PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject Page Wednesday, 19 April 2006

PHOTOGRAPHS IN CHAMBER ...... 1125 GAVEN BY-ELECTION ...... 1125 Return of Writ ...... 1125 Member Sworn ...... 1125 ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 1125 PRIVILEGE ...... 1126 Comments by Member for Moggill ...... 1126 PETITIONS ...... 1126 PAPERS ...... 1127 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1128 Shark Safety Program ...... 1128 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1130 Breaking the Unemployment Cycle ...... 1130 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1130 Cyclone Monica; Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance ...... 1130 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1133 Water Commission ...... 1133 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1133 Water Conservation ...... 1133 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1134 Bird Flu ...... 1134 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1134 Trade, Biotechnology and Investment Mission ...... 1134 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1135 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 1135 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1136 Patel, Dr J; Compensation Claims ...... 1136 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1136 Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance ...... 1136 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1137 Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance ...... 1137

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2006 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 19 April 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1138 Cyclone Monica; Death of Ms G Tybingoompa ...... 1138 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1138 Cyclone Larry, Electricity Supply ...... 1138 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1139 Water Supply ...... 1139 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1140 Federal Industrial Relations Legislation ...... 1140 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1140 Child Safety Service Centres ...... 1140 SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 1141 Report ...... 1141 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ...... 1141 Report ...... 1141 PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT ...... 1141 Queensland Labor Party ...... 1141 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1141 Uranium Mining ...... 1141 Uranium Mining ...... 1142 Health Action Plan ...... 1142 Water Supply ...... 1143 Queensland Health ...... 1143 Water Supply ...... 1144 Scramjet Program ...... 1145 Costello, Ms J ...... 1145 Gateway Motorway Upgrade ...... 1146 Water Supply ...... 1147 Breaking the Unemployment Cycle ...... 1147 Water Supply ...... 1148 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 1148 Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance ...... 1149 Energex ...... 1150 Holiday Rental Commissions ...... 1150 Public Housing ...... 1151 Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry ...... 1151 Easter Road Safety Campaign ...... 1152 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 1152 Water Supply ...... 1152 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 1154 Australian Gospel Music Festival; Mary MacKillop Catholic School; Ethanol Promotion Launch ...... 1155 Water Supply ...... 1156 McBain, Senior Constable B ...... 1157 Sea Change Phenomenon ...... 1158 Indigenous Women’s Leadership ...... 1159 Bundaberg Base Hospital; Patel, Dr J ...... 1159 World Oil Supply ...... 1160 Hospital Transport ...... 1161 Aviation Australia ...... 1162 LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1163 First Reading ...... 1163 Second Reading ...... 1163 BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1164 First Reading ...... 1164 Second Reading ...... 1164 CRIME AND MISCONDUCT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1165 First Reading ...... 1165 Second Reading ...... 1165 MAJOR SPORTS FACILITIES AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1166 Second Reading ...... 1166 Consideration in Detail ...... 1185 Third Reading ...... 1191 WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1191 First Reading ...... 1191 Second Reading ...... 1191 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1193 Second Reading ...... 1193 Consideration in Detail ...... 1203 Third Reading ...... 1209 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 19 April 2006

CHILD SAFETY (CARERS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1210 Second Reading ...... 1210 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1225 Police Resources ...... 1225 Palm Beach State School ...... 1225 Dentistry and Oral Health Guild; Griffith University Dental School ...... 1226 Working Against Violence Support Service ...... 1227 Keep Australia Beautiful Awards ...... 1227 Nu Life Cardiac Program ...... 1228 Hope Rwanda ...... 1228 Montrose Access ...... 1229 Agnes Water, Sewage ...... 1229 Burpengary West State School ...... 1230 19 Apr 2006 Legislative Assembly 1125 WEDNESDAY, 19 APRIL 2006

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. T McGrady, Mount Isa) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PHOTOGRAPHS IN CHAMBER Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, the photographer from the Gold Coast Bulletin has been given approval to take photographs in the chamber.

GAVEN BY-ELECTION

Return of Writ Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that the writ issued by me on 7 March 2006 for the election of a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral division of Gaven has been returned to me with a certificate endorsed thereon by the returning officer of the election, on 1 April 2006, of Alexander Rodney Douglas to serve as such member. I table the endorsed writ for the information of the House. Member Sworn Dr Douglas was introduced, took the oath of allegiance and subscribed the roll.

ASSENT TO BILLS

30 March 2006 The Honourable A. McGrady, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bill, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, was assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 30 March "A Bill for An Act to amend the Integrated Planning Act 1997, and for other purposes." The Bill is hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor

4 March 2006 The Honourable A. McGrady, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 4 April "A Bill for An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003" "A Bill for An Act to protect and promote the rights of people with a disability, and for other purposes" These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor 1126 Petitions 19 Apr 2006

PRIVILEGE

Comments by Member for Moggill Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (9.34 am): I wish to rise on a matter of privilege. On 28 March the member for Surfers Paradise falsely claimed in this House that I had called upon the member for Moggill to treat one of my staffers after she fell ill. Let me explain to the House what really happened. On Wednesday, 8 March 2006 whilst I was attending a meeting first aid officers were asked to come to my office to treat one of my staff members. The officers determined that a doctor was required and the member for Moggill was called to my parliamentary office. I did not ask him to come to my office, nor did any member of my staff make such a request. The staffer who had fallen ill was grateful for the medical attention. However, she was not grateful for the coverage her case received in the following day’s Courier-Mail. The medical distress she had suffered was compounded by the publication of her case and the claims by the member for Moggill that free treatment had been accepted. This staffer was in a great deal of pain at the time of the incident and was in no position to automatically proffer her credit card to the member for Moggill. I know he does not like bulk-billing. However, if he wishes to send my staffer an account I understand she would be happy to pay it. I am appalled by the member’s flagrant disregard for patient confidentiality. Instead of treating a patient and dealing with the matter of payment privately, the member for Moggill ran off to the Courier- Mail and provided it with a patient’s details. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ web site states— Confidentiality is an accepted and fundamental basis of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients have a right to expect that information held about them will be held in confidence by their general practitioner. I do not know if the member for Moggill is a member of that college. The Australian Medical Association also exhorts members to maintain patient confidentiality. Again, I do not know if he is a member of the AMA. But I do know this: the member for Moggill should apologise to my staff member for this gross breach of confidence and the member for Surfers Paradise should apologise for misleading the House.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Water Licences Mr Hopper from 430 petitioners requesting the House to recognise the Independent Water Users’ support of AgForce’s stand against the Beattie Government’s water tax and to abolish the unjust fees charged for water licences and allocations

Tactical Crime Unit, Gold Coast Mrs Stuckey one paper petition from 4,798 petitioners and one e-petition from 30 petitioners requesting the House to establish a dedicated Tactical Crime Unit for the southern Gold Coast and upgrade the Palm Beach Police Station to operate 24 hours. The following honourable members have sponsored e-petitions which are now closed and presented—

Toowong State School Mr Fraser from 161 petitioners requesting the House to not locate the Toowong State School preparatory year building on the top oval at the St Osyth Street campus; retain the preschool at the Kate Street campus; and agree on a different siting for the preparatory year building.

Bruce Highway, Cooroy-Curra Ms Molloy from 32 petitioners requesting the House to dismiss option S(I) dark yellow for the upgrade of the Cooroy-Curra Bruce Highway.

Public Hospitals Mr Caltabiano from 742 petitioners requesting the House to commit to maintain Queensland’s free hospital system and scrap plans for the implementation of levies and means testing for Queensland patients.

Daylight Saving Mr Nuttall from 62,232 petitioners requesting the House to pass the required legislation to enact daylight savings in Queensland to bring it into line with New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.

Daylight Saving Mr Wallace from 7,516 petitioners requesting the House to do all in its powers to stop the introduction of daylight saving in Queensland. 19 Apr 2006 Papers 1127

PAPERS

PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 31 March 2006— • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to an E-petition sponsored by Mr Caltabiano from 221 petitioners regarding the sale of Yungaba • Island Co-ordinating Council—Annual Report 2004-05 • Late tabling statement by the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women regarding the Island Co- ordinating Council Annual Report 2004-05 4 April 2006— • Impact of Petrol Pricing Select Committee—Inquiry into petrol pricing in Queensland, Report April 2006 • Impact of Petrol Pricing Select Committee—Inquiry into petrol pricing in Queensland, Summary of conclusions and recommendations April 2006 • Impact of Petrol Pricing Select Committee—Submissions to the inquiry into petrol pricing in Queensland that the committee has authorised to be released • Impact of Petrol Pricing Select Committee—Transcripts of the committee’s fifteen public hearings during the Inquiry into petrol pricing in Queensland 5 April 2006— • Australian Executor Trustees Limited—Financial Report for the year ended 30 September 2005 10 April 2006— • Government Response to Travelsafe Committee Report No. 43 titled Driving on Empty: Fatigue Driving in Queensland 12 April 2006— • Correspondence from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) being a progress report on the implementation of recommendations contained in Travelsafe Committee Report No. 40 titled Reducing the road toll for young Queenslanders—is education enough? and Travelsafe Committee Report No. 41 titled Provisional driver and rider licence restrictions • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to a paper petition presented by Miss Roberts from 2,564 petitioners regarding camping at Inskip Point 13 April 2006— • Report to the Queensland Parliament by the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (Mrs Keech) on an overseas trip to Japan and Korea from 12 March to 19 March 2006 18 April 2006— • Response from the Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors (Mr Pitt) to a paper petition presented by Mr Hoolihan from 364 petitioners regarding a permanent training facility for Defence Force Cadets on the Capricorn Coast at Yeppoon STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994— • Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Designing and Building Commercial Ships and Fishing Ships) Standard 2006, No. 17 (Please note: This instrument replaces the previous version of No. 17 tabled on 28 February 2006) Government Owned Corporations Act 1993— • Government Owned Corporations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 46 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994— • Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 47 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982— • Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 48 Water Act 2000— • Water Resource (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006, No. 49 and Explanatory Notes for No. 49 Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 50 Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Nature Conservation (Protected Plants Harvest Period) Notice 2006, No. 51 Water Act 2000— • Water (Barker Barambah Water Supply Scheme-Emergency) Notice 2006, No. 52 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990— • Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment and Repeal Notice (No. 1) 2006, No. 53 State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971— • State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 54 Disaster Management Act 2003— • Disaster Management (Further Extension of Disaster Situation-Cairns, Innisfail and Mareeba) Regulation 2006, No. 55 1128 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

Plant Protection Act 1989— • Plant Protection (Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus) Notice 2006, No. 56 Chiropractors Registration Act 2001, Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act 2001, Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001, Optometrists Registration Act 2001, Osteopaths Registration Act 2001, Pharmacists Registration Act 2001, Physiotherapists Registration Act 2001, Podiatrists Registration Act 2001, Psychologists Registration Act 2001, Speech Pathologists Registration Act 2001— • Health Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2006, No. 57 Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 58 Drug Legislation Amendment Act 2006— • Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 59 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973— • Small Claims Tribunals and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 60 Stock Act 1915— • Stock Identification Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 61 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— • Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Driver Licensing) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 62 Plant Protection Act 1989— • Plant Protection (Approved Sugarcane Varieties) Amendment Declaration (No. 1) 2006, No. 63 Water Act 2000— • Water Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2006, No. 64 and Explanatory Notes for No. 64 Aboriginal Communities (Justice and Land Matters) Act 1984— • Aboriginal Communities (Justice and Land Matters) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 65 REPORT TABLED BY THE CLERK The following report was tabled by the Clerk— Report pursuant to Standing Order 158 (Clerical errors or formal changes to any bill) detailing amendments to certain Bills, made by the Clerk, prior to assent by Her Excellency the Governor, viz— Disability Services Bill 2005 Amendments made to Bill Short title and consequential references to short title, amended— omit— ‘2005’ insert— ‘2006’.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Shark Safety Program Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.39 am): On 7 January this year 21- year-old Sarah Kate Whiley died after an horrific shark attack at Amity on North Stradbroke Island. Sarah’s tragic death was the first fatal attack on a beach with Shark Safety Program measures in place in the 44-year history of the program. The Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries released a report into her death on 15 January. It contained a series of recommendations which were immediately put in place by my government. These included the placement of four new drum lines at Amity Point, increased servicing of the new and existing drum lines during school holiday periods and that the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries work more closely with the Redland Shire Council and Surf Life Saving Queensland on appropriate international standard signage featuring a warning symbol about sharks. A communication campaign warning visitors and locals about the dangers of swimming in waterways such as Amity Point was also undertaken immediately following the attack. Just last week in the lead-up to the Easter break, the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, in conjunction with Surf Life Saving Queensland, ran an education program on surf and shark safety to students at Dunwich State School. In January the government also ordered a review of the Shark Safety Program right along the Queensland coast. Currently, 84 Queensland beaches are protected by Shark Safety Program equipment, either nets or drum lines, or a combination of both. Introduced in 1962 after a series of shark attacks on Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast beaches, the Shark Safety Program has provided protection from shark attack by reducing shark populations through netting and drum lines. Sadly, nets and drum lines also catch non-target species including turtles, dolphins and whales. 19 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1129

The review of the Shark Safety Program has made a series of recommendations, which my government has accepted. These include carrying out a further evaluation of drum line baits to ensure that the bait used attracts sharks but not other species; doing more to educate locals and visitors to our beaches about shark safety; and continuing involvement in research and international scientific collaboration. Cabinet agreed that current research and investment activities will continue, subject to future activities being put out to tender to Queensland universities with a focus on alternative technologies for shark control. Cabinet also decided that the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the department of local government and planning should investigate the feasibility, both technical and legal, of introducing shark signage at sites where drum lines are in use as well as introducing a formal assessment program for the placement of any further nets or drum lines to ensure any shark threat is fully evaluated and local environmental and stakeholder needs are also taken into account. The report also rules out a number of previously mooted extensions to the program. These include findings that it is not feasible to extend the Shark Safety Program into canals, nor to install electronic barriers. The report finds that these barriers are yet to be scientifically proven and in the near term are unlikely to be a suitable replacement for nets and/or drum lines. The report notes that two fatal shark attacks in Gold Coast canals in 2002 and 2003 have highlighted the risk to bathers, principally from bull whalers. However, the report does not support the introduction of nets in canals, saying that 120 kilometres of often narrow canal would have to be meshed. The report finds that this would pose a threat to swimmers and other water users as well as non-shark species. Furthermore, as bull sharks move frequently between the sea and fresh water it would be difficult to reduce the number of sharks in any particular area. In summary, the extension of the Shark Safety Program to canals would be extremely problematic without adding to swimmer safety. The Gold Coast Council’s policy of building swimming enclosures is, however, supported along with continuing public education regarding the risk. Cabinet did reject one recommendation in the report—proposed travel by departmental officers to South Africa—as this exchange of information can be carried out without the expense of international travel. Education initiatives put forward by the report and supported by the government include: providing information in such a way that it is suitable for use in our schools; working more closely with Surf Life Saving Queensland’s education activities and with local government and tourism bodies; updating brochures and posters; and increasing advertising and community service announcements, especially during holiday periods. The current system is not perfect, but it is the best that is currently available. In this regard swimmer safety will always be my government’s priority—first priority. Neither Minister Mulherin nor I will condone any change to the current system which could increase the risk to swimmer safety. Anyone stepping off our beaches and into the sea runs a risk. No shark program anywhere in the world can protect all swimmers from the possibility of shark attack. We will continue to support research and continue to examine alternatives and improvements. We will continue to monitor the work that is being done on electromagnetic shark barriers, on reducing the capture of non-target species, on the types of baits and hooks used and on the placement of nets and lines. The Shark Safety Program is not designed as an impenetrable barrier against shark attack; it is designed to enhance swimmer safety. That will remain this government’s priority. The inevitable result of this priority is that some of the negative consequences of the safety program will continue—at least until technological solutions improve. Tragically, it is a choice between human beings and other animals, and under those circumstances we are choosing human beings. The most visible of these consequences is the occasional whale entanglement. This has been a particular issue on the Gold Coast, and tragically the expert advice is that as the whale population— particularly humpbacks—increases so, too, will the chance of entanglements. Current attempts to reduce whale and other bycatch include: the use of acoustic devices, or pingers, on nets to deter whales and dolphins; different hook types attached to drum lines—barbless hooks or hooks with guards; different baits for sharks to deter turtles from taking hooks; and early alert systems to release entangled whales. Of course, all these strategies are aimed at reducing deaths and injuries to marine life other than sharks. But small numbers of turtles, dolphins and whales will be killed by the nets and drum lines set to protect people using our beaches. Again, that is the choice between humans and other animals that I referred to earlier. It has been suggested that shark nets be removed from Gold Coast beaches—in particular, during the whale migration—and replaced with drum lines. The report finds that this would increase the risk of shark attack. This is because nets are more effective in catching bull sharks, which inhabit Gold Coast estuaries and coastal areas in large numbers. Until a system that protects swimmers and whales is scientifically proven we will have to continue with our rescue and release strategy. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries will now work to ensure that these recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible. No government can ever remove the risk of shark attack, but we will not be changing a program which all the evidence finds is as effective as any around the world. I table a copy of the report for the information of members of the House. 1130 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Breaking the Unemployment Cycle Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.47 am): It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that my government has reached its target of creating 100,000 jobs for Queenslanders under our Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. Not only have we reached that ambitious target, but we have reached it more than a year ahead of schedule. Typical of my government, we are delivering. In addition, the initiative has helped another 40,000 people to gain valuable job related assistance. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not like job creation. Under the last coalition government unemployment was 9.5 per cent and under mine it is 5.3 per cent. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to talk to you about employment because we are a government that has delivered. During its 7½ years, the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative has helped more than 37 job seekers a day find work. I am sure honourable members will agree that it has been a resounding success. But its real success has been the fact that many of the people it has worked for have been among the most disadvantaged in the workforce. There is absolutely no doubt that the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative has made a difference to the most disadvantaged in the labour force. There is also no doubt that it has played a significant role in reducing unemployment in Queensland from 9.5 per cent under the last coalition government, the Borbidge government, to the current 5.3 per cent under my government. That said, there are many groups and individuals who still need assistance. Reaching the target earlier than expected means that we can continue to help disadvantaged people find employment. My government set up the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle program with the dual objective of helping disadvantaged job seekers regain their employment and competitiveness and encouraging new entry-level jobs in industries that are critical to the state’s development. It originally began as a $283 million commitment to create 24,500 jobs over four years. Its early successes led the government to expand it to a six-year, $473.9 million commitment to create more than 56,000 jobs. It was again revised in October 2002 with the target of creating 100,000 jobs for Queensland by mid-2007 and additional funding of $269.7 million, bringing the total investment to $743.6 million. Across Queensland, since Breaking the Unemployment Cycle began 15,121 job seekers have gained paid work and experience and 1,148 community projects have received $161 million. Also, 32,021 people have been given job research and other related assistance. Cash incentives of $63.9 million have been paid to 17,057 private sector employers, and the list goes on. I seek leave to have details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. • $63.9 million in cash incentives has been paid to 17,057 private sector employers and 32 group training organisations who have employed 27,105 additional apprentices and 8305 additional trainees in crucial, skills-shortage industries. • State and local government agencies and community organisations have created 20,424 extra traineeships, 1006 extra apprenticeships and 1438 school-based positions. • 1822 apprenticeships were created under the Housing Industry Trade Training (Plus) program and 7062 apprenticeships, traineeships and cadetships have been created under the Government’s 10% Training Policy. • 11,806 jobseekers including young people, unemployed early-school leavers and ex-offenders received intensive employment and training assistance through projects that received $23.36 million in funding. • 7638 mature-aged jobseekers have received tailored assistance including job-search and job preparation to help them compete in the labour market with funding totalling $7.48 million. • Since 1 January 2005, 342 parents and carers have received customised employment and training assistance through 24 projects at a cost of $2.1 million under the Back to Work: Parents and Carers program. Mr Speaker, I want to thank the many community-based organisations, local councils, employers and Government agencies who have helped place more than 100 000 Queenslanders into jobs. On behalf of all Queenslanders, I thank them.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Monica; Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.50 am): I advise the House that we are carefully monitoring the path of Cyclone Monica. As at 7 am this morning, information from the Bureau of Meteorology showed that it is a category 3 cyclone. It is moving westward and is about 125 kilometres east-north-east of Lockhart River. Destructive winds with gusts above 130 kilometres per hour should 19 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1131 extend onto the coast between Cape Grenville and Coen this morning. The core of the cyclone, with wind gusts up to 220 kilometres, is expected to cross the coast in the general area of Lockhart River about midday. The Department of Emergency Services has taken a range of precautions to prepare for the arrival of Tropical Cyclone Monica. Although Tropical Cyclone Larry struck the coast with great force a month ago, no-one was killed or seriously injured. That was largely due to the safety precautions taken before and during the cyclone. As the planning for Cyclone Larry demonstrated, it is important to act early. Residents in the Cyclone Monica area have been advised to be alert and have been informed as to how to prepare their homes and themselves for the cyclone. The Disaster Coordination Group will meet again this morning at 10.30 am to further ensure that all agencies and stakeholders are prepared. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate more details into Hansard, along with a report on the latest assistance provided to the victims of Cyclone Larry. I also seek leave to incorporate the latest report that I have received from General Cosgrove. Leave granted. Similarly, our Counter Disaster and Rescue Services have been busy preparing for the cyclone. They have sent specialist staff to far northern Queensland—I approved the use of the government jet for this purpose yesterday— as well as prepared plans to send in further emergency supplies and specialist staff such as paramedics and firefighters if needed. The State Emergency Service is also on standby. The State Disaster Coordination Group, which is run through Counter Disaster and Rescue Services, coordinated a tele- conference yesterday of agencies involved in the cyclone, such as the Bureau of Meteorology, Environmental Protection Agency, Departments of Health and Transport, and the Australian Defence Force. This ensured agencies and stakeholders had up-to-date information and had their own plans in place. The State Disaster Coordination Group will meet again this morning at 10.30am, to further ensure all agencies and stakeholders are prepared. As Cyclone Monica approaches the coastline this morning our thoughts and prayers are with residents in the affected region. In the past month we have witnessed the destruction a major cyclone can cause and the rebuilding process after the Cyclone Larry in north Queensland is continuing. This morning my Ministerial colleagues will highlight some of the hard work being done across various portfolios to help get people back on their feet in the region. Last Thursday I visited Innisfail again and was impressed with the progress that is being made. With General Cosgrove I opened a new Building Coordination Centre that has been established by the Operation Recovery Taskforce to help residents repairing homes and businesses. It will become a ‘one stop shop’ for insurers and private customers needing repair or rebuilding work to be done, as well as builders and tradespeople looking for work in the region. The centre includes representatives from the Building Services Authority, Master Builders Queensland, the Housing Industry Association, Building Designers Association of Queensland, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, the Insurance Disaster Response Organisation, and Insurers and Engineers Australia. It will also coordinate building supplies and labour from all industry groups and play a leading role in ensuring the contractors in the reconstruction zone are aware of all statutory requirements, including licensing, health and safety, statutory insurance, and building approval issues. While in Innisfail I also announced funding for a major marketing campaign aimed at kick-starting tourism in north and far north Queensland. A number of tourist operators who were hard-hit by Cyclone Larry are now back in business and the best way we can help them is to bring tourists back to this region. Tourism Queensland and the Regional Tourist Organisations—Townsville Enterprise and Tourism Tropical North Queensland— already had plans in the pipeline for seasonal marketing campaigns worth about $1.4 million. We are kicking in another $250,000 and now this has been matched by Federal Government and industry contributions. This will bring total funding for the campaigns to over $2 million. We want everyone to know that while some areas were hit hard, the region is well and truly open for tourism business. Today an Industry Strategic Directions Forum is also taking place in Cairns. Senior officers from the Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation will meet with leaders of the business community in order to agree on the best way to bring about business and industry recovery in the affected region. Last week I also informed the Mayor of Johnstone Shire Council, Neil Clarke, that we will provide a $9 million assistance package over the next four years to help the Council recover from Cyclone Larry. The funding package is designed specifically to alleviate the pressures of debt servicing on the Council’s financial position. The Council has been experiencing difficulty servicing its debt to the Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) for some time and it is evident that this may be further adversely impacted by the need to fund restoration works following the cyclone. Under the assistance package we will support a deferral of principal repayments on the existing debt with QTC for up to four years. We will also provide up to $4 million over four years in interest subsidies on the debt and a one-off capital grant of $5 million this financial year. 1132 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

The capital grant will be used by the Council to fund agreed infrastructure works in consultation with the State Government. As part of the funding package the Council will be required to provide regular reports to the Department of Local Government on the operating and financial performance of the Shire as well as progress against agreed performance targets. This shire is one of the most affected in a region devastated by one of the worst natural disasters in our nation’s recent history.

