mrs LAVARCH: The member for Southern Downs says that that relates to his contribution. In relation to the member's contribution, I was disappointed that he concentrated his whole speech on the view that there is an abuse of the process of applications for domestic violence orders made by women. But I will not dwell on that. I think that others will see the member's contribution for what it is. When I was thinking about the contribution that I would make to this debate, the haunting words of a Tracey Chapman song kept coming into my head. That song reflects her experiences of domestic violence in the working class suburbs of urban United States in the early 1980s. Madam Deputy Speaker, although I would love to have your voice and sing those words, I will just recite them. The words are— Last night I heard the screaming Loud voices behind the wall Another sleepless night for me It won't do no good to call The police always come late If they come at all And when they arrive They say they can't interfere With domestic affairs Between a man and his wife And as they walk out the door The tears well up in her eyes I wanted to share those words with members because I believe they capture some of the longstanding undertones of domestic violence issues. Those undertones are: firstly, that domestic violence is a conflict only between a married couple; secondly, that the police view domestic violence not as a real crime but as a matter of private concern; and, thirdly and most tellingly, that domestic violence is a matter to be kept behind the walls. The walls here are both 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 521

literal and figurative: the actual walls of private homes which shield domestic violence from view; the virtual walls of social standards which still tend to deny that violence occurs between, say, an elderly parent and a child or could be inflicted on a person with a disability by a carer. The bill before the House helps in knocking down the walls which hide the inflicting of violence on the weak and the vulnerable. It recognises that violence can and does occur in relationships beyond that of husband and wife. For this reason, the bill, together with the current law, will provide protection for all couples in intimate relationships, including same sex couples, and for the elderly and for those with a disability. I will focus my remarks on three aspects of the domestic violence debate. Firstly, I will canvass the principal provisions of the bill and the changes it makes to the law. Secondly, I will look at the position of elderly Queenslanders and what the bill will mean to this group of our fellow citizens. Finally, I will address the distinction between having legal rights and the effective enforcement of those rights. In her second reading speech, the minister drew attention to the extension of the state's protection regime to groups currently unable to use the police and the courts to gain protection orders. Of course, that is the major change to the law that these amendments introduce. This is done by creating the concept of domestic relationships. These relationships include a spousal or spouse-like relationship, an intimate personal relationship, a family relationship or an informal care relationship. Domestic violence is defined to be any of the following acts: wilful injury, wilful damage to property, intimidation or harassment, indecent behaviour or a threat to commit the above actions. The bill provides examples of some acts which amount to domestic violence, such as following a person, repeated telephone calls, or threatening an aged parent with the withdrawal of informal care if the parent does not sign over their pension payment. The concept of an intimate personal relationship is described by the use of some indicia such as the circumstances of the relationship, including the levels of trust and commitment, the length of time which the relationship has existed, the frequency of contact and the level of intimacy. These concepts are, by their nature, somewhat imprecise and will require both the police and the courts to exercise a fair degree of judgment and discretion in determining if an intimate relationship exists. I believe that both the police and the judiciary will quickly develop a commonsense approach to the scope of the act and will apply its provisions liberally as it is legislation charged to protect the vulnerable. Of particular note is the courage the law will give to the elderly. The need for such laws was recognised almost a decade ago in the report of the National Council for the International Year of the Family. The council undertook extensive research and consultation around Australia on the very issues facing Australian families and concluded that the abuse and neglect of older people was an emerging area of concern in the community. For instance, in its submission to the council, the Older Women's Network cited instances of economic and emotional abuse of older women. A number of submissions reflected concerns about abusive older people in residential care. Some of the horror stories about the conditions in nursing homes in various parts of Australia, which have been highlighted in the last 18 months, bear witness to the early warnings given by the council in 1994. The council noted that there existed at that time no laws anywhere in Australia which protected older people from abuse and neglect in the home. It also noted that there was no basis within the existing framework of legislative and program responses to family violence to address issues of abuse of older people. I have not attempted to research the legislative responses which have emerged on the issue in the eight years since the council delivered its report, but Queensland is now, at least in part, responding to the issue through this bill. The final aspect I wish to address is the practical issue of actually making domestic and family violence orders work. As members would know, it is one thing to have a law which seeks to achieve a social goal or to provide protection to a vulnerable section of the community and quite another for that law to be effective. In this case, effectiveness means the police having the commitment to enforce the law and to seek domestic violence orders and having the resources and the administrative capacity to make the system work. It also means the courts being responsive to the laws and the laws themselves being readily understood and accessed by those who need protection. Since the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act 1989, we have seen a positive cultural change in the Police Service: firstly, in recognising domestic violence as real violence and, secondly, in its response to calls for assistance. I say wholeheartedly that the legal system is more responsive to domestic violence now than it was a decade ago. I make particular mention 522 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

of the initiatives of the Department of Justice in recent years to improve the response of Magistrates Court staff to those who have suffered domestic violence. These initiatives included developing a domestic violence protocol and the provision of specific training for court workers. Other initiatives included the provision of domestic violence fact sheets in 15 languages other than English, three of which are produced in indigenous languages. However, the question remains: have we addressed all that needs to be addressed in respect of making our present domestic and family violence laws actually work? In this regard I draw members' attention to the work of Senior Sergeant Dale Murray, the state domestic violence coordinator for the Queensland Police Service. During the year 2000, Senior Sergeant Dale Murray conducted a useful research project on how police view the utility of seeking and obtaining a domestic violence order. In September last year on the Gold Coast, he presented his findings to the inaugural Conference on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Senior Sergeant Murray had forwarded survey forms to police throughout Queensland. His findings are quite instructive as to the practical problems for the Police Service in enforcing the laws that this parliament enacts. I found it very encouraging that, of the police responding to the survey, over 90 per cent had been involved in seeking DVOs. In other words, the handling of domestic violence is not seen by police as illegitimate but rather as a mainstream policing function in providing community safety. This is also borne out by the figures cited by the minister that over 130,000 domestic violence orders have been sought in the last decade and almost 15,000 last year alone. I understand that nearly half of these have been at the instigation of the police. However, more worrying are the problems police encountered in making applications for DVOs and in serving them on respondents. In both these respects, the vast majority of police had problems completing the application form because of design problems with the form itself. Some examples cited in the research paper are: the space available to write the history of the domestic violence is too small; the Excel document is not worth using at all; the questions do not flow; the document will not automatically return to the next line. Quite frankly, the document currently in use is not police friendly. An area should be provided where the facts can be placed so that the court can see the police investigations and the observations at the scene. Another comment was that there is insufficient space on the form and that, although extra pages can be attached when required, it would be nice if enough space was on the form to start with. Another comment was that the form also found on the 'form select' package is useless in that the boxes for typing do not justify themselves and self-return and that 'tabbing from cell to cell, making sure that your words stay inside the provided box, is very time consuming'. The survey also reported that nearly 50 per cent of police have problems in quickly accessing a JP to authorise the summons and oath of service. Not surprisingly, finding respondents to serve summonses and orders on was also difficult and very time consuming and required multiple attendances at workplaces or residences. The formalities attaching to the documents required for service, the need for the respondent to appear in response to service before orders can be made and the inability to obtain temporary orders from the time of service were all identified by the vast majority of the police in this survey—in fact by almost 90 per cent—as being serious limitations to the effectiveness of the protection system offered by DVOs. Sergeant Murray's informative research raises a serious question: is there much use in our extending the law to provide protection to a wider group of persons if the practical operation of the system suffers from problems which limit its effectiveness for the current smaller group afforded protection? I would be interested to hear from the minister about what initiatives will be undertaken in relation to extending this law. I want to make it very clear to members that the problems identified by the police who responded to Sergeant Murray's surveys do not make DVOs of themselves worthless—far from it. But it is clear that some reform is needed at the grassroots level and not only at the framework level which this parliament generally deals with. In Sergeant Murray's words, if we can overcome the identified administrative and design problems, then we enhance victim safety and we enhance police safety. Coming back to Tracy Chapman, in her searching words we find the barriers, the walls which hide the curse of domestic violence. With legislation which empowers the victims and the police to protect the weak we tear down those walls. I ask that we also ensure that the walls are not rebuilt by administrative requirements which limit our police in doing their job of protecting our community. I congratulate the police on the work they do. They often have to place themselves at risk. 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 523

Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (5.32 p.m.): I believe all honourable members regret the need for such legislation as this. However, I believe we are privileged to be able to speak out for some of the most vulnerable in society—those who experience intimidation and violence in their most personal relationships, relationships which should give protection and nurture. If honourable members go into any book store or library and browse through the array of books available discussing personal relationships, they will see that never have we had so much knowledge but, sadly, never have we seen relationships of such fragility, where individuals may have many relationships throughout their life and often with very little commitment. The incidence of mental illness, stressful economic situations, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and the lack of positive role models all play a part in increasing the breakdown in relationships and often lead to anger, aggression and violence. It was as a young woman that I had my first experience with domestic violence. A young man I was going out with, who later became my husband, was the eldest of seven children. He lived with his mother in the city. His father worked on a property on the Darling Downs and came home for weekends, which was a horrific time for mother and children. My now mother-in-law shifted overnight in a very scary situation, taking her young family with her, because she was frightened that one of the boys might do him harm. So I knew from a young age just how difficult it can be for the mother of a young family. Although we have previously had a certain degree of protection for those within a spousal or spouse-like relationship, this new legislation provides protection to a far wider group within the family and relationship arena. Sadly, children are often the frightened, damaged victims, and their rights will continue to be covered under the Child Protection Act 1999. Although we have previously had legislation to protect spouses, sadly the elderly and the disabled have not been included. In recent times we have heard much about elder abuse. I believe our society should bow its collective head in shame as we consider that much of this abuse is at the hands of a family member. We could learn much from our Asian neighbours, who revere and respect their elders. How wonderful it is when grandchildren can enjoy the family folklore and spend precious time hearing stories of a past generation. I consider these family links to be very special. It is sad to think that some elderly people can be discarded like an old rag or, even worse, abused. The legislation covers abuse from what is referred to as an informal care relationship, that is, one where the person requires help with their daily living, where it is unpaid and not delivered by professional carers. However, it does include someone who receives a carer's pension from Centrelink. The disabled are in a similar position. They must require assistance for such activities as dressing, shopping and so on. These two groups, the elderly and the disabled are highly vulnerable. Because of these vulnerable groups, provision has been made for someone other than the victim to be eligible to apply for a domestic violence order, for example, an adult guardian, a guardian appointed under the Guardianship and Administration Act, or a person appointed under the enduring power of attorney. I acknowledge the wonderful work that many of our community groups do to keep elderly people active and in touch with other community members. A number of clubs and support groups care for the needs of the elderly in my electorate. I cite the Logan Respite Centre and Burrumah Place, a Blue Care facility, as examples. Ms Stone: A great place. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT: It is wonderful. Its director recently received an Australia Day award, and the member for Springwood and I were very pleased to attend at its presentation. These groups ensure that the elderly are well cared for and know their circumstances, and thus it avoids isolation of the elderly. This domestic violence legislation also broadens the concept of personal relationships to include not only those in de facto relationships who have had previous protection but also engaged couples and couples involved in a serious dating relationship, including same sex partners. It also takes a culturally sensitive stand in dealing with indigenous issues and families from other cultures. Neighbourhood disputes, homelessness and other such issues have at their very heart domestic violence problems. Over the many years that I have been in the Woodridge electorate office some of the stories relayed to me by victims have been horrific and have had a profound effect on me. 524 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

I believe all people have a right to live in peace and harmony without violence or abuse. Domestic violence knows no social or economic barriers and it takes many forms, including emotional, physical and financial abuse. Last year I spoke in this place about the highly successful initiative to support victims of domestic violence in Logan City. Under our community renewal program a partnership has formed between the police and our community group WAVSS, or the Working Against Violence Support Service, and many victims have now been contacted and have undergone counselling. I am pleased to announce that the second phase of this service is now being implemented by our youth and family services, that is, offering counselling to the perpetrator. Tomorrow the Logan City women's health centre will be officially opened. I am very sorry that I am not going to be there with them. The service is also a haven, a safe place for women to receive love and support. It is a warm, inviting place where women gather to gain strength and mentoring. I believe we can counsel and give support to victims, but until those who are the abusers recognise their problems and start to deal with their actions we are just plugging up the holes and not really getting to the root cause of the problem. I applaud the work that our police are doing, in particular Sergeant Maree Foelz and Detective Inspector Gil Aspinall who head up this work in Logan City. Gabe Scattini and Iona Cominos from WAVSS are really making a difference in the lives of many who have been victims. I believe that, similarly, YFS will gain a great deal of respect for its work, which we hope will result in mended lives and mended relationships. It is important to note that this legislation, unlike the Criminal Code, which possesses the ability to impose a sentence for a crime, is looking to the future to protect individuals. While the vast majority of victims are still women in either a marriage or de facto relationship, I applaud this bill for its desire to encompass the broad range of people who may become victims of domestic violence. We must also acknowledge the number of men who suffer abuse and give them support as well. Violence is often a learned response, and it is important that we do all we can to break the cycle so that our young children do not grow up believing that this is how we solve our difficulties and disagreements. I look at my own three fine sons, who possess strength of character but have great sensitivity, and I know that although there is much in the world that may influence young people in a negative way there is still a great deal of good and a hope for future generations. Just look at the many fine young people in our schools and colleges. We need to guide them well. I commend the minister and her staff for this legislation, which will offer protection to a much wider group of vulnerable people in our communities. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (5.42 p.m.): In the cold light of day yesterday I sat at my typewriter and tried to draw upon previous experience, both professionally and personally, in addressing this legislation. But after sitting here listening to other members who have spoken in this debate, I have had to draw lines through some things, use asterisks, acknowledge what members have said and agree or disagree with them. I have to say to the House initially that I support this legislation wholeheartedly but with one or two reservations which I hope to outline. I want to talk about my qualifications for addressing this legislation. I really think that I am well qualified to do this. I am 50 years old and I am a father of two children. I spent over 24 years in three different police services in different jurisdictions in the days before there was legislation to address domestic violence, and I had to deal with emotional situations in which I could do nothing. So I must address the remarks made by the member for Kurwongbah. I find it somewhat upsetting that anyone would suggest that police withdraw from the problem because it is too hard and because they do not have the will. Most police would say that even before the existing legislation they would have done anything to possess the laws that we possess today. I do not know anybody out there amongst the hardworking police officers today who would not try to fix it if they could. But such problems have been addressed by other members who have suggested that some of the bureaucracy, the duties and the paperwork surrounding this subject have caused police to be a little cynical about the support that is available to them. I suggest that perhaps this has been responsible for the public perception that police are less than willing. But I assure the minister, from personal experience, that police are 100 per cent behind any legislation to deal with this. I think I have referred to police attitudes and the fact that it was previous legislation and the duties required of police that caused them to fail in their job. Domestic violence is a subject that needs to be considered carefully in the light of the dramatic impact that it has on our day-to-day lives both in the home and elsewhere. The member for Southern Downs mentioned the domestic violence legislation. I am almost a little hesitant to mention this, but the domestic violence 7 Mar 2002 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 525

legislation can be abused, and I do not believe that we can back off or go around the problem. As long as we say, 'Look, it can't be abused, it is simply something men are saying in denial,' that is not addressing the whole problem. We are aware of the facts. We are aware of the statistics. We must acknowledge, too, that people can have some very dark and devious ideas in mind when it comes to preserving what is theirs, particularly in relation to family law orders. I do not denigrate the problem that the majority of women face when it comes to dealing with legislation and public attitudes that have addressed them for the last 2,500 years, but I want the House to acknowledge that the legislation can be abused. I would support any move towards controlling those who apparently cannot control themselves or who impose their will upon others less strong by unfair and very insidious physical and mental processes. When considering the latter, I am aware that these issues involve not just physical assault or damage but serious harassment and serious intimidation, not simply perhaps because the other party is dominant. When extending the legislation we must be careful that as a society we do not try to be too prescriptive about all aspects of interpersonal behaviour. We should encourage peer pressure and social discrimination to bring those to bear so that people in our groups, societies and communities are made aware of the fact that we do not approve of such behaviour. I am concerned about the removal of the provision permitting magistrates to allow the retention of weapons in some cases where the respondent relies upon his or her weapon for work. Whether or not a person relies upon a weapon for work is immaterial if the circumstances of the case indicate that that person has a predisposition to use a weapon or indulge in physical violence. I do not give a damn whether they are going to lose their job; that is tough. But where we have a situation of violence of a more intimidatory kind, perhaps it is a question of an educatory process rather than a punitive process that involves the family losing out in the long term because the male or female—generally the male—is in a position where they are going to lose their job because they do not have access to a firearm. I accept the necessity for controlling firearms to a degree, but we must be very careful that in our move to remove firearms from society we do not in actual fact simply use that as an excuse. I acknowledge the intent behind this to prevent people from using firearms as a method of inducing domestic violence. It is acknowledged that society would be failing in its duty of care if we allowed physically violent respondents free access to lethal weapons. However, it is a fact that a great many domestic incidents do not involve any suggestion of physical violence being offered or executed. I believe that the anomaly between the 1990 Weapons Act and the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act might have been rectified by an amendment to the Weapons Act rather than to the family protection legislation. It is a matter of concern, too, that there is continued reference to a registered interstate order. There should be no need for an interstate order to be registered for the purposes of enforcement provided it can be demonstrated that the respondent knew of the criteria, or should have known of the criteria, whether served with it or not. He or she may well have been in the court but for some reason was not served with that order. So if John Doe or Jane Doe comes up to Queensland and circumstances arise in which behaviour takes place that in Victoria or some other state would amount to a breach of an order, I see no necessity for that order to be registered in Queensland if the respondent had prior knowledge of the order. It is just a technical, bureaucratic requirement. Legislation is only able to be enforced if it is clear, uncomplicated and has public support. Without public enthusiasm or general public support, even well-intentioned legislation may sometimes fail. When I look at some of the extended provisions covering aggrieved persons I see provisions relating to dating. Perhaps I was wrong in opposing that extension. I think after a period of time people commence some sort of indication that they will be involved in some sort of permanent relationship. However, I am really not clear what 'lives enmeshed' means. The example in the bill refers to two people who have known each other for 10 months and who are saving money to go overseas together for three months. I am just not sure of the validity of these indicators. Perhaps these provisions should have been more carefully examined for their practical application. If the bill referred to less complicated relationships and focused more on those demonstrating regular commitment, our laws might just be less complicated in their construction. I support this bill only because its general intent is good, but I ask the government to bear in mind that we cannot wrap society up in cotton wool. We just cannot prescribe human nature. It is what it is. We do what we can, but we cannot wrap people up in cotton wool. 526 Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