Queensland Government OPERATION RECOVERY TASK FORCE General Peter Cosgrove AC MC (Retd) c/-Johnstone Shire Council PO Box 887 Innisfail QId 4860 18 April 2006 Our Ref: ORTF L91 OVERVIEW REPORT Dear Premier I have the honour to present my fourth overview report on the relief and recovery effort in the Cyclone Larry disaster area in Far North Queensland. With the Easter holidays providing a welcome respite to the citizens of the Far North from the hard work of relief and recovery, it marks a month since the cyclone—a month in which much has been done but as importantly it marks the end of general disaster relief and the shift of focus to concerted recovery activities. During the preceding week you officiated at the opening of the Building Coordination Centre (BCC) in Innisfail. This office, properly staffed, advertised and used will provide very useful facilitation to all people connected with repair and rebuilding activities. In particular it should help to reduce the time involved in the building approval process and assist the link up between builders and tradesmen and women and customers (both insurers and private). Additionally, it should provide a consumer advisory service to private citizens on insurance issues. On the matter of builders and tradesmen and women, I will this week explore the likelihood of the requisite numbers of them being recruited to the task of rebuilding and repair, both from local resources and externally. This is an important issue on a number of fronts: first and most obviously on getting the work done in a timely way (i.e. ‘all houses repaired before the next wet.’); secondly in assisting to cap the price of labour by having appropriate competition available in the work area. This review now underway by the BCC will encompass primarily the insurers who are known to be gathering resources to meet their obligations. My concern is that if labour can only be gained by raising prices then it will erode the deliverable value of insurance policies and privately or government funded repairs etc. An alternative to be considered (but not yet canvassed formally) is the possible provision of ‘official’ building etc tradesmen and women: Australian Defence Force and possibly WORC people. If these resources were used in addition to available commercial trade resources, in bolstering numbers, increase output and help control prices. On the other hand I acknowledge that it might create a sensitive industrial relations and commercial issue, albeit one which is likely to be manageable under the circumstances. I have considered the option of some kind of tax incentive to attract tradesmen and women but it is likely to be difficult to apply on equity grounds. On the related matter of recent reports of inordinate price hikes for trade labour, it appears that these stem from what is for now an isolated incident, which we are following up. Some ‘on-costs’ for trade labour coming from outside the region are to be expected but ‘triple hourly rates’ prices would be excessive. In my last overview report I mentioned to you the issue of Industry restructure and reform in the Far North. Subsequently your colleague the Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation has agreed to sponsor a Strategic Directions forum in the Far North chaired by an official from her Department. This will provide opportunity for the various interest groups to voice views on opportunities seen to arise out of the recovery from the cyclone. Such initiatives as agreed by Government could then feed into the Operation Recovery agenda. The first of these meetings will occur in Cairns on 19 April. You should note that State Development has a position on the Operation Recovery Industry Action Group which I chair, so I expect to have visibility of issues which might influence short to medium term recovery, although I would obviously seek Government endorsement before embarking on a consequent course of action. Mr Terry Mackenroth has made significant progress in relation to the first disbursements of Cyclone Larry Appeal funds and in working through the issues of equity and balance in the criteria for the first tranche of grants, will have this initial disbursement made by the end of April. Gratifyingly, the Appeal fund continues to grow. It is timely now for the Operation Recovery Task Force having embarked on a recovery programme of work, to propose to you some milestones enabling recovery to be absorbed into the ordinary work of Government. With your agreement I will table this as an item for the Task Force to derive. My feel for the matter is that our work will require at least several more months before this point is reached. In conclusion it has been another week of good achievement in terms of recovery. Now with the Easter break over and the wet due to finish momentarily, the serious work of rehousing, employment and industry rehabilitation can gather momentum. Yours Sincerely, General Peter Cosgrove AC MC (Retd) Head of Cyclone Larry Taskforce Mr BEATTIE: While we are on the topic of Cyclone Larry, to support the local community in driving its recovery, I can announce that today an industry strategic directions forum is taking place in Cairns. Senior officers from the Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation will meet with leaders of the business community in order to agree on the best way to bring about business and industry recovery. The forum will be a catalytic event, followed by one-on-one meetings with individual stakeholders, providing the in-depth consultation needed to formulate a strategy to get industry 19 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1133 powering ahead. The department will work with the business community in order to identify how, together, they can determine what action should be taken by all parties to deliver a coordinated recovery strategy. The department will target its comprehensive suite of services to support the recovery strategy. Areas of focus include small business and industry development, export growth and regional development. The proposed process will have strong links with the existing industry action group, which is focusing on the immediate and short-term needs of the full spectrum of the economy, including the agricultural sector. I should advise the House that the task force which I appointed, headed by General Cosgrove, will be meeting in Brisbane tomorrow and I will be getting a report in relation to the meeting that is being held today.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Commission Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.53 am): In relation to the Water Commission, last month the Minister for Water and I announced the government’s intention to establish a commission as an essential step to deliver greater water security to south-east Queensland. Through the development of the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy, the government and local councils identified the need to improve the approach to water planning. We identified the need for a regional approach to water planning instead of ad hoc planning based on the decisions of individuals, councils and infrastructure owners. In other words, we are about developing a water grid. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a report on where we are with the development of that Water Commission. Leave granted. There are 12 different owners of the 19 major water supply storages in south-east Queensland. While consultation will continue, there will no longer be the chance for fragmentation, with the State Government having the power—through the Commission—to make crucial decisions on water. The current ‘light touch’ regulatory model will be replaced with greater intervention to ensure vital water supplies, with the Commission having real powers to enforce compliance by all players to meet the region’s needs. The Commission will have statutory responsibility for water supply and security planning, implementation and compliance and its powers and functions will include: • preparing advice to the State Government on supply and demand management measures. This advice will cover a range of water issues including the need for new infrastructure, preferences between forms of infrastructure and sources of supply and demand restrictions. The government will then have the opportunity to consider the advice and decide on a response, which becomes the water infrastructure and demand management programme. This programme will set actions to be taken to ensure regional water supply security and the Commission will have the power to enforce these objectives. • the Commission will have the power to set water restrictions, whether or not a programme is in place. Where a programme is in place, the Commission will need to justify why the restrictions are required and whether an amendment to the program is required. • the Commission will not be a proponent for new infrastructure. However, if the programme identifies new infrastructure that is to be built, the Commission will have a role in identifying a proponent to undertake the development. If there is no willing proponent, the Commission will make a recommendation to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water on an approach to deliver the project. Mr Speaker, The Water Commission represents a new direction for water planning in this region.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Conservation Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.53 am): I advise the House today that the Queensland government will make $20 million available immediately for two initiatives to help cut water use in south-east Queensland. Many homes are still using far more water than they need to in this period of extreme drought. We will work with councils to help people cut water use by billions of litres every year. Under our plan, people will be able to ask their councils for their homes to receive a special water audit which would check for leaks and inspect all taps and cisterns. Where needed, water-saving shower heads, tap flow limiters and cistern weights will be supplied and fitted and leaks fixed. Residents would be expected to pay a contribution—perhaps about $30—towards the cost of up to $150 for each home, with the council sharing the rest of the cost with the government. 1134 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

The $20 million, to be made available for spending in this financial year, will also help commercial and industrial water efficiency. Major water users will be required to prepare mandatory water management plans and implement cost-effective recommendations. The government will help pay for such work. We envisage the government administering the program and local councils or SEQWater delivering the program itself.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Bird Flu Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.55 am): On Good Friday, my government demonstrated how prepared it is to deal with the threat of avian flu. A small number of dead ibis and egrets have been discovered at Wynnum. After local testing, two of the bodies produced an unclear result. The bodies were sent to the Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, where tests ruled out the presence of avian influenza virus. I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Despite this result, I chaired a meeting of the State Disaster Management Group to ensure that we covered every possible eventuality. I thank all members of the group for making the welfare of Queenslanders paramount and giving up their Good Friday afternoon. The Management Group decided that surveillance in the area around Wynnum should be intensified as a precautionary measure while further tests are conducted following the deaths. I stress that Queensland Health experts say there are no health implications for people. But Queensland Health also advises that people should not handle dead birds. Advice on how to dispose of carcases can be obtained from 13 25 23 or from the Queensland Health web site: www.health.qld.gov.au. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries will conduct examinations of any unusual bird deaths reported to the department. The DPIF and the Environmental Protection Agency will also catch wild birds in the area to conduct tests. We ask members of the public to report any multiple bird deaths, particularly Ibis and water birds, and birds close to wetlands, and individual deaths of ducks, geese and swans, by phoning 13 25 23 at any time of the day or night. Callers will be advised of what they should do. In recent years poultry owners have been advised to keep their poultry secure from contact with wild birds. We are encouraging bird owners to make it standard practice to ensure they keep their birds separate from any wild birds, particularly those species which frequent water areas.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Trade, Biotechnology and Investment Mission Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.55 am): I would like to report on the successful Smart State trade, biotechnology and investment mission to the United States and Canada this month. The main purpose of this mission was to attend BIO2006 in Chicago—the largest international biotechnology convention and exhibition in the world. It attracted around 20,000 delegates including industry leaders, scientists, policy makers and academics from all areas of the life sciences industry. Some 70 biotechnology and business leaders from Queensland accompanied me to BIO2006, while the total Australian mission was approximately 370 people. The Queensland presence at BIO2006 was significant and our reception showcased Queensland Biotechnology, agribusiness and food to 150 guests from the US biotechnology and investment community. A particular highlight of the reception was the menu featuring Queensland beef and seafood prepared by innovative Brisbane chef Philip Johnson. Philip’s creations not only tasted sublime but represented Smart State on a plate. I thank Philip Johnson for his willingness to be part of a promotion of Queensland’s biotechnology industry. I am very pleased to report that his menu ensured that the Queensland’s delegation work was reported in the Chicago Tribune. I am confident that the 8th consecutive Queensland biotechnology mission to BIO2006 was a success in relation to advancing our state’s position as a leading regional hub for biotechnology. I was also able to use the event to make some important announcements on the latest round of our investments in this important area. The most recent funding amounts to a total of just over $17 million to 51 different recipients. This is a very, very important investment. 19 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1135

Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, was awarded the inaugural Smart State Premier’s Fellowship, providing him with $250,000 a year for five years for his University of Queensland Centre for Immunology and Cancer Research at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Professor Ian Frazer has helped put Queensland on the map with groundbreaking scientific achievements. As members would be aware, he has dedicated 20 years to researching the cause of cervical cancer and has proven the link between it and papilloma virus. Professor Frazer has developed the world’s first vaccine for cervical cancer—a disease that kills 270,000 women each year—and his efforts have quite rightly captured the world’s attention. Two Smart State Senior Fellowships of $100,000 per year for three years were also awarded— one to Doctor Mark Kendall, an Australian who has been working at Oxford University. He will return to Australia to undertake nanotechnology research at the University of Queensland. Dr Kendall is working on a very exciting project that has the potential to revolutionise medical treatment. He is developing nanotechnology skin patches to deliver improved DNA vaccines. This skin patch will consist of tiny nanoneedles that are not invisible to the human eye and which will be coated with the appropriate drug. This is not science fiction; it is real and it is happening here in Queensland. Dr Kendall’s return to Queensland to be part of this research is a good example of the investment that this government has made in biotechnology, which attracts some of the best in the world to come to Queensland and some of our best and brightest to come back to the work that we are doing. As well as the Innovation Skills Fund, I have also announced some of the recipients of our Smart State Innovation Projects Fund. Approximately $10 million has been awarded so far to national and international research alliances. For example, this includes $2 million to the University of Queensland’s Scramjet program, which is being developed in collaboration with Boeing and the Commonwealth Department of Defence. Another $2 million will go to Alchemia, an innovative Queensland drug company developing new breast cancer treatments. These are extremely worthy projects with the potential to vastly improve the health and wellbeing of untold numbers of people; not only here in Australia but also around the world.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.00 am): We promised the people of Caboolture their hospital emergency department would resume its 24-hour service as quickly as possible—and we have delivered! Yesterday the Caboolture Hospital emergency department resumed full 24-hour service, seven days a week, following an innovative partnership agreement between Queensland Health and Aspen Medical. The emergency department is fully staffed by 23 doctors and 40 nurses working rostered shifts around the clock to serve the community. I want to thank medical staff at both Caboolture and Redcliffe hospitals for all their ongoing hard work to maintain safe emergency department services to the local community. The decision to temporarily reduce services at Caboolture Hospital due to the national shortage of senior emergency medical officers was difficult, but it was a decision made in the best interests of patient safety and ensuring a safe working environment for medical and nursing staff. I also want to take this opportunity to address again a number of myths being peddled by members opposite. Firstly, the member for Moggill claims doctors at Caboolture are being paid much more than doctors working at other hospital emergency departments in Queensland. That is not true. The packages Aspen Medical is paying doctors at Caboolture are very much in line with the award based packages paid by Queensland Health to doctors at other hospitals in Queensland. The member for Moggill also claims the Aspen arrangement is a bandaid solution for just 12 months. In fact, the contract is for 12 months with an option for a further 12 months. What we have is an opposition totally out of step with everyone else on this innovative arrangement reached between Queensland Health and Aspen Medical. The people of Caboolture and their mayor endorse the deal. So do the AMA and the doctors at Caboolture Hospital. In fact, just last week Caboolture’s acting director of emergency medicine stated in an email to the district health manager about the Aspen deal— As I mentioned to you earlier, congratulations on a good idea. I think it is the right solution. The only ones unhappy with the reopening of Caboolture ED are the members of the opposition, who continue to whinge and harp but offer no real solutions. In stark contrast, the Beattie government developed an innovative and practical solution to the problem. We got on with the job and delivered for the people of Caboolture. 1136 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Patel, Dr J; Compensation Claims Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (10.01 am): The government’s special process to compensate victims of Jayant Patel is moving into top gear. We are fulfilling a promise to compensate people quickly and fairly. There have been 15 claims settled, and this week in Bundaberg over four days 16 more claims are being mediated. We have 31 claims that either have been completed or are currently being mediated. That represents nearly 10 per cent of the advised 342 claims received so far. However, it is recognised that we still have a long way to go. I advise the House that around 128 of the claimants have chosen not to be legally represented, even though provision has been made for legal costs. The details of each settlement are confidential. Nonetheless, I am informed that the claimants who have had their claims settled are satisfied with the outcome. The Bundaberg Victims Support Group President, Beryl Crosby, told the Bundaberg and Region NewsMail yesterday, 18 April, that her members were happy with the mediation process. A deadline of 28 April was set for former Patel patients to lodge their claims with the Health Rights Commission. This deadline for claims was extended by two months from 28 February following requests from patients. Last week Beryl Crosby and Mr Ian Fleming both personally asked me to leave the deadline for claims open-ended. This is in case former Patel patients with no adverse outcomes now develop problems in future. I am currently considering this request and will advise of my decision prior to the deadline of 28 April. We still have a long way to go to address all claims, but all parties should be congratulated on the progress made so far.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.03 am): Two weeks ago I visited Innisfail to inspect damage caused by Cyclone Larry. Even two weeks after the cyclone the damage was still very obvious and the clean-up and rebuilding effort was still in full swing—as it will be for some time. Staff from Queensland Transport and its agencies, Main Roads and Queensland Rail, have worked very hard to help the local community respond to the emergency. Staff worked at various coordination centres to ensure all requested transport resources were made available to those agencies and volunteers helping with the recovery. Queensland Transport moved many people and about 41 tonnes of urgently required supplies. The department chartered two air freighters and booked capacity on other freight and domestic services. Bus and taxi services were provided for all emergency response personnel in the affected areas. Main Roads had approximately 155 RoadTek staff and contractors involved in damage assessment of roads and bridges and clearing debris from state and council roads. The cyclone crossed the coast about 7.30 am and by that evening RoadTek had the Kuranda Range and the Captain Cook Highway open to two-way traffic. Flooding closed the highway later. I visited one site where RoadTek crews were working to clear a very large tree that had fallen across a local council road. It is not as if they cleaned up just one or two or 10 trees that had fallen across roads but hundreds and hundreds that were a hazard to motorists. That does not include the land and rock slides, the leaves and undergrowth and the man-made debris as well. RoadTek worked with local councils, Ergon and other departments to coordinate their efforts and resources. I should say to the Minister for Emergency Services that the damage to the power network was amazing and therefore the work done by the people at Ergon and Powerlink really deserves commending. A specialist RoadTek crew assisted in sea wall repairs at Bingle Bay and the Johnstone River at East Innisfail. Approximately 2,500 road signs were lost or damaged on state controlled roads. Main Roads has already replaced a large number of them. The port of Mourilyan was in the path of Cyclone Larry. Substantial repairs and the restoration of power were required to the port’s navigational aids. Hydrographic surveys have been conducted on the harbour and channel to ensure the safety of large ships as some boats were reportedly sunk in the harbour. This review will ensure the safety of large ships. 19 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1137

Queensland Rail had approximately 160 operational staff inspecting rail lines and bridges and clearing significant amounts of debris from the northern and Kuranda Range lines. incidentally, one of the Q-Link demountables was turned upside down and then when the eye of the cyclone came over it was turned back the other way again. That just shows the enormous power of cyclones. There was substantial wind damage to signal boards and poles and communication towers, and many trackside signs were blown down. Track wash-outs occurred predominantly on a 180-kilometre stretch between Kennedy and Gordonvale. While power was being restored, QR maintained rail services to Cairns by running daylight services and having staff control crossing points. Freight services were re-established to Cairns on 26 March and passenger services recommenced on 27 March. Ongoing rain is still affecting repairs to transport infrastructure, but QR and Main Roads are monitoring this situation. I met with Mayor Neil Clark while I was in Innisfail to discuss transport issues. We also discussed the impact the devastation had on the local community. I think it is important to remember that many of the transport, roads and rail staff responding to this disaster were personally affected by Cyclone Larry. They put in 12-hour shifts and travelled flooded roads to get to and from work to provide urgently needed community support. Another cyclone is bearing down on far-north Queensland as we speak. It has already caused flooding problems on some roads. There has been a landslide which has closed the Cairns to Kuranda rail line and it is very likely there will be more problems as the cyclone crosses the coast. But as with Cyclone Larry, staff from Main Roads, Queensland Transport and Queensland Rail will work with the communities to fix transport and road problems that arise. I applaud all the staff involved in the Cyclone Larry clean-up for their dedication and commitment to the rebuilding effort. I am very proud of them.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (10.07 am): Since the day Cyclone Larry struck four weeks ago, Public Works staff have been on the ground helping rebuild communities in north Queensland. In total, 150 Public Works employees, including Q-Build workers from across the state, have been diverted to Innisfail to assist with the rebuilding efforts. A full audit of all public owned buildings in the affected area is now nearing completion, including the 142 schools in the district. In addition to this process, Q-Build has inspected 3,000 homes throughout the area. Q-Build is currently undertaking further inspections of homes where people have applied to the Department of Communities for structural assistance grants as their properties are uninsured and have sustained property damage. Department of Housing staff have also been working around the clock helping people displaced by the cyclone. As previously announced, a housing task force has been established by the Department of Housing with representation from six other government agencies to provide a coordinated approach. Around 700 people have been processed into emergency accommodation since the cyclone hit. The Johnstone Shire Council has agreed to establish and maintain a register of need for the prioritisation of people requiring temporary accommodation with ongoing support from the Department of Housing. The Department of Housing is relocating 53 multiroom transportable dwellings to the area, with some set aside for workers accommodation and the remainder available for community use. The Department of Housing is working directly with council to identify and source suitable sites and management arrangements. At this stage, 20 one-bedroom transportable units will be located in the council owned caravan park in Innisfail, and 20 one-bedroom transportable units will be located on vacant land owned by the Goondi Hill Hotel. Further, one self-contained transportable block of nine one- bedroom units will be located on vacant Department of Housing land in Charles Street, and four two- bedroom units will be located on Department of Housing land in Water Street. These units are currently being prepared for removal. It is expected that the first of these units will arrive in Innisfail next week. A further 60 transportable dwellings destined for the mines have also been placed on hold by the Department of Housing. We are working with the Johnstone Shire Council to find suitable sites as demand requires. The Building Services Authority, which is also part of my portfolio, has played a lead role in establishing the Building Coordination Centre in Innisfail, which was officially opened by the Premier and General Cosgrove last week. The BCC is a joint initiative between the BSA, Queensland Master Builders Association, Housing Industry Association of Australia, Building Designers Association of Queensland, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, Insurance Disaster Response Organisation and 1138 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

Insurers and Engineers Australia. The BCC is being staffed by the BSA with industry associations and is a one-stop shop to help coordinate the rebuilding process. The BCC is also currently developing a web site database of contractors to undertake repair work. All contractors available to work in north Queensland are urged to register on the BCC database by phoning the BSA or registering online. Finally, I am pleased to announce today that the Residential Tenancies Authority has created a new fact sheet with important rental tenancy law information specifically for victims of Cyclone Larry. One of the major issues it deals with is the rights and responsibilities of tenants and lessors when a rental property is damaged or is uninhabitable. This has been one of the most common queries to the RTA call centre, which has received close to 400 calls as a result of Cyclone Larry. The RTA information sheet for Cyclone Larry victims is available on the RTA web site and from local north Queensland branches of the Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service in Cairns and Atherton or the Tenants Union in Cairns. I table a copy of that information sheet.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Monica; Death of Ms G Tybingoompa Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) (10.11 am): This morning our thoughts are with the communities on Cape York Peninsula bracing for the impact of Cyclone Monica. The latest advice is that the category 3 cyclone with winds of up to 220 kilometres an hour will cross the coast north of Lockhart River around midday. As a safety precaution, two state schools on the peninsula have been closed today—Coen State School and Lockhart State School. Forty-five students from Coen State School and 103 students from Lockhart State School are affected. The principals and more than 30 staff have contacted all parents and are now following the local disaster management plan. All playground equipment has been secured, objects removed from windows and any debris removed. Our college campuses on the western cape at Mapoon, Weipa and Aurukun, where there are more than 1,000 students and 150 school staff, are also on alert. This morning I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an elder from the Aurukun community who passed away on Monday night after a long illness. Gladys Tybingoompa was an extraordinary woman, a role model for young Indigenous people and the first school manager of Aurukun State School. She was a powerful leader with immense cultural knowledge and was a strong advocate for Aboriginal issues, never being afraid to raise issues with the government of the day. Ms Tybingoompa was an outstanding student at the then mission-run school at Aurukun. At the age of 16 in 1962 she was sent to Cairns TAFE and ultimately the University of Queensland. There she attained a diploma of general studies and later returned to her Cape York community as a teacher aide and subsequently became manager of the school. She was also one of the parties to the famous Wik claim, which saw the return of Aboriginal land to the Wik people as a result of a High Court decision. I want to pay tribute to Ms Tybingoompa today—an outstanding woman whose legacy will live on in the lives of the many children she influenced. On a more positive note, there is good news from north Queensland. The final two classrooms at Innisfail State School are back online this morning as the clean-up effort continues after Cyclone Larry. There is still a lot of repair work to be done, but there are now sufficient classrooms operating in the region for all our state schools to offer full programs to all students.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry, Electricity Supply Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.14 am): I associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister for Education in relation to the deceased person in Aurukun. Today I want to report to the House regarding the restoration work in far-north Queensland following the unprecedented damage to the electricity transmission and distribution network caused by Cyclone Larry. I can report further today that the response work has continued to the point where power has been largely restored to all affected areas. Unfortunately, for about 500 individual electricity customers the extensive damage caused to their properties means they may not have power resupplied for some time yet. Some of the properties will need extensive repair work before power can be safely resupplied, and some are damaged beyond repair. In terms of the network, Cyclone Larry caused significant damage. The work done in rebuilding the network in less than four weeks has been outstanding. It has taken more than 600 Ergon Energy, Energex and Powerlink crew members and contractors in the field, many working 12-hour shifts. It has involved more than 100,000 hours of work. It is the largest deployment of workers in Ergon Energy’s history. 19 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1139

Powerlink has completed recovery work on its Woree-Edmonton to Innisfail transmission line to have it now operating as two separate circuits. Although not an ideal situation, work over coming months, including vegetation management, will further improve the reliability of that line. With regard to the still offline Kareeya to Innisfail transmission line, which partly traverses the Wet Tropics area, all towers will be inspected once access and weather allow. But clean-up of fallen towers along that line will need to wait until the end of the wet season. However, the long-term strategy is to replace that line with a new Tully to Innisfail line along a coastal alignment. Crews, including Powerlink and Energex workers, did a tremendous job restoring the high-voltage transmission lines that were damaged. Once the damaged high-voltage lines were repaired, Ergon Energy turned its focus to repairing low-voltage networks and reconnecting individual service wires in the Innisfail, Tully and Mission Beach areas. Some customers in those areas are still being supplied by generator, but as the low-voltage line repair work continues more customers will be reconnected to mains supply. Ergon Energy made a commitment that as many customers as possible who were capable of being safely reconnected to the power grid would have power back by Easter. I can report to the House that Ergon Energy met that commitment, connecting almost every customer they could connect. Ergon Energy crews continued working through the weekend, forgoing their Easter break, to work on individual service connections. I was in Innisfail last Wednesday to farewell and thank many of the Ergon Energy employees who had travelled north to help out with this massive recovery effort. I thanked them on behalf of the people of far-north Queensland and the state government. I know from the feedback I have received on my visits to the region that these workers have earned the sincere gratitude and respect of far-north Queenslanders for their unstinting efforts. They have done a magnificent job. I wish to report to the House today that they are already on the case preparing to deal with the aftermath of Cyclone Monica.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Supply

Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water) (10.18 am): The prolonged and severe drought in south-east Queensland is regarded as the worst in 100 years. This drought has put unprecedented pressure on the water supplies held in the Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams. In May last year, 13 of the 18 local councils in south-east Queensland and the region’s bulk water supplier SEQWater came together and launched an agreed regional drought strategy. This strategy outlines the agreed trigger levels for water restrictions and what, in broad terms, the restrictions mean. For instance, it is agreed that level 3 water restrictions will be introduced when water levels reach 30 per cent. The Queensland government has supported this partnership approach. I am pleased to say that more than 60 billion litres of water has been saved. I would like to congratulate those south-east Queenslanders who are conserving water and abiding by water restrictions. The Gold Coast City Council is one of the 13 councils working to the regional drought strategy. Therefore, I was disappointed last week with the announcement that the Gold Coast City Council had agreed to have a 48-hour moratorium to allow an autumn cleaning or ‘wet weekend’ for its residents. I spoke with Gold Coast City Council Mayor Ron Clarke, and I asked him to reconsider the decision. The mayor has advised me that he will take the issue back to the next full council meeting on Monday. I table a copy of the correspondence that I have received from the mayor of the Gold Coast. A number of councils, including Brisbane City Council, have expressed concern about the Gold Coast decision. I am advised that SEQWater, on behalf of the regional drought strategy working group, has written to councils inviting them to consider whether they would participate in a region-wide wet weekend. The proposal would be that on a specified weekend there would be a moratorium from current level 2 water restrictions to allow cleaning with a high-pressure cleaning unit or hose with a trigger nozzle. Sprinklers would remain prohibited and hand-held hosing for gardens and lawns would continue to be subject to level 2 restrictions under the proposal. Councils have been requested to reply to SEQWater by the end of this week. I believe such a ‘wet weekend’, at a time of critically low water storages, is inappropriate. I note that councils have been advised that the Gold Coast City Council’s ‘wet weekend’ in 2003 led to an 18 per cent increase in water use. This is not the time to contemplate increasing water use, even if it is only temporary. This is a time when we must continue to conserve our water. This is a time when we must be vigilant and continue to do what we say, and that is watch every drop. 1140 Ministerial Statement 19 Apr 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Federal Industrial Relations Legislation Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (10.21 am): After just a few weeks in operation, John Howard’s WorkChoices laws are inflicting misery and anguish in Queensland’s workplaces. I can report today that many, many cases of unfair dismissal are being reported to the Department of Industrial Relations. Staff in my department who run Wageline and the Fair Go Advisory Service are hearing about these cases on a daily basis. I would like to provide the House with a few examples this morning. Wageline was called by an employee who was dismissed on 5 April after almost 10 years of service as an office manager south of Brisbane. The employer cited misconduct as the reason and refused to pay long service leave. This worker has lodged a complaint with the ACTU. A sales representative from the Gold Coast was dismissed following an injury he received on the job. The man was instructed by his doctor to take time off work to allow his injury to heal. On 27 March, three days after being injured, he returned his company vehicle and submitted WorkCover documents. Later that evening he received an email from his employer terminating his employment and received a follow-up letter a week later. The date of 27 March was the very day WorkChoices took effect. Then there was an employee who was dismissed after 25 years service with a multinational employer, who cited redundancy as the reason. This is all an employer has to do under WorkChoices— say the employee has been dismissed for operational reasons. This leaves the worker with no avenue to claim unfair dismissal, regardless of the size of the business. Another wronged worker, a female, called from north Queensland, where she was a live-in manager of a motel. She reported that when a maintenance employee left the business the owner told her to take over the maintenance role or finish up. This is the harsh reality of WorkChoices now seen in practice. If one works for a company with 100 employees or fewer, one can be sacked on the spot without reason and without any right of appeal. With this very real threat now hanging over their heads, workers have no job security and it leaves them open to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, taking advantage of the laws to cut wages and conditions. Take the example of a 17-year-old first-year apprentice whose experience was reported to Wageline. Before WorkChoices, his working hours were 7.15 am to 4 pm Monday to Friday, with overtime for excess hours. On 29 March he was told by his employer that his work hours had been changed to 6.15 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday, with no overtime, and 6.15 am to 12 noon Saturday until the job is done. What choice does a worker realistically have in this situation—especially a 17-year-old trying to hold down his first job—but to accept these unilateral changes to working conditions? On the same day, Wageline heard from a female employee at a financial services company who was told to sign a new agreement or she would be sacked. This is the kind of workplace that is encouraged by these draconian federal laws—an American style workplace where employers are able to fire at will if they wish and workers are left with reduced wages and conditions and no certainty or job security.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Child Safety Service Centres Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.25 am): A record $40 million capital works program is giving child safety officers around Queensland the tools and infrastructure they need to better protect children and young people. The department is forging ahead with the rollout of new child safety service centres and zonal offices around the state and is committed to providing its staff with the best possible facilities to undertake their essential but often challenging work. The unprecedented Child Safety capital works program is about addressing the unique requirements of child safety centres to provide family conference facilities, areas for children and foster- carers and office space in a single, secure environment. The delivery of new child safety infrastructure is rolling out in all corners of Queensland and has highlighted some of the complications of undertaking massive building projects during an unprecedented construction and development boom. The Queensland economy is booming at an incredible rate. Local councils are also facing record numbers of development applications and the competition for suitable existing office space is also fierce. Any delays that may arise during the delivery of the capital works program will be overcome because I am determined to give child safety officers facilities befitting their needs and the needs of vulnerable Queensland children, young people and their families. 19 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1141

I never cease to be impressed by child safety officers, who undertake traumatic and demanding work on behalf of the community. They are real community heroes. I rank child safety officers alongside nurses, police, teachers, ambos and firies in terms of their service to society. This accommodation program is very well deserved.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.27 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Alert Digest No. 4 of 2006.

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.27 am): I table report No. 74 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee titled Matter of privilege referred to the Legislative Assembly on 24 November 2005 relating to allegations of electoral bribery. I commend the report to the House.

PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT

Queensland Labor Party Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): Policy divisions are opening up in the Labor Party everywhere. It is simple as this: if they cannot govern themselves, they cannot govern Queensland. Anna Bligh’s Labor Left is on an absolute rampage as it is feeling its respective political muscle. We are seeing the divisions in the Labor Party everywhere. Let us have a look at some of these issues. Let us take uranium, for example. Let us look at police move-on powers and alcohol management plans. We have seen the Premier’s flip-flop position on uranium mining over recent years. He has said that he is opposed to uranium mining in Queensland because it might affect the coal industry. He has now turned around and said that he has had a revelation and he may actually change his mind. He has ordered his bureaucrats to go away and look at it. More recently, he said that he cannot do anything about it because it is federal policy issue. That is notwithstanding the fact that it is contained in the Labor Party’s state platform. But we have seen Ronan Lee, the member for Indooroopilly, running around saying he is going to yell and scream and jump up and down and do cartwheels if there is any relaxation of Labor’s uranium mining policy. We have heard an expression of common sense from the member for Hervey Bay, Andrew McNamara, who understands that it is the 21st century and that there is an opportunity for Queensland to be able to export uranium. What have we seen from Labor on the subject of police move-on powers? We have heard the minister saying that we need additional police move-on powers. We agree. It is common sense. But this morning the member for Cook was on the radio saying that he is opposed to them, just as Young Labor has said that it is opposed to them. What have we seen with alcohol management plans? The minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy is saying one thing, yet the Minister for Child Safety, the member for Townsville, is saying that the communities should be left alone to decide their own destiny on this matter. We have schisms in the Labor Party everywhere. It is as simple as this: if you cannot govern yourself, if you cannot control yourself, you cannot govern Queensland.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Uranium Mining Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the minister for natural resources, mines and no water. I refer— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, there is no such ministry in the Beattie government. Please rephrase your question. Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is to the minister for natural resources and mines. I refer to his responsibility as minister for mines and to his part in the issue of mining exploration leases in Queensland and to his department’s recent statement that no permits are issued in relation to uranium 1142 Questions Without Notice 19 Apr 2006 exploration in Queensland. The Queensland Government Mining Journal of December 2005 includes this valuable information—and I table it. Glengarry Resources Ltd reported preliminary results of drilling at the Oasis uranium prospect recording finding uranium oxide. Matrix Mining confirmed high-grade uranium mineralisation in close proximity to the Mary Kathleen uranium mine. Resolute Mining Ltd has results from its drilling at the Mount Isa uranium copper project—and the member for Mount Isa has already talked about that—and perhaps, more tellingly, Summit Resources Ltd is drilling at the Isa Uranium Joint Venture covering the Valhalla and Skal uranium deposits. What are these companies exploring? Is this exploration in line with the State Labor Party’s platform? Mr PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question. The short answer to the last part of his question is yes. The Queensland government, like successive governments in this state, has not issued any new mining leases for uranium. Exploration permits are not mining leases. In terms of exploration, the Mineral Resources Act 1989 provides for exploration permits to be issued for either coal or minerals other than coal. Exploration permits granted for minerals other than coal may lead to discoveries of gold, copper, uranium or other mineral discoveries. Under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the department can issue exploration permits for either coal or minerals other than coal. When the department grants exploration permits, whether it is for coal or other minerals, the department advises the permit holder of the following— If following exploration you intend to apply for mining tenements within the boundaries of your exploration permit, you should be aware that the Queensland government’s policy is that it will not grant mining tenure for the purpose of mining uranium in Queensland, nor will it permit treatment or processing of uranium in the state. That is consistent with Labor government policy. Uranium Mining Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is to the same minister. In January the Premier stated that he was opposed to the mining of uranium in Queensland. Then after a call by the member for Mount Isa for uranium to be mined and a call by Bill Ludwig for a shift in policy the minister backed down and ordered bureaucrats to study the implications of uranium mining. As the minister well knows, Labor’s state policy platform of 2005, which I table, rules out uranium mining whilst exploration for uranium proceeds with the approval of his government. Does the minister support the removal of section 5.3.10 of Labor’s state platform opposing uranium mining in Queensland? Mr PALASZCZUK: I shall reiterate the state government’s position. Our policy is not to grant new mining leases for uranium mining. The Premier said that he would consider uranium mines in Queensland if federal Labor altered its existing three mines policy. Of course, the Premier has asked his department to study whether uranium mining would damage the coal industry. We have to be sure that the capacity for expansion of the coal industry in Queensland is not going to be diminished by the expansion of the uranium market, and that is consistent with our state government and Labor Party policy. Health Action Plan Mr WALLACE: My question without notice is to the Premier. The state government’s 6.4 billion health action plan is making dramatic improvements to Queensland Health, including the recruitment of extra doctors from interstate and overseas. I ask: what effect is the global shortage of doctors having on other parts of Australia? Mr BEATTIE: The $6.4 billion health action plan is indeed delivering massive improvements to Queensland Health, including the recruitment of hundreds of doctors. But there are areas over which we have no control, such as the federally controlled university places for medical students. It seems that everybody, apart from the opposition, is aware of the global shortage of doctors, nurses and allied health workers and the fact that many countries, including Australia, have not been training enough doctors. One of the strategies of our health action plan is to attract more doctors by increasing their salaries in a $1 billion package. I notice that the Victorian AMA is now saying that Queensland and New South Wales doctors are paid 50 per cent more than doctors in Victoria as a result of government initiatives to attract more doctors to work in our hospitals. It says that the Victorian government has already admitted that it is 900 doctors short and it is warning that a possible exodus could leave the Victorian public hospital system not viable. The AMA states further— As the chasm of conditions and pay increases, because Premiers Peter Beattie and Morris Iemma value their doctors more, we’re going to find it increasingly difficult to maintain a good public hospital system in Victoria. So the AMA in Victoria acknowledges that we are quite appropriately supporting our doctors here, and I thank them for that. Although Queensland is able to fill places at the moment, it is essential for the future of all state health systems that we obtain more medical places at universities to train Australian doctors to treat Australian patients. Using the same methodology as the Commonwealth government, we have estimated that Queensland needs 325 extra places. 19 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1143

The Prime Minister was a party to the decision by the Council of Australian Governments that extra places are, indeed, needed. He agreed that the council should decide on exactly how many more places are needed across the country. The answer was 955, because Queensland chaired that subcommittee of COAG. The Prime Minister has reneged on this process and unilaterally continues his government’s restriction on the number of doctors qualifying from universities. He has limited the number of extra medical places to just 400 for the whole of Australia. Victoria has been promised 160 of these places. Why are we missing out? Why are the Liberal and National Party members here not pursuing the Prime Minister on this issue to give Queensland its fair share of medical student places? He will be here tonight to attend a function. We are not going to move away from this matter. It is likely that Queensland will receive only 50 extra places, which is less than a sixth of the number we need. I think that is a disgrace. Until the federal government decides to improve its position, the situation will continue. We have moved to resolve the issues at Caboolture Hospital. Why did they come about? Because under the federal government Australia is not training enough Australian doctors. Why do we have problems in Maryborough? We cannot find enough doctors. Why not? Because the Australian government is not training enough doctors. Water Supply Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. In 1985 south-east Queensland had a total population of 1.7 million people and total water storage of 2.7 million megalitres. By 2005, the population had grown to 2.9 million, representing a 17 per cent increase, but water storage increased by only 0.3 per cent. Given that the Labor Party has been in government for 15 of the past 17 years, why has it done nothing about securing a new water storage to service south-east Queensland, thereby putting at risk the lifestyles and livelihoods of all residents? Mr PALASZCZUK: At the outset we have to recognise that we are going through the worst drought south-east Queensland has experienced over the past 100 years. So the state government, in cooperation with our local regional councils, is working to implement a comprehensive water strategy for south-east Queensland that addresses not just the current drought but also the ongoing uncertainty associated with climate variability and climate change. We are planning for the needs of an additional one million residents for whom south-east Queensland will become home over the next 20 years. Our South East Queensland Regional Plan sets out the measures that are needed to support the growth that lies ahead. They are straightforward measures backed by clear targets and time lines. They will do the following: ensure more efficient management and use of water; increase water supplies to accommodate regional growth, such as the $281 million Burnett Dam, which is currently commencing to fill; diversify supplies to address climate variability, climate change and other supply risks; provide policy frameworks and subsidies to support more sustainable and integrated water recycling management systems; and review institutional arrangements to ensure efficient, sustainable and equitable delivery of bulk water supplies and treatment services. Our government’s mini-budget outlined how the government will spend $20 million on getting the western corridor recycled water project up and running as quickly as possible to recycle treated effluent. That program is well underway. This means up to 130,000 megalitres of treated recycled water currently being released into Moreton Bay will be made available for industrial development. Towards the end of last year the southern regional water pipeline proposal was declared a significant project, and all approvals will be coordinated to ensure that it is given top priority. This project, if it goes ahead, will create a network of water pipes between Wivenhoe and Hinze dams to ensure a quality water supply for the booming growth corridors linking Brisbane, Ipswich, the Gold Coast, Logan and Beaudesert. Unlike the opposition, we are working with the councils in south-east Queensland to make sure that we are able to supply water for residents in south-east Queensland not only currently, with the problems we are experiencing, but also in the future. Queensland Health Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the way in which the opposition is constantly and maliciously denigrating the performance of Queensland Health. I ask the Premier to inform the House what is actually happening in the health system. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chatsworth, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I congratulate staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital for achieving record levels of surgery in March. In fact, over the first nine months of the financial year they have achieved an eight per cent increase in the number of operations they have performed when compared with the same period last year—well done. That is an extra 988 cases. So 1144 Questions Without Notice 19 Apr 2006 far this financial year staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital have performed 12,934 operations. But in March they set a new level for the number of operations in a month. More than 1,700 patients were operated on at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in March. About a quarter of all operations—441—were emergency cases. Most of the rest—1,271—were urgent and semiurgent elective surgery cases. Of the 1,700 patients, 89 per cent were public. Over the last six months the hospital has operated on an average of 1,450 patients a month, most of them category 1 urgent and category 2 semiurgent cases. The hospital has recruited additional staff. Increased funding has enabled it to undertake additional operating theatre sessions which resulted from increased emergency cases referred to the hospital and increased bed numbers. The category 1 operations are often complex, needing a dedicated and committed group of staff, involving the assistance of more than one surgical speciality, and advanced equipment and machinery. All this extra activity has only been made possible by an enormous amount of work and dedication from all levels of staff throughout the organisation. I join with Stephen Robertson, the health minister, in acknowledging that the level of staff commitment has been exceptional. I simply say thank you very much to the PA. At the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital there is further good news, with 2,012 operations in March compared with 1,956 last year. Again, I thank the staff there as well for their hard work and dedication. However, despite this wonderful work, I am advised that it could take a while to reduce waiting times for elective surgery to acceptable limits. But let me remind all members that patients waiting for operations are still a lot better off today than they were when the opposition leader and the Liberal leader were ministers. In those days the member for Toowoomba South was health minister and when it came to patients waiting for semiurgent surgery—that is category 2 surgery—he set a target of reducing the number of people waiting longer than clinically recommended to 40 per cent. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cunningham, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: The coalition government thought it would be a success if four out of 10 patients had to wait too long for an operation. So when the coalition was in government it reduced bed numbers every year, and its idea of a target was four out of 10. I can assure Queenslanders that we do not believe that this is acceptable. We are aiming to treat 95 per cent of patients on time. I want to thank the medical staff for what they have done. The opposition says one thing and does another. I thank the Minister for Health for his commitment.

Water Supply Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. The minister told ABC Radio on 12 April when he was questioned about south-east Queensland’s water crisis that he wanted to be remembered as ‘the minister who built dams’. According to the SEQ Infrastructure Plan, the Wyaralong Dam will not be built until 2026 and the minister has not made any progress on acquiring the land to build it since June 2003. The minister has not made any progress at all towards building Glendower Dam. Given the long time frames the minister has set for new dam construction, how can the minister hope to be remembered as the minister who built dams when he will most likely be retired and in a nursing home before these dams are built? Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr PALASZCZUK: I am wounded. The honourable member knows, as do other honourable members opposite, that I have made a commitment to the people of Queensland that I will not retire until the last fire ant in Queensland has been eliminated. That is my commitment to the people of Queensland. However, I agree with the statement made by the honourable member for Callide that I do want to be remembered as the minister who built dams in Queensland. Mr Speaker, I say to the honourable members of this House: just wait. Just wait. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr Johnson: How long have we got to wait, Henry? Mr PALASZCZUK: Just you watch. Just you watch. In relation to Glendower Dam, let me put on the parliamentary record that the Queensland government has already purchased approximately 5,000 hectares of land—more than half the area required for two proposed dams in the state’s south east. Our south-east Queensland regional water supply strategy, being developed by the government and by the region’s local councils, details a range of projects to secure the region’s water supply, including the proposed Glendower and Wyaralong dams. The strategy includes a recycled water pipeline, a regional water grid and new water storages such as the Glendower and Wyaralong dams and the Cedar Grove and Mary River weirs, which are very well advanced now. 19 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1145

Whilst the final south-east Queensland regional water supply report with its definitive project time frames and costings is due at the end of the year, the government’s partners are moving ahead on these projects. In terms of the proposed Glendower Dam, 2,634 hectares, or 99 per cent of the land, has been acquired. Also, 2,326 hectares, or 36 per cent of the land required, has been purchased for Wyaralong Dam. Our government is standing in the market to negotiate with land-holders to buy the land required. I am advised that a number of land-holders have approached the government regarding the land being sought for the proposed Wyaralong Dam. These discussions are ongoing. In terms of Cedar Grove Weir, the Coordinator-General has written to about 14 land-holders in the northern Beaudesert area to inform them of the land acquisition program. Time expired. Scramjet Program Ms LIDDY CLARK: My question is addressed to the Deputy Premier. Two weeks ago she was in the United States and announced the state’s commitment to the very exciting Scramjet program. I know quite a bit about this, so I am very interested in it. Could the Deputy Premier please detail if this has progressed? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am not at all surprised to find out that the member for Clayfield knows about the Scramjet program. Indeed, the burgeoning aviation and aerospace industry being built in Queensland has much of its home in her electorate and she is a great supporter of the work that is happening there. It is important that members of the House understand that the aviation industry—one of the target industries of this government—is experiencing rapid growth. Queensland is increasingly being recognised across the country and, importantly, in other parts of the world as a very desirable location for industries that are working directly in aerospace or aviation, or which are associated with it in some way. I am very pleased to advise the House that, through our recent innovation funds, we were able to contribute a further $2 million towards the research program undertaking work on the Scramjet project at the University of Queensland. I was very pleased to advise a number of executives from Boeing of this when I met with them at their world headquarters in Chicago two weeks ago. However, I was even more pleased when they advised me that they intended to match the government’s allocation. The Boeing company, through its Phantom Works subsidiary and Advanced Systems groups, has forged a strategic alliance with the University of Queensland and the Queensland state government to support the development of hypersonic flight technology that could very well open up new frontiers in aerospace globally. In this alliance, Boeing will make an investment of US$1.5 million, which equates to about A$2.023 million, and provides the indirect support of some of their best people. I am very pleased to place on record this morning my thanks to Boeing’s Phantom Works president, Bob Krieger, and to Dr Kevin Bowcutt and William Lyons for their very enthusiastic support of their project. This is a good indication that the world is taking notice of what is happening in the Smart State. Some six or seven years ago there was very little to speak of by way of an aviation industry in Queensland. We can thank the Beattie government for its determined effort to ensure that the aviation industry has a home in Queensland. We have not only a very strong aviation industry but also some of the most cutting-edge projects, whether it is UAVs—unmanned aerial vehicles—or projects such as the Scramjet. The commitment by Boeing reinforces the strategy put in place by our government, with our Smart State thinking, that if we invest in such projects it will leverage funding from other sources. This is a great example. Our $2 million investment is now being matched by Boeing. The largest group of Boeing employees outside the United States is in Australia and 70 per cent of that Australian workforce is based in Queensland. It is a very important partner and I am very pleased that it has joined us in this project. Costello, Ms J Mrs PRATT: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. The investigation into the hospitals involved in the case of the young mother, Jessica Costello, who lost both lower limbs, with further medical assessments to be made, has exonerated both hospitals. The investigation was commissioned by the district manager, who is based at one of the hospitals involved, and was carried out by their own nominee. People in the community question the impartiality of this investigation, which is seen as Caesar judging Caesar. I ask the minister: was the investigation impartial and fair to young Jessica? Further, has she, as the patient, received a copy of the report and, if not, when will she receive it? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. This is truly a tragic case and everybody’s heart goes out to this young mum who has had such an unfortunate outcome with respect to a number of issues that went unfortunately wrong. 1146 Questions Without Notice 19 Apr 2006

The circumstances that led to the transfer of Mrs Costello were as follows. Mrs Costello was discharged home from Kingaroy Hospital on 11 February this year, following the normal delivery of her second child the previous day. The next day, Mrs Costello phoned the hospital as she was feeling unwell. She was advised by staff to present to her local hospital at Murgon where she was assessed by nursing staff and contact was made with the doctor who was on-call for clinical advice. All appropriate treatment was provided. Mrs Costello’s condition improved and she returned home. Mrs Costello again phoned the Kingaroy Hospital on the evening of 13 February and was advised to present the following morning. She was assessed by a doctor. Again, all appropriate treatment was provided. Her condition improved and she was discharged. She was advised to return if her condition did not continue to improve. The next day, on the afternoon of 15 February, she presented in a significantly deteriorated state. Immediate treatment was provided and transfer to a tertiary hospital was arranged. Following the transfer to a tertiary hospital, the local district manager initiated a review of the clinical treatment that had been provided and the circumstances that led to the transfer, because of the seriousness and unexpected nature of Mrs Costello’s condition. The review was undertaken by a senior clinician, Dr Peter Bristow, the medical superintendent of Toowoomba Base Hospital, at the request of the district manager of Kingaroy and Murgon hospitals. Dr Bristow handed over the review to the district manager of the South Burnett Health Service District only last evening and his findings are still being considered. However, I am becoming aware of the finalisation of that review. I have also requested that that review by the medical superintendent of the Toowoomba district be sent to the Chief Health Officer for further review, to ensure that the thoroughness of that review is what we would expect in terms of such a review. As to the appropriateness of releasing it at this stage, I would rather take advice on that matter. Issues of patient confidentiality exist, obviously. However, in terms of providing appropriate feedback to Mrs Costello and her family, that will be done and it will be done as soon as possible. However, I am determined to ensure that the review that was undertaken into this particular tragic case has been thorough, which is why I have asked the Chief Health Officer to become involved. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Springwood, I welcome to the parliamentary gallery teachers and students of the Immanuel Lutheran College in Maroochydore in the electorate of Kawana, which is represented in this parliament by the Hon. Chris Cummins. Gateway Motorway Upgrade Ms STONE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Could the minister please inform the House about progress on the Gateway upgrade project? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is assiduous in advancing the interests of road users and public transport users in south east Queensland. The $1.6 billion Gateway upgrade continues. Tenders for the project closed on 28 March. Fifty boxes of tender documents were delivered as part of the tenders from the three consortia. They are Leighton-Abigroup joint venture; Thiess-Baulderstone Hornibrook joint venture, so we have tenders from German based businesses; and the Coastlink consortium of Bouygues Travaux Publics of France and Macmahon Contractors. It is quite unusual to have a significant diversity of bidding in this very important project. The project involves duplicating the bridge and widening 20 kilometres of motorway from the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road just south of Nudgee Road. Another access route to the airport will be totally finished in 2011. The duplicate bridge will have six extra lanes. Queensland Motorways Ltd and Main Roads are now in the process of evaluating the huge volume of tender documents. Obviously, this project will heavily involve the private sector. It will be a design, construct and maintain contract. At this point in time, it is the largest capital works project in Queensland’s history. We will announce the winning tender in approximately September. Motorists will start to see the results by mid 2007. Early works will start on the major improvements to the Wynnum Road interchange at Tingalpa. People such as myself or perhaps the member for Chatsworth, whose electorate will benefit from the early works, would know about the major bottleneck under the Gateway Bridge in the morning. There will be extra turning lanes onto the Gateway and dedicated lanes through the interchange. This $10.5 million project is expected to be completed in mid-2007. It is jointly funded by the Brisbane City Council. This government can work with the Brisbane City Council and it is more than happy to do so. Travel time savings from the intersection upgrade of the western intersection will be three minutes during morning peak times and one minute during after afternoon peak times. The eastern intersection morning and afternoon peaks will be reduced from five minutes to less than 30 seconds, which will be a major saving in travelling time. This is another example of how governments work together. 19 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1147

As part of this project we want to ensure that we can progressively open as much of the Gateway as possible as the project progresses. In relation to the Wynnum Road to Lytton Road section, two lanes southbound will open in late 2007; in relation to the northern deviation, we will open an additional lane north and south to provide a second access to Brisbane Airport by late 2008; in relation to the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road to Wynnum Road section, all six lanes will open in 2009; the duplicate bridge will be opened in late 2010; and refurbishment of the existing bridge will be completed by mid-2011. The bridge has always been under the control of the state but the rest of it is National Highway. How much have we got towards this $1.6 billion project from the federal government? About $8 million early on and nothing for the project—nothing for the project that is National Highway. What that means is that the toll is higher and longer because the federal government has dumped its responsibility for that 20 kilometres of upgrade, which is almost $1 million. Water Supply Mr HOBBS: I have a question for the minister for natural resources. I refer to the Premier’s media release about water audits issued yesterday which states that residents would pay about $30 towards the cost of a $150 audit, with council sharing the cost with the state government. Can the minister explain why there was no consultation with the Local Government Association before announcing this policy on the run? Can the minister clearly explain what cost council will be expected to meet? Is this another attempt to cost-shift onto councils for the minister’s failure to ensure Queenslanders have adequate water supplies? Mr PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question. I am a little bit disturbed about the tone of the question because south-east Queensland’s local governments and the state government are working together to develop and implement a range of initiatives to provide secure water supplies for the short and the long term. One component of these initiatives is the water efficiency program. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego! Mr PALASZCZUK: The state government is committed to assisting all water users, including residential users and businesses, to become more water efficient both in the short and the long term. I have had a number of discussions with the Brisbane Lord Mayor, who is the chairman of the south-east Queensland water association in relation to retrofitting. I have had numerous discussions with the mayor on this very issue, and he recommended it to me as being a great way of being able to save water, household by household by household. I do not know what the honourable member opposite is on about. In the short term, $20 million will be made available this financial year to provide assistance to reduce water use in south-east Queensland. Currently the Gold Coast City Council is applying a similar program which is working very efficiently. Extending this program to other councils is certainly a great way to go. If we were able to retrofit all homes in south-east Queensland more water would be saved than from building a brand-new dam. The member wants to know how it works. Firstly, it will assist interested householders in retrofitting houses with water efficiency devices such as water-saving shower heads and tap flow limiters. This type of program has been undertaken in other states whereby the householder pays about $30 and the government subsidises the remainder of the cost for an audit and retrofit. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego, you have asked your question. Please allow the minister to answer it. Mr PALASZCZUK: This audit and retrofit can reduce household water use by about 21 kilolitres per year. Secondly, it will also assist businesses undertake water efficiency audits which will identify where cost-effective water savings can be made. An audit will outline measures that will reduce water use by commercial and industrial water users. The government will be working closely with all local governments and South East Queensland Water and will be talking to them soon regarding the details of this program and how it can be implemented so that it complements their existing programs. Water efficiency is something we all need to embrace as we cannot continue to use water the way we have done in the past, especially in this dry continent. Together we can do it by saving every drop. Breaking the Unemployment Cycle Mr LIVINGSTONE: My question is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Breaking the Unemployment Cycle has been a great success in cracking the target of 100,000 jobs for the state. Can the minister give us any insight into how this program has changed Queenslanders’ lives? 1148 Questions Without Notice 19 Apr 2006

Mr BARTON: I really do thank the member for the question. Yes, this program has done an almighty job in this state in getting over 100,000 people back to work. We have heard from the Premier today how Breaking the Unemployment Cycle has met the Beattie government’s promise to create jobs, jobs, jobs. Helping create 100,000 jobs for Queensland is no mean feat, but this is more than just about figures and statistics. The initiative has changed the lives of over 100,000 Queenslanders—for example young, uncertain Queenslanders such as Kat Barker, who felt she was on a treadmill to nowhere before spending eight weeks learning multimedia techniques on a Community Jobs Plan project with Speak Out, a Brisbane community organisation. Kat went on to complete a traineeship and has since worked for the Brisbane City Council and Speak Out. She has also become a successful self-portrait photographer. This Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative project gave Kat not only valuable work skills that allowed her to work as a freelancer but also the confidence to get back into work. At the other end of the age spectrum is Ed Zammit, a mature-age job seeker from Ipswich, the member’s area. Ed also found job success with the help of the initiative. He thought after 2½ years out of work that an early retirement was his lot, but he was referred by the St Mary’s Employment Group to an Ipswich City Council Community Jobs Plan work placement project where they recognised his carpentry and organisational skills. After only six weeks on the project he was offered work as a carpenter’s assistant with the Ipswich City Council and is now supervising others on a Community Jobs Plan project with the council itself. These are just two of the 100,000 success stories from the Breaking the Employment Cycle initiative that can be told. It is the individuals who lie at the heart of this great milestone for Queensland. As the figures show, 12 months after completing the projects over 60 per cent of participants are in work, further training or both. The program gives people the skills and confidence so that they can contribute to the state’s economy and their own future. Skilling the state’s workforce is also what the Beattie government’s $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan, launched last month, is all about. The skills plan, which builds on our already record level of new investment in training, will allow Queensland’s vocational education and training sector to meet the skills challenges of the 21st century. It will build a training system that gives young Queenslanders such as Kat the skills that industry needs and enable existing and older workers like Ed to update their skills and improve their productivity and incomes. A skilled workforce is the absolute key to Queensland’s continued economic growth. Water Supply Mr CALTABIANO: My question is to the minister for natural resources and mines. The total dam storage for south-east Queensland is now at 32 per cent capacity, which equates to just less than two years supply for all the residents and businesses in the region. We are facing the real possibility of our taps running dry. We know that the demand for water in south-east Queensland is between 750 and 1,100 megalitres per day. What is this government doing about new water supplies in the next two years, given that it will take more than two years to complete a waste water pipeline to preserve only 80 megalitres a day, more than two years to build a desalination plant to deliver 110 megalitres a day and up to 10 years to build a dam that will provide a new water source? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. I believe that I have outlined in my previous answers to the House our plan, which is in partnership with the local government associations of south-east Queensland. The plan is out there for everyone to see. It is a plan that has been signed off by the Premier, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and me. I would recommend all honourable members opposite get a copy of the plan and have a read. Then they will find out what is happening. The plan contains a timetable that members opposite can look at. Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the restoration of the Caboolture Hospital emergency department to a full 24/7 service yesterday, and I ask: has the unique partnership between Queensland Health and Aspen Medical received support from Caboolture’s emergency department senior doctors? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question and I thank the member for Pumicestone and the member for Glass House for their continued support and representation in their local communities in relation to the Caboolture Hospital. They were both members of the Caboolture Hospital community reference group that I established this year and they have both provided very strong voices for their electorates. I am pleased to advise the House that the unique agreement reached between Queensland Health and Aspen Medical at Caboolture has received strong support from existing hospital staff, not least of which has been from senior emergency department doctors. Four of the senior doctors, including the former acting director of the emergency department, have chosen to sign on with Aspen 19 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1149