I have difficulty with the wider definition of 'relative'. The content is so open to abuse, for goodness sake. It includes a person who regards himself or herself as a relative of the aggrieved. Perhaps the minister might care to educate me. If I believe I am a relative of the aggrieved, does that make me a relative? Ms Spence: We can talk about that. Mr FLYNN: All right. We all know that abuse that is not authorised, justified or otherwise excused is unacceptable. There are already laws in place to deal with physical and mental abuse. At the same time we realise the dynamics of domestic violence are such that it requires very special treatment, as opposed to violence in the general community. Again, whilst I support the general principle and intent of this bill, I fear that it will not be long before we must revisit the act and make yet further amendments. I fervently hope that today's proposed measures will work, but only time will tell. I praise the involvement in elements of this problem and acknowledge the fine work of Burrumah Place. I am proud to say that I am personal friends with Ms Helen Govan, who is the coordinator. She speaks frequently of her experiences there and draws upon my own. We do not always agree, but I think our friendship has been of mutual benefit—to me when I was a police officer and to her in her job. I do commend the bill to the House, but I seriously ask the government to bear in mind in the next few months the remarks I have made in reservation. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.53 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Domestic Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. Queensland is leading the way in domestic and family violence prevention, policy development and implementation. This bill is the culmination of months of concentrated and committed work on the part of the Department of Families and the Queensland Domestic Violence Council. This bill will provide opportunities to make the difference to families and individuals throughout Queensland. I know that 800 copies of the bill were distributed to key stakeholders in the consultation process. I applaud the government for listening to the many community groups, individuals, government departments and families who have all contributed to this bill. The finalisation of the bill and the resulting legislative amendments have not been without their difficulties. Significant debate has occurred within community sector and government agencies and the broad range of representation involved in the council's legislative changes working group. The debate reflects tensions that are bound to arise when progressive governments are prepared to make progressive decisions to ensure all members of our community live safely in their homes. This government recognises that the safety and security of one contributes to the safety, health and wellbeing of the community at large. This bill is sending a message to all Queenslanders that violence is not acceptable in our community. Violence knows no boundaries, no gender, no age and no socioeconomic factors. Violence occurs in every community. It must stop, and we as a government must do everything we can to ensure this happens. This bill signifies our evolving understanding of domestic and family violence and our determination to curb the incidence and impact of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not confined to married couples. It is a significant problem in a great number of relationships in our society. Legislation needs to reflect relationships in which protection is needed. These changes will ensure access to protection from home violence for the elderly, people in dating relationships, people with a disability and family members. This will also cover people who are abused by their relatives, people who are in informal care relationships and people who are in intimate personal relationships. It enshrines our commitment to providing protection to the extended range of intimate and familial relationships present in our society today. All people, irrespective of their race, gender, age, sexual preference, ability or disability, are deserving of safety and security in their domestic and family relationships. It is a struggle to find a place in our community to engage in public debate on this issue. It is a topic people do not want to talk about. Victims can feel embarrassed. Many do not want to end relationships with the perpetrator. Instead, they want the violence to stop. Elder abuse is certainly one of these areas. Elder abuse is an act that can be physical, sexual, financial or psychological. Often the abuse comes from a person with whom the older person has a relationship of trust. This person could be a family member or a friend and, sadly, five per cent of older Queenslanders are subjected to elder abuse. An ageing population means that many of us will provide care for an older family member. Eighty-three per cent of people aged 65 and over who do receive care receive it through family, friends or neighbours. During the 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 527

past two years the Elder Abuse Prevention Unit, funded by the Department of Families, has responded to more than 430 calls in relation to cases of elder abuse. Unfortunately, the majority of abusers are relatives of the elderly and frail. We will only be able to combat this issue if we accept it does exist and we raise public awareness of the problem. I am sickened that someone could actually go out and hurt and abuse someone as wonderful as my nanna or other seniors in this world. This bill expands legislation and provides legal protection to people in family relationships and informal care relationships. Now protection orders will cover abuse of older people and people with disabilities by their informal carers. Our seniors need to be cherished, loved and protected. A group that is certainly doing this in my electorate is the East Logan Day Care Centre for the Frail, Aged and Lonely. The group has been operating since 1982. They operate on Thursdays to have morning tea, lunch and maybe a game of bingo or entertainment, such as our local school choirs, dance groups or fashion parades. This is all done through the work of volunteers. I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Sharon Adler. Sharon is a real trooper in our area and is also busy helping with other community groups. Sharon is one of those people who is always out there making the world a better place for someone else. She is assisted by Brigitte Eastwood and Jill Hughes, and the committee consists of Lesley Ireland, Hetty Peeters, Jessie Boot and Josie Francis. I have visited this group on a Thursday on many occasions. They have a fun time, and everyone looks forward to Thursdays to catch up with people and to gossip. It is a day they all like. They get out there, talk with people and enjoy themselves—a great social day full of love and friendship. I look forward to calling in and spending time with these lovely people on more occasions throughout the year. This group is what it is all about—making sure our seniors are cherished. While elder abuse and domestic violence struggle to find a place in our community to be debated, another issue that is also struggling to find that place is child sexual abuse. However, I think that has changed. While current debate has centred on the office of the Governor-General and whether Dr Hollingworth should resign or be removed from office, something positive has emerged from this discussion; that is, community outrage over child sexual abuse. The community has been loud and vocal on an issue that disgusts and repulses the very core of our society. That issue is child sexual abuse. No longer will the community accept past mistakes as an excuse by adults to abuse the trust and power that have been bestowed upon them. The community will not condone young girls or boys being preyed upon by older men or women. Children allow adults to have a special and trusting relationship with them. In some cases they hold certain adults in high esteem. This special privilege should never be abused. Every day parents entrust their children with people in various positions. They entrust them to people who they believe will lead them and ensure they are safe. Most of all, they believe they will be treated for what they are—children. Child sexual abuse tugs at the hearts of us all. It is not distinguishable by race, money, education or suburb. It knows no boundaries. It is not confined by socioeconomic boundaries, professions, gender, race or, indeed, religion. It will only be stifled when we as a community will tolerate it no longer and ensure that those who perpetrate it are held responsible and are punished under strong laws. This is not a problem that belongs to someone else. This is a concern for all governments and the community. It is up to us to listen and observe. The community needs to respond to children who cry out for help. Our children are precious and deserve our protection. While both men and women are affected by domestic violence, statistics indicate that the overwhelming majority of victims continue to be women. Debate, on motion of Ms Stone, adjourned.

STATE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.00 p.m.): I move— That Parliament notes with concern the Beattie Government's obsession with self-serving publicity, meaningless slogans and opportunistic stunts while it presides over a rapid deterioration in the financial position of the State and exposes the people of Queensland to serious reductions in the provision of essential services and infrastructure. The recent spate of full-page colour advertisements throughout the press outlets in this state has allowed Queenslanders to see that this arrogant government has gone just too far. Inflated with its own ego and arrogant because of its massive majority in this parliament, it has trampled over 528 State Government Performance 7 Mar 2002

all the standards of public spending and public decency in this state. The people of this state can see that these full-page ads, stunts and slogans are all about promotion of the Premier, not proper, decent spending of taxpayers' funds. This is contrary to the promises the Labor Party made before the election. It promised to clean up government and to have open, honest and accountable government, but now we see taxpayers' money being blatantly and overtly spent on a massive advertising campaign on the pretext that it is to promote Queensland because at the bottom of the ads there are details of web sites and so forth. But anyone can see what this advertising is all about. We have seen full- page colour newspaper advertisements for CHOGM, the Goodwill Games, the Roma Street Parklands, the education reform plan and so it goes on and on and on. This government is all about slogans and stunts. We are seeing empty promises, massive publicity and ministerial statements made in the morning followed by the colour brochures, the colour booklets and the colour magazines that get passed around the chamber ostensibly to tell us what is happening, but we know it is for the massive publicity machine used around the state. One by one we are seeing all of these promises, stunts and slogans for the empty vessels they are. Let us take the jobs, jobs, jobs slogan and the five per cent unemployment rate. However, Queensland has continued to be the worst state in mainland Australia for unemployment. For 17 months in a row we have had an unparalleled record. For 17 months in a row Queensland has had the worst unemployment figures in Australia. Despite that, the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth stands here skiting about the jobs or the training positions this government has put in place. How poor is its performance when Queensland is continuing to be placed last? How far behind all of the other states on mainland Australia is this government in its efforts and standards when our employment level is so bad? The Smart State slogan is again a mechanism to push the political agenda of the government, even to the extent where it tried to force it upon the numberplates of Queenslanders. Thankfully, most Queenslanders were smart enough to reject that. What about the learning or earning program? We all support better education in this state, but looking closely at the proposal reveals promises that maybe in the year 2007 the government will start that program. How is that going to help the jobless over the next five years? How is that going to help the unemployment queues? It is all about words and promises but no action. Another example is the promise of one and a half computers per school, and the government built that up as being a massive new program for the installation of computers. The Cooler Schools promise was another cruel hoax, because P&Cs in the hot parts of the state were told that if they could raise 20 per cent for the cost of airconditioning the balance of 80 per cent would be found by the government. We now know that the government is trying every possible way to weasel out of this promise to provide this necessary learning aid for young people so that they can be educated in the proper environment and reach their full potential. Do members remember how big the petrol watch task force was before the last election with Mr Kaiser? There was going to be a royal commission if petrol prices continued to be unfair. That was another stunt. That disappeared straight out the window. Then there was the insurance plan. One only needs to look at the task force report on the insurance plan. When we need something done right here and now, it is all about review, further feedback, further analysis, further testing, further research—more weasel words. There is lots of publicity and lots of advertising but no action. What about when we asked the Treasurer to consider a reduction in stamp duty because of the windfall in profits due to the boom in the housing industry? Not one solid commitment was given. Today we are the events capital, but what about the failures of Expo 2002, the Firefighters Games and Technomart, just to name a few? There is an endless list of these things. What about some of the other promises? Where is the support for the sugar industry? What happened to the $10 million assistance fund for the sugar industry? Only some $60,000 has been taken up. Did that disappear into the same black hole as the fishing industry assistance package? The Treasurer is getting ready for the second budget loss in a row. For the first time in 13 years the state government has decreased its budgeted amount for capital works, and all of this despite having the worst unemployment record in Australia! Wouldn't members think that it would be a priority of the government to increase capital works to create direct and immediate employment and the associated jobs that come from projects that develop exports, projects that 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 529

make it more efficient to do business in this state and projects that bring people to live and work in Queensland? In June this year the government's own economic forecasters predicted that it would have a $24 million operating surplus in its budget. Now those same forecasters in the mid-year economic review say that that figure is more likely to be a $148 million deficit. What a turnaround—a $172 million turnaround! That should be a great match for the $820 million budget deficit the government produced last financial year. The forecast deficit for this financial year comes despite a $269 million windfall in stamp duties created by the recent housing boom. So even with a windfall like that, this state is still projected to be in the red. Despite that, the government spends like a drunken sailor. A footbridge that was supposed to cost $13 million blew out to almost $30 million—a $17 million blow-out on a predicted cost of $13 million. Then there are the services that have been lost in this state. What about the Forde inquiry? That should have been a landmark for this state which provided for the protection of children, particularly those children who are vulnerable to sexual or physical abuse or those who come from dysfunctional family backgrounds. We hear so many members in this House talk about that, but already the Treasurer is turning his back on that promise, saying that Leneen Forde was wrong to base her estimate on figures from other states. That statement has set the ground to not meet that commitment. We all know that it would have been hard to meet that commitment in one or two years, but one would think that after three years the government could meet a commitment to the children of this state. We see the escalating insurance costs and only these bandaid solutions. We see publicity, publicity, publicity but no real answers to these never-ending insurance problems facing community and volunteer groups. We saw the cutback in services around the state. What about the rail wagons of this state? People cannot get cattle trains to sales or rail heads. They cannot make the exports. They cannot get the deliverance to the meatworks, which impacts on jobs for the meat workers, because this government has downgraded one of the most important services in this state to the workers in the meatworks sector and to the primary industries. What about the DPI? Some 534 positions were lost in the last term either through staff being sacked or the promise of positions not being met. No wonder we are seeing a dwindling of services in the rural and regional parts of the state when such a large number of staff positions are actually deleted from an important department such as the DPI. We have seen the pressure on the state's hospital system. Sometimes all it takes is for the public to go out and hold a mass protest in the streets, as they did in Cairns, in order to receive the proper support for their hospitals, which they should have had in the first place. I want to go back again to the budget situation in this state. Behind all the gloss and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are being spent in this state on brochures, advertisements, publicity and propaganda we are starting to face a very serious financial situation. In 2000-01 there was a predicted $29 million surplus. That ended up being an $820 million deficit. In 2001- 02 the government predicted a $24 million surplus. Now in the mid-year review that looks like being a $148 million deficit. The government has reported that it will receive an extra $267 million in stamp duty this financial year, yet still we are sliding into deficit. In 2000-01 the government budgeted capital works to the order of $5.285 billion. It has actually ended up with a shortfall of $278 million. This financial year on a budget-to-budget basis we have seen another dramatic reduction in capital works spending from a budgeted $5.285 billion the year before to $5.115 billion this year. That is one of the most important and most concerning reductions that we have seen in capital works spending. I turn now to projects that have not been delivered. There was the seat belts in school buses. Where is the Chevron pipeline that was going to be constructed in about three years? Where is the north Queensland base load power station? Where is the Tugun bypass? Gone, gone, gone, but there are plenty of ads. Time expired. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.10 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier's obsession with self-promotion and media stunts has been at the expense of this wonderful state's economy and our level of employment. Last year the Beattie circus came to town and delivered an $822 million operating 530 State Government Performance 7 Mar 2002

deficit. For 17 consecutive months the Premier's jobs, jobs, jobs hollow rhetoric slogan has left Queensland last, last, last in the unemployment stakes for mainland Australia. The Premier's obsession with self-promotion brought scorn on Queensland with the mobile Beattie billboards and the Smart State numberplates, and it did not go unnoticed by visiting dignitaries to CHOGM. The first thing the Secretary-General to the Commonwealth, Don McKinnon, saw after arriving in Brisbane following his 25-hour plane flight was Mr Beattie's face on TV. The Secretary-General's comments to the media on this visual assault says it all. 'I ask you,' he said, 'after a 25-hour plane flight, is this the face you want to see?' Mr Beattie is the Michael Flatley of Queensland politics, but instead of being the Lord of the Dance he is the Lord of the Prance. The stunts and gimmicks of the Beattie government know no end. Everything it does is geared for media opportunities. The Premier will even swim with sharks. I would have thought caucus was enough. Make no mistake, this is an Evil Knievel government. It is stunt masters—big on rhetoric, small on delivery. Queensland needs no more policy on the run. Queensland needs infrastructure development to promote investment and business opportunities that will ultimately lead to more employment and greater prosperity. What has the Beattie government delivered? For too long the Beattie government has blatantly pork-barrelled expenditure into southern Labor seats at the expense of regional Queensland, particularly the north. Within a five kilometre radius of Brisbane we see that this government is spending $280 million on Lang Park, which is closer to $500 million; $29 million on a footbridge; $216 million on the arts precinct at South Brisbane; and $75 million on the Roma Street Parkland. It is no small coincidence to note which electorates they are in: Beattie's, Bligh's and Edmond's. There must be infrastructure development in Queensland that focuses on the entire state. For instance, the north Queensland region has the potential through the mining, cattle, cane and tourism industries and the capacity to be the economic powerhouse of the state. But of the 18 major infrastructure projects that the Minister for State Development has listed to be constructed during this term of government, only three have any relationship with the north. The lack of any meaningful activity in this area is costing Queensland jobs and revenue earning capacity. A base load power station in north Queensland would allow Korea Zinc and Queensland Nickel to progress to stage 2 of their developments, which would provide up to 600 hard-core jobs. Yet the Premier talks about jobs. What happened to the port access road to the port of Townsville? The Premier has let the greenies rule the operation. The Elliott Channel is another infrastructure project that has been neglected by the Beattie government. It would bring water from the Burdekin Dam down into the Bowen and the Whitsunday region via an irrigation channel and create an annual production of $200 million per year. The construction of the Urannah dam west of Mackay would create a 1.5 million megalitre dam, the second largest in the state. Again, that would put it on an even parallel with the magnitude of the exercise at Emerald—and we know what has happened there as a result of the vision of the former Bjelke-Petersen government. On top of all of this we have a Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads who has delivered no major capital works projects in his four years as minister. The Committee for Economic Development of Australia stated in its information paper No. 54— International studies have shown that tax dollars spent on major highway projects create more jobs than any other government construction expenditure. And the Minister for Transport has delivered none. We have seen what has happened with the cattle industry. We have seen what has happened with the rail industry in relation to the lifting of livestock, and nothing has been done by this minister. He is still procrastinating over the very issue. The Minister for State Development still has not been able to release any guidelines for public-private partnerships in Queensland, despite the fact that the government has stolen the information from Victoria and the United Kingdom. In a decentralised state such as Queensland, public-private initiatives are vital to ensuring that Queensland lifts itself off the canvas in terms of business and growth creation. The Beattie government stands condemned by its obsessive marketing failure to produce infrastructure development, essential services and jobs, jobs, jobs for Queensland. Time expired. 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 531

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.15 p.m.): I move the following amendment— Delete all words after 'Parliament notes with' and insert— 'Approval, the way in which, after two years and four months of directionless stagnation under the Coalition Government, the Beattie Government has— Successfully promoted its strategy of turning Queensland into the Smart State, with the prospect of thousands of long-term, new-age jobs; Successfully promoted the tourism industry to maintain 150,000 jobs in this State, despite the downturn in international air travel following September 11; Successfully promoted its Breaking the Unemployment Cycle strategies to give the young and long-term unemployed jobs and training; Successfully negotiated the delivery of thousands of new jobs to the growth State through major projects such as Virgin Blue, Australian Magnesium Corporation, Comalco, Australian Airlines, the Qantas 767 maintenance facility and many others; And all this while it has presided over a strengthening in the financial position of the State; an increase in the provision of essential services, especially for children, families and disabilities; and an increase in the provision of essential infrastructure.'. My government has successfully brought a swag of major employment projects to reality. The $1.5 billion Comalco alumina refinery plant in Gladstone will create an estimated 1,500 jobs during construction and more than 400 once it is operational. The $1.3 billion Australian Magnesium Corporation magnesium metal project at Stanwell outside Rockhampton will result in up to 1,350 construction jobs and 350 operational jobs when the plant is fully commissioned. We brought Virgin Blue here, which has created about 1,100 new jobs in Queensland with plans to expand further. We helped secure Cairns as the hub for Qantas's new low-cost Australian Airlines. It will create about 350 new jobs beginning in September this year. Australian Airlines estimates that it will lead to the creation of a further 10,000 new tourism related jobs, many of them in Queensland. There was a $425 million coalmine at Hail Creek. It is creating 400 jobs during construction and will create another 200 jobs when operations begin in mid-2003. My government has created an average of 1,320 new jobs a month since we have been in office. That compares with just 985 a month during the Borbidge years. Promoting Queensland will help create jobs. A small story in the Gold Coast Bulletin this morning is headlined 'State's UK push pays off' and goes on to explain how a marketing campaign in the UK has sparked a 21 per cent increase in bookings for Queensland holidays. That is the action you get from this government. It shows in Queensland's performance in the December quarter national accounts released by the ABS this morning, with state final demand in Queensland estimated at 5.2 per cent throughout the year to the December quarter, and that is comparable with the national rate of growth of only 4.1 per cent. In Queensland, household consumption was up 4.1 per cent. Business investment is up 8.3 per cent because they have confidence in this government and what it is doing. Dwelling investment has risen 31.5 per cent. Let me make this clear. I make no apology for promoting Queensland and promoting business opportunities in Queensland. During the past week, that is Thursday, 28 February to Wednesday, 6 March when we stepped up efforts to profile Queensland because international leaders and media were visiting Queensland for CHOGM, the Queen's visit and former President Clinton's visit, there were 28,589 page views on the State Development web site. That was a 10 per cent increase over the same period for the previous week. The ads work. The page views measured only covers web visitors who open a page on the site. It is a good indication of web site users who are serious about finding information. This weekend was the strongest period, when the number of page views on the Department of State Development web site jumped to 3,624—almost four times higher than the previous weekend. Where were they? That was all advertised in the ads we used. Yes, it had my photo on them, and I make no apology for that. Those ads worked. On Saturday, 2 March there were 1,705 page views—more than four times the 400 views of the previous Saturday. It worked. Indeed, on Sunday, 3 March there were 1,919 page views—almost four times the 511 views on the previous Sunday. It worked. We also had encouraging feedback from the Department of State Development telephone line that was listed in the advertisement. These ads were placed in an area where we are seeking to attract investment. That is what State Development is all about. As a result of the advertisement, two interstate companies that called are thinking of relocating to Queensland. 532 State Government Performance 7 Mar 2002