Medical. Overall, Aspen has recruited six senior medical officers and nine registrars to help build the emergency department back up to a full staffing complement of 23 doctors and 40 nurses. I would like to thank the existing senior doctors for their strong show of support and vote of confidence in Aspen and Queensland Health. Out of the consultant work that Aspen has undertaken, Caboolture will have more than a restoration of around-the-clock emergency services. Aspen will be formulating a model of emergency care that could shape Caboolture as the flagship emergency department for regional hospitals—a model that other hospitals could be expected to follow. That is hardly a bandaid solution, as the member for Moggill puts it. As Aspen’s Andrew Walker vowed yesterday, the emergency department will be in good health when it is returned to Queensland Health. I noticed in this morning’s paper that the member for Moggill is still peddling this rot about increased pay scales under Aspen. As both Aspen and I have continually asserted, Aspen is paying its doctors in line with Queensland Health’s award rate. I do not know why he continues to peddle those lies. I do not understand why he wants to talk down an innovative solution at Caboolture Hospital. What has he got against the private sector assisting the public sector? What problem does he have with paying doctors properly? He has been caught out once again telling lies not just to the people of Queensland but to the media as well. Under our significant pay increases for doctors, the head of an emergency department in a public hospital is now worth up to $445,000 a year. I would like to quickly report the latest figures from the Caboolture emergency department overnight. From 8 am to midnight the ED treated 88 patients, which was actually fewer than the number of patients treated the day before. It is, however, higher than the average of the last couple of weeks when the emergency department operated under restricted hours, and we expect to see the number of patients gradually grow to the levels experienced last year. Finally, I would like to report that Queensland Health is, in fact, assisting Aspen with its operations abroad. As members would be aware, there was civil unrest on the Solomon Islands overnight with rioting and fire bombing. Aspen runs health services on the Solomon Islands and has asked Queensland Health for assistance with supplies. As a result, we have been approached for medical supplies via a plane leaving Brisbane at 2 pm today. Cyclone Larry, Recovery Assistance Ms LEE LONG: I refer the Premier to the fact that the people of far-north Queensland affected by Cyclone Larry are very appreciative of the many donations made to the Premier’s cyclone relief fund, which I understand at present is in excess of some $16 million. As significant hardships are still being suffered in the community, I ask: how are these funds being distributed, how quickly and to whom? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I have on a previous occasion, I thank her for her support for that meeting that I convened in Atherton where all the various producers got together. I think she would agree that since then, with cooperation from the Prime Minister, we have put forward a number of grants and cheap loans to assist the primary producers. There is over $17 million in the fund. The task force is meeting tomorrow. It is anticipated that money will be distributed by the end of this month. What we did was this—and this needs to be clearly understood. We initially handed out money in partnership with the Commonwealth to deal with immediate needs. I do not have the figure with me, but my memory tells me that over $17 million was handed out. So over $17 million was handed out. My ministers are confirming that that is the figure. We provided that money to immediately assist people to get through the aftermath of the cyclone. The second stage is that this money—the $17 million plus—will be allocated to help people rebuild their lives. That is why the first group of people who will receive money—up to $2,000—will be those people who have actually lost their homes. That is the first category of people who will be assisted. A committee has been established which Terry Mackenroth is in charge of. It includes local mayors, the Red Cross and local charities. Pat Purcell, Minister for Emergency Services, and I went to one of their meetings last Thursday in Innisfail where they were working through the allocations. They had around 600 applications on their table to process. They are making sure that the people in greatest need are actually going to get the money. That takes a little bit of time. It they do not do that properly the scheme could well be ripped off, which could cause problems. I do not want to offend anyone when I say this because 99.9 per cent of people are very decent people. However, as a government we have to ensure that money that has been given by Australians in good faith to get to people in need actually gets to those people. That is why there needs to be a process, which has been worked through with the Red Cross. The task force will be meeting again tomorrow. As I indicated, the task force will be meeting here and they will go through a series of allocations. Because of time limitations, I incorporated in Hansard this morning the latest report from General Cosgrove. He does deal with Terry Mackenroth’s chairmanship of this fund and the fund itself. I refer the member opposite to that report. It is not a great 1150 Questions Without Notice 19 Apr 2006 report on the fund in terms of time, but that report does refer to the allocations. I am happy to update the House from time to time so that members are aware of how that money is allocated. In addition to all those things that I mentioned, the long-term strategy of rebuilding is not just that $17 million; it is the funds that the Prime Minister and I have allocated in terms of assistance and grants that I mentioned. As well as that, the state and Commonwealth governments will be putting in hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild roads, bridges and council infrastructure. Assistance is separated into those three categories. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Southport, I acknowledge and welcome to the public gallery the Buderim Seniors Group, which is in the electorate of Kawana, which is represented in this place by the Hon. Chris Cummins.

Energex Mr LAWLOR: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. I read an article in the Courier-Mail on 12 April that talked about delays by Energex in getting customers reconnected. It also quoted the deputy opposition leader as saying that the electricity system was not being fixed and that some projects had been delayed. Could the minister please advise the House of the facts relating to these matters? Mr MICKEL: I thank the member for Southport. In a week when the electricity workers from across Queensland have had to deal with issues such as this after Cyclone Larry’s devastation, one would think that people right across Queensland and their political representatives would be in full support of the work of the electricity workers. Let me say that those on this side of the House certainly are. The member is right to question the article because it contains some misleading information that needs to be clarified and, indeed, corrected. The article stated that figures contained in the Queensland Competition Authority’s 2004-05 report highlight that restoration times for interruptions to power supply were longer in 2004-05 than the 2003-04 period. Quite simply, as this report shows, that is not the case. Energex customers are not waiting longer to have their power restored after an electricity interruption. The information has been misconstrued. It is important to understand that, at the request of the QCA, the data collection models changed during 2004-05, effectively making year-to-year comparisons irrelevant. Despite that, the QCA clearly states on page 12 of its report— After adjustment for the different basis of determining customer numbers, the reliability performance in 2004-05 was still a significant improvement on 2003-04. The QCA actually acknowledged that restoration times improved, a point that seemed to be lost in the article. What also surprised me, as I said, was the criticism by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He outlined 17 projects considered to be behind schedule. The article highlighted seven Energex capital works projects which had been delayed from their original projected time lines. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition failed to acknowledge was that Energex actually advanced the timing of major project works at Sandgate, Stafford, Carindale, Upper Mount Gravatt, Archerfield and Rocklea while major projects at Varsity Lakes, Cooroy, Moggill and Bundamba were completed ahead of schedule. The projects were reprioritised according to need. Some were brought forward and some were moved back depending, as I said, on their priority. I might add that a total of 54 major projects were completed by Energex prior to 31 December last year, an amazing effort that added a massive amount of additional capacity to the electricity network prior to summer. I applaud the efforts of Energex in achieving that outcome.

Holiday Rental Commissions Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development. I refer the minister to the conflict between unit owners and the body corporate management rights company S8. Allegations that the company S8 has used a loophole to circumvent the 12 per cent restriction on rental commissions in order to charge unit holders up to 40 per cent of their rental have been investigated for over 12 months yet the minister has taken no action to protect unit owners or refer possible breaches of the act to the Queensland police. Despite warnings about this matter over more than 12 months, why has the minister failed to protect unit owners or ensure that the 12 per cent ceiling on holiday rental commissions is actually enforced? Ms KEECH: I thank the member for the question. With respect to the issue of excessive commissions, particularly for holiday units, I can inform the honourable member and the House that I am advised by the Office of Fair Trading that the issue is considered very serious. It is under investigation and therefore it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make any comment at this stage. 19 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1151

Public Housing Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the minister for housing. I refer to the Brisbane suburb improvement strategy in Stafford and the success in relocating older public housing tenants from underoccupied houses into new seniors units such as happened in Collier Street. I welcome those improvements to public housing through this program. Can the minister please inform members of future projects to be delivered through this housing program? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing support and especially for standing in for me and opening the $1.7 million six, two-bedroom Collier Street units which he named after Wal McAlpine—a very fine, upstanding, deeply religious, deeply community minded community member who epitomises what public housing is all about. He is the sort of person who would rather give people a handout than a kick in the teeth. Our approach is in stark contrast to that of those who sit opposite. The member for Yeerongpilly sat in on discussions about what was going to happen in his area and what could possibly be done in terms of scoping it. Just like the member for Stafford, he was very supportive and came up with innovative suggestions. That sharply contrasts with the position of those who sit opposite. What did we get when we took the same approach with the Liberal Party? We got the headline ‘Slumming it’. Councillor Schrinner described them as slums. What do people have to say about him? Members should not take my word for it. This is what the local people say. Lorna Whelan from Camp Hill stated— CR ADRIAN Schrinner has been a politician barely a year but he already appears to be well versed in the art of scaremongering— something he has obviously learned from his Liberal colleague Michael Caltabiano. David Brennan from Carina stated— Cr Schrinner (who has just moved to the area from Hamilton) and Mr Caltabiano (who lives in a big Carindale house) should each take a cold shower ... I haven’t seen either Cr Schrinner or Mr Caltabiano leading the charge against estate developments (like the one next to the bus depot on Creek Rd) because they are in big houses, just like theirs. I could not say it better than either of those people. We are not seeking to do anything different from what any developer would want to do. At the end of the day, we are trying to keep people in suburbs like Carina. Mr Lucas: You’ve done a wonderful job in Sellina Street. Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection. We notice the contrast that we get from Labor people on this issue who do not look down their noses at people simply because they do not own a house. When it comes to building slums, we all know who built them. Some 90 or 100 dwellings were all pushed together in places like my electorate and they had to be demolished or sold off because they did not work. That does not happen under our regime. We have no intention of riding roughshod over councils. Both the member for Chatsworth and his mate Mr Schrinner know that. Both of them were briefed on that.

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Is the minister aware that the TCFUA, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, is targeting small family clothing and embroidering businesses, a lot of which make Queensland school uniforms, by threatening them with legal action unless they pay the union $15,000 and agree to ongoing payments to the union forever? Is the minister aware that this money goes to the union and not workers and in the case of my constituents there are no injured parties because their contractors are paid above-award wages? What is the minister going to do to protect these genuine Queensland small businesses and the jobs they create? Mr BARTON: This is a matter that has been brought to my attention by several people. Members will recall that during this term of office we actually changed our act so that the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union has the ability to protect outworkers. Believe it or not, this is one area where, to some extent at least, in WorkChoices John Howard and his minister understood that they would have a problem if they were not seen to be protecting outworkers. Some allegations of that nature have been made. I must say that no-one has brought formal complaints to me. I do not have any capacity to act directly on this. In the broad sense I have been made aware of those allegations. I make the point to the House that, as far as I am able to ascertain, they are allegations. If the people making the allegations believe that that union is acting illegally then they should take the appropriate action. It may well be that those employers are not—I do not like using this term—squeaky clean but they are also not being— Opposition members interjected. 1152 Matters of Public Interest 19 Apr 2006

Mr BARTON: Let us be careful. These are pretty serious allegations that were just made by a member in this parliament. These are allegations. I consider them to be serious allegations. When we get into this arena where there have been many thousands of outworkers ripped off by employers in this state it is difficult. The member for Chatsworth was not here at the time, but it is my recollection that this parliament supported unanimously the provisions that I brought forward to protect outworkers. Those provisions were brought forward because many outworkers were being ripped off in a very brutal way by some employers who were not doing the correct thing by them. Those actions necessitated those changes. Those changes had the unanimous support of this parliament. I again make the point that those are serious allegations. It may well be that there have been problems with the way employees have been paid. There may have been actions taken by the union to protect their members. If the allegations have a basis then those employers who are making those allegations should take them to the appropriate place to have them tested. Easter Road Safety Campaign Mr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Earlier this month the minister announced an increase in the police presence on our roads over the Easter long weekend to crack down on speeding, drink driving, the wearing of seatbelts and driver fatigue. What were the results of the Easter road safety campaign? Are Queensland drivers heeding the road safety message? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for the Fitzroy for the question. I think that, on any assessment, we would have to say that there were mixed results from the Easter road safety campaign. Tragically, four people were killed on our roads this Easter. That is one more life lost than in the same period last year. However, the good news is that fewer people were injured in car accidents this Easter. In fact, 113 people were injured in 88 accidents. That compares to 200 people injured in 149 accidents in 2005. We had more police hours on the roads than ever before. This Easter we had 20,000 officer hours dedicated to traffic enforcement on our roads between Thursday, 13 April and Monday, 17 April. We had 500 extra police officer hours on the road every day. That equates to an extra 62½ police officers out there patrolling traffic regulations during the Easter period. As a result, we caught a number of offenders: 441 motorists were charged with driving under the influence, 502 people were caught not wearing their seatbelts and 10,787 people were caught speeding. Of great concern is the number of people who did not take heed of the new double demerit points penalty and were twice caught speeding at more than 20 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. One of the worst drink-driving offences was detected in Dajarra in central Queensland—a man with a blood alcohol content eight times over the legal limit. Two of the worst speeding motorists were a driver caught travelling at 182 kilometres an hour in a 100 kilometres an hour zone and a driver in Warwick clocked doing 160 kilometres an hour in a 100 kilometres an hour zone with his wife and two children in the car. Some drivers were caught speeding twice in a very short period and, fortunately, as a result lost their licences. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allocated for questions has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Water Supply Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): This government has failed the basic test of the provision of water to the people of Queensland. This government has failed to get the priorities right when it comes to ensuring that there is an adequate and proper water supply to the people of this state, particularly those in south-east Queensland, which is the fastest growing area of this state and also one of the fastest growing—if not the fastest growing—areas in Australia. For a number of years this government has known about this matter, yet it has not done anything to address it appropriately. In actual fact, it was the Goss government, of which many of its members sit in cabinet today, which in 1989-90 knocked on the head the Wolffdene dam proposal, which was the best dam site to provide for the future water needs of south-east Queensland. In the 14 or 15 years out of the 17 years that Labor has been in office since it came to power in 1989, we have seen it dillydallying and dragging its feet. We have a government that has failed the test of providing the basics. When it comes to the issue of the provision of water in south-east Queensland, it has failed to get the priorities right. This morning, this government could not explain the fine details of how it is going to deliver adequate and appropriate water supplies to the people of Queensland. This morning, the ‘minister for no water’ stood up and basically said, ‘Don’t you worry about it. Trust me. It will all be fine in the long run.’ 19 Apr 2006 Matters of Public Interest 1153

The people of Queensland are sick and tired of hearing that from this government. This government’s approach to water has been to put out another glossy brochure or another report. Another report or another glossy brochure will not provide any water options for the people of Queensland nor any outcomes for the people of Queensland. Today, on behalf of the Queensland coalition, I give the firm commitment that we will act on water, because we have a track record of delivering water infrastructure in Queensland. If we win office, we will bring forward the construction of the Wyaralong Dam so that it will start in the next term of this parliament. The people of south-east Queensland have a commitment from the Queensland coalition and me that if we are elected at the next state election, the Wyaralong Dam will start in our next term. That dam will provide adequate and appropriate water options. The people of Queensland deserve to be able to turn on a tap and know that when they do that to brush their teeth, have a shower, or even water their rose garden, there is going to be water there for them to do that. This government has not delivered. It will be different under a coalition government, because we have a track record of building dams in Queensland. That is a track record that we will take forward when we win office in this state. When we win office at the next state election, we will move immediately to acquire the additional 64 per cent of the land that is needed for the construction of the Wyaralong Dam. This government has not acquired one extra piece of land in the Wyaralong Dam site for three years. Is that the mark of a government that is serious about addressing the chronic water supply problems that we have in south- east Queensland today? As has been pointed out today in this place by members of the coalition, with no inflow into Wivenhoe Dam and the other water storages in south-east Queensland, the best scenario is for two years supply of water. This government is sitting around staring skywards hoping for rain. That is the approach that this ‘minister for no water’ has been adopting in Queensland—to sit around, stare skywards and hope that we get some rain. We know that, if we rely on that approach, the provision of water will not happen. This government makes excuses all the time. It has the excuse of Queensland experiencing a 100-year drought—it is this, it is that and it is something else. We have always had drought in Queensland. We have had drought in Australia since we saw dramatic climate change tens of thousands of years ago. There is no doubt about that. We need the capacity to be able to store water when it flows. Anyone with a small rainwater tank will understand that, if we have erratic or major rainfall events, their tank will overflow. People also understand that if their water storages are not placed in appropriate places they will miss out on catching that water. That was why it was so important to have a dam on the Albert River, which is where the Wolffdene dam was proposed to be situated. It would have caught water flows that were not caught by the Wivenhoe Dam from the Brisbane River. That is logical. Mr Horan: And the catchments up in the north-west. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the honourable member for Toowoomba South said, the issue is the appropriate location of dams in catchment areas. But this government has not determined the appropriate location of water storages. When the people of south-east Queensland read the government’s South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and see that the time frame for the Wyaralong Dam extends to 2026, they shake their heads, because they have a chronic water problem that deserves immediate action from the state government—not more talk from the ‘minister for no water’ in Queensland. The coalition will give that immediate action. If we win office, we will start construction of the Wyaralong Dam in the next term of government. That is an absolute commitment. Again, I simply say that we have the track record to do that. Not only that, we will deal with the other water supply options around Queensland that need to be put on the agenda. When we were last in office we laid down the template for water provision with the water infrastructure task force. That task force categorised a whole range of major water projects throughout Queensland that deserved proactive and proper consideration by this government. But it has not done that. It tore up that document, which had industry input and industry support. That task force had properly considered and ascertained all of the options to provide for Queensland’s future water needs. Obviously, the Glendower option has to be considered immediately. We also have to consider other water storage options in other areas of Queensland, such as Hells Gate and the Urannah Dam and also the Nulinga Dam in far-north Queensland for the provision of water supply for Cairns. All of those projects have to be reassessed immediately. Notwithstanding the extraordinary wet season that places such as Cairns can experience, three years ago that city was virtually out of water. We need to hear from this government the fine details of its water policy. Today, the minister failed that fundamental test. The people of Queensland demand to know much more from this government in terms of its delivery timetable, how much the infrastructure is going to cost and the progress of property acquisitions. Today, this government failed to tell the parliament about that. 1154 Matters of Public Interest 19 Apr 2006

We also know that water recycling is an important part of freeing up potable water for people to use for their domestic supply. Yet this government seems to have no time frame for the construction of the recycled water pipeline that will head west and up to the Wivenhoe Dam. The construction of that pipeline could be years away. Again, the government talks about aspirations, but it is not prepared to properly manage such projects. This issue is about having a water program in Queensland that will deliver. This issue is about giving the people of this state what they require. This issue is about working cooperatively with the councils in Queensland to make sure that they have the water supply options. But this Labor government is more interested in shifting responsibility for supplying water—which in most cases is a state government responsibility—to the councils so that the Premier and the ‘minister for no water’ can stand back and blame the councils, or seek to shift the blame to somebody else. That sort of approach is not an approach that a coalition government in Queensland would adopt. It would be an approach of cooperation, working with councils to acquire those dam sites and working and contributing to the construction and the operation of those dams. That is the real partnership we need—not all this airy fairy paper we see going across the minister’s desk in seeking to shift blame from one level of government to another. The people of this state will simply not cop that. This government’s answers are very shallow. When we have a water crises the Premier runs out there and says that he is going to increase water charges across Queensland. That does not make any water whatsoever. That just penalises people who are already suffering as a consequence of this government’s lack of appropriate action with regard to water. We need to have not only words from the government but also action from the government, and a coalition government will provide that action. Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (11.40 am): Yesterday, 18 April, saw the reopening of the Caboolture Hospital emergency department. Several Labor MPs, including me, Carolyn Male and Ken Hayward, worked tirelessly behind the scenes for over two months with Queensland Health, the health minister, the Premier and Deputy Premier and their staff to find a solution to the full restoration of services. The Caboolture Hospital, which is in my electorate and built by the state Labor government after 12 years of National and Liberal Party promises, was recently the first Queensland victim of the chronic doctor shortage. I say ‘first victim’ advisedly because the Liberal federal government has given an inadequate response to the situation in Queensland with its recent increase in doctor training places. On this issue we have been all but deserted by the federal Liberal government, but there is no surprise in that. Remember it was the Liberal’s federal health minister Dr Michael Wooldridge who capped the number of doctor training places in 1996. Guess who was in power in Queensland? Not Labor but the National-Liberal coalition led by Rob Borbidge. And who was the health minister? The member for Toowoomba South, Mike Horan, who sits in this chamber week after week complaining about doctor shortages. It is a pity those opposite did not do something about it when it really mattered, when they had the opportunity to pressure their Liberal mates in Canberra. But the state government’s intention, and certainly my intention, is to keep the pressure on John Howard and the Liberals to provide the extra 325 doctor training places we need for Queensland universities. And I ask the community to support me by signing a petition demanding that the Liberal federal government meet the nation’s growing health needs. In fact, Australia needs an extra 955 doctor training places and an extra 6,430 nurse training places to alleviate chronic shortages. John Howard not only recently admitted that there was this chronic shortage but also admitted that providing medical training places at universities is a core responsibility of his federal government. The Prime Minister’s recent offer of 400 extra new doctor training places—160 guaranteed for Victoria and 240 for the rest of Australia—comes nowhere near meeting the nation’s growing health needs. It is a disgrace that Australia does not train enough doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, and it is an even bigger disgrace that we have to rely on doctors from countries that can ill afford a shortage. Now we have yet another doctor in the parliament. It could only make sense to the Liberals to reduce the number of doctors caring for Queenslanders by one so that they can increase the number of doctors in this place to tell us all that what we really need is more doctors caring for Queenslanders. During the Gaven by-election Dr Alex Douglas’s Liberal supporters said, ‘Mr Douglas will fix the hospitals.’ I call on Dr Douglas and his other mates, including the Liberal part-time member for Moggill— another doctor—Bruce Flegg, to contact their federal leader, John Howard, to provide us with the medical training places we need. Help us lobby him to do the right thing for our communities because at this point in time he is failing the nation on health. I doubt they are up to the challenge. After all, on the ABC last night we heard the announcer say when referring to the full-time reopening of the Caboolture Hospital’s ED, ‘The Liberals claim it won’t work.’ And after saying initially that the government should do whatever it takes, when we found a solution they said it cost too much. Those opposite cannot have it both ways. What hypocrisy. The 19 Apr 2006 Matters of Public Interest 1155

Liberals complain when we do everything to fix it, then they put letters in our letterboxes claiming the credit. They did nothing when they were in government and they have done nothing now. In fact, they are part of the problem. The state government, on the other hand, is doing what it can to alleviate the doctor shortage. We have poured an extra $6.4 billion into health and we are already seeing further improvements in services offered at no charge to patients in our hospitals. We are already paying for medical student places at Griffith University and, when they graduate, these doctors will be bonded to areas of priority need. But I am calling on the state government to do more. Whilst I know that providing medical training places is not our core responsibility, if the federal government continues to bury its head in the sand I believe that it now behoves us to develop a state controlled scheme for the training of additional doctors to meet Queensland’s future needs, and I will be urging the state government to go down this path. I know this will be complicated and difficult, but I am prepared to make the suggestion that the government begin immediately to negotiate with Queensland’s universities to purchase a significant number of extra medical training places over and above the ones we now have at Griffith. I am now in regular contact with some of the staff at the Caboolture Hospital. Things are going well, but I am sure that there will be issues in the future. I will work hard to make sure that these do not get in the road of the day-to-day running of the hospital. I am as proud as anyone of this hospital. My husband Jon’s name is on the outside plaque. He was the one who fought for the hospital and ensured that Labor Premier Wayne Goss kept his election promise to build it. I am ensuring that the Caboolture Hospital’s services increase and become even better in the future. I have been successful in my lobbying efforts. One recent success is a wonderful new service which is now being offered to patients who present themselves at the ED. The new home based acute care service, at no cost to clients, which focuses on alternative treatment options for the aged, will free up to 25 hospital beds per week. This service tackles hospital bed shortages by treating and caring for elderly patients in their own homes or residential aged care facilities. The home based acute care service comprises a team of professionals including a geriatrician, clinical nurse consultants, a pharmacist, occupational therapists, social workers, personal carers and administrative officers who provide a seven day a week, 16 hour a day service. Time expired.

Australian Gospel Music Festival; Mary MacKillop Catholic School; Ethanol Promotion Launch Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.45 am): If time permits, I want to talk about three matters of great importance that occurred over the last week in Toowoomba. The first is the Australian Gospel Music Festival, the second is the opening of the stage 2 facilities at the Mary MacKillop Catholic School at Highfields and the third is the ethanol promotional campaign launch. I had the privilege of representing the Premier last Friday night at the Australian Gospel Music Festival and took the opportunity to thank the 1,200 volunteers who made the Australian Gospel Music Festival possible and the 800 entertainers who made it a most unforgettable experience. It was a fantastic crowd. It is, in fact, the biggest gospel music festival in Australia. The Premier asked me to particularly thank those who came from interstate and overseas to hear good music and have good fun. Over the last number of years this event has energised Toowoomba at Easter. It was estimated that 35,000 people came to Toowoomba over Easter, injecting between $7 million and $10 million into our local economy. I am very pleased, as the local member, that the state government financially supports, via Queensland Events, this festival and has done so on about five occasions including this year. This is the largest drug-free and alcohol-free event in Australia. I congratulate Isaac Moody, the board and all of those who supported the event on their marvellous achievement. Last week I represented the Minister for Education at the opening of the second stage of the Mary MacKillop Catholic School at Highfields. The Most Reverend Bishop William Morris, the Catholic bishop of Toowoomba, officially blessed the extensions. This is a continuation of a dream which started with Dr Bill Sultmann, who was the previous director of Catholic education in Toowoomba. About three years ago the first stage was completed. It was at that stage the first diocesan primary school in Toowoomba in 38 years. The school has grown from 60 students in 2003 when the first stage was opened by the Premier, Peter Beattie, to 300 students now. The new extensions comprise a preschool, nine classrooms and undercover area, which are a great addition to the school and have provided much needed space for the rapidly growing student population. I certainly look forward to returning to see stage 3 facilities that are expected to be completed in 2008 and which will include a new library. The Beattie government has contributed $2.2 million towards the second stage. Also, the local school community has raised $100,000. 1156 Matters of Public Interest 19 Apr 2006

The mayor of Crows Nest shire, Councillor Geoff Patch, and other councillors were present on this occasion. The shire is well known for its cooperation with this school and with other organisations in terms of sharing public and council facilities. That demonstrates very smart use of those facilities, ratepayers’ money and taxpayers’ money. I acknowledge that Mr Joe McCorley, the recently retired executive director of the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, was on hand, as was Mr John Borserio, the director of Toowoomba Catholic Education. I pay particular tribute to the principal of the school, Mrs Donaugh Shirley, who has done a magnificent job. She was the founding principal. If any one person is responsible for the continuing progress of the school, it certainly is her. Importantly, I also acknowledge the work of parents and the community. I acknowledge Mr Quentin Kennedy, the president of the school board. Last week I had the pleasure of representing the Deputy Premier at the launch of the ethanol promotional campaign. It demonstrates that the state government is committed to driving innovation, and ethanol certainly offers Queenslanders a new industry. The Queensland ethanol industry action plan comprises a pilot phase that will run during April and May in the Toowoomba, Oakey, Dalby, Allora, Warwick and Stanthorpe districts. Time expired. Water Supply Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.51 am): This morning, I want to reinforce the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and welcome his commitment, on behalf of the opposition, that a coalition government in its first term would do what the Labor government has failed to do over 12 years now—that is, make a start on providing the infrastructure that would solve south-east Queensland’s water crisis. The solution to the water crisis is about more than building infrastructure. Infrastructure is a very important part of that solution; however, the solution has to be a three-pronged approach. It is about providing infrastructure such as dams, providing incentives and economic drivers for water efficiency and the savings that it can produce, and recycling water. In all three areas the Labor government has failed, and failed dismally. Last week we saw a token effort, fiddling around the edges, by the Premier when he announced a $20 million scheme to improve water efficiency on an individual property basis. It is a fraction of what is needed. Once again, it is a pathetic response to what is becoming a huge problem. A range of opportunities exist for the government to provide rebates on waterwise products and water-saving products—to provide the incentives and economic drivers for individual householders to improve water efficiency. It is done in a range of other states, but in Queensland the Labor government simply continues to talk about it and pay lip-service to it. However, as with the provision of major infrastructure, nothing real ever happens and nothing real is ever done. At the moment, some councils offer rebates. These have certainly proved to be popular with householders and individual property owners. Whether or not they receive a rebate depends on which street they live on or which side of the shire boundary they live on. A scheme such as this should be funded by the state government and administered in conjunction with local governments. The state government must commit some real dollars to make it work and to have it make a worthwhile contribution to solving the water crisis in south-east Queensland. In Victoria, the rebate scheme has cost the state government $8 million over two years. That Labor government has been prepared to make that commitment. In Western Australia, the rebate scheme has paid out $25 million to over 200,000 residents. Once again, that state government—in stark contrast to Queensland’s—is prepared to commit the funds. The Gold Coast City Council’s scheme has cost it about $3 million over three years. The Brisbane City Council’s rainwater tank rebate has cost it $3 million over nine months, which has far exceeded its initial budget of $300,000. Both the Victorian and Western Australian state governments have water rebate schemes. The Queensland government should be using them as a model. In Western Australia, more than 200,000 people have taken up those rebates, saving an estimated seven billion litres of water per year. More than 100,000 rebates have been approved in Victoria, saving 900 megalitres per year. In Queensland, the government continues to talk about it. In Queensland, the ‘minister for no water’ continues to make ridiculous, pathetic media statements and do nothing real to ensure that a similar scheme is put in place here. There are enormous benefits to be gained and water efficiency savings can undoubtedly be made if the state government is prepared to offer rebates and ensure that the incentives and economic drivers are in place to encourage individual property owners to adopt the available technology. For example, AAA rated shower heads can potentially save some 18,000 litres per year. AAAAA or four-star washing machines can each potentially save 15,000 litres per year. Swimming pool covers have an estimated efficiency gain of 10,000 litres per year per swimming pool. Across the whole of 19 Apr 2006 Matters of Public Interest 1157 south-east Queensland that amounts to a huge amount of water. Rainwater tanks can provide an extra 20,000 to 80,000 litres per year, depending on their size. Dual flush toilets can save some 35,000 litres per year. Tap flow regulators can save 18,000 litres per year. There must be a real commitment to the adoption of these types of water-saving devices to increase the efficiency of the water supply system in south-east Queensland. It must go hand in hand with the construction of the major infrastructure and the adoption of recycling. However, there needs to be a commitment of dollars from the government, not just more words. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Mundingburra, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Immanuel Lutheran College in the electorate of Kawana.

McBain, Senior Constable B Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (11.56 am): Last week it was my pleasure to meet the police officer appointed to the newly established Vincent Police Beat in my electorate. Senior Constable Brett McBain is now patrolling Vincent and adjacent suburbs from his temporary base at Mundingburra Police Station. He will continue to do so until the properties purchased by the Queensland government for the police beat residence and office have been refurbished. He will then take up residence with his wife and daughters, who are currently living in Brisbane. Work has commenced on the building under project manager Q-Build and should be completed in around eight to 10 weeks. Stationed at Dunwich prior to being transferred to Townsville, Senior Constable McBain impressed me with his enthusiasm for the job. He seems ideally suited to deal with community issues in a police beat situation. The Townsville Bulletin of 11 April reported that targeting youth issues was high on his agenda. Senior Constable McBain has also been welcomed as the new adopt-a-cop at the Vincent State School. On the subject of youth, I was most impressed by the excellent turnout of school students at the Department of Communities’ day-long Youth Expo, which I opened in Townsville earlier this month as part of Youth Week. When I walked into the PCYC hall where the expo was being held, I was amazed at how crowded it was and at the enthusiasm of the young people who were present. The expo was designed to offer advice and relevant information about youth support services and sport and recreation clubs in Townsville and Thuringowa. It was all about helping to make young people feel comfortable about seeking information and support on a personal level. It is important to let young people know that, apart from their own families, there are lots of people and organisations to help them, both on a recreational and a more personal level. The expo was a fun day, too. It included the Indigenous dance group Meinland Warriors and the theatrical group La Luna Youth Arts. The Depart of Communities was also anxious to get the message across about the Queensland government’s revamped Generate web site for young people. Generate is now more accessible and easier to use and affords young people opportunities to become involved in the community and government. The web site has been described as an exciting vehicle designed to capture young interests and give younger Queenslanders a say in the type of Queensland in which they want to live. This leads me to talk about a group of young people at the Heatley Secondary College special needs unit in Townsville. They are doing a great job by helping to give birds and small animals new places in which to live. The students and the Department of Main Roads have joined forces to go into the real estate business for wildlife. Wooden nesting boxes being built by the students are helping to make up for loss of habitat from road and bridge construction. In a continuing program with the school, Main Roads pays for the building materials and has so far ordered 90 boxes in six different designs. It is a great partnership between Main Roads and the school. The nesting boxes are tailored to attract owls, kookaburras, finches and other medium sized birds, as well as possums and bats. They are painted green and attached to trees where there is suitable vegetation near cleared road-building sites. Woodwork is part of the students’ manual arts course. There are eight to 10 learning impaired students from years 8 to 11 in the group at any one time. Some have an intellectual impairment and others physical or even multiple impairments. Their special education teacher, Toni Martin, describes their program as a visual hands-on activity that gives a sense of purpose and helps with social and fine motor skills. She said that the students love it, especially knowing it is helping the community and the environment. Nesting boxes built by Heatley’s special needs students were installed near the new bridge over Ross River last year and birds have since been spotted using them. Others have been installed along Hervey’s Range Road and some are destined for the vicinity of the forthcoming ring-road. The project is a simple, cost-effective idea that helps compensate for the impact of human progress on wildlife. Perhaps the boxes could also be used in the area devastated by Cyclone Larry. 1158 Matters of Public Interest 19 Apr 2006

When I visited the students recently to see them in action I thought how fantastic it was that they had such obvious pride in their work. It is a wonderful effort and they and their teachers are to be congratulated, as are executives and staff of the Department of Main Roads for their involvement. The new web site—www.generate.qld.gov.au—aims to capitalise on the computer know-how of young people and engage youth in community activities and the political process. Sea Change Phenomenon Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (12.01 pm): Across Australia the sea change phenomenon is creating many challenges for local communities resulting from the dramatic population increases they have experienced over recent years. This increased population is putting stress on local infrastructure and is having such an impact that new solutions to deal with the problem must be developed. The drive of people to coastal areas for a sea change reflects the desire of many people to escape the hassles of modern city living and has instigated rapid growth in once sleepy coastal areas. Lifestyle choice is being pursued not just by baby boomers but right across the spectrum, from young singles through to retirees. It would be an error to try to categorise sea change as merely a baby boomer phenomenon. It is not a coincidence that the majority of high-growth coastal areas are also tourism areas that have high demands on services as a result of the tourism population contained within the areas on a year-round basis. The demands on infrastructure to support both local residential demand and tourism needs from a smaller rate base is one of the key challenges faced by local governments. Initially sea changers are attracted to these coastal communities by natural assets such as beaches, rural landscapes and green spaces. It is the attraction of a sense of place that brings growth to these coastal communities. Big infrastructure projects are, of course, at odds with the initial desirability of the change to a new coastal lifestyle. This is the ultimate conundrum for sea changers. They come for the lifestyle and when they get there they want the same accessibility to infrastructure and services that they left in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Development must occur to accommodate growing populations with increased housing stock, commercial centres, roads and service facilities. This results in local governments being left to provide the infrastructure and support services—local governments which do not have the funding to do so and, in most cases, without the internal expertise to handle the planning. I believe that the state’s role in assisting local governments with the problems they are experiencing from sea change becomes one of support and financial assistance. The Queensland coalition has a clear policy position to assist local communities meet the challenges faced by the changing population trends and the new demographic of people settling in coastal Queensland. The way forward is all about doing things to solve the problems of today and tomorrow. Our four stages of assistance are, firstly, a sea change fund; secondly, an infrastructure advisory board; thirdly, a professional assistance package; and, fourthly, an annual sea change prize. The sea change fund is a $60 million fund aimed at delivering a range of capital and community infrastructure projects needed by sea change communities across Queensland. The $30 million state contribution will be over three years. The fund will be a dollar-for-dollar arrangement with local governments across Queensland, with no restrictions on applications being made by one or several local governments seeking to build infrastructure that crosses borders. The use of the fund is not limited to roads, water and sewerage structures. It is intended to bridge gaps in existing funding programs and allow for the construction of public infrastructure such as halls, libraries, pools, foreshore upgrades or major regional parkland projects. The sea change fund will allow for project submissions up to $2 million. This will allow the delivery of projects on the ground worth up to $4 million. With a strong private sector involvement in some projects, the project size could well grow to $10 million. The Queensland infrastructure advisory board will be established and will be responsible through the Coordinator-General to the Premier or the minister for state development for the administration of the fund. This new infrastructure advisory board was announced by Miss Fiona Simpson, the shadow minister for state development, last November. The third stage of the sea change package a Queensland coalition will deliver is a program of strategic and professional support for local government. A Queensland state coalition government will establish a program for each region across Queensland and provide access to senior state government staff on a secondment basis to assist with strategic planning and project delivery. Officers from the departments of Natural Resources, Main Roads, Queensland Transport and Local Government and Planning, together with the Office of Urban Management, will make themselves available for project specific tasks to assist in the delivery of these sea change projects to help local governments. The fourth part of the sea change package is an annual sea change prize of $100,000 for the best Queensland local government partnership with the private sector to develop innovative solutions to cope with the problems associated with the sea change phenomenon. This prize will be an important factor in driving the development of new, sustainable and community focused projects. The Queensland coalition is committed to this coordination and to a truly supportive role in the development of sea change communities across Queensland. 19 Apr 2006 Matters of Public Interest 1159

Indigenous Women’s Leadership Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (12.05 pm): There are many strong, effective Indigenous women who are taking up leadership roles in their own communities, in public and private life. Today I call upon my colleagues from all political parties in Queensland to make the election of Indigenous people—in particular women—to local governments, state and federal governments a top priority. Last week I was honoured to speak at an Indigenous Women’s Leadership program in Logan City which was attended by at least 150 women, most of whom were Indigenous. The program, hosted by Peggy Tidyman, was aptly called Stronger Women—Stronger Leaders. In my own electorate I am privileged to know Indigenous community leaders such as Aunty Vera Hill and Ettie Gleeson and to have the Murri School at Acacia Ridge producing great Indigenous leaders of the future. Today I pay tribute to Peggy Tidyman, a much respected community leader in Logan, and I know that from our Logan based MPs as well as from Indigenous people themselves. I also commend other women involved in the program: Betty McGrady, Aunty Eileen Williams, Melissa Lucashenko, Heather Casteldine and Leanne Enoch. Leanne made a plea for Indigenous people not to be used as pet rocks—dusted off, polished up and taken in to meetings to represent the interests of all Indigenous people. Instead she called for representative and consultation processes to be used and for election of Indigenous people to parliaments around the country. The program was also attended and supported by recognised leaders such as Jackie Huggins, Sandi Taylor and Grace Bond. Grace is also a coach within the leadership program that Peggy is involved in. One of the objectives of the program is to empower Indigenous women to move into leadership roles. I was asked to speak on how women can get involved in politics and to give tips for Indigenous women to take up elected roles. I and other speakers were candid about the challenges—that it takes encouragement, confidence, family and other support, lots of knowledge and mentoring to get there and it takes compromise, good conflict management skills and a thick skin to stay there. My first job out of uni as a young do-gooder social worker was in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. I worked mainly with very inspiring women who were taking up leadership roles and trying to resolve a lot of the problems in those communities. They were facing enormous challenges in actually getting into leadership roles, both elected and otherwise, in those communities. Not a lot has changed. They still find those barriers to leadership. Members will recall that in 2002-03 I chaired the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee which conducted a review and presented the report Hands on Parliament. With my colleagues the members for Ipswich, Maroochydore, Gladstone, Southport, Indooroopilly and Barambah, we supported a range of strategies, including clear measures for political parties to adopt to increase Indigenous peoples’ participation in political parties and to get preselected and elected to government. All political parties must actively recruit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members, educate them, preselect candidates, and provide support and mentoring and ensure culturally appropriate processes in terms of leadership style, observance of ceremony and culture. These are important things that were recommended by the committee. I am pleased to say that the Australian Labor Party is actively supporting these sorts of activities through our Indigenous reference committee. I commend Isabel Tarrago and members of that reference committee for the great support work they are doing around the state to support Indigenous people. But progress is slow. In Western Australia there has been great progress in some of those key areas, and we need to follow suit. The Western Australia local government election of 2005 saw 36 Indigenous councillors elected of which 44 per cent were women. Around the nation there are something like six Indigenous women who are now state MPs, and we need more. I think there are three in the Northern Territory, one in New South Wales, one in Tasmania and one in Western Australia. Queensland has a shameful record in this regard. In 146 years of the Queensland parliament we have had only one Indigenous person, Eric Deeral. It is not good enough. We need to support Indigenous women and men to get their hands on the Queensland parliament. Today I call on all members of all Queensland political parties to play their role in achieving that great goal. Bundaberg Base Hospital; Patel, Dr J Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (12.10 pm): For the protection and wellbeing of Patel’s victims, I table a number of disturbing documents which I have only recently received. These documents show that this Labor government has improved only three things in Queensland Health: the cover-ups are getting better, the excuses are getting better and the spin is getting better. Nothing has changed. The Premier and his government continue to mismanage Queensland Health and the Bundaberg Hospital crisis. One of the letters I tabled is a letter from Mr George Pauza, a very highly respected and Queensland government decorated Patel victim. As many members would know, he was the naked farmer who discovered the tilt train accident. He writes— Nothing in Queensland Health has changed. In fact, as far as the Bundaberg Base Hospital is concerned, it seems that the situation has deteriorated even further, sinking to new depths of cover-ups, deceptions and ineptitudes. 1160 Matters of Public Interest 19 Apr 2006

Mr Pauza also says— Right from the very start of my attempt to get rectifying medical treatment for the problems I suffered at Patel’s hands, I was met with obstructive, bullying and coercive behaviour, thinly masked by “we know best—our way or no way” attitudes from BBH. Mr Pauza, in common with all Patel victims, was guaranteed by this government that he would be able to access the specialist of his choice. That promise was broken. Mr Pauza had to accept the Queensland appointed specialist even while the specialist of his choice was still available. I also tabled a letter from another former Patel victim, Mr Ian Fleming, a spokesperson for the Bundaberg Patients Support Group, who has cc’ed the documentation to me. It reads— We the members of the Bundaberg Victims Support Group Inc. call upon the Queensland Government to forthwith announce the immediate and total removal of the Apr 28th 2006 deadline for the registration of Dr Patel patients for the special compensation process. Our primary reason to call on your government to do this, is that according to sworn evidence of Dr Geoff de Lacy to the former Royal Commission, that numerous, perhaps hundreds of former Patel patients are likely to develop complications from Dr Patel treatment for up to 5 years or more to come. We believe it to be a gross injustice to these patients if the April 28th deadline is not to be completely expunged. Just as this government was shamed into establishing the ‘Dr Death’ royal commission, it will be shamed into erasing this unjust deadline. I have recently spoken with a number of Patel victims who are about to enter the special process of mediation with the Queensland government. I have serious concerns that the process is flawed and biased in the government’s favour. I have concerns that the mediation process is structured in such a way as to minimize the chances of Patel’s victims obtaining a fair and just settlement and that it maximizes this government’s chances of paying out as little as possible. The reason that I have these fears and concerns is that each victim with whom I have spoken is only being offered by this government the opportunity to take one medical expert report or a joint medico-legal report into the mediation process. I have already tabled a page from a lawyer/client agreement which shows that this government is not prepared to pay the costs of an independent medical expert’s assessment. Patel patients are not being advised that they run the risk of being forced into accepting a settlement which is not fair or just if they do not access at least two truly impartial, independent medico- legal assessments before they enter any mediation. Patel patients are not being advised by this government that they have the right to access an expert medico-legal assessment from a professional of their choice, not a professional who is the first choice of this Queensland government. The same corrupt Labor health system which hired Patel, covered up for Patel, flew him out of the country and has failed to bring him back is still in control of Queensland. We can expect only three things to improve: the spin, the cover-ups and the excuses. Patel patients are being conned by this government into agreeing to a mediation based compensation that lacks transparency and accountability and is designed to rip them off. Why did this Labor government impose an artificial legal deadline on a special compensation process, which is a gross injustice to Patel victims? If this government is treating Patel victims fairly— Time expired. World Oil Supply Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (12.15 pm): I wish to inform the House of some energy saving and energy supply initiatives that are being undertaken by governments around the world in preparation for the looming peak and inevitable decline in world oil supply. At the outset, I wish to table for the benefit of honourable members an article from the winter 2005 edition of the National Interest. The article by James Schlesinger is titled ‘Thinking seriously about energy and oil’s future’. Members, particularly the member for Southport, will be aware that Mr Schlesinger is a former US Secretary of Defence, Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and also Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of the USA. In terms of access to information and informing energy issues and policy, Mr Schlesinger is as inside the loop as one can possibly be without actually being a former president. He also holds a PhD in Economics from Harvard. So when he says, ‘The inability to expand the supply of oil given rising demand will in the future impose a severe economic shock’ and that inevitably ‘such a shock will cause political unrest and could impact on political systems’, all members should pay attention. Mr Schlesinger explicitly addresses the issue of when we will reach Hubbert’s peak after which the world supply of oil will continuously decline. He concludes that the peak in world oil production is not that far away, but certainly will be well before 2020. I urge all honourable members to obtain a copy of Mr Schlesinger’s essay from the Table Office today and consider his conclusions. His views demand the attention of policy makers and he does not use words like ‘energy crisis’ lightly. His conclusions that ‘present trends are unsustainable,’ and that ‘the world will no longer be able to accommodate rising energy demand with increased production of conventional oil,’ are alarming. Many governments around the world are now implementing urgent policy initiatives to either reduce oil and all energy demand or to increase supplies of alternative energies and their electricity generating capacity. Today oil is at $US70 a barrel and it will, I predict, hit $US100 a barrel this year with all that means for the prices of fuel, pesticides, plastics, pharmaceuticals, retail goods and tourism. Governments around the world are taking urgent action. 19 Apr 2006 Matters of Public Interest 1161

I table for the benefit of the honourable members the Thai government’s energy strategy, which seeks to reduce all energy use, to switch to renewable energy and to electrify as much of its economy as possible. Thailand is aiming to reduce energy use by 10 per cent by 2011. I commend its policy initiatives detailed in the tabled report. I want to make the point that, in terms of policy efficiency, energy conservation beats all other energy creating initiatives hands down. That is why motorists are deserting gas-guzzling heavy four- wheel drives and choosing more fuel efficient smaller cars in record numbers. The government of New Zealand accepts the US Geological Survey’s most optimistic estimate for peak oil as happening in 2037 but, nevertheless, rates the issue as one of the two major issues facing that nation’s energy sector along with global warning. I table a copy of an address by the Hon. Harry Duynhoven, the New Zealand Minister for Transport Safety and Associate Minister for Energy titled ‘How is the government preparing for peak oil?’ Mr Duynhoven made the speech on 8 April this year. I suspect that Mr Duynhoven may have had a policy adviser named ‘Rosy Scenario’ prepare the speech because he is very much relying on having a 30-year window to prepare. Nevertheless, the issue is being addressed explicitly, which is more than the Howard government can claim. Around the world many governments are taking much more urgent action and explicitly acknowledging the threat posed by peak oil. The government of Sweden has committed to making that nation fossil fuel independent by 2020, and the US government and President George W Bush have aimed for 2025. The Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, gave a speech on 13 December last year in which he stated— We are about to experience the oil peak and so need to transform society to adapt to this. Biofuels, increased emphasis on public transport and much greater electricity generation will form the backbone of Sweden’s energy shift. China, the Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Germany have all in the last two years introduced new and ambitious targets for renewable energy use. China’s target, for example, is to obtain 10 per cent of all its energy from renewable sources by 2010. The Philippines also wants to double the share of energy accounted for by renewable sources by 2013. They will be relying primarily on geothermal and wind energy. China’s commitment to increasing its share of renewable energy should not be lost amongst the controversy about its plans to also build more nuclear electricity-generating capacity.

Hospital Transport Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (12.20 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the state of hospital transport. Let me say at the outset that I am extremely enthusiastic about the efforts made by our great doctors and nurses in the Fraser Coast health district. They have laboured very hard in extremely tenuous circumstances. I am sure the member for Hervey Bay would join me in welcoming the new doctors to the district. However, I have had a number of complaints from constituents regarding transport. This is not an issue particularly for our hospitals but about transport between our hospitals. Most members would have constituents who have faced the difficult situation of certain services not being available in their districts and requiring transport to another district. In my electorate I have had a very bitter complaint from a parent concerning their child who broke his arm on Australia Day. They talked about the treatment locally. Their letter has already been sent to the Minister for Emergency Services and the Minister for Health. The father called us again to say that the hospital had taken the plaster off after four weeks. When the parents questioned the family GP he said that he thought it was a bit early. They apparently paid for extra X-rays as they thought that it had been removed too soon. The X-rays showed that it was mending but the GP said that if he fell over again it would break. Sure enough, he fell over and it was broken again but in a worse manner. He was taken to A&E and given medication for the pain. As there were no orthopaedic specialists available in our district at the time, they were told that they would have to get him up to Bundaberg again. Their complaints simply are that they had to twice drive to Bundaberg Hospital and arrange accommodation. They could not get any ambulance services. Now they have to travel to Bundaberg for a private orthopaedic specialist to see their son. This is a very costly exercise. The father is saying, ‘If we have to pay the ambulance levy as part of our electricity bill, why are we having to spend all of this money as well?’ Another case I will look at is of a gentleman in my electorate whose fingers were severed through the bone—he had an unfortunate accident with his lawn mower—and were hanging by the skin. He went to hospital and was told that he had to find his own way down to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital for surgery the following day. Obviously he was in an incredible amount of pain. He was given a variety of drugs including Valium. 1162 Matters of Public Interest 19 Apr 2006

He was obviously not able to drive to Brisbane when he was drugged out like that. In the end he had to use his personal savings to fly to Brisbane but had problems getting through security at the airport because by that time he was so drugged out that he needed assistance walking. He was very unsteady on his feet and ended up in a wheelchair. This has been done at his own cost. I believe that he is to be reimbursed by the district. He needed a medical certificate to say first that he could fly. He had no doctor’s referral or anything but eventually one was faxed to the airport. This shows the ad hoc way these things are initiated. The operation was then put off from Monday to Tuesday and then to Wednesday. He said that he could come home after the splints were applied. Queensland Health’s reimbursement of 10c per kilometre nowhere near reimburses people for the actual costs. The initial advice he was given to drive on the road in a drugged state could have resulted in a disaster. Then there is the case of a young man who was in a 17-car pile-up on the Bay Road. He spent 5½ months in hospital at the RBWH. For the sake of time, let me just say that he is in a situation where his leg will most likely have to be amputated. He has been backwards and forwards to Brisbane a few times by air ambulance. But now they are saying that he has to travel to the Mater Hospital in a maxitaxi. We need to imagine what that would be like, when his leg is not far off being amputated. That really says it all. That is an uncaring decision. Another example is of a lady who has had colon cancer and has a severe wound down front. She was discharged from hospital in Brisbane and told to travel back to Hervey Bay Hospital by bus as the doctor did not authorise air or ambulance travel. By the time she got to Gympie her slacks were covered in fluid. That was extremely embarrassing for her. These sorts of things cannot continue to go on. If the government is really serious about this particular area of patient transport then they should waive the levy to offset the costs.

Aviation Australia Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (12.26 pm): This morning I asked a question of the Deputy Premier regarding Scramjet. It is quite synchronistic that I am standing up today to talk about aviation in the electorate of Clayfield. A constituent of one of my colleagues, Geoff Wilson, is Professor Allan Paul, one of the gurus and geniuses behind Scramjet. I have had the pleasure of listening to him speak and seeing his overheads. The Scramjet project is sensational. That brings me, of course, to Aviation Australia in the electorate of Clayfield. In 2001, when I was elected, I did what most newly elected representatives do. That is, I went around and visited the businesses and community groups in my electorate to get to know as many people as I possibly could. I had the fortune of going out to the aviation precinct because in some circles I am known as the member for airports. I met with Paul Brederick and Phil Presgrave. Paul was the CEO of something called Aviation Australia. Aviation Australia began in 2001. This man whom I went to see had such a vision for aviation training in this state. He has a long history in the area of aviation. He was obsessed with the dream of the aviation precinct. He was overwhelmingly infectious in what he was saying about Aviation Australia. Phil Presgrave, the corporate relations manager, was one of the ones I met with Paul. Their enthusiasm was extraordinary. It was fantastic that earlier this month the Premier and the minister for employment and training officially launched the $3.5 million cabin crew training centre at the state government’s training organisation, Aviation Australia. This was developed in consultation with Australia’s major airlines. The course is structured to combine theoretical elements with a very high level of practical training which is more extensive than any other course. The course modules cover all standard core skills such as security, aviation, first aid and general and emergency operations. The all-encompassing nature of the course has been made possible by the features available with the opening of the new training centre, which has been constructed to allow all components of the course to be undertaken in-house, which is of tremendous benefit both organisationally and financially. Members have to see it to believe it. It is quite extraordinary. The classrooms incorporate the latest technology combined with a research centre, enabling students access to the latest industry information and facilitating a blended learning approach. The emergency procedures training hall encompasses Aviation Australia’s extensive range of door trainers and cabin simulators as well as a slide descent concourse capable of holding up to six slides. Aviation Australia’s real firefighter trainer is unique and comprises a fully enclosed aircraft cabin capable of demonstrating most fire emergency situations and enables students to enter the device and fight real fires, thus increasing the training benefits and practical outcomes for the student. The wet ditching pool has the capability of housing several rafts and will also be utilised in the future for other industry use such as helicopter evacuation training. 19 Apr 2006 Liquor Amendment Bill 1163

Not only does this speak to Aviation Australia’s and, in fact, Queensland’s reputation as a world leader in aviation training; it also plays a vital role in enhancing Queensland’s burgeoning reputation as the aerospace hub of the Asia-Pacific region—a position this government has worked extremely hard to encourage and promote. The expansion of Aviation Australia’s facilities and associated courses demonstrates the government’s commitment to keeping Queensland at the forefront of this dynamic and inspiring industry. Aviation Australia is a prime example of Smart State practices. Its highly successful operations are a model for new training centres of excellence—a model that can be transplanted and applied to skills development in mining, construction, energy, manufacturing and engineering. As the impact of Aviation Australia’s expanded training operations grows over the years, it will not be that far off before people can board a plane anywhere in the world and know that there is a real chance that their flight crew was trained right here in Queensland at Aviation Australia. That is a big step to curing almost anyone’s fear of flying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! The time allocated for matters of public interest has expired.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (12.30 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Liquor Act 1992, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (12.30 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill contains amendments to the Liquor Act 1992 to implement stage 1 of the Beattie government’s Statewide Safety Action Plan. On 10 April 2006 the Premier and I announced the implementation of a Statewide Safety Action Plan to address alcohol related disturbances in and around licensed premises across the state. The action plan will be introduced in two stages. Stage 1 will extend the Brisbane City Council area 3 am lockout to apply to all late trading licensed premises statewide. Stage 2 will impose stricter licence conditions on all premises across the state that trade after 1 am. The Statewide Safety Action Plan is based on the successful Brisbane City Safety Action Plan implemented in 2005. It aims to minimise harm and reduce the impact of late trading premises on the community. The Statewide Safety Action Plan is a direct response to ongoing violence in and around late trading premises throughout the state. Lockouts prohibit the entry or re-entry of patrons to licensed premises after a specified time. The effect of lockouts is to remove patrons from the streets and public places surrounding licensed premises as interaction between intoxicated patrons in public places is considered a primary factor leading to violence and vandalism. Lockouts have been used in Queensland since 1996. The Liquor Amendment Bill 2006 imposes a 3 am lockout on all licensed premises in Queensland. The amendments in the bill are the most efficient and effective means of imposing uniform lockout conditions. The amendments will increase community safety by reducing patron traffic between premises and ensuring a more gradual dispersal of patrons from licensed premises after 3 am. The existing exemptions in place for the Brisbane lockout will be extended to the statewide lockout. This means that the following premises will be exempted from the statewide lockout condition— • casinos under the Casino Control Act 1982; • the parts of licensed premises used principally for residential accommodation of guests staying on the premises; • premises trading on Anzac Day and New Year’s Day; and • airport terminals. In addition, the current arrangements in place for licensees on the Gold Coast during the annual Indy Carnival will be included in the legislation in recognition of the significance of this major international event to the state’s tourism industry. 1164 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

The imposition of a statutory lockout will not create a right of appeal for licensees. This is because the lockout will be legislatively imposed, rather than as a condition of their licence or permit. The absence of appeal rights is justified on the basis that a statutory lockout is a crucial aspect of the government’s efforts to manage alcohol abuse and associated violence. Late-night trading creates a high risk of harm to patrons and members of the public as well as to the amenity of local communities and the Beattie government has a responsibility to introduce appropriate and proportionate measures to manage this risk. To ensure its effectiveness, an evaluation of the lockout will be conducted 12 months after the implementation of the legislation. The introduction of a statewide lockout will create consistency and certainty in the application of lockout conditions to late trading licensed premises throughout the state by creating a level playing field for all late trading premises and removing the requirement for repeated time and resource intensive administrative review. Under the proposed amendments, only eight licensed premises would be subject to a lockout that are not currently or previously subject to this condition. Of these premises, three are located in Airlie Beach, two in Gladstone and the remaining three are in Mount Isa, Port Douglas and Toowoomba. In summary, the amendments in this bill form part of a wider state government initiative, the Statewide Safety Action Plan, aimed at providing a safer environment for patrons and the public in and around licensed premises. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs Stuckey, adjourned.