One is a high tech company and the other is a food processor. It is important to let the national and international business communities know that we are serious about doing business in Queensland. The bottom line with all of this is that the opposition can throw off all it likes, but those ads worked. We thought outside the box. We will do everything we can to milk these major events to attract investment to this state. At the moment my government is holding a cabinet meeting. I have left that meeting to come in here to speak. Cabinet has just approved the submission from Matt Foley—and I am announcing it tonight—to expand the school based apprenticeships and traineeships to local governments and councils across the state. We are doing that because we are going to drive jobs, we are going to drive apprenticeships, we are going to drive traineeships and we are going to drive every educational opportunity that we possibly can. That submission has just been approved by cabinet. Because of its importance, I seek to incorporate in Hansard this news release that sets out cabinet's decision. Leave granted. Queensland Government Premier of Queensland JOINT STATEMENT BY PREMIER PETER BEATTIE AND EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND YOUTH MINISTER MATT FOLEY "LEARNING AND EARNING" APPRENTICESHIPS AND TRAINEESHIPS TAKE OFF: BEATTIE Premier Peter Beattie and Employment, Training and Youth Minister Matt Foley tonight announced an expansion of the school-based apprenticeships and traineeships to local government councils across the State. Mr Beattie said the decision tonight by Cabinet would increase the spread of school-based employment and training opportunities, in particular to rural and regional areas. Mr Beattie said the decision was a down-payment on the Queensland the Smart State: Education and Training Reforms for the Future Green Paper released this week. "Queensland already is leading Australia in the creation of school-based apprenticeships and traineeships", Mr Beattie said. "At the end of January 2002 Queensland had 3272 students undertaking apprenticeships and traineeships at school—more than 50 per cent of the nation's school-based apprentices and trainees. "This decision will enable even more Years 11 and 12 students in Queensland to enter a school-based apprenticeship or traineeship. It will also diversify the types of apprenticeship and traineeship available—for instance, into environmental fields—up until now, the majority of places offered have been administrative in nature". Mr Foley said the decision to expand school-based apprenticeships and traineeships to local councils would also open up additional employment-based learning opportunities for disadvantaged young people, including Indigenous youth in remote communities. "Perhaps more importantly, it will align with the student pathways identified in the Green Paper. It is an excellent example of the flexibility of further education, training or work which will encourage young people to better realise their potential", he said. Mr Foley said the Education and Training Reforms for the Future Green Paper aims to have young people in full- time schooling, full-time vocational education and training, or full-time work, or a combination of these—until they are 16 or 17 years old. "The Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative is already developing positive alternative pathways for young people to prevent them from becoming unemployment statistics", he said. "Since the initiative was introduced by the Government in October 1998, some 70 per cent of the 37,130 people helped with jobs or job assistance have been aged between 15 and 24. "The initiative was expanded from July 2001 to include two programs specifically targeted at youth—Get Set for Work and Youth for the Environment—which are already assisting young Queenslanders", Mr Foley said. March 7 2002 Mr BEATTIE: Let me make it very clear: when we came to office, the Queensland economy was narrow. We are broadening it for the jobs of tomorrow. Time expired. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (6.21 p.m.): I second the amendment that has been moved by the Premier. In doing so, I would like to address some of the issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I have heard him say continually that we have to spend money on infrastructure to provide jobs. We have to spend money to provide jobs. But that money does not necessarily have to be spent on infrastructure. If we spend money on education and provide new jobs for teachers, we create new jobs. If we spend money in the area of family services, we provide new jobs. If we spend 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 533

money in the Health Department, we provide new jobs. If we spend money in the police department, we provide new jobs. In last year's budget, we increased expenditure in all of those areas by greater than the rate of inflation. Disability services expenditure was up 11.6 per cent, Families expenditure was up 10.3 per cent, Education expenditure was up 8.7 per cent, Police expenditure was up 8.6 per cent and Health expenditure was up 6.5 per cent. All of that money will go to create jobs. So we do not necessarily have to spend money just on infrastructure. Infrastructure is important. This financial year in Australia, in terms of state government expenditure on infrastructure, the Queensland government accounts for 28 per cent of expenditure on infrastructure with Queensland having 18 per cent of Australia's population. So we cannot be criticised for that. In relation to the percentage of infrastructure expenditure on GDP, it is presently at the highest that it has been for the past 20 years. We cannot be criticised for that. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the budget surplus—or the budget deficit—and I have mentioned that in the budget last year and in the mid-year review we explained it. But just as a matter of interest, I point out that had we chosen to use the cash position measure that the Commonwealth uses when discussing its fiscal position, the general government accounts would have recorded a strong surplus in 2000-2001. But we do not pull the wool over people's eyes. We tell them the way it is. We do not go out and say, 'We have invested this money and in five years time we might get more than what it is worth today, so we will not tell anybody about it.' We tell people exactly what the position is. In relation to the mid-year review, we have told the opposition what we believe it will be as at June this year, providing that the investments come out at around five per cent. At this stage, we believe that that is what it is going to be. But even at that figure, the returns that we are getting are better than the world benchmark. The net worth of the state increased in 2001. The net worth is forecast to reach $59 billion by 30 June 2002, compared with $55.3 billion in June 1998 when we came to power. How can it be fiscally irresponsible to increase the net worth of the state by $3.7 billion in the time that we have been in government? Over the four years that we have been in government, we have pumped over $20 billion into capital expenditure. Mr Hobbs: It's the lowest it's been. You know that. Mr MACKENROTH: No, it is not. Mr Hobbs: It is. Mr MACKENROTH: No, it is not. Mr Hobbs: It has gone down. Mr MACKENROTH: No. I can tell the member that it is a lot higher than it was when he was in government. I think the members opposite need to remember what I said earlier, that is, that the services that are being provided by the government are creating jobs. I am very proud to say that the budget that I brought down last year and the budget that I will bring down this year will provide jobs in the area of services for people. So the people whom we all represent are getting the services that were denied to them for far too long by governments in this state. Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.26 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Nowhere are the issues referred to in that motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition more evident than in the Queensland Police Service. The provision of a soundly performing Police Service should be a core responsibility of any state government. When Queenslanders need the police, they should be confident that they will turn up. Queenslanders are entitled to that security. Instead, all they get is meaningless slogans and rhetoric. They get response times for property crime that range from a minimum of two hours to an incredible 36 hours in at least one case that I am aware of. Queenslanders have all heard the meaningless chant—even those who are still waiting now for the police to show up. They have heard the chant about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. If only that were true. If only the reality was pursued with the same degree of zeal as the rhetoric. If only the chanted slogans were translated into action that could produce some results. But of course they are not. 534 State Government Performance 7 Mar 2002

Despite the chanted slogans, suburbs and towns throughout Queensland are in the grip of a growing epidemic of drug-induced property crime. This epidemic of drug-induced property crime is striking at the homes and the sense of security of ordinary Queenslanders to finance the illicit drug trade. When we look past that rhetoric, when we look at the facts and the figures, we see that the Beattie government is playing at the fringes while the drug trade and the property crime that feeds it booms in Queensland. Yesterday in this House we heard the offended howls of distress from the desperate Police Minister and a couple of his cronies up the back as they tried to defend the indefensible. They tried to defend their pathetic record in tackling this epidemic of drug-induced property crime. In doing so, they also tried to criticise the National Party's policy to set up a dedicated police drug squad in every police district. They set out to ridicule that proposal to change the focus of the Police Service to give more priority to this epidemic of drug-induced property crime. The Queensland Nationals drew up that policy prior to the 2001 state election after consulting some of the most senior and experienced police investigators and administrators in the state. They pointed out that the biggest problem confronting police and the communities that they serve is drug-induced property crime, particularly break-ins to people's homes and businesses. They said that the one thing that the police would like to have to attack the source of this drug-induced property crime was a dedicated drug squad in each police district. They did not want chanted slogans and stunts. They wanted some action to have a regionally based drug squad in each police district. They did not want the statewide drug squad based in Brisbane to fly in and fly out. They wanted a local drug squad for each police district. Such squads could use that local knowledge to deliver localised, specialised, nonstop harassment and investigation so that drug dealers can be locked up and taken out of the system. We took that advice from the police and we made it part of our policy that we would establish a drug squad in every police district. We will continue with that policy, because it is gaining widespread support throughout Queensland. Our policy is a practical plan to tackle the biggest law and order problem currently in existence in this state. It is a law and order problem that the Beattie government is choosing to ignore, while focusing on meaningless slogans and stunts. If the Beattie government was fair dinkum about being tough on crime and the causes of crime and if it knew what that slogan meant, it would be embracing our proposal and supporting us. Let us consider the facts, starting with the allocation of funds for drug squads in Queensland. How absurd it is that $133 million—15 per cent of the entire Police budget—will be spent this year on traffic policing. In comparison, just $5 million will be spent on Queensland's drug squads. How does one reconcile that with the government's slogan? But that slogan has never been more than meaningless rhetoric. It is just another government gimmick. It is simply more of the stunt politics that this government focuses on—and the statistics prove it. The minister claims that his seven-member Brisbane based flying squad—his fly in, fly out policing—is working. However, the statistics prove him wrong. In comparison with 1999-2000, the number of robberies reported in Brisbane has increased by 93 incidents or 36 per cent; they increased by 780 incidents or 29 per cent in Toowoomba; and they increased by 5,743 incidents or 14.5 per cent in Rockhampton. The number of sexual offences across Queensland increased by seven per cent. They are the facts. They are the facts that give the lie to the rhetoric. They are the facts that give the lie to the slogans. They are the facts that give the lie to the ridiculous amendment the Premier has moved tonight. Time expired. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (6.31 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the amendment moved by the Premier. My only disappointment is I have only five minutes to speak about all the achievements of the Labor Beattie government. If I was to speak about all the accomplishments and the hard work of all members of this smart government, I would still be speaking at sunrise. The opposition creates headlines claiming that this is a glossy no-action government. Let us talk about doing nothing. Where are the opposition's policies? Where is the substance in its policies? An honourable member interjected. Ms STONE: It is a policy-free zone. That is right. When have opposition members been listening to the people of Queensland? When have they consulted with the people of Queensland? Let us talk about back to the bush. What is back to the bush, members may ask? 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 535

Where is it at? What dividends has it paid? Yes, members may well ask what is back to the bush, because it obviously is back at the bush. I challenge the members of the opposition to list and discuss their policies. What is their vision for Queensland? I challenge opposition members to take this opportunity to speak about the opposition's policies, or will we hear the party of the past, the same old stories about the old days, like their stance on trading hours? The people of Springwood and, indeed, people in other parts of Queensland are being listened to by the Beattie government. Not only are we listening, we are delivering. Recently, a second community jobs plan was launched at Springwood State High School. I am most pleased to advise members that this program has been tremendously successful, with participants in the first Springwood community jobs plan in 2001 all gaining employment. I am positive that the experience and training gained by the participants in this program will provide them with the necessary abilities to gain employment at the completion of the program. That is more than can be said for the federal government's Job Network. I will outline just a few achievements which have significance for me and the people of Springwood. The level of spending alone by the Beattie Labor government in that electorate has been astounding. I will mention only a few—the spending of over $1.3 million on public works, money from the community gaming fund and the provision of state-of-the-art technology in our schools. It proves the dedication of this Beattie government to the people of Springwood. I am very proud of their achievements. In particular, I am very proud of the policemen and women at the Slacks Creek Police Station because they do a great job. Why they are so good? Because we support them. Has the opposition been listening to the people of Springwood? I do not recall any visits. I do not recall any visits from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not recall any visits from shadow ministers. If members want to talk about delivering, let's talk about the urban community renewal program, an innovative program with an amazing ability to empower and lift communities implemented by this government and passionately defended and encouraged by Minister Schwarten. This program was axed under the Borbidge government and, of course, reinstated as soon as the Beattie Labor government came into power. This Labor government has not stagnated—far from it! The Beattie Labor government has ensured that Queensland has become the Smart State. The education system in Queensland has provided and will continue to provide an exceptionally high level of education to our young Queenslanders, thereby ensuring not only that Queensland is the Smart State now but that it will continue to lead in the fields of information technology and other technological advances. This government implements policies that are visionary and keep pace with rapid change. The ICT program will include an increase in school computers, double computer replacement funding, connect more computers to the Internet and improve technical support for our teachers. I am sorry that the opposition is disappointed that Queensland schools will receive more funding and more equipment. I am sorry that the opposition is disappointed that Queensland is the leading state. I am also sorry that the opposition is disappointed that this government has negotiated the delivery of thousands of new jobs through major projects. Obviously the members of the opposition do not want positive plans and successful outcomes for Queensland. I am unashamedly pro education, pro jobs and pro Queensland. I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Premier and his ministers to achieve positive outcomes for Queensland and particularly for Springwood. If this Beattie Labor government has supposedly fallen into a state of directionless stagnation, what on earth would Queenslanders be faced with if the opposition were in power today? What could the opposition possibly contribute that would be so outstanding? Nothing! The last time the opposition was able to form government, it was a sad and sorry day for this state. As a final point, I draw the opposition's attention to our great Premier. Time expired. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (6.36 p.m.): For four years we have listened to the Beattie government's ideas for education and for four years we have witnessed little reality flow from the rhetoric and glossy presentations coming from the government benches. The Beattie government has proved that it has the ability to outline great theories and great ideas but, unfortunately, it does not transfer those ideologies to practical reality. The present reforms to education announced over the last few days are, once again, theories which sound excellent and which will undoubtedly gain acceptance in the community. 536 State Government Performance 7 Mar 2002

However, these questions remain: when will they be implemented? Does this government have the will, the funds and the ability to put those theories in place, or will there be a long period of community consultation? Let us look at one of the Beattie government's idealistic statements on education at the last election. The bland statement was that the Beattie government would spend $11.9 million to put airconditioning in over 70 schools. First of all, the government refused to name the 70 schools. Then schools were told in a blanket statement that if they raised 20 per cent of the cost of the airconditioning, the remaining 80 per cent would be covered. Many schools raised the funds. Still this government refuses to name the 70 schools. Those schools do not know whether they are on the short-term or the long-term program, or if they are even on the program at all. Similarly, no-one is prepared to state where the $11.9 million is, or over what period of time the government intends to spend that $11.9 million. So exasperated are the P&C associations that the Queensland Council of P&C Associations wrote this letter to Premier Beattie at the start of this week. I will table a copy of that letter. Let us look at the statements from the P&C. If government members reckon the opposition is telling lies, let us look at this official letter which has gone to Peter Beattie. It states— We were elated at your government's commitment to the Cooler Schools program and your confirmation of that commitment during the state election campaign last year. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a pure statement from the P&C. It further states— Since the inception of the Cooler Schools program, P&Cs throughout the state have been raising funds to become eligible for government assisted provision of Cooler Schools initiatives, primarily air-conditioning. However, extended delays and setbacks, together with numerous difficulties associated with required electrical upgrades, have resulted in many school communities losing faith in the successful continuance of the scheme. This letter was written to the Premier on Monday. It continues— Furthermore, we are very disturbed at being advised that one significant cause for the delays relates to funds from the program being used to undertake electrical upgrades at schools, contrary to our previous understandings. Efforts to obtain meaningful information from either the Government or relevant Departments on the present position of the project have been answered with 'policy' statements without evidence of substantiating programs and/or background data. Accordingly, by resolution of the State Executive of QCPCA, we respectfully call upon the Queensland State Government to urgently establish a bi-partisan Task Force including representation from this organisation and other relevant stakeholders to review the Cooler Schools program and to make recommendations to the Government on actions required to accelerate and fulfil the objectives of the Government's previous commitments with respect to the program. ... (a) Undertake an audit to determine where the program is at this time. (b) Without witch-hunting, try to assess what has gone wrong. (v) Determine what is required to get the program 'back on the rails' (including financial implications, alternative methodology of implementation, non-financial resource requirements). The concluding paragraph states— We cannot express enough the anguish that the present state of the program is causing to many of the 1300 State School P&C Associations throughout Queensland. It is with this in mind that we seek your urgent attention to this matter. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr LINGARD: I am reading a letter from the P&C and still the minister is screaming. A Sunday Mail editorial from 13 January this year stated— The Government made much political capital out of the Cooler Schools program. Rightly or wrongly, some parents now believe it was nothing but self-serving flimflam and will file away their bitter memories for the next election. They are deeply hurt by what they see as a campaign of departmental deceit but they are absolutely outraged over the contempt with which the Government appears to be treating their children. Time expired. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (6.41 p.m.): Psychologists often use word association to determine a person's thought patterns and what issues are important to them. If we mention the words 'Labor Party' in Queensland, what thoughts or important issues spring to people's minds? Jobs, jobs, jobs and Smart State. A new exciting one can be added to the list—learning or earning. Mr Speaker, what do you think of when you say the words 'National Party' to Queenslanders? Ms Bligh: It's unparliamentary. 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 537