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (12.36 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Building Act 1975, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (12.36 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. While the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 largely restates current law, this is an important bill. Building legislation has a significant impact on the community. These laws affect every structure from humble garden sheds, to houses and city skyscrapers. Not only builders need to understand the laws. Everyone from the home renovator to local governments and private building certifiers relies on these laws to ensure buildings are safe and sustainable. The last decade of amendments have made it more complicated to navigate through the laws on building. This bill will provide a legislative framework for building that is up to date, clear, easy to understand and as user friendly as possible. It results from revising and reshuffling provisions between the Building Act 1975 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997. Some matters best dealt with in primary legislation have been moved out of regulations into the acts and vice versa. Provisions now fit together logically and effectively. My department has worked closely with the building industry and local governments to produce this bill. It has broad support. When ordinary Queenslanders build or alter their homes, they will find the rules are easier to find and understand. Before this bill, a homeowner wanting to know if they needed a building approval for a new deck or an extension would have to look up a number of provisions in the Building Act 1975 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and regulations. Now, the Building Act will tell you what is building work and what work needs an approval. All Queensland will benefit from a building approval system operating at the highest possible standard. Queensland’s experience with Cyclone Larry bears this out. The building standards that applied to newer buildings constructed since 1980 were designed for resistance to wind at speeds up to 252 kilometres per hour. The cyclone is estimated to have reached 235 kilometres per hour. Immediately after the cyclone, a team of experts investigated building damage and the good news is that generally houses built since 1980 fared well, which indicates standards are being complied with. The value of the building standards can be seen in the damage to older houses. Typically, it was these houses we saw with lost roofs in media coverage after the cyclone. The cause of lost roofs was most commonly because the older methods of roof construction are inadequate to deal with high wind conditions. On the whole, the new standards introduced in 1980, and applied since then, successfully 19 Apr 2006 Crime and Misconduct and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1165 addressed this problem. My department will be undertaking detailed analysis of damage resulting from Cyclone Larry, including the few new buildings that did lose roofs or suffer damage and, if necessary, we will further refine the building standards. A critical priority is ensuring that repairs to damaged houses upgrade roofs to meet new standards to the greatest extent practicable, rather than rebuilding to previous inadequate standards. My department, in conjunction with councils and other state agencies, is assisting builders and certifiers with this. Turning back to the bill, the amendments will produce a sensibly laid out Building Act. With six new chapters, it will follow the process for making, assessing and deciding a building application through to the certification of building work. A small number of policy changes have been included to improve how the legislation operates. The bill provides a right of public access to building approval and inspection documents. This replaces the current local government discretion as to whether access will be provided. This will address many complaints received from the community. It addresses the current anomaly where a person adversely affected by their neighbour’s building work could be denied access to council-held information that is required to validate the complaint. The right to access documents will be subject to some sensible privacy and security restrictions. I congratulate the following councils—Logan, Ipswich, Noosa, Cairns, and the Gold Coast—which have already been giving people some access to these records. The bill also extends the period that local governments have to retain building records. Currently local governments keep building records for houses, sheds and swimming pool fences for 10 years. The bill retains the 10-year period for sheds but will require records for houses and pool fences to be kept for the life of the building—as applies to commercial buildings. Councils, owners and potential purchasers will be able to access an accurate history of approvals and inspections to check if buildings comply or investigate illegal building work. In future, when a householder sets out to buy a house, they will know what they are buying. Other changes include imposing tighter controls for building work inspections for commercial buildings, introducing procedures to help owners when building approvals lapse, and rationalising penalties between the acts. At the request of local governments, councils will be empowered to issue on-the-spot fines for building works that are undertaken without proper approvals. This bill will be of benefit to the building industry, councils and the ordinary Queenslander wishing to buy a house or build a shed. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

CRIME AND MISCONDUCT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.42 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 and other legislation affecting the operations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.43 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is, firstly, to implement the outstanding government endorsed recommendations made by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee in its March 2004 report on its three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The most significant of the outstanding government endorsed recommendations are those concerning the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s witness protection function. Recommendation 41 of the PCMC report recommended that the CMC be given power to issue notices in terms similar to the notices to produce and discover in sections 74, 74A and 75 of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. Typically, this power will be used to require a bank to provide information on where a protected person last transacted to determine their location and ascertain their safety. The new power is provided in a way that to the greatest extent possible it is concealed from the recipient of the notice the fact that it relates to a protected witness and the identity of the protected witness. The bill allows the CMC to link these notices with the crime investigation notices so that the recipient will not know whether the notice relates to a crime investigation or the witness protection function. 1166 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

The PCMC in recommendations 36 and 37 recommended that the Witness Protection Act 2000 be amended to allow the CMC to enter into short-term protection agreements for the purpose of providing court-only protection and that consideration be given to whether this protection should be available in circumstances other than court-only protection. The government in its response to the PCMC report supported the CMC being able to enter into short-term protection agreements and agreed to consider whether this should be extended to other circumstances. The bill inserts a new part allowing for short-term protection arrangements where a person, or an associate of the person, has helped, or is helping, a law enforcement agency. The bill does not limit these arrangements to court protection situations. The bill allows the chairperson to enter into these arrangements whenever the chairperson considers it appropriate to do so. In deciding whether it is appropriate to do so the chairperson must consider whether it is more appropriate to include the person in the program and, if necessary, make an interim protection agreement with the person. The bill’s second purpose is to make a number of other amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, the Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997 and the Witness Protection Act 1997 unrelated to the PCMC report. The bill’s other significant amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 include: allowing an assistant commissioner to conduct public hearings if the chairperson considers this is necessary for the efficient operation of the CMC; extending the tenure of senior officers and assistant commissioners so that they can hold office as senior officers or assistant commissioners for 10 years in total, with the ability for this to be extended to 15 years in total; allowing self-incriminating evidence that a person has been compelled to give at a CMC hearing to be used in proceedings against that person for the falsity of other compelled evidence; allowing the CMC to delegate its power to appoint staff below senior officer level to a person other than a chairperson; ensuring that individuals, and not corporations, can claim the privilege against self-incrimination in accordance with the Queensland Law Reform Commission’s recent report on ‘the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination’; and removing the requirement for ministers to approve secondments to positions at the CMC below senior officer level and instead require them to be approved by their chief executives. The bill’s other significant amendments to the Witness Protection Act 2000, unrelated to the PCMC report, allows the chairperson to terminate a witness protection agreement if the protected witness cannot be properly protected and ensure that persons in interim or short-term protection are subject to the same rights and obligations as persons in the witness protection program. The bill also makes amendments to the appointment provisions of the Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997 to address unnecessary administrative complexities and to better align them with the appointment provisions in the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. Persons will not be eligible for appointment where they have been convicted, including summary conviction, of an indictable offence, even if the conviction has become spent under the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986. The minister will be able to request a potential appointee to consent to a full criminal history report of convictions for all offences, indictable and non-indictable, and whether spent or otherwise. In summary, the bill seeks to implement outstanding government-endorsed recommendations for legislative change that were made in March 2004, Report No. 64 of the PCMC on its three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. It also seeks to make a number of changes to the appointment provisions of the Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997, unrelated to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee’s report. The amendments will not affect the jurisdiction or procedures of the misconduct tribunals. It also makes a number of amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, as a result of issues that have been raised, mainly by the Crime and Misconduct Commission since the March 2004 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee report. The bill also makes a number of minor amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, the Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, the Witness Protection Act 2000 and the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. Aspects of this bill, including in particular the provisions allowing the CMC to issue notices to produce for the witness protection function, reflect this government’s ongoing commitment to support the CMC in its ongoing fight against crime. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

MAJOR SPORTS FACILITIES AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 30 March (see p. 1051). Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (12.51 pm): There is no doubt that Suncorp Stadium is a magnificent stadium and has been a great success in hosting major Rugby League, Rugby Union and soccer matches, and certainly the opposition supports the fact that such a magnificent venue and facility should be utilised as much as possible. I am sure that anyone in Queensland, especially those living 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1167 outside the Lang Park area, would be quite amazed to think that Lang Park can only be used for 24 actual activities. The construction of Suncorp Stadium by the Beattie government has been a matter of controversy and very poor public relations by a government which has ridden roughshod over local residents. The former coalition sports minister, Mick Veivers, was always a very strong supporter of Lang Park, now called Suncorp Stadium. Comments that the coalition did not support Suncorp Stadium is a simple play on words. The coalition was presented with an opportunity for a private concern to build a massive stadium at another venue—that is, the vacant land near the airport which is now occupied by many, many government cars. It would have been irresponsible not to look at and investigate the pros and cons of such a concept, especially when that concept was close to rail, close to public transport—as is Boondall—and close to main roads. It would have meant a massive saving to the taxpayer and it would have resolved the problems that we currently face if that site away from high urban population had been chosen. I certainly believe that the airport site would not have created the problems that we are now experiencing with Lang Park. Personally, I have also been concerned that Suncorp Stadium will prove to be too small. That is probably hard to believe when one considers that Suncorp Stadium holds 52,500 people. However, people have to realise that activities such as the Bledisloe Cup are run by private concerns. A private entity will approach Australian cities and ask whether those cities believe that they can tender for the Bledisloe Cup. There is no way that Brisbane can compete with cities such as Melbourne and Sydney, and their facilities, when ours is a smaller facility. If that is to continue, quite obviously events such as the Bledisloe Cup will not come to Brisbane. I have always said that 52,000 was probably a small stadium, and it is when one compares it to those in other Australian cities. I was fortunate to attend the Rugby Union 7s in Melbourne the other night, with 85,000 people. That was the first night. I believe that it was completely packed out the next night. How would Brisbane ever host such an activity? Melbourne and Sydney have a couple of those facilities. In the future, I believe that we will have concerns with Suncorp Stadium seating only 52,000 people. When the coalition was looking at a stadium, Mick Veivers agreed that it should be Lang Park and other members believed that we should consider the viability of a private entrepreneur building another massive stadium away from the current site. However, a decision was made not to go ahead with the RNA facility but, rather, to go ahead with Lang Park. The present government has spent at least $280 million on the refurbishment of the Lang Park facility. The mistakes that have been made were astronomical. It might have been okay to joke about the fact that the grass was not ready. However, to think that this government built a complex that cost so much money, yet it had problems with the grass in the first few weeks was, to me, unbelievable. Presently, we have concerns about the massive fire and ambulance facility at the corner of Upper Roma Street and Countess Street where there is no facility for people to walk down to the Transit Centre. At this stage, because the walkway has not been built, we will have on a particular night 20,000- odd people walking down Upper Roma Street. When this magnificent new centre is built—and it is a magnificent new centre—five fire engines and a similar number of ambulances could enter Upper Roma Street at any particular time, with 20,000 people moving down Upper Roma Street. If that is not potential for disaster, I do not know what is. It is not as though the government is short of money. Anna Bligh’s release referred to the Major Facilities Levy which was used to build Suncorp Stadium. The Treasurer has said that the government is now redirecting the former Major Facilities Levy proceeds to health services from July 2006. That will provide $40 million in 2006-07, rising to $55 million in 2008-09. This particular levy, which was implemented to raise $260 million to refurbish Suncorp Stadium, can now provide an extra $40 million for health services, rising to $55 million in 2008-09. Yet the government cannot build a walkway. It cannot provide facilities between Lang Park and the Transit Centre. Former minister Terry Mackenroth used to say, ‘Look how quickly people can get out of Suncorp Stadium.’ Well, they can get out of Suncorp Stadium very quickly. I have been to Suncorp Stadium and I am impressed by what happens there. However, they move down Upper Roma Street in their thousands on two very, very narrow footpaths. This government has not provided a walkway, it has not redirected the traffic on Countess Street, and it has not worked out what it will do on the Upper Roma Street section. Yet it has $40 million to provide for health services, rising to $55 million, which all comes out of the Major Facilities Levy that was originally established to build Suncorp Stadium. The opposition also notes the concerns of local residents and the Brisbane City Council. Once again, this government has failed to negotiate with both of these groups. We have a magnificent stadium which the opposition agrees is an excellent facility—it is a great job—yet residents are still concerned about what will happen and the Brisbane City Council has openly stated that it will not support this. The Courier-Mail states— Rock concert for Suncorp Stadium—the final predictable twist in a saga which has seen proper process sacrificed for political expediency. 1168 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

It continues— Before the Suncorp Stadium upgrade was approved, other sites were being strongly supported because they had less noise constraints and greater flexibility for uses other than football. The Courier-Mail article goes on— But politics call the shots and Premier Peter Beattie ran roughshod over community and Brisbane City Council concerns to cut the Planning and Environment Court out of the complaints process. With such a pedigree, residents will always be humming the famous Rolling Stones’ tune ‘Can’t get no satisfaction’ on the issue of rock concerts. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr LINGARD: In 2001 the ALP government made the magnificent decision to refurbish Lang Park. It had $260 million in its pocket, but it still was unable to get the residents of Brisbane and the Brisbane City Council onside. Surely it could have made the right decision. What did it have to do? It overrode the Brisbane City Council to approve the Lang Park redevelopment in 2001. Strict conditions were laid down, including no open-air concerts and a limit of 24 major sporting events a year. That was the promise to the residents and that was the promise to Brisbane City Council. One would have expected that, with $260 million in its pocket to build a magnificent concept like this, it could get through the whole process without ending up in a fight. However, the Beattie government galloped over the Planning and Environment Court to ram the project through. Almost three years ago the ALP also slipped a retrospective change to the laws governing noise limits at Suncorp Stadium through the parliament when it changed the maximum noise levels to which Hale Street residents could now be subjected from 75 decibels to 81 decibels, while the maximums applying to those in Petrie Terrace were lifted from 67 to 76 decibels. These were significant changes. No wonder there is criticism of this proposal to change the legislation, firstly from the residents and secondly from the Brisbane City Council. Still, the promises came out at that particular time. The response from the Premier to those 1,216 petitioners was— In considering the Suncorp Metway Stadium proposal, my government considered both the impacts on the immediate area and the broader interests of the state. To this end, the conclusions made in the independent EIS and other studies have been endorsed and the decision to redevelop the stadium was announced in July 2000. The redevelopment will be carefully managed to minimise its impacts on the community. My government is committed to the construction and operation mitigation measures prescribed in the EIS, including commencing work on preliminary mitigation measures such as the establishment of a community advisory group. Both the work of this group and the redevelopment of further detailed design studies will ensure community issues are addressed during the decision-making process. That was yet another promise from Premier Beattie for only one reason and that was to get the development started and on the way so that these sorts of things could be changed in the future. As the Courier-Mail has said, that is what will happen with this legislation. As many members will recall, a restriction on concerts and other events was initially placed on the development approval by the Brisbane City Council, but the Premier said that ‘the stadium could easily be utilised for concerts and other community events just as it now caters so well for football matches’. As the Courier-Mail stated— If you are unfamiliar with politic-speak, allow me to translate. ‘Could’ means ‘will’. The smell of money is in the air and once it gets into the airconditioning system in George Street, then promises mean nothing. A ban on open-air concerts means just that. It doesn’t mean a ban for a few years until everyone gets used to the stadium. Patently, this has been the strategy from the outset—wait until the political moment is right and then rip up the promise. This is what has been done with the Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 2006. In 2001, when the Major Sports Facilities Bill was introduced, there was a declaration then of what major sports facilities are. In relation to clause 4 the explanatory notes stated— This clause provides that a regulation may declare a facility to be a major sports facility. A facility must have the capacity to stage national or international sports, recreational or entertainment events in order for it to be declared a major sports facility. It has always been in the legislation that a major sports facility can stage recreational and entertainment events. So why do we have to have this change? It continues— In addition, the clause provides that the declaration of a facility as a major sports facility may only be made with the consent of the facility owner, although this requirement will not apply in relation to the Brisbane Cricket Ground and Suncorp Metway Stadium. This is because the vesting of these facilities in the Major Sports Facility Authority is dealt with through transitional provisions in this Bill. That was in 2001. So why do we need the changes—changes that are still coming in? Within the last hour amendments have been prepared and presented and are still not on the table. Amendments are still being framed to change the requirements of this bill. Why? It is simply so that the government can override the Brisbane City Council and those concerns of the Integrated Planning Act. The Integrated Planning Act had provisions of the relevant planning scheme and development approvals, including conditions of development approvals provided for the use of major sports facilities. This new part 4 departs from that principle by providing that the use of a facility for a special event is a lawful use of the facility despite the Integrated Planning Act 1997. This legislation is now determined to override those provisions of the Integrated Planning Act. Mr Caltabiano: They make the rules as they go along. 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1169

Mr LINGARD: As the member for Chatsworth says, they make the rules as they go along. But what will happen in the future? How can residents be satisfied with what is going on? How can the Brisbane City Council, after coming to previous agreements with the state government, trust anything that is going on now? The explanatory notes state— In addressing the issue of FLPs— that is, fundamental legislative principles— the amendments depart from those principles by providing that any conditions that apply to the use of land for a major sports facility will be overridden. This would only be the case where a regulation prescribes a special event. The primary use of the facility would still be sport and recreation which would be regulated by the planning scheme, the development approval including any conditions and the Integrated Planning Act 1997. What I have said is that, with $260 million in its pocket, with the basic structure of Lang Park, soon to become Suncorp Stadium, this government changed the environment conditions and it changed the Brisbane City Council regulations. It came up with what I believe is a magnificent facility. There is no doubt about it. Everyone says that Suncorp Stadium is a magnificent facility. But in the implementation of Lang Park-Suncorp Stadium it could not get things right. It could not get the grass right for the first games. There is still not a walkway. I note that the Premier has again left the chamber. Mr Barton interjected. Mr LINGARD: The Premier was here just a few seconds ago and he went away. It is not the minister’s legislation anyhow. I say to the minister who is now in the chamber: the government is building a magnificent fire and ambulance service on the corner of Countess and Upper Roma streets and there is still no walkway. The facility will house five fire trucks facing Upper Roma Street and will have a massive entrance and exit for the ambulance station, but possibly 20,000 to 30,000 people will be walking past the entrance as there is no walkway to this magnificent centre which has now been built by the government. Can the minister imagine what could happen if there is a crush or something and these vehicles have to get out and get out quickly? Where is the provision for a walkway? It is just a recipe for disaster. As I have said, it is not that the government does not have the money; it is using $40 million of the new levy on poker machines for health funds, to rise to $55 million. What about the people who have paid all of this money to the hotels? When do they get a thank you now that they see $40 million to $50 million being hived off into the health system because the government is short on health money? Surely that money could have been spent on the walkway. If it is to be a magnificent facility and if it is to be used for concerts, surely the minister could control it. Everyone in this room knows what is going to happen when 20,000 to 30,000 people walk between the Transit Centre and Lang Park as they come down Upper Roma Street. The opposition cannot support the concept that the minister has overridden the residents of Brisbane around Lang Park. It cannot support the concept that he has overridden the Brisbane City Council. He has virtually thumbed his nose at all of them and said, ‘We will bring in this legislation’— legislation which to this very minute has not been finalised. It is still being amended. Amendments are still being prepared because the minister is not exactly sure how to achieve what he wants to do. The opposition is saying, ‘Yes, we support what has happened at Lang Park—at Suncorp stadium.’ It is a magnificent stadium, even though we probably would not have built it there; we would have built it somewhere else. Now there is a magnificent stadium—and I have said that continuously. However, in rebuilding it with all of the money that is available this minister has upset residents and the Brisbane City Council. There is no way in the wide world that the opposition can support what he has done. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (2.40 pm): The debate about the redevelopment of the hallowed Lang Park was long and labyrinth like. It arches back across the last three governments and the last five parliaments. To this day it echoes through the community that I represent in this place. The ground staked out by opponents and proponents of the major redevelopment of Suncorp Stadium was equally sacred and oftentimes equally emotional rather than rational. Those of us resident in the area were at times bemused by the didactic claims made by both sides of the issue. To be sure, Lang Park represented sacred ground and in more ways than one. As, amongst other things, the ground held a former cemetery and a romanticised Rugby League venue, it unsurprisingly evoked all manner of sentiments across the community spectrum. The heritage of the site was held dear by many people and, as many people know, it is a heritage that includes use as a concert venue. The reality is that today the stadium operates in a manner which has exceeded most expectations. Plainly, one cannot expect that the task of transporting around 20,000 people every other weekend into this stadium and then sending them on their way post match goes unnoticed in the local community. It most certainly does have an impact. But as someone who first moved to Paddington in 1997 and lived for seven years mostly within the area that is now designated as the stadium precinct, my view, and indeed my experience of the stadium, is that the impacts on a contemporary game day are somewhat less than the general chaos that eventuated prior to the redevelopment. I hasten quickly to add that, whereas general chaos was experienced three or four 1170 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 times a year, now the operation of the stadium is certainly more frequent. Based on my experiences as a resident since the redevelopment, as the local MP and as a member of the community based Stadium Management Advisory Committee, it is clear to me that parking restrictions and road closures remain the bugbear of many local residents. To a far lesser degree, noise complaints remain a concern for some. At this point I wish to bring some clarity to the debate about the nature of the bill before the House today. This bill applies to all the facilities which are held by the Major Sports Facilities Authority, which includes the Suncorp Stadium. It also includes other facilities such as Dairy Farmers Stadium, the Queensland State Athletics Centre and the Sleeman Centre, amongst others. It is enabling legislation rather than permissive. Of itself, the bill we are debating today does not authorise the conduct of a concert, religious or cultural event. It is not true to say that, at the end of the passage of the bill through this parliament, concerts will be permitted. The bill enables the minister to set down in a regulation that an event will be permitted. Importantly, such a regulation is subject to parliamentary oversight and, indeed, disallowance. Any such regulation may have attached to it conditions of use. I support this approach. To merely permit the conduct of concerts, cultural or religious events without further concern for the particulars of the case would be inadequate. There are a range of matters that should properly attenuate any permission, and I will address some of those later. At this point, however, I wish to address the fundamental questions that have informed my consideration of this matter. The key issue in my mind, as I stated to the House at the last sitting, is that, given the public investment in the stadium as a facility for the enjoyment of the public, should it be closed to sections of the community who are not football fans? Indeed, why should fans of world-class performers in Queensland miss out on seeing these acts not for the want of a suitable venue but for lack of a permission to use that venue. Should fans of music acts who are not fans of football be excluded from the benefit of the public investment in the stadium? Provided that the conduct of such events is not to the overall detriment of the community, should we not contemplate the conduct of such events? Given the difference between the reality of the operation of the stadium and some of the predictions, should we not at least attempt the conduct of such an event? In the end, despite the postulations on both sides of the debate about the conduct of concerts, it will be the experience of a concert or two which should directly and most relevantly inform future decision making. If the experience is evidently unacceptable, then as a representative of my community I will clearly be responsive to that reality. The reality is what I am most keen to observe. As such, I am supportive of the conduct of the Cyclone Benefit Concert at Suncorp Stadium. My north Queensland upbringing provided me with much, including an appreciation of the reality of tropical cyclones but also a genuine affection for the game of Rugby League. I wish to be clear about my perspective. I am a season ticket holder with the Broncos and, whenever possible, I join the crowd see the team in action. There can be no doubt that the stadium is a world-class facility. Testimony to this fact can be found from overseas visitors and local residents alike, from players and patrons, from original critics and, indeed, from across the political divide. I have wondered at times at the limitation upon the stadium as a venue for concerts and the like. I suspect my north Queensland heritage informs my practical view of the world. On the matter before the House, I think we should have a go. Before going to the specifics of the ameliorative aspects that should be included in any regulation, I wish to flesh out the reality of the context of the enabling ability contemplated by this bill. As members would be aware, and indeed as local residents are acutely aware, the stadium is now fully tenanted. The Broncos, the Queensland Reds and the Queensland Roar all play their home fixtures at the stadium, which means most weekends throughout the year will feature either a Rugby League, Rugby Union or soccer fixture. The fact remains that the stadium has only ever been permitted to hold a maximum of 24 major events each calendar year. ‘Major events’ is not a term of art but one defined by the original development approval as an event that attracts a crowd of 25,000 or more. Where there are crowds less than this threshold, there is not a requirement for the full traffic management plan to be enlivened and major road closures are not required. This limit recognises the impact visited upon the community by the enactment of the full traffic management plan. This year there are currently 29 matches scheduled to be played at Suncorp Stadium, including provision for one finals match for the Broncos but not the round games for the Roar for the last part of the year. To date, three out the 11 matches conducted so far have reached the threshold of a major event. Average attendance at the Broncos games this year is 30,856, at the Reds it is 19,980 and at Roar games it was 13,217. As the original development approval predated my term, let me state for the record today that I support the limit attached to events at the stadium and, for a range of reasons, do not support that limit being changed. Lest there be confusion on this point, there is no suggestion whatsoever that this limit be revised; I am simply taking the opportunity of this debate to state my own position for the benefit of my community. This exposition is the necessary context to the reality of the bill before the House. Given the operation of the stadium as a football venue for all codes, there is, in fact, very limited opportunity for concerts to be conducted. I have already stated publicly that my support for concerts is contingent upon 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1171 the actuality of such an event and, provided the experience is considered to be positive, any such future concerts should be limited to three concerts in a 12-month period. That is my position and I state it for the record here today. The experience of the Cyclone Benefit Concert should directly inform the conduct of any proposed event in the future. Beyond the fact of my assurance, can I go further and say directly to the residents of my electorate that the reality is that the set-up time and pull-down time required for the conduct of a concert within any stadium means that, with a full slate of football fixtures, it is an impossibility that concerts could ever become frequent. The need to cover the field and maintain the quality of the surface limits greatly the ability of the stadium to be a venue for concerts. As I set out earlier, if it is logistically feasible, then to my mind there are strong arguments in favour of providing the benefit of the public investment in the facility to other sections of the community, apart from football fans. It is the impacts of the conduct of a concert upon my local community which I wish to address at some length. As I stated earlier, I bring an understanding to this debate not just borne of my role as the member for the last two years but as someone who lived in the area now defined as the Lang Park traffic precinct both prior to and post the redevelopment. Traffic, and particularly parking, must surely sit atop the list. I recall the bedlam of State of Origin prior to the redevelopment. The place was gridlocked and cars swarmed the suburbs. Footpaths and driveways were not immune. Today, the traffic management plan is world’s best practice, with 80 per cent patronage taking public transport. The proactive management of the precinct and, in particular, the fine work of officers like Gary Moore of Queensland Transport means that traffic problems are thoroughly minimised. Inextricably linked to the safe operation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic is the provision of external infrastructure. The bus station and the walkway to Milton Station work exceptionally well. The need for pedestrian access through the neglected Petrie Terrace Barracks site remains as important as the day the stadium was first contemplated. It is a matter of public knowledge that there is presently before the Brisbane City Council an application to redevelop the barracks site. That is exciting for my local community for many reasons, not the least of which is that it should at last provide a corridor for the walkway through to Roma Street, for which provision in the budget has been made. I am keen to see this redevelopment proceed apace and within those plans should be meshed a counterflow bus lane proposed by the council, along with the capacity of the southern or Milton Road pedestrian infrastructure and the broader linkages and connectivity contemplated by the City West Strategy. I recently organised a fruitful meeting between the minister for local government, my fellow local representative Councillor David Hinchliffe, the Coordinator-General’s office and officers of the department of local government. I thank the minister for her attention to this matter. I lived in Petrie Terrace at the time of my election and I am firmly of the view that this locale could be a premier destination at the fulfilment of the city west vision. Petrie Terrace itself could be one of Brisbane’s most amazing boulevards, while connectivity into Petrie Terrace and Paddington from the city and Roma Street Parkland will ensure that this part of the city is not an island but a gateway. I am on the record as an advocate for the timely provision of the infrastructure components of this vision. For sure we must get this right but for myriad reasons much remains to be done. It should and must be completed sooner rather than later. The realisation of this process will further enhance the operation of the stadium and lessen the need for some road closures. In terms of parking, the plan in operation has exceeded all expectations. Shortly after my election I advocated to council, with the support of the deputy mayor, a review of the operation of the parking plan. Within this I supported an increase in the time limit from five minutes to 15 minutes. Five minutes hardly provides time for anything. A drop off, pick up or errand can more realistically be achieved in 15. I also advocated that local residents’ parking permits should operate across the precinct. The aim of the scheme is to prevent outside traffic and nothing requires local residents to remain in their own streets. I was pleased that council agreed with me and precinct residents can now park anywhere in the precinct. Their permit is their permission to go about their normal business regardless of the operation of the stadium, and properly so. While I appreciate the council’s actions in these regards, I maintain two concerns, the first being the level of fine for breaching the parking regulations, which I believe should be increased. Secondly, I cannot for the life of me understand why the illuminated parking signs can advertise water restrictions and drainage but cannot provide information on games beyond the next weekend. If, for example, a person is planning Joe’s second birthday party, if they have the opportunity to see that Saturday is a match day they may then opt for the Sunday as more convenient to all. Presently the signs only indicate the coming weekend. I think they provide the most efficient and effective manner of enhancing community awareness of parking regulations being in force. The stadium management, the stadium management advisory committee and the local councillor share my view, as do the many local residents with whom I have discussed this. I call again today for the council to adopt a practice of periodic display of forward match days. 1172 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Finally, the precinct has benefited from proactive policing of the parking regulations and we must remain ever vigilant. We do not wish to invite any perception that the days of old should return where nooks and crannies are surreptitious parking spots. In contemplation of a concert, the parking plan should be enlivened and officiously policed. A new crowd who may never have attended the stadium will be enticed and the community acceptance of public transport as the means for attending Suncorp Stadium needs to be reinforced. In any regulation permitting the conduct of a concert, religious or cultural event, I would think that noise limits before and during the concert should be paramount. The only time I, at a personal level, have found noise intrusive was during a somewhat lengthy sound test for national anthem singers for an international fixture. The empty stadium provided an echoing effect. We should be mindful of the time of day and length of time in which sound tests required for a concert are conducted. Moreover, the stage itself should be erected at the northern end of the stadium and project southward across the predominantly commercial areas rather than back toward the residential communities that sit above the stadium. The noise issues raised with me during my tenure have related not to the crowd but to the use of blowing machines in the postmatch clean-up. The need to clean up the area after matches must be weighed against the impact of such cleaning practices and these imperatives drive the operations of the stadium. In contemplating future concerts or such events, it would be ideal if Fridays or Saturdays or times outside of school terms could be preferred and no event should go beyond midnight. In fact, 11 pm would seem more reasonable to me. I would be happy to hear views on these factors from local residents and potential hirers alike. As I set out, no more than three concerts per year should be contemplated, in my view. There are long-term, dug-in supporters and opponents of Suncorp Stadium. The reality is that the stadium will be a significant facility in my community for a long time to come. How we as a community derive the full benefit of that investment lies at the heart of my contemplation of this bill. I defend the investment in Suncorp on the same grounds that I defend the investment in the Gallery of Modern Art taking shape across the river. Public facilities like Suncorp Stadium, the Entertainment Centre at Boondall and the Queensland Performing Arts Centre provide the infrastructure to enable citizens to enjoy a range of sporting and cultural events. Governments properly should be involved in providing these platforms. The use of facilities like QPAC for ballet or opera is not, cannot and should not be based upon pursuit of full capital recovery. The claim of the music fan, the football fan and the ballet fan should not be distinguished by a government in fulfilling its role as a government for the whole community. The bill before the House provides an enabling power to issue a regulation for an event. I accept that some residents will be aggrieved at the contemplation of this use of the stadium. Others support this approach. I bring to this issue my best endeavours and my own experiences. I believe we should realise the full benefit of the public investment for the broader public good. As I have said, I am a football fan but the last time I was truly stunned was not at Matty Bowen’s intercept in the State of Origin but the performance by the Australian Ballet of Swan Lake at QPAC. In my mind, government should provide for the range of experiences that as a community we should be able to enjoy, as spectators and as participants. Ultimately that is why I believe the limitation on the stadium as a venue for concerts, religious and cultural events should be properly the subject of this debate. Mine may not be popular choice with some, but today I make a choice based on what I believe is right, not just what is popular. If it turns out I am wrong, then I will, as a responsible representative, respond to that situation without stubbornness. In the final analysis, the reality of the Cyclone Benefit Concert should directly inform future decision making. The husk of issues that surround this matter fall away from the core of the experienced reality. I have not revisited the murky waters under the bridge today. I take as the starting point the fact of the existence of the stadium and the experience to date of its operation within my community. It is the reality and the future reality which I believe should most relevantly inform decision making. I prefer evidence to articles of faith in all arguments. I am an impassioned supporter of our democracy and I can do no more than submit myself to the will of my community based on the choices I have made. It is within this context, for these reasons and upon these conditions that I support the bill before the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (2.56 pm): I rise to speak to the Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is, in fact, the fat end of the wedge. The Queensland community, particularly the community of Petrie Terrace, Paddington and Red Hill, had a vigorous debate about the location of a major stadium. This has already been canvassed by the member for Beaudesert. The Suncorp Stadium site was clearly not the best stadium site in Brisbane because of severe limitations on access, heavily populated residential areas on every side and very limited road corridors into Brisbane from the western suburbs. However, the Beattie government forced through the Lang Park redevelopment with a promise to local residents and businesses that they would have only 24 major sporting fixtures a year. This promise is of major importance to the residents, business owners and motorists in and around the affected area. 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1173

When an event is held at Suncorp Stadium a 15-minute parking restriction, a restriction that was originally five minutes, comes into force at midday on the day of the event. Clearly this is crippling to local business owners as customers go elsewhere to areas that do permit parking. Equally clearly, certain businesses bear a disproportionate impact from this restriction—a restriction that many of them could not have envisaged when they chose this part of Brisbane to establish their businesses. Were not these business owners to accept assurances, in fact guarantees, in legislation that the loss and disruption to their business would be limited to the sporting fixtures previously allowed under law? During an event road closures come into force around Suncorp Stadium. Many residents who are not necessarily aware of the event find themselves enmeshed in road closures with very little opportunity to get around the already constricted area. Then we come to the effect on local residents of noise from the event—noise and congestion, and at times of vandalism, of loud crowds milling around before and after events, including often the widespread consumption of alcohol. Were not local residents entitled to depend on these promises that the inconvenience and the price that they have to pay for Brisbane to have a 52,000-seat stadium should be honoured? The local community have already paid the price of inconvenience. They are not expected to cop the dishonesty from this government which, on having built this stadium, clearly always intended to increase the number or type of events to be held. The building of the stadium with guarantees about the number and type of events that would cap the inconvenience were put in place to protect the local residents from a degree of inconvenience. That was the thin end of the wedge on which the stadium was built. We are now pushing the wedge—and this is the thick end of the wedge—where we get the government’s true agenda for the use of Suncorp Stadium. This is the agenda it was never honest enough to tell the local residents about when it introduced the proposal for the construction of this stadium in this heavily settled part of inner- western Brisbane. I can just hear the members opposite and the member for Mount Coot-tha trying to apply the same failed logic that we are hearing today the next time a bill is introduced that further deregulates the use of Suncorp Stadium, that further allows more noxious and more frequent activities to be held. That was clearly always the agenda: to drip-feed the type of events that could be held. I think it is very disappointing that the government has used the excuse of holding a one-off benefit concert for the deserving victims of Cyclone Larry to slip through a change to the law in order to open the stadium to be used for all sorts of commercial and non-commercial activities. Talk about a smokescreen! To make these changes under the guise of a single benefit concert in response to a natural disaster is really pretty shameful. Not only will residents have to put up with the inconvenience of the additional event days with parking restrictions, road closures et cetera; they will also have to put up with the direct and indirect effects that rock concerts and the like have. Suncorp Stadium is situated on low-lying land where sustained noise from concerts, which will be far in excess of what would be generated by football games, will echo from Petrie Terrace to Red Hill and over the surrounding suburbs. Residents will not be able to invite their friends around to visit them while the events are being held because they will not be able to park in the street. They will also be subjected to incredibly loud noise from a stadium that is located right next door to hundreds and hundreds of Brisbane homes. But it will not end there. A concert crowd differs from a football crowd, depending on the age group to which the music being played is targeted. Local residents will see their streets crowded before and after events with the attendant problems that crowds of young, possibly intoxicated concertgoers will create. As we heard from the member for Mount Coot-tha, given the commitment of Suncorp Stadium to holding football games on the weekend, the spectre arises that concerts will be held at even less convenient times for local residents such as weeknights. I read the speech given in this place by the member for Mount Coot-tha, Mr Fraser, just before this bill was introduced. In that speech he made it clear that he supported the Premier breaking the promise that was given to the people of his electorate in relation to concerts. In fact, he appeared to be calling for an open slather approach. He stated— ... I do question why this public facility should be closed to the enjoyment of some sections of the community. That is an open slather approach against the constituents of his own electorate. I can answer the member for Mount Coot-tha. The reason is that this facility was built only on the condition and the promise by this government to the people of the member’s electorate that it would not be used for these purposes. The issue is not that we have a public facility and, therefore, it should be put to maximum use; the issue is that this stadium was constructed and imposed on local residents and the local business community on the express condition that its occasions and types of use would be restricted in order to minimise the inconvenience, intrusion and imposition on the lifestyle of those who live in this lovely part of Brisbane. If you give a promise then you should keep that promise. But in this case the promise was just the thin end of the wedge. Now the government’s true agenda—that it always had—is being introduced under the excuse of changing the rules to allow a one-off benefit concert in response to a natural disaster. 1174 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Anne Boccabella, a business proprietor and local resident in Paddington, led a group of Petrie Terrace residents in their opposition to Suncorp Stadium. She is one of those to whom the government has shown a lack of good faith by breaking its earlier promises. In fact, it is the Liberal candidate for the state seat of Mount Coot-tha—a local resident who lives within the area of Suncorp Stadium—Mr James Mackay, who has stood up for his local residents, rather than the sitting member, who seems to favour an open slather approach and who supports this government in breaking its promise. James Mackay has lobbied the opposition parties to ensure that our stance is that the government, having given a promise to the people of the electorate of Mount Coot-tha, should be held accountable and should be publicly exposed for breaking that promise—one which, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see it never intended to honour in the first place. I note from the comments made by the member for Mount Coot-tha that he was a resident but has now moved out of the Suncorp Stadium area. I am glad that this record will show for the benefit of the people of Mount Coot-tha that it is the local resident and Liberal Party candidate for Mount Coot-tha, James Mackay, who has stood up and said that the people around Suncorp Stadium are not second- class citizens and nor are they fools. Having been given a commitment by this government to restrict the impact on their lifestyle, they now see that commitment thrown out the window. Nobody disputes that Suncorp Stadium is a first-rate facility where many Brisbane people enjoy attending events. However, the legacy is a stadium that is situated in the wrong place. The proximity of the stadium to local residents, difficult road conditions, limited public transport and draconian parking restrictions mean that this stadium has a dramatic impact on the amenity and lifestyle of local residents and businesses. The construction of such a stadium should be proceeded with only after giving assurances to people who will be affected. That is why the assurances were in place. Those assurances that were given in order to proceed with the building of this stadium are the assurances that the government is stuck with. Those assurances should be honoured in good faith. Those residents, as would be the case with any resident in Brisbane who makes sacrifices in terms of the amenity of their area on the basis of assurances given by the government, have every right to be angry at the breach of good faith that has taken place. The member for Mount Coot-tha is at least up-front enough to declare his personal interest as a season ticket holder at Lang Park. He is also obviously a fan of some of the bands and musicians he has named—some of whom I had never heard of. But he should understand that not everybody shares that pecuniary interest, that many people live in the environment around— Mr FRASER: I rise to a point of order. There is no pecuniary interest in being a season ticket holder of Suncorp Stadium whatsoever. I take offence at the suggestion that there is. I ask the member to withdraw the comment. Dr FLEGG: I am happy to withdraw. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Dr FLEGG: I take the interjection from the member for Chatsworth, who called it a conflict of interest, not a pecuniary interest. I may have used the wrong word. Mr FRASER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. There is no conflict of interest either. It is merely a right enjoyed by many members of the public. There is no proprietary interest whatsoever that could possibly give rise to a conflict of interest. The very suggestion is offensive and I ask for it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! The honourable member for Moggill will withdraw. Dr FLEGG: If it is offensive, I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw unconditionally. Dr FLEGG: I withdraw. What the member for Mount Coot-tha should understand is that many people— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the member for Moggill. Dr FLEGG: I could turn up the volume for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you like. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. Dr FLEGG: I will ratchet up the volume a bit so that you can hear me, Mr Deputy Speaker. What the member for Mount Coot-tha should understand is that many people live in the surrounding environment of Suncorp Stadium, many businesses depend on accessibility to survive and, at the end of the day, a promise is a promise. Mr Fraser and his government have let down the people of the Mount Coot-tha electorate without seemingly even having a pang of conscience about it. I note the comments from the member for Mount Coot-tha: ‘If I am wrong, I will address that at a later date.’ If he is wrong, it is too late to address it at a later date. We are amending the law of the state of Queensland here to break the government’s promise to the people of the Mount Coot-tha electorate. It is not good enough to say, ‘If I am wrong and it hurts my people, we will worry about that in the future.’ 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1175

In concluding, I note that the explanatory notes that have been circulated with this bill, under the heading ‘Consultation’, state— The following relevant organisations have been consulted: Crown law and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That is the consultation for something the size of Suncorp Stadium, for something that was so controversial and so vigorously debated in the Queensland community. Who do we consult? Crown law and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Not a single consultation within the electorate of Mount Coot-tha. Perhaps the member has been asleep. Not a single person, not a resident group, not a business group, not a peak body was consulted. In fact, nobody outside of the public sector here in George Street has been consulted about these changes. This is a reflection of the fact that this government was hoping to slip this through and break its promise and did not even want to tell the people of the Mount Coot-tha electorate, the local residents. This government certainly did not have enough respect for those people to consult them or their organisations when it inflicted sleepless nights, massive crowds of people and intractable noise on them. Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (3.12 pm): This bill before us today about Lang Park, now Suncorp Stadium, is all about holding the faith with the community, telling the truth and dealing with credibility versus dishonesty. Mr Reynolds: And you’re speaking on it? Mr CALTABIANO: Indeed, Minister, I am speaking on it. It is time that this government was held to account for holding the faith with the community, telling the truth and dealing with credibility rather than the dishonesty for which this government has been known over the last few years. The whole debacle of turning Lang Park into Suncorp Stadium is really all about poor location. It should never, ever have been turned into a super stadium of this magnitude in the current location. We had that debate and, unfortunately, sentiment ran riot and won over sensible decision making. We remember the debates of the time—and I will come back to some of the public meetings that I attended as an elected representative at the time with Terry Mackenroth and Wendy Edmond. It is worth recording the events that happen on at least 24 occasions each year. Every time an event occurs at Suncorp Stadium it has a high impact on the City of Brisbane. Every time there is a major event at Suncorp Stadium there are significant road closures, as the member for Moggill has indicated, of some of the major subarterials heading to the western suburbs; there is a major requirement for a heavy police presence; and there are serious business impacts. We heard from the member for Beaudesert that the emergency services’ access from one of the biggest fire stations in Queensland has a detrimental impact every time there is an event at Suncorp Stadium. Local residents are dealt with very poorly every time there is a major event at Suncorp Stadium. It has a big impact on their lifestyle. Having their lives interrupted on more than 24 occasions, the number they signed off on, is totally inappropriate. Mrs Reilly: The other 341 days are okay. Mr CALTABIANO: I take that interjection because it is clear that the Labor Party wants to use this stadium on the other 341 days of the year, as the member for Mudgeeraba just outlined. On the other 341 days of the year the Labor Party wants to have major events in the City of Brisbane at Suncorp Stadium. That is what we have heard. That is the Labor Party’s plan: to have noise through the inner suburbs of Brisbane day after day, night after night, causing massive disruption to the local community. It is unacceptable. Where is the ALP on this issue? The member for Mount Coot-tha mentioned that strange little fellow Councillor Hinchliffe. Where is he on this issue? He was vociferous in his opposition when Suncorp was being built, supported by his little mate Jim Soorley, but where is he now? Is he hiding in the closet somewhere? Where is Councillor Hinchliffe, who professed to be pounding the pavements trying to stop this stadium being built? Where is he now when the Labor Party is breaking its commitments and dealing dishonestly with the people of Brisbane, particularly those in the inner suburbs? He is nowhere to be seen. The Labor Party is flip-flopping all over the place as usual, and its local government representatives are the worst at it. What happened when Lang Park was first called in? We remember the secretive way in which it was called in. We remember the planning disasters that beset the stadium. We remember the no clear cost structure. The member for Beaudesert said it was a $260 million project. It actually cost almost $500 million, as we all know in this place. We all know the secretive manner in which that money was hidden through the estimates process, that it was not able to be investigated through the estimates process. We all know that money was hived off into the works department to buy million-dollar screens that were put into another sports department which was not part of this process—$500 million of taxpayers’ money. The member for Thuringowa would know that the residents of central Queensland, north Queensland and far-north Queensland despise the amount of money that was poured into this stadium in the City of Brisbane in a substandard location that does not adequately deal with the impacts on that local community. 1176 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Suncorp Stadium is not a true super stadium that this state deserves. You cannot turn this stadium into a super stadium. This state deserves a proper super stadium similar to the ones that operate around the world where you can change the size of the ground—make it an oval, make it a square, make it a rectangle—and use it for concerts. You cannot and never have been able to do that on this site. When Lang Park was called in and the secret deals were done there was also a requirement for very clear pedestrian access. In the original planning scheme when this was approved there was a requirement that pedestrian access from the Petrie Terrace side would be in place prior to the opening of Suncorp Stadium. We know that never, ever happened. I hear that the member for Mount Coot-tha is still waiting for that pedestrian access to occur. It is still not in place. Yet here we are changing the use of a stadium which is in the wrong location, inappropriately used and expanding its use, according to the member for Mudgeeraba, to the other 341 days of the year. The ironclad guarantee that was given to the people of Brisbane and the people of Queensland that it would only be opened on 24 occasions for major sporting events with over 25,000 people has simply evaporated. I return to the public meeting that I mentioned earlier. It was held in a small local theatre absolutely packed to the rafters with 300 or 400 local residents. Terry Mackenroth was present, Wendy Edmond was present and I was present representing the opposition in the City of Brisbane. What did they promise the local community? They promised a number of things. They promised minimal interference for local residents during construction. That never happened, and unreasonably was promised. They promised a parking scheme that would preserve access to their homes. As we heard from the member for Mount Coot-tha, that was botched when it was introduced. They heard that high- quality pedestrian access from Milton station to the site and from Lang Park back to the city through the barracks site would be provided. That was never delivered, either. They heard that there would be a solemn, swear-upon-our-mother’s-grave commitment to no more than 24 major events a year and that they would be 24 sporting events a year. That is another commitment not maintained and reneged upon. It is unacceptable that the Deputy Premier and Treasurer of the state of Queensland could give a commitment to a local community and that that commitment is then thrown back in their face a short number of years later. I am sure that if Mr Mackenroth were here today, he would argue, as I am arguing, that he gave a commitment to the people of Mount Coot-tha and he would not renege on it. He would stand up to the Premier of this state—unlike the member for Mount Coot-tha. Hopefully, when James Mackay is successful at the next election he might be able to stand up to the Queensland coalition Premier and say, ‘I want this fixed for my community.’ The community members at that public meeting who stated that once Lang Park was built the government would backflip on its signed-in-blood commitment to limit the events at Lang Park knew more about the character of the current Premier than most Queenslanders did. In recent months, weeks and, in fact, over the last year, we have seen how prophetic they were. The rest of Queensland now sees what this Labor government is really all about. Time after time, they have seen the culture of concealment and cover-up of information, and the culture of dishonesty when it comes to the local community—whether it relates to energy, health, water or roads. As the member for Moggill stated, where has been the community consultation? The most disgraceful part of this bill is the masking of these changes with the tragedy of those in north Queensland who have lost everything after Cyclone Larry. It is absolutely shameful that this government would do that. In the past, ANZ Stadium has been used for major concerts in the city of Brisbane. If it is good enough for U2 to perform at ANZ Stadium, it is good enough for this Premier to hold a benefit concert for the victims of Cyclone Larry at ANZ Stadium. Masking the changes in this bill with the tragedy of Cyclone Larry is nothing short of shameful. Other venues could have taken this sort of capacity crowd for a benefit concert for those in north Queensland who have lost everything. The member for Mount Coot-tha spoke about the noise impacts on his home and the surrounding suburbs during rehearsals of the playing of the national anthem. I do not want to pre-empt discussion on the amendment, but it is very interesting that the amendment put forward today explicitly spells out that rehearsals et cetera will be part of a major events program. So it is all hands-off. Once this bill is passed through the parliament—and it is clear that the ALP will push it through the parliament without listening to the people of Queensland—a laissez faire approach will be taken at Lang Park. You can do anything, make any noise, conduct any concert, have as many rehearsals as you like and have as many footy games as you like, because the government no longer cares about that local community in the inner suburbs of Brisbane. We do not support this bill for the range of reasons I have outlined. It is a very poor show that this government seeks to hide the contents of this bill behind the Cyclone Larry appeal. I do not support the contents of this bill. It is a major breach of faith with the local community when this government ‘signed in blood’ that there would be only 24 events. Terry Mackenroth, the then Deputy Premier, said at a major public meeting that it was ‘signed in blood’, ‘it’s in the legislation’. 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1177

It is a bit like the l-a-w—law—promise that we heard from the federal Labor Party. Perhaps they are serial liars. When it comes to legislation—whether it be in federal parliament, state parliament or local government—they are serial mistellers of the truth, deceiving the community about matters of such importance. We do not support the bill, and we hope that the community will support us in doing so. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (3.25 pm): I rise to speak to the Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 2006. I have studied this piece of legislation fairly closely. I place on record that, as a former minister for transport and main roads in the Borbidge government, I was one of the supporters of the Lang Park redevelopment going back into those years. At the same time, it was about proper planning and getting it right. This afternoon I have heard the contributions by the members for Beaudesert, Moggill and Chatsworth in relation to this situation. I have taken on board some of the comments of the member for Chatsworth. I agree with much of his argument, because planning in the early stages of the redevelopment of Lang Park was not done with proper, honest consultation. The real losers are the businesspeople and the residents in the neighbourhood adjacent to Lang Park. What we see here is poor Labor policy, made on the run to promote a one-off fundraising event to benefit the unfortunate victims of Cyclone Larry. All of our hearts go out to those people at this time. I support that. I believe it is great to have a one-off event. In his second reading speech the Premier made mention of a papal visit. These are not noisy events; these are different events. Open-air concerts generate huge noise in the local environment and in the local neighbourhood for the people who live in adjacent housing. The original plan was to have 24 major events and no open-air events. It is classic poor Labor planning. There is a scandalous parking situation for private individuals who want to drive their motor vehicles to events at Lang Park. Of course we all support public transport, but it does not always suit everyone’s situation. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr JOHNSON: That is applicable to Lang Park. It was rushed through. As the member for Chatsworth stated this afternoon, there were many hidden agendas with the redevelopment of Lang Park. The way it was done is sinful. As I said at the outset, I am a supporter of the redevelopment of Lang Park. I love the place. I love it for the reason that it is the home of Rugby League in Queensland. It is also the home of many other sporting events in Queensland. We saw a wonderful exhibition of Rugby Union there during the World Cup. Rugby Union and soccer matches have been held there since that time. I have no problem with a one-off event, but I do think about the people who live in close proximity to the stadium. Maybe there is method in the government’s madness, because the properties adjacent to Lang Park will be worth absolutely nothing now. There has been a property boom in Brisbane, but those people will be unable to sell their properties because of the situation that will arise. The government will be able to purchase those properties cheaply now and open up the road infrastructure around Lang Park and get it right. Maybe this is the way the government does its planning—by force and by insulting the general public that their asset is no longer worth anything. A lot of those people will say, ‘We are out of here,’ take whatever they can get and go. Then the roads will open up and the parking will become a reality. What has happened to businesses in that part of town? When it comes to major events, businesses close down half a day before. This is an unacceptable situation in a viable and profitable area such as Paddington and the area adjacent to Lang Park. I draw the attention of the House to the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998 as it relates to open-air events. It states— An occupier of premises must not use or allow the use of premises for an open air event before 7 am on any day if the use causes audible noise or from 7 am to 10 pm on any day if the use causes noise of more than 70 decibels and after 10 pm on any day if the use causes noise more than the lesser of the following: 50 decibels and 10 decibels above the background level noise. This attracts a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. I also draw the attention of the House to 6ZD, titled ‘Amplifier devices, other than at indoor venue or open-air event.’ This section applies to a person who operates an amplifier device other than at an indoor venue or open-air event. The person must not operate the device in a way that makes audible noise or causes audible noise to be made on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday before 8 am or after 6 pm or on a business day before 7 am or after 10 pm. What sort of an insult is that to the neighbourhood of Lang Park? We are going to have open-air concerts and, I can tell members, it is going to be more than 70 decibels—probably 140, 150, maybe 200 decibels. I know how deafening that can be. Again, there is a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. The legislation creates an environment here that insults the department of environment and, as the member for Moggill pointed out this afternoon, there is no mention of the department of environment in the consultation process; there is only consultation with crown law and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It is the old adage again. This is arrogance at its best. I support Lang Park, I support the reasons it was put there, but I have never, ever supported the poor planning that is associated with it. 1178 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