Mr NEIL ROBERTS: There are a whole lot of things which are unparliamentary and which people might suggest. Mr Speaker, I do not know about you or other members, but I automatically think 'Lawrence Springborg', because that is the only sensible thing it has been talking about over the past few months. The National Party is all talk, no policy, no direction and no idea. Its problem is that nobody knows what it stands for or where it is going, but everyone knows where it has been. That is not the case with the Beattie government. These so-called slogans—jobs, jobs, jobs, Smart State and learning or earning—are not empty slogans. They are words which capture the essence and activity of significant policy decisions of the Beattie Labor government. They are words which spell out the vision and focus this government has on delivering better outcomes for Queenslanders of all ages. Let us look at each of these policy initiatives and see whether they stand the test of being mere publicity, as the opposition claims, or whether they contain substance, which is the government's claim. Let us look at jobs, jobs, jobs. What was the job creation rate when the coalition was last in power? Under the Borbidge government, growth in full-time jobs was 985 per month. Under the Beattie government, the growth in full-time employment has averaged over 1,320 per month—around 335 per month more than under the coalition. During the 12 months to January 2002, employment in Queensland grew by 1.9 per cent compared with just 1.2 per cent for the rest of Australia. So our jobs, jobs, jobs mantra is showing some positive outcomes. What about the exceptional range of labour market programs targeted at some of the most disadvantaged job seekers in the community? Our Breaking the Unemployment Cycle program has a target of creating 56,000 jobs by 2004. In just over three years of the program, we have already created more than 36,340 jobs. This term we introduced new programs to assist mature- age workers and young people at risk. Those programs complement the pre-existing initiatives that have been delivering jobs and training to thousands of Queenslanders—the Community Jobs Plan, apprenticeship and traineeship subsidies, and the Community Training Partnerships Program. Our capital works projects are also generating hundreds of jobs: 940 jobs from two state government office blocks in Brisbane and Cairns; 750 jobs from new public housing construction; 800 jobs from public housing upgrades; 400 jobs under the indigenous housing plan; and training and jobs for 400 apprentices under the Housing Industry Trade Training Scheme. The current unemployment rate of eight per cent is also well below the 9.5 per cent rate in early 1997 under the former coalition government. So the opposition is on shaky ground when it seeks to challenge our achievements in job creation. I turn to the Smart State. The coalition is constantly whingeing about the Smart State agenda simply because they it does not get it. The Smart State is about more than scoring political points on numberplates. It is about continuous improvement and looking for better and smarter ways to do business, research and deliver education and other necessary services. And it is not just about scientists in white dustcoats. It is also about communities making smart decisions about local issues. In my electorate, the Nudgee State School and Banyo State High School communities have thrown their weight behind an innovative project to create an integrated P-12 school on the grounds of the Banyo State High School. The project involves the creation of three subschools—junior, middle and senior—on an integrated single school site. The project fits neatly with the government's new agenda of creating opportunities for young people through the reforms to our education and training systems. Time expired. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.46 p.m.): This government is interested only in self-serving publicity and meaningless slogans. We have show pony Pete and the propaganda machine. We saw an ad in yesterday's Courier-Mail thanking people for the success of CHOGM, yet most of the attendees have already gone home. He had a ghost audience. Many of the hits on the web site probably came from public servants in the departments. The Premier should not forget that web site hits do not translate into money spent. The Smart State! The government will not even put airconditioners into western schools. The kids are getting bleeding noses and some classrooms cannot be used and have been closed down because there is no airconditioning. The Premier wants students to spend longer at school, and I agree that that has some merit. However, the government must provide appropriate facilities. At present all that would achieve is putting four- and five-year-old kids into school buses 538 State Government Performance 7 Mar 2002

for an extra 10 hours a week, and then they would have to sit in hot classrooms all day. That is crazy. How smart is that? What do the people who raise money for school airconditioning think when the Premier cannot provide them with any money and yet he can find $100,000 for promotions in the Courier-Mail. How smart is that? I personally welcome the lifting of the school leaving age, but I believe the government is more interested in stopping them from officially registering as unemployed so that it can go to the next election and claim that it has reduced youth unemployment from its gold medal performance of 30 per cent at a time when Australia's economy is performing well based on world standards. The government claims that it has better general employment figures than when we were in government. That is a further stunt, as everyone knows that unemployment in the past was higher all over Australia. This state is still coming dead last. This is another stunt. Everyone knows that. The government's self-serving publicity 'earning or learning' in relation to education promotes the government's keen interest in education. However, at the same time it is lifting school enrolment levels from 26 to 28 in order for a school to qualify for two teachers. Therefore, smaller two-teacher schools will have only one teacher. How smart is that? P&Cs have to upgrade their school's power supply if they want airconditioning. How smart is that? Mr English: It saves schools burning down. Mr HOBBS: But the government should pay for it. Those kids have to have decent facilities. Virgin Blue is a good example. The Premier spent $12 million on that airline and helped with Ansett's demise. Now he has to pay another $5,000 per employee. How smart is that? Talk about hypocrisy! 'Jobs, jobs, jobs,' the Premier says. Where are the jobs in the departments? What about the Environmental Protection Agency or the DPI? It is hard to find anybody out there, and the people who are left out there are working themselves to a frazzle. They just cannot do the work. What about the Department of Natural Resources and Mines? We have just seen huge increases in land valuations because the department does not have the people on the ground to do the necessary valuations. The system has fallen over. It has collapsed. What about Queensland Health? We have constituents who are waiting 12 months to see a dentist. How smart is that? Are we a Smart State or are we not? The Premier talked about the various companies that have come to Queensland. Most of them were on the drawing board for years. All he had to do was sit back and wait and negotiate with them. The government has underspent on capital works. A while ago the Treasurer said that was incorrect. But the reality is that underspending on capital works is 3.2 per cent. For the first time in 13 years we have seen a cut to capital works. How smart is that? And this year it is going to be cut again. We also have the Smart State numberplates. We have heard about them from a few members. Only public servants have been told that they have to use them. The government cannot tackle the hard issues. It is into stunt politics. Talk about accountability in the parliament! Ministers take up a lot of time making ministerial statements. We could not do that when we were in government. We had to stop at 10 past 11, when we allowed opposition members to make two-minute speeches which gave them the opportunity to have a reasonable say. That does not happen any more. Where is the accountability? Yet the Premier talks about this being the Smart State. As well, a cruel hoax has been played on the sugar industry. For instance, a $10 million scheme was proposed, but funding of only $60,000 was approved. Mr Johnson: Another stunt. Mr HOBBS: Another stunt. All we have are stunts and more stunts. The Premier's motion refers to successfully promoting Breaking the Unemployment Cycle. He certainly promoted it, all right! Time expired. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (6.51 p.m.): The member for Warrego asks: how smart is that? How smart is it to yell and scream in here as though we are all deaf? Most of us have pretty good hearing. I just wonder how smart it is for him to be yelling and screaming. It does not make his arguments any more sensible. I am here, I hope, to add some sensibility to the debate. We have heard talk of mantras and slogans. There is one slogan that is true. That is the one that says: you whinge, we work. But I think we should change it to: you shout, we laugh. Because we know the truth is that the Beattie Labor government is achieving true benefits for the people of Queensland. 7 Mar 2002 State Government Performance 539

Mr Johnson interjected. Ms KEECH: I ask the member to listen and I will tell him what is happening in industrial relations. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Give her a go. Ms KEECH: I thank the member for Pumicestone. I am particularly proud—as a mother and as a woman—to talk about the Minister for Industrial Relations, Gordon Nuttall, who is helping Queensland balance work and family. The government has established Australia's first Work and Family Unit to research and develop policies to help Queensland families better balance their time between work, family and communities. For casual workers with at least 12 months service to employers, we have introduced work and family legislation to provide parental, carers and bereavement leave—a first—as well as extending protection to all casual workers— Ms Stone: Caring for families. Ms KEECH: The member is right. Caring for families is what the Beattie Labor government is all about. We also recognise—unlike the National Party—that Queensland is facing a change in the work force. So the Beattie Labor government has instigated policies to reflect that. The state government has implemented all the recommendations of the pay equity inquiry to ensure that men and women workers are entitled to equal pay for work of equal and comparable value under awards and agreements. Also, honourable members would be happy to hear that this year the Beattie government established Australia's first workplace bullying task force to find ways to eradicate this unacceptable behaviour in workplaces. I only hope that when the report is brought down we will be able to implement some of those recommendations in this parliament. Mr Johnson interjected. Ms KEECH: The task force has been travelling throughout the entire state, and I look forward to its members speaking to some of the people in the bush. So the member will be able to provide his input, as well. For young Queenslanders in the work force, the government has established a youth advisory service to provide the latest advice, information and assistance on employment issues. This is something that the young people of Albert are particularly looking forward to, given that 30 per cent of them are under the age of 18. The Beattie Labor government has also improved workplace health and safety in Queensland. In particular, in an effort to reduce the high number of electrical deaths in Queensland, the government is currently developing extensive new legislation, including a new electrical safety act, a new electrical safety advisory board, Queensland's first stand-alone electrical safety regulator, and mandatory safety switches in all Queensland homes. That is action in anybody's language. Mr Cummins: Smart action. Ms KEECH: It is definitely smart action. Also, we are introducing improved benefits for injured workers. I am sure that is something of which all members would be aware. This year the Beattie government cut WorkCover premiums for employers for the third successive year to be the lowest average premiums of any state in Australia, saving employers an estimated $120 million. Under the Beattie government, WorkCover Queensland, which is still Australia's only publicly owned, operated and underwritten scheme, has achieved distinguished acclaim by being the only fully solvent WorkCover operation in Australia. That is something of which I am proud. This is a government with a vision for our state's future. Queensland is being transformed into the Smart State of Australia. Social justice and a commitment to equality of opportunity is our mantra. I am proud to be a member of a government that has that as its mantra: social justice and a commitment to all people, regardless of their income, as well as new education and training, IT and community renewal programs, particularly in the electorate of Albert. Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bell, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, N. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Flynn, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves 540 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

NOES, 16—Copeland, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bell, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, N. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Flynn, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 16—Copeland, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.06 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 20 February (see p. 217). Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (8.30 p.m.): The Local Government Amendment Bill has been proposed by the opposition to enhance, rather than detract from, the legislation brought in by this government. This bill proposes that, rather than have local government representatives resign from council if they wish to contest a state election, councillors should stand down. This would avoid a forced by-election and the burdening of ratepayers with the financial cost of that by-election. The period of time allocated for an election campaign is, on average, very short—between three and six weeks. These very few weeks can ultimately decide whether a person's career of contributing to their community on a local level will be ended. One has to ask if this is in fact a fair situation. It has always seemed unreasonable to me. Community representation is not done lightly by anyone. If people choose to go further and represent their community at a higher level, it is their democratic right to do so. Is it right that the people are forced to pay for the resulting by-elections? By-elections are not cheap, as many councillors told me at the last election. I believe they were confident I would be defeated and that the shire councillor who stood against me would be successful, for I was informed that they had the funds for the by-election put aside for quite some time. If councillors are forced to resign, councils may very well be losing very good men or women who quite possibly could be re-elected in the event of a by-election. It almost seems pointless. I realise that there must have been some abuse by councillors who contested state elections and that it was these occurrences which caused the minister to call for the resignation of candidates who work in local government. There may be many other reasons as well. The Minister for Local Government was quick to raise the point that the polling I conducted in relation to the government's bill to decide the feelings of the electorate on the issue revealed overwhelming support for the idea. I must now question whether those polled would have supported the idea so readily if they had realised that the cost to the shire of a by-election would be paid out of their own pockets through their rates. These costs were not revealed to them when I posed the original question. I have since asked the electorate who should pay for by- elections when they are forced upon the people by the resignation of a member, and the response was again an overwhelming one. Approximately 90 per cent said that it should not be the people—not the general public. Therefore, it is appropriate that I support this bill to ensure further expense is not inflicted on the general public, as this bill would in fact eliminate the cost to them of a by-election. It might be appropriate for the government to look at the intent of the bill I brought before the House recently. If it cannot support it in its present form, it could rework it to make it acceptable to the public, thereby eliminating the cost of by-elections at any level of government. If this happens I can guarantee that the Premier will have the support of the people for a long time. As I respected the view of my electorate when I supported the government's bill, I respect the views of my electorate at this time and I must also support attempts not to have them pay 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 541

the penalty associated with a by-election at any level. The general populous gets slugged enough, and they are very sick of it. My support for this bill introduced by the opposition will not change the current law. Therefore, in supporting the public's view, I commend this bill to the House. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (8.34 p.m.): I rise to oppose this Local Government Amendment Bill, introduced by the shadow minister for local government. I will first comment on some matters raised by the member for Callide. He said that the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced to protect the member for Logan. For the arithmetically challenged member for Callide I point out that John Mickel was elected with 72.28 per cent of the primary vote at the last election. It looks like he needs a lot of protection! Mr Shine: What result did he get? Mr LAWLOR: The member for Callide got 40 per cent of the primary vote at the last election. I suggest he is the person who is in most need of protection. Mr Wilson: Whose preferences got him elected? Mr LAWLOR: I presume they were One Nation and a variety of others. Local government electoral arrangements are largely based on the state arrangements. The requirements applying to councillors differed from the arrangements for members of state parliament intending to nominate for election to the Commonwealth parliament. Under section 44 of the Constitution, a member of the state parliament intending to nominate for election to the Commonwealth parliament is required to resign as a member before nominating for election. The aim of the proposal was to bring greater consistency between the requirements on councillors and the requirements on members of the Legislative Assembly seeking higher office. Local governments in Queensland have a level of autonomy that is the envy of their counterparts in other states. In Queensland they are treated as governments in their own right. Given the level of autonomy enjoyed by councillors in their role, it is only appropriate that they should be subject to the same principle that applies to members of state parliament who want to run for higher office. Despite opposition from local government to the proposal, there was general community support for the move, demonstrated through the consultation process on the proposal. A bit of polling, for want of a better word, was conducted by several people. One lot of polling was conducted by the department. It commissioned an independent survey of community attitudes to the proposal. The survey was carried out in October 2000 by a professional research firm. Fifty-three per cent of the respondents indicated support for the proposal, 35 per cent were opposed and 12 per cent were undecided. So whilst there was opposition to the proposal from councils, which is to be expected, the community in general was supportive of the proposal. The main reasons given by respondents in support of the proposal were that there may be a conflict between a councillor's quest for higher office and their duties as a councillor, that it would stop councillors being elected with the intention of then seeking higher office prior to completing their full term of office, and that it achieves consistency of treatment between elected representatives at the local and state levels. The other bit of research done—it was probably not too scientific—was conducted by the member for Nanango. She mentioned this in debate on the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill on 17 May 2001. She said— This is an issue I polled extensively in my electorate, across all eligible voting age groups and all cross-sections of the community. I cannot quote the exact figure, but somewhere in the vicinity of 7,000 questionnaires went out. Somewhere between 10 and 14 per cent were returned—I think it was about 11 and a half per cent. I felt it was a pretty good indication of what the community was feeling. I agree with her. She went on— The view of the electorate was that the individual did not care about costing ratepayers a by-election— that is interesting in light of the other motion moved— did not care about representing them at council level if they could go further and viewed their election to council purely as a stepping stone to higher self-promotion. She went on— ... with 76 per cent of that 10 per cent being in favour of councillors resigning when they become candidates and 24 per cent being against. There is no doubt in my mind that I must represent this majority view. These were very worthy sentiments. I agree with the member for Nanango. I am sure that when it comes to the vote she will be quite consistent in what she has suggested. 542 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

I will quote another member of this House. Members can guess who it is in a minute. In that same debate on 17 May 2001 he said— I am extremely disappointed with the rhetoric about country councillors. Our councils in the bush are full of fine human beings who do a wonderful job. When I first heard about this bill, I went to a lot of my constituents and asked their opinion—and I mean a lot of my constituents. He continued— Whether I support this bill or not is irrelevant. I must speak on behalf of my constituents. After much consultation with many, many of them, I now present what I feel is the majority point of view for the electorate ... The majority of my constituents support the theory that we should resign from council if we want to stand for government, be it state or federal. Councils are a form of government and so they should be treated in the same way. He went on to say— However, on quite a number of occasions people will see a mayor or a councillor put a hundred per cent of their time and energy into standing for election to parliament. Their job on the council then takes second place while that election is in process. Mr Hopper: Read the whole lot. Mr LAWLOR: I am going to read plenty of it, and members have probably guessed by now that I am quoting the member for Darling Downs. Mr Hobbs: Who wrote this rubbish anyway? Mr LAWLOR: Yes, I would really like to know. There he is. The member will be able to ask him. Mr Horan: Haven't you got a speech of your own? Mr LAWLOR: I do not have to. His argument was excellent. He has put up the best argument I have ever heard against this bill, so it will be interesting to see which way he goes when it comes to the vote. He went on— Thus, the feeling of the majority of my constituents is that it is unfair to the faithful people who put their confidence in them and elected them to sit on the council as their representative. If they are not elected, they then return to their seat on the council. The point I am making is that they are saying to their constituents, 'I would like to go one step higher and run for parliament, but if I do not happen to get elected, I will just go back to being a councillor. I do not really want to be a mayor or a councillor, but because I can't get elected to parliament I will take second best.' ... It seemed that the minority of people who disagreed were people sitting on councils themselves or who were very close friends with or had a family member in council. Mr Mickel: Fancy regarding local government as second best. Mr LAWLOR: Absolutely. He goes on— I must show my independence in this parliament and go with what I feel is the will of the majority of my constituents on the Darling Downs ... I was elected as an Independent. So on behalf of my constituents, I will be supporting this bill today. Mr Wilson: Who said that? A government member: Famous last words. Mr LAWLOR: Famous last words; the member is absolutely right. The member for Darling Downs is going to have a really difficult decision tonight. He either has to stick with his principles, which he enunciated less than 12 months ago, or he has to torpedo his high spoken principles and vote against the bill and vote for this amendment. It will be interesting to see how he reconciles his duty to all the people he polled so assiduously and purports to represent. He will have to reconcile that with his constituents whom he purports to represent so strongly. It will be an interesting little exercise to see how he votes, or whether he votes at all. He will probably abstain. Let us see what happens. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.43 p.m.): This bill seeks to repeal sections 224(A) and 299 to include in the legislation that councillors who stand for a state seat stand aside rather than resign. Comments have been made as to whether local government is a lesser job. I have to put on the record that all spheres of government—whether it is local government, state government or federal government—play an important role in the democracy of our country. I spent eight years in local government and enjoyed almost every day. I would be lying if I said I enjoyed every day, because we all have a bad day every now and then. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): A bad hair day. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is it. It is a tremendous area of work. It is very close to the community. It is very responsive. I would have to say that it is a most enjoyable area of not only 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 543

responsibility but also contact with the community. Local government workers are wonderful people as well. Whether they are administrative staff or external staff, I cannot commend them highly enough. The legislation brought in last year requires councillors to resign, and that requirement necessitates extra costs to the local authorities. It forces a by-election irrespective of the result of the state election. This amendment bill proposes to achieve the same result—and it is the government's perception that councillors use council resources for their election campaign—but the bill also contains the cost to local authorities so that by-elections are only required for those councillors who are successful at the state poll. The fact is that only very large councils would provide many of the facilities that other speakers in this debate have said are abused. Because of the size of its electorate, the Brisbane City Council provides offices and possibly cars, but I am not sure about that. The Gold Coast City Council and Cairns City Council may also be large enough, but the vast majority of councils— Mr McNamara: Is it okay to abuse it if it is a big council? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: No, the member is not listening to what I am saying. The majority of councils do not provide cars to all councillors. They do not provide offices to all councillors. They may provide an office and maybe a vehicle to the mayor, depending on the council's resources. I am not for one minute saying that it is appropriate to abuse any of the local authority's resources or funds for state government election purposes or federal government election purposes. But it is no less wrong to require any local authority to have a by-election when that by-election is unnecessary and the same result can be achieved with this legislation allowing the councillor to stand aside. Amendments made to the Queensland act in May 2001 were flawed to the extent that the LGAQ won a court action with regard to the application of the Queensland legislation to the federal jurisdiction. I believe that that win was in part due to the fact that the government of the day was in such great haste to bring the legislation in it failed to pick up that fundamental issue—that is, the appropriateness of the Queensland legislature imposing its requirements in a federal jurisdiction. It is my belief that consistency, as has been stated by many members of the government, will be achieved between local government and the Queensland parliament by the amendment bill before the House tonight. Currently, if a teacher wants to stand for a state seat, they must stand down or take leave. Police officers must stand down or take leave. They are not required to resign. Any Public Service employee in any area—whether it is an SES position or whether it is as a paid employee in a department—must stand down. They are not required to resign. Therefore, to achieve consistency, as has been greatly touted, this bill will achieve exactly that consistency. The LGAQ does not accord with the Minister for Local Government's views on this matter. It stridently opposes the obligation on local government to have unnecessary by-elections when a councillor who is supported by their community fails in a state poll and wishes to stay in the local government arena. The truth is that, if a candidate abuses their position, if a candidate for a state poll abuses the facilities of the local authority, the voters will translate their resentment of that abuse in their vote. The member for Surfers Paradise stated that he was besieged by local people to remain on the council during the campaign, and fortunately at the time he could do that. The current legislation as it stands in Queensland today removes that opportunity to save local authorities money and therefore save the ratepayers money. This amendment bill can achieve exactly the desired result that has been touted by the government—that is, to contain or resist any abuse of the facilities of the local authority. I commend the bill and I certainly support it. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (8.48 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker Fouras, in rising to oppose this bill, let me say that I share your concerns about the return of the Elgin marbles and look forward to a day when they are returned to the people of Greece. I rise to oppose this bill because the Local Government Amendment Bill 2001 is not only foolish but were we not debating it tonight I would be in attendance at the Toowong History Group. Next year the Toowong History Group is celebrating a major milestone in the history of Toowong. I oppose this bill for a number of reasons. I am very happy to see the National Party once again obsessed with the machinations of local councillors seeking to run for another office. As a Labor member of office I think it is wonderful to see the National Party absolutely obsessed with what for it is a bread and butter issue. When the Beattie Labor government this week made some tremendous announcements in the areas of education, the National Party is concerned 544 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

with the mechanics of how local councillors can run for another office. This is further proof that the Nats genuinely are heading in the wrong direction. They are obsessed with issues such as guns and local councillors. It would be good for democracy in this state if they actually got back to representing people's genuine and real concerns. Some of the members opposite have argued that the act that this bill amends is in some way an affront to democracy, that in some way it is an attack upon the ability of local councillors to run for a higher office. They have argued that, by not allowing local councillors to just drop everything and run for state government, we are in some way criticising the role that local councillors play within democracy here in Queensland. There has been talk of morality and moral degradation. Quite frankly, to listen to some of the members opposite speak in this debate during the last sitting one would think that the absence of this legislation was going to transform Queensland into some sort of a place that would make Sodom and Gomorrah look righteous. It is an affront to democracy in this country when a national leader lies and misleads the Australian people during an election campaign. Using falsehoods and mistruths is an affront to democracy. I was appalled by the behaviour of John Howard. I was appalled by the behaviour of Peter Reith although, quite frankly, I would expect it from him. I was appalled by the behaviour of 'Smirk' Costello as he sat back knowing exactly what was going on when those people were not being thrown off a boat into the sea while it was sinking. I believe that they knew. I believe that the federal Liberal-National government used the situation about which they knew the full facts and the Australian people did not to seek to propagate a myth about refugees and a myth about asylum seekers in this country. That is an affront to democracy, not the requirement of local councillors to stand aside or resign when they want to run for a seat in the state parliament. The bill's explanatory notes state— The following Bill will enable councillors to stand aside from their council duties for only the duration of the election campaign in which they stand as a nominated candidate for Parliament. They go on to say— Further, by amending Section 298(3) (Qualification for nomination), and inserting a new Section 299A (Councillor to take leave to contest State Election), this will provide for the councillor to officially become a candidate for the election at the time of the display of the names at the returning officer's office under the Electoral Act 1992, section 88(3). As a result, the councillor will only be required to stand aside from their council position and duties for the shortest time possible, that is the duration of the election campaign. In other words, the bill will give local councils and their residents the worst of both worlds. Not only will they be without representation but they will have a councillor who clearly has taken their eye off the ball. Mr Mickel: They do not want the job. Mr LEE: They do not want the job. That is the indication that this would give to their local residents. Let us be clear about this. This bill introduced by the National Party is suggesting that for a period of time, namely the period that a local councillor is a nominated candidate for a state election, their council ward will be without a councillor. That is what it is saying. It is fairly obvious what would happen if this bill were to become law. Let me give honourable members an example. When I first moved to Australia from Ireland I lived in Pine Rivers for a length of time. Let me talk about Pine Rivers. Hypothetically, were the councillor for division 6 to decide that they wanted to run for state government and nominated as a candidate for the state election, whether it was as an Independent, a Labor candidate, a Liberal candidate, a National candidate, a One Nation candidate or an Independent who subsequently decides that they are not really an Independent or whatever, their division would most certainly be disadvantaged. Their division would be without representation, yet the members opposite suggest that in some way this bill strengthens our democracy. It is only members of the National Party who can get their heads around this. They are actually saying that, by not having a representative, our democracy is strengthened. That is absolutely ludicrous. One of the members opposite talked about the impact this would have on local communities, that if local councillors did not have the opportunity to run for state government without resigning this would have a terrible effect on local communities. Again, we see this classic logic of the National Party: not having a local councillor is really good for the local community. They talked about the fact that—and this was an absolute corker—some councillors do really 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 545

hard work, and I know councillors work hard. They said that some of these poor councillors do not even have fax machines. I point out to them that it was their mob in Canberra who flogged off Telstra. If they want to talk about local councillors not having fax machines they should talk about the service that Telstra operates. They also said that some councillors are so good that they work in a semivoluntary capacity. I am sure that throughout the state a lot of councillors work in a semivoluntary capacity. Some of them receive perhaps only a meeting allowance. This bill is suggesting that they should work in no capacity at all for their local residents. That is just silly. At one stage the members opposite suggested that the bill was about respect for local councillors. Quite frankly, I can acknowledge that local councillors deserve respect, but leaving a local community without representation for a length of time while a local councillor seeks election to another office is demonstrating absolute, total and utter disrespect for the local community. I think it is wrong, and I will conclude my contribution on this point. I am opposing the Local Government Amendment Bill 2001. I guess we could also call it the 'National Party let's find a candidate bill'. I think it is wrong that the National Party would use the issue of people running for elected office and seeking to strengthen our democracy as a political football around this place. It is wrong that they would desire a situation in which local communities are unrepresented by a local councillor. I will most certainly be opposing this bill. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (8.58 p.m.): First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Southport. That is the best speech he has delivered in the House since he has been elected. Why? Because I wrote it! It is quite easy to read something from Hansard, but let us get down to the real issue here. I rise to speak on this bill today and feel it is only fair to say that I will be voting with the National Party and I will enjoy explaining my reasons for doing so. Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: They are so rude. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I would like to hear the member for Darling Downs. I do not think that everybody interjecting at once does much for this parliament. Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I appreciate that. The way in which this bill was presented to the House last year was simply a ploy to stop the conservative side of the House from being able to draw its candidates from the great training ground known as local government. I have been a member for a year now and I have worked closely with all the councils in my electorate. That has given me a fine insight into just how skilled some of those councillors are. Let us put the boot on the other foot and pass some bills to say that the Labor Party cannot draw its candidates from the union movement. The government thinks that it has the ability to lower our scope of talent by legislation when the High Court of Australia has ruled against this on a federal level. This is a total disgrace to the democracy of the state of Queensland and this nation. With all due respect to the minister—and I respect the minister; she was the mayor of Bundaberg—the minister must surely know this. The original legislation was one of the biggest cons ever placed before this House last year. The hidden agenda was never exposed, especially to the country people who so faithfully support their local government representatives. That legislation was designed totally to protect the Labor Party and to keep it in power. I challenge my Labor member— Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: The members opposite should listen to this; they might learn something. I challenge any Labor member who holds a country seat and who spoke to the original legislation to send a copy of their speech to every councillor in their electorates. Better still, why do they not publish their speeches in support of that legislation in their local rag before the next election? For those members who are worried about how I supported this last year, if they are good enough to listen and not be so rude—they might learn something—I will refer to a few things that I said back on 17 May last year when the original bill was introduced. I said— The downside to this situation, I feel, is that this will no doubt incur extra costs on our councils, as when a councillor resigns the council is faced with the cost of an election. That will make it extremely hard for some of our councils that are struggling. This will obviously make a councillor think about whether or not he or she should stand for parliament, and they probably will not, because if they do not get re-elected to council at the council election they could be considered to be a traitor. However, from the electorate of Darling Downs west it is quite often extremely hard to get a good representative to stand for council, simply because of the distances 546 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

involved—they are the same distances that their children have to travel to schools. It would involve time away from home. A lot of those men and women are tied up on their properties and working so hard that to stand for council would be a real pain for them. Quite often the councils are the only institutions from those areas from which a good politician can come, be it for state or federal government. This is from my speech last year, which the members opposite are raving on about, because they do not have the ability to listen. I stated further— Also, a lot of Labor people come from the trade union movement. They climb the ranks and eventually throw their hat into the ring. The same often occurs in our town and shire councils. Everyone here knows that that happens. It is a little unfair that people can come straight out of the trade union movement without resigning, yet a councillor has to resign before standing for parliament. So tonight I support totally the member for Warrego and I commend the bill to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (9.03 p.m.): I rise to oppose the bill before the House. I wish to take issue with some of the arguments that have been advanced by some members in relation to the alleged rights of politicians, which I suggest completely misses the point. Some members have stood in this place and proclaimed blithely that local government is an excellent training ground for state politics and that councillors should not have their natural career paths blocked. What rubbish! They should go and ask the people what they think about those arguments. The member for Darling Downs did. He knows and he is on the record saying how much people hate their councillors abusing their trust. They certainly demonstrated how they felt about it at the last state election. Seventeen sitting councillors were nominated and only one, the member for Kawana, was elected. So much for the alleged excellent training ground. So much for the natural career paths. The people want all elected representatives to serve their terms. I know that the member for Nanango has a bill before the House that seeks to penalise members who resign from this place, and I will not debate that issue now. But I will say that, although I think the honourable member's bill is too harsh and not well thought out, I note that the sentiment behind her bill is that there is a strong public view that elected representatives should serve their terms of office. Let me assure the House that this is the very, very strong view of the many people in my electorate to whom I have spoken about this issue. It was illustrated bluntly in the election held on 17 February 2001. The National Party endorsed Hervey Bay's then Deputy Mayor Randall McLellan as its candidate at the last state election. Councillor McLellan had been re-elected easily in his division at the 2000 council elections. But those same constituents were mortified that the bloke who they had just voted to represent them on the Hervey Bay City Council for a four-year term had, barely nine months later, announced his intention to betray their trust and seek a different job. They were furious and my phone rang hot with people telling me just how angry they were and shocked that they had been betrayed by Dr McLellan. A government member: What party did he stand for? Mr McNAMARA: He stood for the National Party. They were not interested in any natural career path arguments. People were not interested in any argument that local government was an excellent training ground. What happened on 17 February 2001 is not a matter of opinion or argument. The people of Hervey Bay gave Randall McLellan 17 per cent of the primary vote. He came fourth. This is the guy who romped home—romped home—in the election for division 3 just 11 months previously. At that time he enjoyed a high and positive profile as the then sitting deputy mayor. This is a seat that the National Party used to hold on the primary vote. So what went wrong? Precisely the same arrogant and self-centred arguments that have underpinned the thinking that we have heard from the opposition side of the House in favour of this bill. The people of Hervey Bay were not interested in politicians' career paths. They do not see the election to council as a line on someone's CV. They see it as a commitment, a trust between the electors and the elected. The National Party thinks that local councillors make good ready-made candidates. That might have been the view of the public once, but it is not any longer. Those who doubt me should test my position by asking themselves this question: how do they think a candidate for local government would go if he said to the electorate, 'I want to be elected to council because it is an excellent training ground for state politics and I see my career path as going into state politics at the first opportunity even if it is only a few months away.' How do members reckon they would go? The fact is that I do not know of anybody who has ever tried that argument, which suggests that no-one thinks that that is a good idea. 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 547

I am opposing this bill because it is opposed by everyone I have ever spoken to who is not a sitting councillor. There are 25,000 voters in my electorate, of whom nine are members of the council. I am sorry if some of those nine voters may feel that their so-called natural career path is being blocked, but I have no doubt that if they serve their terms and then choose to contest a state election, they will receive due credit for the experience that they have gained on the council and people will remember what they have done while on the council. But the public do not see elected council office as a training ground for state parliament. That is a hopelessly out of touch view of party apparatchiks who have not noticed that the public has been belting parties and councillors who treat them as mugs. So I say to those supporting this bill: ask yourselves, 'Is a bill that primarily serves the interests of wannabe politicians and political parties looking for ready-made candidates in the interests of their electorate?' To those Independent members who are supporting this bill, I say: ask yourselves if there is not just a fair bit of retrospective self-justification in backing these self- serving arguments about career paths and training grounds. They should ask themselves if they have been backed on this issue by anyone who is not a sitting councillor, or a party machine loyalist, or a friend who just cannot bring themselves to look them in the eye and say, 'Mate, that is rubbish.' They should ask themselves how many of their constituents would vote for a council candidate who said that they planned to jump ship after the election if they got a better offer. Finally, they should ask themselves if honesty in politics does not demand that elected representatives should be encouraged to enter politics intending to complete their terms. I do not support sitting councillors being barred from running for other levels of government. Far from it! Nor do I think they should be penalised with the cost of a by-election if they resign to contest an election for another level of government. But the existing legislation does not prevent any councillor running for a seat in parliament. What it says is what the public wants: if a councillor has decided they want a job somewhere else, do the right thing and resign so that someone who wants to serve on the council can do so. Members should ask themselves how they would go in any other area of employment if they went to their existing employer and said, 'I know I have just signed up for a four-year contract but I have decided I want to work somewhere else, but I would like to keep my job here on full pay. While I am applying for this new job, I want you to keep paying me. If I get the new job, you will be up for the cost of finding my replacement. If I don't get the job, I just want to settle back in, no questions asked.' How many private employers would cop that? In case anyone doubts my bona fides on this matter, let me tell the House that I would not put up with this sort of behaviour from myself! On 30 June 2000, I terminated the partnership in my law firm because, as a candidate for political office, I could not give my firm my full commitment, I could not give my partner my undivided attention and I could not give the firm my full-time efforts. From 1 July 2000, I worked 20 hours a week as an employed solicitor. I terminated the partnership and worked a 20-hour week as an employed solicitor to give me the time to campaign. From Christmas 2000 until the election, I ceased employment completely in order to devote the necessary time to campaigning. I assure the House that the many electors I spoke to on this issue during the campaign were affronted at the concept of someone being paid by ratepayers to do a job for them on council while they were in fact out on the streets, doorknocking and campaigning for a different job at a different level of government. Ratepayers and residents in Hervey Bay were irate that the high office they had bestowed on their councillor should be treated as a mere stepping stone, a convenient campaigning platform and, most insulting of all, a cushy fall-back position in the event of electoral failure. That might have worked once, but no longer. The people will not cop it, and nor should they. If a councillor has decided they want a different job, so be it; but the public will demand that they resign and clear the decks. The current legislation reflects the clear, overwhelming public attitude. The public are adamant that such candidates not further compound the breach of trust by moonlighting on the campaign trail for a different job. In conclusion, I believe that many good people with local government experience will continue to be elected to this place. However, they will get here honestly and not by treating electors with disdain. They will serve out their terms and then run without conflict. I have listened to the arguments of those supporting this bill, but I consider that the interests of sitting councillors and political parties pale into insignificance against what I am completely convinced is the overwhelming public opinion on this issue. Accordingly, I will be voting against the bill. Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (9.12 p.m.): I rise to support the bill proposed by the member for Warrego for the following reasons: local government is generally, especially in rural 548 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

areas, an unrewarding job. It is demanding, underpaid, controversial and demands sacrifices in the interests of the local community. For those reasons, serving on local government, and serving well, identifies those members of the community who are willing to make an effort and to make sacrifices in the interests of their community. Those individuals are incredibly valuable assets to any community and in our current society, in which there is an increasing loss of community feeling, such people are becoming an increasingly rare and valuable community asset. Governments at all levels are supposed to be servants of the people. The level of understanding of the problems of the ordinary Australian family, particularly the ordinary rural Australian family, how they think, what they need and, more importantly, the level of genuine consultation with such people has been steadily decreasing. To take any action which hinders local council members from entering state politics is equivalent to denying the people of Queensland access to a proven asset. Being a genuine, hardworking member of this chamber is an unrewarding, self-sacrificing, family-sacrificing, underpaid occupation for capable people. If we, as a Smart State, genuinely want the best for our constituents, we must vote in favour of this bill. Those who vote against it reveal to the people of Queensland that they are more interested in and motivated by self- interest, power and the views and doctrines of a particular political sect. This is not in the best interests of Queensland and the people of Queensland. Thus, I support the bill and strongly urge individual members to analyse why they are in this chamber. To my mind, how they vote on this bill will reveal to their constituents their motivation for being in this chamber and where their true interests lie. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (9.15 p.m.): I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Local Government Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to amend legislation, namely the Local Government Act, by removing section 224A relating to the requirement for local councillors to resign should they nominate for election to state parliament. Let us be honest: some individuals who have been elected to serve as councillors want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be in a position to protect the advantages of local government incumbency and, at the same time, to be able to seek office in another jurisdiction. They want the gain without any of the pain. They want those who voted them into office as councillors to be without representation while they take leave of absence to pursue their personal ambitions. The 2001 amendments to the Local Government Act passed by this House in May of that year inserted section 224 in two parts. Part A referred to councillors standing for state office and part B covered those vying for federal office. In an action brought before the Court of Appeal in November 2001 by the LGAQ, section 224B was ruled invalid. It needs to be said that this decision was not based on the fairness or the merits of the section but merely on the fact that a state parliament could not legislate on a matter in relation to Commonwealth elections. Section 224A was not overturned because the Court of Appeal quite properly took the view that the duly elected parliament of Queensland had every right to set the conditions of eligibility for election to that body. The parliament has already expressed its will in relation to this matter and I fully expect it will do so again tonight. Let us look at the basis of section 224A when it was inserted last year. At the time, the Minister for Local Government quite properly argued that its intent was to bring some degree of uniformity and consistency between the requirements for councillors and those for members of the Legislative Assembly seeking higher office. Local government electoral arrangements are, by and large, reflective of those for the state's House. A member of this House who seeks nomination for election to the Commonwealth parliament must tender his or her resignation before nominating. It is anomalous that a councillor does not, in fact, have to do so. The bottom line is that we are dealing with the taxpayer's dollar and the taxpayer's right to genuine and continuing representation. Councillors and state members have their remuneration and resourcing funded by the taxpayer. Given that we now have four year terms for local government and given that elected councillors went to the voters on the basis they would serve out their term, does it not also follow that if a councillor opts out just because a better job offer comes along there exists some betrayal of trust? Speaking about constituent trust, I just wonder whether those members arguing for change have sought advice. I can tell the House that the average man or woman in the street is not supportive of elected councillors enjoying the best of both worlds. As explained to the House by 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 549

the Minister for Local Government, an independent survey of community attitudes carried out in October 2000 showed quite clearly that a substantial majority support the government's position. It is vital we consider carefully the proposal contained in the amendment for councillors to take leave when nominating for higher office. The amendment is deficient. It places no restrictions on a nominating councillor other than they are to receive no remuneration, nor are they to act in office. This does not preclude them from utilising their resources of office in their political quest. The council fax machine, email, vehicles, subsidised home telephone, et cetera, are not out of bounds. There would be an absolute outcry if a public servant took the same line. The proponents of this amending bill make much of the democratic right of every citizen to stand for parliament. I agree. However, the councillor candidate for state election has already made a choice to contest an election and to fulfil the responsibilities associated with local government. Why should their constituent ratepayers bear the cost of their personal ambitions by being unrepresented for a period of time, then being expected to welcome them back if they fail in their quest? The act, as it exists, is fair. It is in keeping with the views of the majority of people in this state. I therefore cannot support the bill. I urge all members to vote it down. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.19 p.m.): At the outset, let me say that if there is such a thing as legalised corruption we saw it in the bill put through the parliament by the Labor Party in a blatant attempt to keep one section of our community out of the race for the state parliament. We hear a lot of pontificating from the Labor Party about democracy and fairness. It is the party of rorters. It is the reason we have legislation before the House to try to put in place systems to stop the cheating and rorting that has occurred under the Labor Party for years. The Labor Party is the party with the motto 'vote early and vote often'. We have seen what it has done in different communities. It is the party of cheats. When introducing its legislation the Labor Party pontificated to the people of Queensland that it was doing something fair. However, that bill was a blatant attempt to keep one class of citizens in Queensland out of the race, because it was thought that for the most part they would stand for the National Party. Time and time again we have seen the way it operates. As the member for Darling Downs so eloquently put it, why do we not have the same rules for union officials? During the last session of parliament I was amazed at the hypocrisy on this issue from Labor members. The member for Redlands said that councillors should have to resign. We interjected and asked, 'Did you resign as a police officer?' The member hid under his seat, because he took leave or holiday pay, as most people do. It was the same in the case of the member for Whitsunday, a teacher. She took leave. The member for Everton was a union official. I bet he took leave. This is about allowing Queenslanders to stand for the state parliament without having barriers put in front of them that are not put in front of other people. I cite as an example a young councillor with kids who has been serving on council for a couple of terms and wants to stand for parliament. Where would he stand if he did not win a seat? I would like a poll to be conducted in which the average person on the street was asked: 'If you were forced by legislation to resign from your job before you stood for a seat, particularly if that seat was marginal or difficult to win, would you still stand for politics?' The Labor Party has tried to turn councillors into second-class citizens. It has placed a barrier in front of them for snide and corrupt political reasons. The member for Logan will give his usual contribution after mine. He has gloated about how he thought this up because he was worried about a local councillor who was thinking about standing against him. He saw that legislation as an opportunity. As I said, it is legalised corruption. It is corruption by stealth. It shows the depths to which the Labor Party will sink to twist everything to its advantage and say, 'This is wonderful. We have done this for democracy. We have done it for the people.' I wish to put on the record the objectives of this bill, because they are important. This bill will allow local councillors to stand for election, but they will be able to stand aside for a minimum length of time when the election is officially declared so that they are not a burden on ratepayers. If they do not win a seat, they are able to return to local government when the poll is declared. This process will reduce costs. Let us look at the figures for the past 12 months. I think there have been some 43 by- elections, with only one resulting from the last state government elections. It will mean that those councillors who are not successful will return to their jobs and there will be no cost to the people. 550 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

There will be minimal disruption—probably about four, five or six weeks—similar to the disruption that occurs when people take holidays. A similar thing happens when police officers, schoolteachers and other people stand aside and take leave. It is important that people feel they can stand for election, particularly those who might not be too well off or who are not in your circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said that you would be able to resign from your business. No doubt you might have found things a bit tough. I do not know whether you are well off. Often people in a profession would find themselves in more favourable circumstances than those in other areas. Our bill is about giving everybody an equal chance to stand for state parliament. It is about removing the barrier that the Labor Party has imposed on people, for example, who might have served time in local government and gained knowledge and experience. That is not to say that it is necessarily a stepping stone. I am talking about people who have grown in stature and experience who have developed the will and passion to serve and who want to move to state parliament. This government has placed a barrier in front of them. Our bill amends the corrupt legislation of the Labor Party. Our bill allows local government members to be treated with the same consideration as other people in our community. Our bill allows them to stand aside for a minimum length of time so there is no burden on the ratepayer. Our bill will minimise the number of by-elections. Our bill will mean that local government councillors will be treated the same as officers of the Public Service, union officials or employees in a business where the owner allows them to stand down or take holiday pay and come back if not elected. Our bill is fair, just and about true democracy. It is not a rort, unlike Labor's legislation. It is not trying to cheat by some sort of pseudo legal means. Our bill is fair, gives everybody a go and imposes the minimum burden on ratepayers in terms of the time people stand aside. As I said, our bill amends the Local Government Act to remove that barrier. Presently, councillors are required to resign from council to stand for state election. Councillors will be able to stand aside from their council duties for the duration of an election campaign where they are standing as a nominated candidate for parliament. It will omit the government's earlier inclusion of section 224A, under which a councillor ceases to be a councillor on becoming a candidate for an Australian parliament, from the Local Government Act 1993. Amending section 298(3), 'Qualification for nomination', and inserting a new section 299A, 'Councillor to take leave to contest a state election', will provide for the councillor to officially become a candidate for the election at the time of the display of the names at the returning officer's office under the Electoral Act 1992. As a result, the councillor will only be required to stand aside from their council position and duties for the shortest time possible. In May 2001 the National Party opposed the passage of the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill in relation to the insertion into the Local Government Act 1993 of section 224A under which the councillor ceases to be a councillor on becoming a candidate for Australian parliament. It is important to note that, out of the 74 submissions received as to whether or not councillors should resign, 61 opposed the proposal and the majority of those 61 represented various local governments in Queensland. The government and particularly the Minister for Local Government, being so out of touch, passed legislation on the incorrect premise that shire councillors across rural and regional Queensland were full-time or salaried councillors. We have heard a number of my colleagues speak about how many of these councillors are simply on allowances, an hourly rate or meeting rate. Labor members spoke about councillors having cars and huge salaries. The bulk of local councillors are on a meeting rate. Hardly any of them are paid a car allowance. They give much of their time in a voluntary, or honorary, capacity. On 21 November 2001 the Court of Appeal found in favour of the Local Government Association of Queensland in an appeal against the legislation in relation to federal elections. In light of the Federal Court's decision, which questioned the validity of the Beattie government's legislation, it is imperative that local councillors in Queensland be able to stand as candidates for state parliament without having to resign their position on council. Our bill is about treating local councillors just like everybody else in Queensland—on a level playing field. They should be treated the same as union officials, police officers, teachers and other public servants. They should be treated like decent, ordinary members of the community. They should not be subjected to the trickery, corruption, cheating and rorting that is endemic to the Labor Party, which makes every attempt to keep these people out and prevent them from serving their communities as a state member of parliament. 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 551

Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (9.30 p.m.): As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition I was reminded of the Irishman in the dock. The judge said to him, 'How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?' The Irishman looked up at him and he said, 'I don't know, Your Honour. I haven't heard the evidence yet.' And as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition I certainly did not hear any evidence at all—none that makes me change my mind. The Leader of the Opposition is electorally debilitated. Does anybody seriously believe that in that seriously electorally debilitated state he is ever going to deliver electoral justice? Of course he is not. And how do we know that? We know that because the Leader of the Opposition is not leading opposition members anywhere. He is leading them out of oblivion and into the hereafter. The fact of the matter is that he was willing to sidle up to the member for Darling Downs and use that vote—use that piece of trickery—to get him across to the National Party. A journal I love to read from time to time is none other than the Toowoomba Chronicle. A fetching date for that publication was 20 March 2001. It contains that statement that Mr Hopper has been courted by the National Party, since he used to be a member, but he will not be changing back, as happened with the former member for Barambah, Mr Trevor Perrett. According to the Chronicle, Mr Hopper said, 'I was elected as an independent and that is how I will stay.' He is the Indian rubber man, bouncing around from party to party and position to position. What about last year's position when Peter Taylor—who is now tailor made for the seat of Darling Downs—was breathing down Mr Hopper's neck? He could not wait to keep him out. But this year, of course, it is a different story. The Indian rubber man and the Leader of the Opposition are happy to take his vote and do anything to stave off the member for Callide, who is sitting there as a model of patience. I have never seen the honourable gentleman so restrained as he has been lately—realising that it is seven votes to five. He is so close and yet so far away. I have done my best to comfort him, knowing that the prize is only a couple of seats away. The poor old dear is sitting there, and I will be back here tomorrow to comfort him again, knowing that one day that prize will be his. As I said, there is no evidence of change from the Leader of the Opposition. Only a year ago, when the state election was being held, I was the one who enjoined the National Party and the Logan City Council to do exactly what this bill does: get those characters to stand aside. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'They don't have cars or anything like that.' No, they do not have cars; they have $65,000, a car and a mobile phone. Ms Stone: And the funds. Mr MICKEL: I forgot the doozey: the $120,000 slush fund. As I pointed out in a speech last year—and I am happy for this to become an annual debate—a lot of that money in the discretional fund was used where? In the wards that they were contesting! So there was no electoral decency out of this—none whatsoever. I do not believe for one second that the National Party will go forward under this Leader of the Opposition. What did Peter Taylor say? He said the Leader of the Opposition is 100 years behind and going backwards. So I do not believe for one second that, in government, this Leader of the Opposition would revert to any decency. Where is my friend the member for Surfers Paradise? He was in here before. In a great rhetorical sweep he said, 'You know, there is no other occupation in which people would have to resign.' The member for Callide was trying to whip up a bit of enthusiasm for the fact that that leadership has been denied him. The member for Surfers Paradise forgot to say this: if a person serving on local government wants to run for mayor, guess what happens? Government members: You've got to resign. Mr MICKEL: They do not quite have to resign, but they do not get their job back. So when the member for Surfers Paradise said that there was no other occupation that has to resign, he forgot his own occupation. I am not having a go at him. He is a great lawyer with an impossibly bad case. We heard from the member for Gladstone about how dreadful it was that those people have to resign. That was precisely what she had to do when she was on the Calliope Shire Council in division 4. She did not have to resign, but she certainly could not get her job back. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise also said, 'There is no other occupation that has to do that.' I heard the Leader of the Opposition ask, 'What about schoolteachers?' Let me tell him about schoolteachers. Firstly, I refer to the federal case of Cleary. Cleary was a teacher on leave without pay, and his seat was declared vacant because even under that circumstance he was deemed to hold an office of profit under the crown. That was the situation. I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition say, 'Oh well, I will get onto my federal colleagues.' Ron Boswell was in 552 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

the gallery tonight watching proceedings in here and shaking his head—I could hear him shaking his head—at the dismal performance of the Leader of the National Party. But I did not hear any case of justice in relation to that—of course not. It was the same with the Kelly case. She was in the RAAF, and her seat was declared vacant. So members opposite should not waltz in here with some fancy argument that nobody else has to do this. Of course they do. All we are asking is that people in local government, an institution that I admire greatly—okay, it has a few faults in the Logan City Council, but the bulk of them are okay; they are fine— Mr English: Fall in line. Mr MICKEL: I just want them to fall in line. They have four-year terms in that important level of government. The other arrant nonsense we hear is that local government is somehow a training ground, that councillors put on L-plates and trot around the suburbs. The greatest investment that people make is in their own homes. They do not want somebody with little trainer wheels running around the place saying, 'I have woken up this morning. I reckon we should have an industrial estate right next to your house. I am in for a bit of training, and I thought that might look good.' And if members think that is a bit of malarky, they should go down to Logan City, where they will see how housing estates have been put right up against industrial estates. They will see how new subdivisions have been bisected by transmission lines. They will see how we have had to spend millions of dollars in Munruben putting in safe overpasses because entire estates empty out in dangerous circumstances onto a highway. I do not want trainees, and neither do other people. We want committed people who are focused on the job and doing the job 365 days a year, because our people are suffering from inadequate town planning provisions. That is why, in all the years we have been in government, we have had to overhaul the town planning act. Now we have the Integrated Planning Act so that these atrocities do not occur and so that people do not wake up one morning and discover that what was once a lovely little environmental strip—with kangaroos—is going to be turned into a transmission line corridor. That happens all the time in the developing suburbs. The member for Albert had to fight something like that. We have to fight it at the moment in Logan City. So members opposite need not talk to me about training plates for those sorts of people. The fact of the matter is that this legislation has to be rejected for what it is. It is just a bit of a ruse from the National Party—a bit of a deathbed repentance on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who is wallowing in the last days of leadership before, finally, those two people wake up to themselves—the member for Southern Downs and my good friend and colleague the member for Callide. Members have got the member for Callide all wrong. Beneath that hard- hearted visage is a warm flushy little piece of marshmallow. When he hanged the effigy of the former Treasurer he was in training—that is what he wants us to believe—for guerilla warfare. The member for Callide is destined to have an exalted position. I am making up to him because I reckon that one day he is going to be important, and I want to be there on the ground floor when he is going up. On those few happy notes I urge members on this side of the House and those Independents who have changed their minds tonight and who realise how silly they have been— Time expired. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (9.39 p.m.): Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The member has previously spoken on the bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Mr HOBBS: I was not aware that members could speak twice on the same bill. Mr Reeves: Vaughan spoke three times. What are you talking about? Mr HOBBS: Some might talk more than others, but I would like it clarified that the member has already spoken. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Pumicestone, it appears that you have spoken on this bill. The member for Pumicestone, having spoken previously to the bill, was ruled out of order. 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 553

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (9.46 p.m.): I rise to speak very briefly about why I cannot support the Local Government Amendment Bill. Just over 12 months ago— Mr Hobbs interjected. Ms STONE: No. I did not speak during the last sittings. I can assure the member of that. Just over 12 months ago the people of Queensland voted for their state government. The residents of Springwood went to the polling booths to select their state government representative. On 17 February 2001 I was elected by the people of Springwood to represent them until the next election, when of course they will decide again who they wish to represent them. They did not vote for me to represent them until I decided I did not want to do that any more. They did not elect me to run off on another venture and then, if that did not work out, come back. The people elected me to do my job and to do my job until they decided on another representative. So why should the people of Queensland have their representation in local government stopped because the person they said they wanted to do the job changes their mind? If a local government representative wishes to change their job, then let them resign and let someone who does want to be a councillor come on board and do the job. To stand down is an insult to the people who put that councillor there. The electors deserve better. They deserve a councillor who wants to work for them in a local government. To the people of Springwood I say: thank you for electing me as your state government member. I have no plans to go off on a tangent and I will be working for you right up until the next election. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (9.48 p.m.): I have seen it all. I have spent 15 years in parliament and until now I had never seen someone speak twice in the same debate. The government is trying to rort the system in Queensland. It is even trying to rort the legislation before the House. Mr Lawlor: We were just testing you out. It took you five minutes to wake up. Mr HOBBS: I bet you were just testing me out. The proposed new laws would allow councillors to stand aside from their council duties for the duration of the election campaign in which they stand as a candidate for state parliament. It seems as if the majority of Labor members in this House tonight believe that most councillors have motor cars, offices and fax machines. The reality is that some of them get only a roll of fax paper and an allowance. In the fish bowl government members live in, they talk about councillors in their particular region. Yes, there are councillors who earn higher salaries and who do have those things, but the majority do not. It is important that government members understand that. This amendment would restore the rights of Queenslanders to vote for the candidate of their choice and the democratic right of councillors to stand for state parliament without first resigning their council position. The Court of Appeal recently found that the legislation was unconstitutional in restricting councillors from running for federal parliament. Despite that, the Beattie government has refused to repeal those provisions which restrict councillors from running for state parliament. In this instance, the courts are on our side. They say that what was done by this state government was in fact wrong. It is up to the government to change the state laws to reflect the opinion of that court decision. The changes proposed in this bill will do so and will overturn the Beattie government's restrictions and instead introduce a fairer and more democratic requirement that councillors stand aside. We are saying that councillors should stand aside for the duration of any state election campaign that they may contest. We believe that that is reasonable enough. That should allay the fears of those members of parliament who have concerns about councillors using their resources and being paid while contesting an election for higher office. If they stand aside, we believe that is one way to work through this issue. The only reason the Beattie government wants to shut councillors out from running for state parliament is to protect Labor MPs from challenges by councillors and to improve Labor's electoral chances. The reality is this: in the last 13 years— Mr Cummins: The only one that won the last election was a Labor member. Mr HOBBS: Ha, ha, ha! Why didn't the member for Kawana resign? Why didn't he have the guts to resign under the Labor Party policy? He did not have the guts at all, did he? He stood up there and took the money. The cheque was banked every week. What about the car and the mobile phone? He had all that during his election campaign, and that was against Labor Party policy. He is a hypocrite. In the last 13 years there have been 33 councillors— An opposition member interjected. 554 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

Mr HOBBS: He would not have stood for election if he had to resign. He would not have had the courage. He does not have the ticker. He would not stand. Some 33 councillors have entered this state parliament in the last 13 years. Some 18 have been conservative, 13 have been Labor and two have been Independents. I wonder why Labor is trying to knock them out. It is as simple as that. One does not have to be all that smart. Even the member for Kawana can work it out. It is quite simple. This prevents conservatives and other candidates from running against Labor and stops high-profile councillors from running against Labor candidates. Mr Johnson: Does it apply to the unions, too? Mr HOBBS: No, it does not. The member for Gregory rightly asks: does this apply to the union movement? The answer is no. If I asked members in this House to show their hands if they came from the union movement, most of the hands of those opposite would go up. The Local Government Minister has also made a number of misleading statements in the House in relation to this bill. When explaining the grounds on which 224A(b) of the Local Government Act was found by the Court of Appeal to be invalid, she has told only half the story. The minister implied that the court's decision was based solely on the finding that only the Commonwealth parliament can legislate on this matter in relation to Commonwealth elections. The minister omitted to mention that the court unanimously held that section 224A(b) is also invalid on the grounds of inconsistency with section 327 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which prohibits interference with the free exercise of political rights in relation to Commonwealth elections. Where are all the civil libertarians on the other side of the House now? They are nowhere to be seen. In other words, the Court of Appeal unanimously found that section 224A(b) interfered with the free exercise of political rights. That is what the court said. This raises an important question for all members in the House to consider. I ask members to listen to this. Why should the political rights of Queensland councillors and voters in relation to state elections be less than those that they enjoy in the case of Commonwealth elections? The Local Government Minister has also misrepresented a statement by the President of the Court of Appeal in the relevance decision. The president pointed out that there are substantial considerations as to why the occupation of an office such as local government councillor during a federal election campaign may be undesirable. In making this statement, the president was acknowledging that certain office holders should not occupy their office during federal election campaigns. This is entirely different from saying that such office holders should lose their job upon becoming a candidate, as the Local Government Minister has implied. In effect, the President of the Court of Appeal has highlighted the mischief that this bill would address by forcing councillors to stand down when contesting state elections, and that is true. It is there. It is quite clear. It is ironic that by introducing section 224A of the Local Government Act the government has succeeded in manipulating the electoral system to an extent which dwarfs that of any of the rorts exposed in the Shepherdson inquiry. Fewer conservative MPs, fewer Independents and a reduced risk of high-profile councillors taking on sitting MPs at elections are the intended effects of the government's law. Section 224A represents an underhanded attempt by the government to entrench Labor Party advantage by undemocratic means. It has nothing to do with good policy. For more than 100 years councillors throughout Australia enjoyed the right to contest Commonwealth and state elections without having to give up their jobs as councillors. Many councillors of all political persuasions have gone on to honourably serve their local communities and their state as parliamentarians. Why does the government now believe that this flow of councillors to higher office is undesirable? We have heard ad nauseam from Labor members of the House that the government's law banning councillors from contesting state elections is needed to achieve consistency with the requirements which apply to state MPs seeking higher office. But consistency can be a good thing or a bad thing. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The onus is on the government to explain why the councillors and voters of Queensland should be denied political rights they previously enjoyed. Unlike MPs, a large number of councillors are part-timers who receive little financial benefit for their efforts. The issue of consistency is an absolute red herring. In any event, in the process of achieving its version of consistency, the government has made the Queensland laws in this area inconsistent with the laws of the Commonwealth and every other state and territory of the nation. While the government says that it is trying to be consistent, it is now inconsistent because of the High Court decision. Inconsistency between the requirements of councillors and state MPs seeking higher office obviously was not an issue that concerned the 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 555

founding fathers of our nation or subsequent generations of law-makers in the federal and state parliaments. Perhaps they were not as smart as the members of this government. It is interesting to note that at the Constitutional Convention held in Melbourne in 1898 the founding fathers amended a clause which became section 44 of the Constitution so that state ministers would be exempt from the ban on Crown officers being elected to the Commonwealth parliament. This was done because it was recognised that state ministers of the day had experience and knowledge which should not be lost to a new federal parliament. Similarly, councillors have experience and knowledge that can be beneficial in service as an MP. A long history of achievement and honourable service by numerous past and present members of the House from a local government background demonstrates that councillors as a group have much to offer this House and the people of Queensland. Mr Johnson: The member for Gladstone. Mr HOBBS: Many former councillors have been elected. This government is intent on excluding from the chamber the very people who are most likely to have an interest in serving their communities through elected office. Members opposite seem to think that councillors have attained a state seat by some strange means and are clinging to that power. They may enter local government and see the need to go elsewhere. Most members in this chamber have at some stage moved and progressed through life and various jobs. Mr Cummins: Except yourself. Mr HOBBS: I have done quite a lot of jobs, as a matter of fact. The member for Logan argued that allowing councillors to contest state elections encourages nomination without responsibility. These are impressive sounding words, but what do they mean? The only possible meaning I can think of is that he thinks people will nominate irresponsibly if they have the option of contesting state elections without giving up their jobs and that they should therefore be forced to sacrifice their job if they choose to nominate. Such thinking demonstrates complete ignorance or contempt for the fundamental democratic principle that people have the right—the opportunity—without unreasonable restrictions to contest general elections. The government has also defended its undemocratic law by claiming that it merely acted on behalf of ratepayers who might not be happy about their councillors not serving a full term. The presence in this House of the member for Surfers Paradise proves that not all ratepayers share the government's view on the appropriateness or otherwise of councillors contesting state elections, and the member for Surfers Paradise came to this place even after the state government brought this legislation before the House. Therefore, the proof of the pudding is that people do not share the view of the government that councillors should not stand for state parliament. As I have said, this issue can and should be democratically resolved. The affected ratepayers should have the right to either support or oppose the candidates at the ballot box. Voters do not need the government to make this decision for them. That is what democracy is all about: people having the right to freely choose for themselves who should represent them in parliament. That right should not be curtailed unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits of curtailment clearly outweigh the adverse consequences for democracy. I point out to the minister that the curtailment imposed in section 224A of the Local Government Act fails that test. I would like to thank the many members who have made a contribution to the debate on this amendment bill before the House. The minister said that it was not a major issue for councils and that some councils did not even respond on that matter. However, the majority did. Overall, the majority of the councillors of this state responded because of the number of councils that they represented. Not one council of which I am aware actually supported what the minister has done. If she has letters of support from a council that has supported it as a whole, I would love her to table them. The minister cannot say that the community opposed what we are trying to do because she does not have any data. All she did was a little bit of dodgy research involving about 300 or 400 people. It depends on the questions she asked as to what answers she received. Even then only a very small majority of people went her way. If she had conducted a proper, comprehensive survey she would have got different results. The minister said that the amendment bill that I have introduced does not apply to the Brisbane City Council, that in fact the drafting is erroneous. However, that is not the way that I see it. What I have put in my amendment bill in relation to the Brisbane City Council, which comes under a different local government act, is the appropriate legislative method for deferring 556 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

powers within the Local Government Act. That is how it has been presented to her in this chamber tonight. If the minister is correct, then previous local government legislation would also be legislatively deficient. If that is the case, she ought to go back and rewrite the other bills that she has brought into the House in recent times. The member for Gregory said that good quality council candidates come into parliament. He made the point that members who were previously councillors have gained a good background in relation to local and state government and it is a good stepping stone for them. In fact, he said that some of the best representations in this state chamber come from members who were previously councillors. He said that local government is a most important bastion of democracy, which of course it is. He also said that in introducing its legislation the Labor Party was playing politics with people's lives, and indeed it is. The member for Redlands said that his reason for opposing the bill is consistency. I point out to him that the High Court has knocked out the requirement of councillors to stand down to contest federal elections. So if he wants consistency, why do we not be consistent and go back and remove the provision that requires councillors to stand down in order to contest state elections? Then everyone will be able to understand it. The member for Redlands said that there was not one rule for the rich and one for the poor. However, I point out that the member did not have to resign from the police force when he entered parliament. I ask him: would he have stood for state parliament if he had had to resign? I would venture to say no, that he would not if he did not know whether or not he would have a job if he lost the election. It is lucky we have a democracy so that his pay cheque could continue to be banked every fortnight and he is now with us today. The member for Surfers Paradise said that he was motivated to include this subject in his maiden speech. He made it a feature. He talked about his family and being an Independent, but he also stated that this legislation should be targeted and directed for good purposes and not for political purposes, as has in fact been done. He also mentioned the fact that local government is a very important training ground for members of parliament. The member for Whitsunday repeated the sentiments of other Labor members. She talked about honesty. What about the research? The government was saying that there was tremendous public support for its legislation. The member for Whitsunday also said that. However, that was not true. If honourable members analyse the figures, they will see that the majority of people were surveyed. The previous Minister for Local Government, Terry Mackenroth, called for public submissions into whether the public supported this move to stop councillors from running for state parliament while still a sitting councillor. The responses that came back were about 90 per cent against what the government was doing. How can the member for Whitsunday rise in this chamber and say that we are talking about honesty when she knows that that is not true? Perhaps she did not know, but the then minister did. The member for Whitsunday was a teacher. Would she have gone back to teaching if she had missed out on her seat? Of course she would have. The member for Callide supported the member for Surfers Paradise and pointed out the difference with local government practitioners. He mentioned that the member for Surfers Paradise knows the facts. He also said that the member for Whitsunday had no idea of reality and that under the government's legislation there will be more by-elections. That is true. If we consider what happened in the last federal election in Queensland, we see that the High Court's decision saved the people two by-elections. It is very important that we talk about that. When this matter was raised with Senator Ron Boswell, he went to the Prime Minister and got his agreement to change the legislation to stop this undemocratic move by this state government. The legislation was being drafted at the time to do it legislatively, but time ran out. So they then supported the Local Government Association in their High Court bid and, of course, were successful. They proved that this government was trying to rort the system and that was knocked out. I would like to thank Senator Boswell for the work that he put into that. The member for Callide also talked about the Terrymander, as we all now know it. That is what it was called and that name will stick. He also talked about the time when he was on council. He was getting about $80 a day in meeting fees as a councillor, but he had to pay a man $100 a day to drive his tractor when he was away. That goes to show how much remuneration councillors receive. The member for Kawana was a councillor when he came to parliament, and we welcome him with the great knowledge that he possesses. We are still waiting to see the benefits of his 7 Mar 2002 Local Government Amendment Bill 557

council experience coming through. We have not seen a lot yet, but we are hoping to do so soon. Mr Foley: There are none so blind as those who will not see. Mr HOBBS: I did but see him passing by. The member for Nicklin said that if we pass this amendment bill we will be discouraging people with experience from working in the community, and he is quite right. The government is trying to discourage those people who make a genuine effort. Members opposite must remember that not all councillors are crooks. It seems that they think that is the case. As far as I am concerned, all councillors are good, hardworking people. There may be people with whom we do not agree who have a different philosophy, but they have a general interest in entering local government and serving their community. I think it is fantastic that they do that. We need to encourage them as much as we can. The member for Nicklin also said that he gained invaluable experience from his time in local government that helped him in his step into state parliament. He also made the very important point that the community can judge the calibre of a candidate because of the previous work that they have done. In many instances, they get a pig in a poke, as we can see with some of the members who were elected at the last election. They did not think that they were going to win a seat, but suddenly they did. The local community would not have known who they were. I wrote down the comments of the member for Pumicestone. I am not sure how to handle this, but if she can speak twice to a bill, I can speak twice about what she said. Mr Fouras: Do you need all this time to debate the next bill? An honourable member: She was talking about the next bill. Mr HOBBS: She was talking about the next bill? Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! I remind the member for Warrego to speak through the chair. Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your protection. The member for Pumicestone spoke in support of the original bill. Interestingly, in relation to this bill, basically she said that it had some merit in that she considers that the amendment will prevent by-elections. She is quite right. This amendment bill will save councils money. It will avoid costly by-elections because they will not be needed. Instead, the government is going to make councils foot the bill when councillors stand down to stand for election to state parliament. The member also said that her husband, Jon, had to stand down when he ran for state parliament. Mr Johnson: He stood down all right. Mr HOBBS: Yes. The member for Southern Downs summed up the situation very well. He said that the original bill was a get-even bill, that this legislation allows democracy to operate and that Labor cannot come to grips with local government. He is quite right. The members opposite seem totally obsessed with local government. I really think that they are concerned about challenges from local government, because these days councillors have a higher profile. The members opposite are quite concerned that councillors will pip them at the post. In fact, that will probably happen to a fair few members opposite. After careful consideration the member for Nanango supported my amendment, and I appreciate that. The member for Gladstone also talked about councillors being people whom Labor is trying to stop coming into parliament. She was the chairman of the Calliope shire. Her experience and depth of knowledge benefited her when she was in the very, very difficult position of holding the balance of power in this chamber. I am sure that if such a situation ever occurred again and the member who held the balance of power did not have the experience of being a councillor, they would find it extremely difficult to manage the workings of this parliament. I had difficulty following what the member for Indooroopilly talked about, but he said that the National Party was obsessed with this bill. I am not obsessed with the bill. I think that it is fair and reasonable. The High Court is on our side and the federal government is on our side. The only ones who are not on our side are the members of the Labor Party in Queensland. It just seems as though the old rorters—vote early, vote often, as the member for Toowoomba South said a while ago—have not changed a great deal. Mr Foley: I wish you had supported the High Court on Wik the way you support the High Court on this. 558 Local Government Amendment Bill 7 Mar 2002

Mr HOBBS: We will deal with that matter as we go. But right now, we are dealing with this bill. The High Court and the Supreme Court are on our side. Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: I rise to a point of order. This bill that the opposition has introduced has never been tested in a court. Mr HOBBS: There is no point of order, simply because the High Court decision is the basis upon which we have formulated this amendment bill. It is quite clear. The original bill also goes against the Commonwealth Electoral Act. So why should the rules be different from one act to the next? The minister wants consistency, but his argument has no logic at all. I do not think that the member for Indooroopilly talked about the bill. Mr Mickel: Yes, he did. Mr HOBBS: He did? Mr Mickel: Yes. Mr HOBBS: Is the member sure? Mr Mickel: Yes, absolutely. Mr HOBBS: I reckon he talked about kids overboard and Telstra. Mr Mickel: It was a great speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! The member for Logan will cease interjecting from his incorrect seat. Mr HOBBS: I am sure that the member for Indooroopilly had a good contribution to make. I really did not pick up on a lot of it apart from kids overboard and Telstra. I thought that the member for Darling Downs gave a very passionate speech and I thought that all members should have listened to it very carefully. He said that if Labor could not draw its candidates from the union movement without those candidates resigning, there would be nobody sitting opposite. The member for Darling Downs made a very good point. The member for Hervey Bay said that councillors who stood for election to state parliament were abusing the trust of the people. I do not think that they are. The member also said that the original legislation had the overwhelming support of the community. That is just not true. The member for Maryborough supported the ability of councillors to stand for parliament. I thought that he made a good contribution. The member for Mulgrave said that the original legislation brought uniformity. It does not. In fact, it makes things worse. The High Court had ruled that councillors could stand for federal parliament. The member for Toowoomba South said that if a poll was conducted as to whether or not people supported the move for everybody to resign from office before standing for election to council, the majority of people in Queensland would vote against it. I am sure that they would vote against that. But, of course, we have not even seen the wording of the question asked in the poll that the previous minister conducted, but I will tell members that I— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Logan will move back to his correct seat if he is going to interject. Mr HOBBS: I am sure that we could tell this House exactly what the wording of the question was without even seeing it. The member for Logan talked about a lot of things except the bill. He tried his hand at an Irish joke. It was not bad. I would give it seven out of 10, and that is pretty high. Dr Watson: That's too high. Mr HOBBS: The member for Moggill thinks that it should be less. Mr MICKEL: I rise to a point of order. I feel grievously misrepresented by the honourable member. I never got that in my life. I will never be able to face my electorate again after getting that result from the member. Mr HOBBS: Okay. I give the member five out of 10. The interesting thing is that he gave the member for Darling Downs a bit of a rubbishing. The member for Darling Downs is the type of person of whom the member for Logan is frightened. That is why the member for Logan brought this legislation into the chamber—to stop Independents running against members such as himself and others. Basically, Ray Hopper has done the sort of thing that the member for Logan 7 Mar 2002 Adjournment 559

did not want him to do. That is one of the reasons why this legislation is being debated in this House tonight. The next time there will be someone running against the honourable member. Time expired. Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 22—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, N. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, T. Sullivan, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Purcell, Reeves Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.25 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Biddeston State School Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (10.25 p.m.): Recently the Biddeston State School lost four students. There are over 70 students enrolled in that small country primary school. As a result of this, they have lost one teacher and they have also lost teacher aide hours. They are now left with only three teachers. Their classes consist of years 6 and 7 together, years 4 and 5 together and years 3, 2 and 1 together, combined with the preschool. The preschoolers are not there every day; they attend five days a fortnight. The people of Biddeston, being true country people, have rallied together and the Parents and Citizens Association has decided to try to pay the teacher aide an extra five hours a week out of funds they have raised themselves. This is a very close-knit country area and it will be those very same people who will have to pick up the tab. I find this very hard to understand when only this week the Labor Government has been shouting about how it cares about our children's education. This is just another example of how hard it is for rural people to compete in today's world when it comes to educating our kids. The cost of this will be approximately $1,000 per term. This is a ridiculous amount to impose on the parents of the children who attend the Biddeston State School. I believe the minister must consider this problem immediately and act, if the current government wants the people of Queensland to accept the changes it is imposing on the education of our children. The funds raised by the school nearly always go towards books, equipment and things that the children can use and see. No doubt this will cause division amongst the hardworking parents, as some of them would no doubt feel extremely hard done by when only this week we have seen such a push from our government in relation to the education of our children. This is not the first example of this happening. A number of schools are experiencing the very same problem. Only a couple of years ago the Cooranga North State School did exactly the same thing. I ask the minister to look closely at this problem for the sake of the education of our rural children.

Mudgeeraba Electorate Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (10.27 p.m.): In the past 12 months, as the foundation member for Mudgeeraba, I have immersed myself in local issues and I have taken up the fight for local matters with ministers, and I continue to do so on a daily basis. I have enjoyed every minute of it. I have undertaken a major public transport project, with a survey to identify demand, and I have conducted research across the country and overseas. I have worked on a wide range of issues, covering almost every matter of state government responsibility, as well as some local and federal government matters which have been presented to me. Ms Keech interjected. Mrs REILLY: I thank the member for Albert for that interjection. Eight years ago, the Springbrook Primary School asked the then member for Nerang, Ray Connor, to help them obtain a safe drop-off zone outside the school to replace the gravelled parking provided across the road. Nothing happened. Mid last year the school approached me. I took Main Roads 560 Adjournment 7 Mar 2002

officers to Springbrook for a site visit and discussed a range of road maintenance matters with them. Primary among them was the school drop-off zone. I spoke to the district director and I wrote to the minister. The new safe drop-off zone on the same side of Springbrook Road was opened in January this year in time for the new school year. I supported the efforts of the Mudgeeraba Creek Primary School's P&C to obtain improvements for their school. It was successful in its bid, with funds allocated to last year's budget. The enormous growth in the electorate means that its facilities must keep pace. My early representations to the Education Minister were heeded with the announcement of a new primary school for the Bonogin-Reedy Creek area, due to open in 2003. I am continuing discussions with the Department of Education regarding the development of a high school for the area. I take every possible opportunity to communicate with my constituents and my Saturday morning mobile electorate offices, held once a month in different locations, are very well attended. As a member of the parliamentary Travelsafe Committee and four legislative caucus committees, I have also immersed myself in state-wide issues relating to road safety, the environment, justice, employment, training and vocational education, arts, youth, indigenous affairs, disability services and family and community services. As one can imagine, it is keeping me very busy. In cooperation with my Gold Coast colleagues from Burleigh and Broadwater, I successfully lobbied for the Gold Coast to be included in regional arts development funding. This resulted in $50,000 being made available for Gold Coast arts organisations who wish to apply for grants for arts activities and events. The year 2001 was an extraordinary one for me and a great year for the electorate of Mudgeeraba. Many individuals and organisations worked very hard to bring issues to my attention and to effect positive change, and they are to be congratulated for their efforts. I promise that I will do all I can to ensure things just get better.

Fraser Island Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (10.30 p.m.): I wish to address the current confusion which confronts stakeholders wishing to reply to the discussion paper concerning the proposed Recreation Areas Management Act for Fraser Island. The current deadline for submissions is tomorrow. Great difficulty has been experienced by stakeholders in obtaining information concerning the boundaries and exclusions defined by the 1988 Fraser Island Recreation Area Management Plan and the Great Sandy Region Management Plan, the latter resulting from a review by Fitzgerald and formulated by Molly Robson. It has never been gazetted. It is obvious that firm statements are required defining the boundaries of the recreation area, defining the date on which the first management plan was issued, revealing whether it was ever issued and revealing whether it has been reviewed as required by part 5 of the proposed RAM Act. Residential areas on Fraser Island have been specifically excluded from the impact area of the proposed RAM Act, but these residential areas fall within the jurisdiction of the Integrated Planning Act. Therefore, if the proposed act is to fulfil its objectives, surely it needs to be redrafted to reflect the IPA requirements. Thus, if there is to be meaningful consultation with properly informed stakeholders, there is an immediate need now—tonight—to substantially extend the deadline for receipt of submissions resulting from informed consideration of the discussion paper. Time is needed to allow stakeholders to consider the discussion paper in the context of the IPA rather than the Nature Conservation Act.

Breast Screening Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.32 p.m.): In relation to the statement made by the Hon. Wendy Edmond on breast screening in this parliament on 21 February, I wish to point out that it may be misleading. It was stated that cancer the size of a particle of chalk dust can now be detected. I fully support breast screening and I believe that the BreastScreen program is positive and necessary. However, for a number of reasons, not all cancers are found, and it could be misleading to state without qualification that a breast cancer the size of a particle of chalk dust, a grain of rice or a pinhead can now be detected, as has been stated by the minister and representatives of the Health Department. 7 Mar 2002 Adjournment 561

My understanding is that breast cancer that small can be found only if the cancer has a calcium base. I believe many cancers do not. There are other reasons for the cancers not being found. In one recent case I know of a cancer was missed by the readers at the QE II breast screening clinic. One doctor said it was not there. The other doctor said it was benign. The letter to the patient stated that there was no breast cancer. However, the same x-rays clearly show evidence that something the size of a thumbnail is there. It is of concern that something so clear and plain was missed. The minister is making statements without qualification that cancer as small as a particle of chalk dust can be found. On behalf of this patient, I ask that the minister correct the statement to better represent the true diagnostic situation. On behalf of her and others, I look forward to the minister's response.

Baffle Creek Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (10.33 p.m.): I wish to speak about the declaration two weeks ago of Baffle Creek as a habitat A area—something the community has been working towards for some time. The declaration of habitat A for Baffle Creek had its genesis some 10 years ago, when a young Chris Upton did his first studies concerning species and numbers of fish and crabs in the river system. Some three years ago, on behalf of the DPI, Chris also began extensive consultations with the local community and a series of more in-depth investigations into the fish species in the area to consolidate the case for a habitat A classification. Another aspect was the formation at around the same time of the Baffle Creek Management Group, which over the past couple of years has done an enormous amount of work on protecting the waterways, creeks and gullies that eventually flow into the Baffle. It is a rather extensive catchment, with a number of small creeks and gullies. The logistics involved in getting around that area are complex. The group has a number of problems to tackle in maintaining the quality of the Baffle's water. One of the major ones is the phosphate run-off from cultivated cropping and tree cropping, and the oversedimentation of the creek itself through the clearing practices up there. The hardwood plantations are not too bad once they are a few years old. However, contour planting causes a lot of problems. The job of Greg Realf and his colleagues is not easy. They are constrained by budget restrictions and time limitations. However, they do an outstanding job. The community unanimously feels that this is just one stage of the whole process for Baffle Creek and that this has to be maintained for future generations. It is only one of five rivers in the community in Queensland that does not have a weir, a dam or any catchment whatsoever. In some respects, it is unique, especially in our area. A young sailing club comprising about 70 youngsters is based there. And the crabs are not too bad, either. I applaud Greg Realf and his crew and Chris Upton for what they have done. There was quite a turn-out. There were about 40 or 50 people and it was quite good.

Public Liability Insurance; Pittsworth Golf Club Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (10.36 p.m.): Urgent state government action is needed to curtail the escalating insurance crisis in our communities. The latest victim of this crisis in my electorate, the Pittsworth Golf Club, has been informed that if it cannot find insurance cover before 4 p.m. tomorrow it will be forced to close its doors. The Pittsworth Golf Club has been an active part of the Pittsworth community since 1927. It has a membership of 250, and approximately 175 people play the course each week. It employs three permanent staff and boasts a clubhouse that is only six years old. It supports several local community services such as the Blue Nurses through special charity golf days held during the year. It actively promotes golf participation among local young people and the community, which last month won a grant under the Sport and Recreation Development Program. Obviously, the loss of this club would be intensely felt across the community. Suncorp Metway advised the golf club only two weeks ago that it would not renew its cover. Despite continued attempts since this decision to gain alternative cover it has not been able to find a willing underwriter. Some insurance companies informed it that it is too big to cover, while other companies stated that it is too small to warrant dealing with. Consequently, club members have found themselves in a catch-22 situation, with nowhere to turn and faced with the stark reality of having to close their clubhouse doors tomorrow afternoon. Only at the eleventh hour this afternoon, on the eve of the deadline, does it seem possible that they may have a chance of 562 Adjournment 7 Mar 2002

gaining insurance cover, although this is not certain and it is very likely that this insurance will be considerably more expensive because they have been forced to settle on whatever policy they are offered. The Pittsworth Golf Club is just one typical example of an enormous crisis affecting a great number of community groups, sporting organisations and businesses in my electorate and across the state. Over the coming months, many more of these groups and organisations will have their insurance policies up for review, and it is inevitable that many will face the same situation. Those that manage to keep their old cover or find a new insurance company could be faced with rises in their premiums of 200 per cent, 300 per cent or even 600 per cent or more. Our communities simply cannot be subjected to this crippling public liability crisis any longer. The state government must act now on this deepening problem. Months ago the National Party took positive action by proposing a comprehensive six-point plan to tackle the increasing public liability problem. If initiatives like those in the plan had been implemented straight away by the state government, groups such as the Pittsworth Golf Club would not have their backs to the wall and would not be facing possible closure. I implore the Premier and his government to take immediate action to assist in alleviating the crisis faced by the Pittsworth Golf Club and the plethora of community groups and organisations across Queensland that are being confronted by the same dire situation.

Ironside State School Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (10.39 p.m.): I rise to speak of a very special school within my electorate, the Ironside State School in the suburb of Indooroopilly. As part of this government's Smart State commitment, Ironside State School has been selected as a centre of excellence in maths, science and technology. It is one of eight such centres in Queensland and the only school selected in Brisbane. The Queensland government will provide additional funding of $3.3 million annually to those eight centres over three years. The purpose of the centre is to improve student learning outcomes. The school also has a responsibility to share its expertise about teaching and learning with other schools throughout Queensland. Ironside State School is an academically brilliant school. It is also a wonderful community school with excellent parent involvement. I was pleased to see so many parents attend at Parliament House recently with the year 7s. We had classes 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D attend for a tour of Parliament House. They are the classes of Mrs Leah Dunstan, Mrs Amanda Cooper, Mrs Jane Backhaus and Mr Ted Jackson. This morning I was delighted—and it was a very great pleasure—to present the house captain badges to this year's house captains at Ironside State School. Kim Donaldson, who is a phys. ed. teacher, called out the names. The Oxley house captains, Thomas Russell and Katherine Roux, received their badges from me, as did Cook house captains Jack Male and Jacqui Forde, Flinders house captains Jock Fairweather and Lily Baker, and Sturt house captains Clive Wright and Georgia Elliott. It was also wonderful to hear some inspiring remarks from Dr David Whiteman, a former student at the school who has gone on to do great things at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. It was pleasing to see the student leaders receive their badges: Rachel Callan and Justin Locke, Maddy Corke and Jamie McDowall, Sarah Cowley and James Wood, Nicola Prokop and Jordan Pryde. I am pleased also that the P&C at Ironside State School is so strong. It organised an absolutely fantastic spring fair last year. I know that the school is very highly thought of in the community. On Saturday, 23 February I organised some listening posts on street corners throughout St Lucia. I am a St Lucia resident, and it was great to hear from local residents that they thought so highly of their local primary school. It was also great that they were so pleased that Ironside State School had been chosen to become a centre of excellence. There is a preschool and a kindergarten right across the road from Ironside State School. A lot of children who start off in the preschool or the kindy work their way up to the Ironside State School. I am pleased to have a continuing involvement with the school. In fact, last week I chaired the P&C's annual general meeting. I could not speak more highly of the Ironside State School.

Royal Flying Doctor Service Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.42 p.m.): I have great pleasure in taking this opportunity to express my delight in having attended the recent Royal Flying Doctor Service 7 Mar 2002 Adjournment 563

function in Cairns at which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II launched two new aircraft for the service. I was honoured to receive an invitation to this event and was very happy to accept on behalf of my electorate of Tablelands. The Westminster system of government is a system of government which I support as I believe it not only has a long record as a very effective system but is also still delivering as fair and equitable a means of representation as one can find. I know there are those in this House who would do away with this system and who are quick to express their views on the subject. I say that they should recognise that this system has enshrined within it the very freedoms and liberties which they are using to criticise it. I see little fault in a method of governance which so readily grants citizens the right to challenge it. There may be those who argue otherwise and, in fact, I do not say it is flawless, but I do believe it is the best system of any in the world. This opportunity to participate in a royal event was particularly welcome given the harsh and strident campaigns which have been carried out by republicans. I believe that Australia has been generally well served by the Westminster system and by Her Majesty. To suggest that we, as a nation, have some sort of infantile identity crisis going on because of our English heritage is farcical. Of course, Australians recognise that and rejected the republicans at the most recent referendum. I was also pleased that this event involved the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It is an organisation of which I believe all Australians should be aware and, I hope, would support. The existence of an organisation such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service is clear evidence of both the physical size of rural and regional Australia and the continued challenges facing those who live and work in those areas. It does highlight to me the enormous value of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. This is a time when so many regional and remote Queenslanders are facing great uncertainty over their economic future, and there is a measure of relief to know that the Royal Flying Doctor Service is there if needed. We in this House are all well aware, I believe, of the great slump in mining activity while a resolution to native title is still being sought. There is also very great trepidation on the part of many grazing leaseholders who are seeing the government refuse to renew leases on what they see as very unreasonable motivation. So in a time of severely limited mining activity and concern about the security of huge areas of Queensland under grazing leaseholdings, and when the lack of doctors in regional areas is becoming an entrenched fact, I say thank God for the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

Land Development, Banyo Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (10.45 p.m.): I wish to highlight a significant opportunity for a planned and coordinated development of approximately 30 hectares of land at Banyo currently owned by the Department of Defence. The availability of this land, situated either side of the junction of Earnshaw and Tufnell Roads, Banyo, presents a unique opportunity for master planning a sizeable portion of land previously locked away for limited military use. The land also adjoins the old Banyo railway workshops site, which should form part of any master planning of the area, which in total covers around 50 hectares. The Banyo-Nudgee community is currently experiencing a wave of educationally based renewal, a new P-12 college at Banyo High and the relocation of the Australian Catholic University to Banyo in January 2003. The land is close to the Gateway Motorway, the Brisbane airport, local railway stations and only 30 minutes from the Brisbane CBD. It is bordered on both sides by land used for residential and industrial purposes, including the Golden Circle cannery. This unique development opportunity cannot be left to the whims of private developers. Whereas a priority consideration in any proposed redevelopment must be the growth needs of the Golden Circle cannery, the local community will also have a significant interest in this issue. Federal member Wayne Swan, Councillor Kim Flesser and I are investigating the potential benefits for the community from the plan to sell this land. Our interest is to ensure that there is minimal direct impact on the residential community in the surrounding area. As indicated earlier, we are also keen to ensure that the development needs of the adjacent Golden Circle cannery are properly accounted for. The Golden Circle cannery is one of the largest employers in our community, and its growth needs are crucial to local employment opportunities. We also believe there is a need for a substantial portion of residential land, including an allocated block, for affordable housing as part of the overall plan. We believe that there should be wide community consultation with local residential businesses and community organisations to ensure that the 564 Adjournment 7 Mar 2002

land is used to the best advantage for everyone. Consultants URS Australia Pty Ltd are currently undertaking a study to determine suitable future uses for the land. Wayne Swan, Kim Flesser and I have met with URS, the Department of State Development, the Department of Housing and the Brisbane City Council to ensure that local interests are protected in any proposed development. I have also met with ministers with relevant interest in this matter. This 30-hectare site, along with the adjacent Queensland Rail workshops site, presents a unique opportunity for a planned development that meets the needs of the local community. Depending on outcomes of impact assessment studies, an ideal outcome for the local community would be a redevelopment comprising an appropriate mix of residential and industrial precincts.

SunWater Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (10.48 p.m.): Attempts today in the parliament by the minister responsible for the Department of Natural Resources and Mines to defend SunWater's move to lease three floors of Brisbane's newest and most prestigious office accommodation have served only to prove the case being argued by Queensland irrigators that their water charges are unfair. Queensland irrigators and other water users such as local governments have long been arguing that SunWater's attempts to justify its demands for massive water price increases have used very creative cost accounting methods. SunWater will now pay $350 per square metre for its accommodation in its new luxurious high-rise offices when the government's own publication tabled in the House today points out that the average CBD office rental rate is $149 per square metre. Every member of the House got a copy of that. SunWater will be paying $350 per square metre, when the average is $149 per square metre. On the figures the minister used to try to justify this, it is apparent that SunWater has been paying more than that—something like $360 per square metre—for the rent of a very average office building, Mineral House, in the lower end of George Street. This is the hidden tax that is being used to justify the high prices that Queensland water users must pay. Every dollar of that money has to come from Queensland water users. Now the shareholding minister has supported SunWater's creative accounting methods and has tried to turn this absurd waste of $1 million a year of irrigators' money into some sort of cost saving. Why does SunWater need to have office accommodation that costs twice the average of the Brisbane CBD? Why does it need to lease offices in the Brisbane CBD at all? It could have just as easily discharged its functions from a suburban location or from a regional location that would cost but a fraction of that, and free up that $1 million a year either to give Queensland water users some much-needed rate relief in terms of their water charges or allow for some much-needed capital investment in Queensland's water infrastructure. Instead, the minister defends SunWater's decision to squander $1 million a year on leasing three floors of Brisbane's most prestigious new office building. These are the same creative accounting methods that SunWater has been using to try to justify its harsh water price increases across the board. The facts are that SunWater is moving from a very ordinary government owned building at the lower end of George Street to occupy three full floors of Brisbane's newest and most prestigious office tower in the heart of the CBD. SunWater will be paying $1 million a year to the building's private owners, and that $1 million will be squeezed from Queensland irrigators. That compares with its existing accommodation at the government owned Mineral House, where the government sets the rent. It could have set the rent at any figure it liked. It could have charged a nominal rent. The rent could have been zero had the government wanted to assist Queensland water users.

Health Services, Hervey Bay Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (10.51 p.m.): I rise to inform the House of further improvements to the already outstanding medical services available to residents of Hervey Bay and the Fraser Coast. As honourable members would be aware, people living on the Fraser Coast are in the privileged position of having two level 4 base hospitals operating within 25 minutes drive of each other. I had the opportunity to inspect the Maryborough Base Hospital recently when the Health Minister, the Hon. Wendy Edmond, officially opened the $18 million upgrade of that hospital, and it is magnificent. 7 Mar 2002 Adjournment 565

I am also extremely proud of the Hervey Bay Hospital, which was worked for so persistently by the former member for Hervey Bay, Bill Nunn. It is an outstanding medical facility, and I pay tribute to the director of nursing, Merrin Pease, and her staff, as well as all of the other ward, security, cleaning and medical staff who do such an outstanding job in providing care for the people of Hervey Bay and surrounding districts. I am particularly pleased to inform the House that on 24 January 2002 the then acting Health Minister, Robert Schwarten, announced the appointment of four new doctors for the Fraser Coast health district. These new doctors have been appointed under Queensland Health's rural scholarship scheme. This scheme is designed to attract health professionals to work and experience life in rural and regional areas of the state. The rural scholarship scheme gives financial support to scholarship holders to complete their tertiary studies full time in return for their working in rural communities when they graduate. This year the Beattie government is spending $3 million helping more than 300 students of dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry, psychology, occupational therapy, radiography, social work and speech pathology to finish their studies. The appointment of these four new doctors in the Fraser Coast health district demonstrates precisely how the government's rural scholarship scheme is working to improve health care for Queenslanders across the state. The commitment of the Health Minister to improving access to health services for regional Queenslanders deserves commendation. When the minister was in Hervey Bay she took the opportunity to accompany me to visit the Wide Bay Women's Health Centre and inspected the Bayhaven Nursing Home. At Bayhaven the minister met the recipient of the minister's volunteer medal, Mrs Ann Peters. Mrs Peters has been providing voluntary assistance daily to the residents of Bayhaven Nursing Home for the last five years. She is an inspiration, and I was delighted that the minister was able to recognise Mrs Peters' contribution and to meet her personally in Hervey Bay. As I mentioned, the minister also visited the Wide Bay Women's Health Centre in Hervey Bay, taking the time to speak directly with the centre's president, Greta Brennan, her committee and the centre's staff. The close attention being given to Hervey Bay's needs in the areas of hospital and community health care is very welcome and explains the dramatic improvement of health services over recent years in my city.

Royal Visit to Cairns Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (10.54 p.m.): It is no coincidence that the royal visit to Cairns was spent entirely within my electorate of Barron River. The visit was planned to include an opportunity to showcase the internationally famous award winning natural and cultural attractions close to Cairns, so the historic Kuranda Railway, Skyrail Rainforest Cableway and Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park were obvious choices. The genuine interest and enjoyment shown by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, together with the worldwide media coverage of their visit, will, I am sure, guarantee even greater international interest in these icons of the far- north Queensland tourism industry. My congratulations and thanks go to Don and Judy Freeman of Tjapukai, George and Ken Chapman of Skyrail and our own Queensland Rail and its staff for providing the royal couple with an unforgettable Cairns experience. Amongst those staff were indigenous elder Milton Brim from Kuranda, who proudly guided the Queen and Prince Phillip through the rainforest during a brief stop at Skyrail's Red Peak Station. Not to be outdone by their father, Corrine and Ernest Brim were amongst those young and vibrant indigenous performers who entertained the Queen with traditional dance, song and a fire-lighting ceremony at the Tjapukai cultural park. Dancer Warren Clements used the opportunity to tell the world about the need for reconciliation and reaffirm that indigenous people were, in his words, not a curiosity but an integral part of 21st century Australia. The Queen's only official duty in Cairns was the commissioning of two $5 million Royal Flying Doctor Service aircraft. This event at the Cairns airport was used to highlight a unique Australian institution, namely, the School of Distance Education, still better known to many as the school of the air. Students in the orchestra travelled from properties throughout far-north Queensland to play for the Queen, whose speech was broadcast over the radio to other distance education students. The students overcame many challenges to perform on the day and they were magnificent. 566 Adjournment 7 Mar 2002

Though not a monarchist, I enjoyed the opportunity to be presented to the Queen by the Premier, along with my state Labor colleagues Desley Boyle and Warren Pitt and other local dignitaries. I thank the Royal Flying Doctor Service for the invitation, because it was not a day for VIPs but rather for all of the wonderful people of the Cairns community who have served and supported the service over so many years. The distance education students were not the only ones to experience the excitement of the royal visit. Students from so many of my schools were able to line the route and catch a glimpse of the Queen and Prince Phillip, including those from Redlynch, who walked up to the Kuranda railway line to see Her Majesty aboard the magnificent Great South Pacific Express heritage train. Thanks go to the staff of those schools for enabling the students to have such a memorable experience. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the performance of Assistant Commissioner Alan Roberts and all the members of the Police Service and defence forces— Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.56 p.m.