The situation that is absolutely paramount, as previous speakers have made reference to, is the access to Milton station. What do the multitudes do? They walk along the road. They have had a few drinks; it is not a safe environment. Police and emergency services vehicles cannot get through most times. It is a recipe for disaster. I am pleased to see that the Premier is back in the chamber now because I know he is passionate about Lang Park, too. This is an area where there is a problem. It is going to continue to be a problem and it has to be fixed up. It is not only a problem; it is an embarrassment to the people of Brisbane and the people of Queensland. People from overseas or interstate come to our major events at Lang Park, whether they be football matches or whatever, and they see the congestion associated with it. At Olympic Stadium in Sydney or Telstra Dome in Melbourne a person can walk out and get on a train and be gone in 10 minutes without the fear of being run over. These problems can be rectified. In relation to access to the city through Roma Street, there is no way in the world tens of thousands of people can get down there. It is the same situation with Milton Railway Station. This is a real issue. Whilst I do not have a problem with a one-off event to benefit those affected by Cyclone Larry, it is a different situation if we are going to open the floodgates and there is an open-air event held there every weekend or during the week. The member for Mount Coot-tha probably agrees it is going to cause him a lot of heartache at the next election. At the same time, this is about creating an environment that is going to upset many, many people. I say to the Premier that I think there has to be more planning and more money spent in the precincts of Lang Park to get some of those inaccessible areas corrected so that we can get pedestrians in and out in a safe environment, we can get traffic in and out in a safe way and we can find parking for those people. As the member for Chatsworth very ably illustrated and demonstrated here this afternoon, the private lives of the people who live in proximity to Lank Park are virtually shut down when there is a major event on, which I believe is an invasion of their privacy because of poor planning in the initial stages. I believe that what the government has to do is find ways to address this issue and to consult not only with the neighbourhood but also with the businesspeople in that area to get the problem fixed. If we are going to see these events held there all the time the government will be able to fix the problem because all those properties will come on to the market, those people will want to move on and there will be all the area in the world to create parking and road infrastructure because no-one will want to live there. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.34 pm): I rise to comment on the Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to enable the use of major sports facilities for a special event and to allow a concert to be held at Suncorp Stadium. This bill is required as the development approval for Suncorp does not provide for the use of the facility for concerts. In fact, there is a specific condition in the development approval which precludes the use of the facility for major concerts, cultural or religious events. The explanatory notes recognise that obtaining the required approval for the use of Suncorp Stadium for a concert and amending the conditions of the development approval could take several months. We need to understand why the government put in place what they are now wanting to change. In the lead-up to the 2001 election when Labor was under pressure in the seat of Mount Coot-tha it said, in order to appease the local residents and grab some last minute votes, that it would implement a strict set of criteria and also limit the number of times that the stadium would be used and events that it would be used for. A restriction on concerts and other events was a resulting condition for development approval. The Premier claimed after the election that he then had a mandate to build the stadium— notwithstanding that that single issue candidate campaigning against the stadium got a sizeable vote— because his candidate, the Australian Labor Party’s Wendy Edmond, won the seat. Here is what Premier Beattie said in Hansard on 20 June 2001— The reality is that prior to the last election there was considerable and substantive debate about the redevelopment of Suncorp Metway Stadium. There was considerable debate on the ABC about it and in the papers. In that election campaign we received a mandate to redevelop this site. Can I say to the Premier that he did gain the approval from the electorate to redevelop the site but that redevelopment was only accepted because it was subject to conditions. The Premier went on to say— My wife and I lived near this site for around 17 years. I am in a better position than anyone in this House to make a judgement about Suncorp Metway Stadium. I lived near it. I know exactly what it means for the lives of the people locally. I know exactly what the issues here are. I know that a properly managed and properly organised Suncorp Metway Stadium is compatible with the local community. This properly managed and properly organised stadium was to be achieved through conditions placed on its use, the conditions which this bill aims to erode. This Labor government is now being dishonest and sly and I hope that the Liberal candidate, James Mackay, lets everyone know about its duplicity and change of heart. The lesson to be learnt here the hard way by the people in Mount Coot- tha and indeed Queensland is that this government has no problem with making promises in the lead-up to an election and then going back on these promises. 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1179

If the government wants to run a cyclone benefit concert an admirable event it should do it at ANZ Stadium, a venue that has been accepted as appropriate for concerts. The government should not cloak itself in the sense that it is doing the honourable thing for Cyclone Larry victims when it is being duplicitous. The bill will amend the act by providing for the use of a major sports facility for one or more concerts, public assemblies or religious events—note that: one or more. This bill does not limit the number of these significant events to one or two or even three. This bill will allow this government— which will probably get excited by the amount of money the Major Sports Facilities Authority can make— to hold as many of these concerts, public assemblies and religious events as it wants despite making promises to the electorate of Mount Coot-tha that it would protect their enjoyment of land from such events through imposing conditions on its use. The government is once again disregarding its promises at appreciable cost to the people of Paddington, Toowong, Milton, Bardon, Auchenflower, Petrie Terrace and Red Hill. One concert could become 10 and eventually it will be open slather. I am aware that I am drawing a lot of attention to the fact that clause 7 seeks to redefine special events as one or more concerts, public assemblies or religious events but this clause is much broader than the Premier suggested it was. Let us recall what the Premier said in his second reading speech— The proposal to hold a ... I say again, ‘a’— ... major concert featuring Australian and international performers at Suncorp Stadium to raise relief funds to help the community of north Queensland. This bill goes much further than this in providing the ability for one or more like events. This is something we should have expected. The current member for Mount Coot-tha indicated as much in this House on 30 March. The member recognised that at the time of redevelopment the former minister for sport and the former Lord Mayor both opposed concerts and cultural and religious events being held in the stadium. The member for Mount Coot-tha went on to question why the stadium should be restricted to football fans only and he confirmed that again today. Maybe the member should ask his electorate why they did not want concerts then and why they still do not want them now. It is very possible that the holding of such events will impact adversely upon neighbouring residents and businesses. Let us also recognise that the redevelopment of Lang Park was accepted by the electorate after the conditions excluding concerts and like events were put in place. Now we have an amendment given to us today to allow sound checks and rehearsals and their attendant noise. The Beattie government should respect the promises it made to the people of Mount Coot-tha and hold worthy special events in the venues that have been designated for them. Suncorp Stadium has not been designated for them. Finally, I want to refer to the Courier-Mail and what it said just after the 2001 election for which the redevelopment of Lang Park was an issue. It states— Although ‘mandate’ already has been used in the media, I hope the Government does not assume that its ... victory in the state election gives it a mandate to pass any legislation and do anything it likes, regardless of the consequences. I hope that the result will allow the Government to get on with the job in a sensible and co-ordinated way, remembering that people want their Government to look after them rather than walk over them. What will happen with Suncorp Stadium will truly be a test of their sincerity. How true this statement from a Courier-Mail journalist remains. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.41 pm): I rise to speak to the Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill and to raise a couple of issues and seek clarification from the minister when he responds. The Hon. Minister Barton has stated that that ceiling of 24 events being held at the stadium will be retained when this legislation is passed—and it will be, obviously, due to the numbers. The amendment that has been circulated today defines ‘special events’ as major concerts, public assemblies or religious events. I do not think people in the community would have an objection to any of those activities. There is a rider on that, however, and I will get to that in a moment. The second part of that amendment states that special events ‘include any rehearsal, sound and light testing and other ancillary activities necessary and incidental to an event mentioned in item 1’. I ask: will the maximum 24 events include the counting of those rehearsals? The rehearsals and sound and light checks can be just as disruptive to people who live around the area as the actual concert, albeit when the concert is held there will also be all those people attending who will pose difficulties and obstructions to the quiet enjoyment of the residents’ environment. I have to also share my disappointment that the minister used the fundraising benefit for the victims of Cyclone Larry as the springboard for bringing in this legislation. If the minister went to the people who live around Suncorp Stadium who hold concerns about noise, congestion, parking and disruption to their way of life and asked them, ‘Would you mind if we had a one-off concert? We want to run a benefit for the people up north who have been so devastated by the cyclone,’ he would probably find that a very small number of people would say no. He could probably count them on one hand. I think they would have supported that. 1180 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

If my memory serves me right, the approvals and the planning process for Suncorp Stadium were called in. So it did not go through the total planning process that normally occurs; the minister called it in and made a decision. I stand to be corrected on that. I have endeavoured to quickly confirm that through the parliamentary record, but I have not been able to do that yet. The reason I am fairly confident that that was the process is that I asked for the documents that supported, and were attended to, that call-in motion and it was a large volume of documents probably about a foot high. They were submissions made by residents, submissions made by Brisbane City Council and submissions made by a number of entities who felt that they would be affected by that redevelopment. Disappointingly, when we look at the consultation process for the amendments that are to be circulated, we see that the people who were consulted were crown law and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet—crown law I assume to check that what they were proposing to do was lawful. We have been told before that the parliament of Queensland is a parliament for the people but also that it has power to enact legislation that is not contrary to general lawful practice. One would not expect too many objections from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Then there is a subnote that the proposed amendments have been supported. Of course they have! However, nobody has spoken to the residents who are going to be directly affected around the facility. It would have been gratifying to have seen even an acknowledgement that the people around the sporting facility had at least been advised that this was going to happen. Then they would have at least had an opportunity to submit maybe mega sheets of paper in response. But at least they would have been able to exercise their democratic right to submit comments on this proposed legislation. If the minister conducted a poll he would find there are some people who are still under the misapprehension that there will be a Cyclone Larry benefit to be conducted but they would be surprised to learn that the parameters for the use of the stadium have been enlarged significantly and to their detriment. It is disappointing that that consultation did not occur. We had some interaction here earlier when a couple of speakers were contributing to this debate. Speakers have commented on the fact that, when the Suncorp Stadium redevelopment occurred, undertakings were given to the Brisbane City Council and to the community who felt, deservedly, that as they would be significantly impacted upon by the events that were going to be held at Suncorp that the number and style of those events would be controlled. This legislation runs in contradiction to that. There were those who talked about promises made to the community. One of the members who sits close to me talked about promises given by the federal government about the GST. I can remember other times when the current Prime Minister defended his reversal of views not only on the GST but on other things. He talked about core and non-core promises. He was rightly ridiculed for that. These people were given promises about the use of Suncorp Stadium. So is this a core or a non-core promise? We are certainly going to trample their rights in terms of their ability to trust the word not only of the government but also the Brisbane City Council, although it has no input into this legislation and the changes it invokes. The criticism of the federal government on core and non-core promises has to stop, because that is exactly what is happening in this chamber today. Another interjection that was made, which was probably not recorded by Hansard because the interjection was not replied to by the speaker—and I cannot remember the exact words—was that ‘perhaps we should have put the stadium in your suburb and then run it every day’. This was said to somebody on this side of the House who was speaking against the legislation. The reason for that interjection is immaterial; the fact is that it shows and acknowledges that the activities that occur at a stadium of that sort do impact on the residents who live around it. It is inevitable. The interjection was said as a lot of the banter in this chamber is, but it acknowledged the fact that these activities will have a significant impact on the residents who live around there. There were objections at the time from the members of a little church that sits near Suncorp Stadium. They have not had an opportunity to comment on the impact of this proposal. I note that the events proposed in the second amendment are major concerts, public assemblies and religious events. They are some of the events to be considered special events. None of us has an objection to that. I would be happy to be involved, with the obvious rider, in any event of that nature that is to be held there. This must be done in a fair, reasonable, moral and honest way. Unless the Premier can throw some light on the perspective that I have, it does not appear that we are giving the community who live around Suncorp Stadium that opportunity. They did not like it at the time the redevelopment was proposed. They were forced to accept it. They accepted it grudgingly on the basis that there would be limited events there. This legislation appears to change the events that will be held there. Mr Reeves: You’re basing your judgement that they did not like it on a minority view. People from your electorate will be coming down to these concerts. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I am not saying that they would not. People from my electorate would come down to a lot of sporting events that are held. I am talking about the undertakings that were given to the people who live around Suncorp Stadium concerning the activities that would take place. This legislation changes that. If they were not held at Suncorp Stadium they would be held somewhere else and my community could still go. 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1181

It is not that principle that I am debating. I am debating the morality and rightness of giving undertakings at one time when it suits and changing those undertakings later on. I am more than happy to listen to the Premier’s response and take it on board. I remember the angst at the time when the stadium redevelopment was approved. It appears that this legislation is being put through without giving those same people the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes in an appropriate way, in an appropriate format. I look forward to the Premier’s response. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (3.52 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill. The bill facilitates the use of Suncorp Stadium for a major charity concert in aid of those affected by Cyclone Larry. It is a sensible bill which removes the prohibition on the use of the stadium’s world-class facilities for this purpose. The position that the coalition has taken in this debate really represents the most small-minded politics we have ever sadly seen in this place. What they are hoping to do in this debate is let a small minority in a particular part of town hear exactly what they want to hear. What they are hoping is that their message will get through to the small number of people who are directly affected. What they are hoping is that the rest of the residents of south-east Queensland, the many people who live in other marginal Brisbane seats that they would like to win, will never, ever hear that the coalition parties do not want them to go to this charity concert and do not want them to go to other charity concerts like it in the future in this area. What those opposite want is for their message to be carefully targeted. But let the people of south-east Queensland know that the coalition parties do not want this world-class, $300 million facility, that the people paid for, to be used by all of the people of south-east Queensland for this important purpose. Let them know that that is what this coalition is saying. Unfortunately, in this debate we have seen, to some extent, people taking their rhetoric much too far. I heard the member for Gregory suggest that this bill means that suddenly the houses immediately surrounding Suncorp Stadium will be worth nothing. I would give them 50 grand for one. I might even give them 100! This is inner-city, high-quality living. These properties are worth a fortune. These properties have continued to increase in value since the stadium has been redeveloped. They will continue to increase in value into the future. This is some of the most sought after property in Brisbane. Those opposite do not want to the believe their own rhetoric on some of this. The people of Ipswich would regard this view that ‘we can have a stadium but we should not use it for many purposes’ as really very churlish. The people of Ipswich would give their left arm for a world- class sporting facility in our city. Ipswich is Queensland’s fourth largest city. But unlike Brisbane with Suncorp Stadium and the Gabba, unlike the Gold Coast for which we the Beattie government will soon be building a stadium, and unlike Cairns with Cazaleys or Townsville where the people come together to celebrate their Cowboys at Dairy Farmers, Ipswich does not have a world-class regional outdoor events venue. We are a city with an extraordinary sporting culture and a strong culture of celebrating together through public events. So a stadium for Ipswich is a goal to which our city must aspire but one from which we are sadly a long way away. A comprehensive study commissioned by the Ipswich City Council in 2004 identified the North Ipswich reserve as the obvious site for an Ipswich stadium. This is a finding which I solidly endorse. The reserve is on the river, close to public transport, does not have immediately adjoining residential neighbours and is in an area which is currently being opened up to public access with walking paths, the RiverHeart and the Riverlink development. It is the home of Rugby League in Ipswich. It has been the site of some memorable football battles. I grew up in Ipswich with my father telling me about the magnificent time when Ipswich beat a touring English Rugby League team in the 1950s or 1960s. There were many memorable Bulimba Cup wins in which Ipswich beat Brisbane and Toowoomba. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): They had the Australian front rower at that time, member for Ipswich. Ms NOLAN: I appreciate your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. The North Ipswich reserve is the site where Allan Langer began his professional career, rising to prominence as halfback for the Ipswich Jets. Right now, however, the reserve cannot be considered a major regional stadium. It has seating for just 800 people, well short of the 10,000 envisaged. The site is seriously undeveloped. Sadly the reserve’s capacity to fulfil its potential as a major stadium for all Ipswich people is currently being held back by tenure disputes and by an inability on the part of all affected parties to play together as a team. The reserve is on crown land, leased since the 1980s to a trust which in turn is numerically dominated by the people who have been the backbone of Rugby League in Ipswich for decades, the IRL. In recent years tenure issues and clashes between the IRL, the Ipswich Jets, the council and other parties have made it difficult for the site to be master planned and developed with a single goal of a first- class stadium in sight. 1182 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Furthermore, the fact that the site is effectively under the IRL’s tenure means the council cannot seek grants through the Major Sports Facilities Fund from the Beattie government in order to develop the site. These disputes have largely been about control of the assets, but they reflect the view of the world which is about protecting today’s small patch of turf, not expanding the possibilities for all of us into the future. The city of Ipswich is set to grow from the current population of around 135,000 to something closer to 317,000 by 2026. Everything I do as the local member is about ensuring that that is quality growth and that it is growth that makes Ipswich a better, more wonderful place in which to live. It is about getting our infrastructure and community facilities properly in place. A stadium which acts as a host to first-class sport and entertainment should play a central role in that. As such, I strongly urge the parties to put aside their petty differences, to imagine an Ipswich which is bigger than all of us and to work towards that goal of a major, world-class regional stadium for Ipswich. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (3.58 pm), in reply: I thank all members who have participated in this debate and those members who support this bill. At the outset I say that the government could have gone down the road of pursuing another option here without bringing legislation before the House. My view was that, because of the appropriate commitment to accountability and transparency, the right thing to do was to bring legislation before this House, give notice and let there be an appropriate public debate, which is what has happened. To remind members about the background to the bill, I point out that on 29 March I advised parliament that a concert is proposed to be held at Suncorp Stadium to raise much-needed funds for the Cyclone Larry appeal. I advised that using a venue the size of Suncorp Stadium will ensure that the largest event possible can be held in order to raise as much money as possible for the relief effort. Details are still being finalised for a concert at Suncorp Stadium, but I hope to be able to advise parliament shortly, once these arrangements have been confirmed. As members could understand, holding a concert in a venue such as that is not easy. It takes time to organise. Appropriate acts need to be found. None of that is easy at short notice, but the promoters are doing their best. Before I speak about the bill itself, I will briefly update the House on the Cyclone Larry relief effort. It has now been one month since Cyclone Larry devastated much of north Queensland. As time has passed, we are coming to realise the significant and ongoing physical, emotional and financial impact of the natural disaster in north Queensland. The Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal has been set up to provide the necessary funds to support the physical rebuilding of north Queensland and to provide funding for other support where appropriate. Last Thursday in Innisfail, after a meeting of the task force and the committee given the responsibility for distributing the funds, it was announced that more than 550 applications for the first wave of assistance under the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal are currently being considered. I am pleased to advise that the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal has already raised over $17 million to assist to rebuild the affected areas of north Queensland. We have been quite aggressive in seeking to attract funds and donations to that appeal. On 30 March I introduced a bill to amend the Major Sports Facilities Act 2001. As I advised the House in my second reading speech, the development approval for Suncorp Stadium provides for the use of the stadium for sporting events but places a restriction on the use of the facility for major concerts and other events. This bill puts in place amendments that will enable the Cyclone Larry relief concert and other special events to be held at Suncorp Stadium. The stadium has been a great success since it opened in 2003. I can remember all the knockers and whingers—all of those people—who opposed it. The government had a vision to deliver this infrastructure. It had a vision for what was needed to provide world-class facilities for Queenslanders. That vision was realised. The stadium has successfully hosted a major international sporting event, the Rugby World Cup, as well as numerous Rugby League and Rugby Union tests. I might make this point: had my government not built this stadium, then we would not have had the Rugby World Cup matches in Queensland. It is very simple. For all the whingers and knockers that we have had along the way—and most of them could win gold medals for whingeing—if we had not built this stadium, that Rugby World Cup match would never have been held here. That is a fact. Mr O’Brien: And the All Blacks this year. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed. That is another reason why this stadium is needed. The member for Beaudesert will be pleased to hear that in July this year Suncorp Stadium will host two more Rugby tests, including a Bledisloe Cup match. That would never have happened if this stadium had not been built. Suncorp Stadium’s facilities are world class and they should not be limited to sporting events. It has the capacity to stage a variety of major concerts and religious events to cater for crowds of up to 52,500 people. Brisbane is an international city. It is well regarded throughout the world. We need to ensure that we have facilities that are in accordance with that reputation. Hence the use of Suncorp 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1183

Stadium for these sorts of activities is not only important but also it should be part of our international promotion. Suncorp Stadium provides an opportunity for Brisbane to attract major international performers and events that may not have otherwise travelled north of the border. This bill provides an opportunity to enhance Brisbane’s reputation as one of Australia’s major events capitals. Recently the Rolling Stones came to Australia. They went to Sydney and Melbourne. Why did they not come here? Because at that time they could not access Suncorp Stadium. Holding these major world-class events is very expensive. Unless we have a venue like Suncorp Stadium, we will not get those events held here. Where did the Rolling Stones perform in Sydney? In a stadium. The members of the Liberal Party bleat their usual negative nonsense. Basically, the Liberal Party is saying, ‘We don’t want the Rolling Stones, we don’t want Robbie Williams, we don’t want the Bledisloe Cup, we don’t want the World Cup; we want Brisbane to be back in the 1950s.’ They can live in the 1950s; I want Queensland to be in the 21st century. Back in the 1970s and 1980s the old Lang Park stadium hosted a number of major international acts, including Creedence Clearwater Revival, Simon and Garfunkel, David Bowie, Kiss and Bob Dylan. At that time I used to live near Lang Park in Moffat Street and I used to walk to these events. In fact, I remember seeing half of the Simon and Garfunkel concert. I also remember seeing half of the David Bowie concert because people could get in for free at half-time. I remember that very well. This stadium was used for these events. I say to the member for Gladstone that I lived in this area with my wife for over 16 years. I was part of that community and attended the church that she referred to for some time. In fact, my children were christened in the Anglican church to which the member referred. It is right next to Suncorp Stadium. I can tell the member that at that time what annoyed the local residents was people parking across their driveway, not the concerts. Ever since Suncorp has opened, in excess of 80 per cent of people attending the stadium have used public transport. So the biggest issue that annoyed the local residents—and I was one of them for over 16 years—has been resolved by the extensive use of public transport. Since 1983 the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre, previously known as ANZ Stadium, has hosted the Rolling Stones, Madonna, Bon Jovi and it was to have hosted U2 this year. No-one would argue that the acoustics at ANZ Stadium are a patch on the acoustics at Suncorp Stadium. I heard The Boss play at ANZ Stadium. I have to tell members that, although he was a great performer, the stadium was a let-down. The acoustics at that stadium are not terrific. It was the same as watching a football match. You might as well have been an ant on a hill somewhere. ANZ Stadium is a great venue for athletics, but in my view it is not a great venue for football matches. As a mad Broncos fan and now a fan of the Cowboys, I like to see them play at great stadiums, not at second-rate ones that are good for athletics but not good for these sorts of activities. The same goes for music. However, in recent years the facilities required to support the needs of these performers, together with audience expectations, have changed. Subsequently, Brisbane has missed out on a number of concert events that have been staged at outdoor venues in other cities, including the recent Rolling Stones tour. Suncorp Stadium is a venue that is capable of attracting this calibre of performer to the state. The high standard of the venue and its amenities, the surrounding infrastructure, including the available public transport options, and its proximity to the CBD ensures that Suncorp Stadium is capable of meeting the requirements of both performers and audiences alike. Suncorp Stadium has demonstrated its ability to deal efficiently with the movement of capacity crowds. In fact, as I mentioned, since the stadium opened over 80 per cent of patrons attending major sporting events have used public transport to get to and from it. The member for Beaudesert commented on the infrastructure supporting the stadium. The development approval for the facility provides that the walkway, which is part of the eastern infrastructure, and which links the stadium to Roma Street, is to be completed by May 2008. I advise that the design and construction for this walkway is currently being undertaken as part of the Inner Northern Busway project. On that basis, I expect that the construction of the walkway will be completed well before May 2008. Funding for the eastern infrastructure was quarantined in 2003 to ensure that the development condition could be implemented to achieve connectivity between the city and the stadium. This funding is to be financed from the major sports facility levy as put in place at that time. It makes sense that, as better facilities are developed, they are able to be utilised to their full potential by a wider cross-section of the community. As the member for Mount Coot-tha has said, the stadium should not be reserved for the use of football fans alone. The current development approval for the stadium allows for up to 24 major sporting events with crowds greater than 25,000 each year. Suncorp Stadium is expected to host 18 sporting events with crowds greater than 25,000. The stadium is also expected to host another nine events with crowds of less than 25,000. In response to the member for Gladstone, we are not seeking an increase in the provision of 24 major sporting events per year. When I introduced the bill to the parliament, I did so to enable a concert for the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal with a view to using the stadium for other major concerts and 1184 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 religious events. There will be 18 sporting events held this year at Suncorp. If we add three concerts and one religious event, we get to 22 events. To answer the question asked by the member for Gladstone, we have stayed within the 24 cap that was initially agreed between the council and the state government. In fact, the year before 15 or 16 sporting events were held. So we have consistently stayed within that 24 major event limit. The member for Gladstone asked the question about whether the rehearsals and sound checks will be done within the major event. The answer is no. The reason for that is under the definition of a ‘major event’—which has been around for ages—the event is 25,000 or more. The amendments I have moved today are to clarify those things that can be done so the community knows exactly what they are. We are being open and transparent—nothing more. I could have done without them. They could have been done under regulation, but I felt it should be done in this House. So I think I have answered the member’s question. When I introduced the bill to the parliament I did so to enable a concert for the Cyclone Larry Appeal Fund with a view to use the stadium for major concerts and religious events. The bill before the House today will enable concerts and other special events to be held at major sports facilities in Queensland and provides a mechanism to put in place conditions for use of the facility for special events. The bill also provides that a regulation may be made to control the use of a major sports facility by placing restrictions on the use of the facility for special events. I am aware that there has been some discussion about the use of Suncorp Stadium for the relief concert and, more particularly, about the possibility of other events being held at the stadium in the future. I want to make it clear that the primary purpose of the stadium is to hold sporting events. Suncorp Stadium is first and foremost a football stadium. There will not be a concert held there every other week. In addition to the uses provided for by the development approval, a regulation will be made prescribing the use of the stadium for special events which will be limited to three major concerts and one religious assembly each calendar year. I am giving an indication to the House of what will be in the regulation when it is introduced. While the development approval for the facility administered by the Brisbane City Council controls the primary sporting use of the facility, Brisbane City Council has not raised any significant objection to these amendments. While the minister for state development did, in fact, call in and approve the development of the stadium, this followed approval by the Brisbane City Council of the stadium and was in response to concerns about potential delays to the construction of the stadium caused by appeals to the Planning and Environment Court. That is the history of it. Under the development approval, the stadium’s operators have in place a transport and traffic management plan which successfully deals with crowd movements before and after the event. My expectation is that the conditions required for the management of special events, including informing residents about forthcoming special events, would be similar to those put in place for sporting events. I note that under the development approval, the stadium’s operators have in place a transport management plan and an environmental management plan that includes mechanisms for managing complaints from residents about sporting events. I will liaise with the stadium operators about appropriate conditions similar to those included in the development approval which can be put in place for the use of the stadium for those occasions when it is to be used for special events. The ability to regulate the use of the stadium for special events and attach conditions to its use will ensure that the impacts on local residents and businesses will be mitigated. The inclusion of conditions on special events will ensure that these events will have as little adverse impact as possible on the local community. The changes to the Major Sports Facilities Act will allow Suncorp Stadium to take its place as Brisbane’s and one of Australia’s showcase stadiums. It will enable the use of the stadium for a wider range of major events. The members for Moggill, Chatsworth and Gregory have raised similar concerns to the member for Beaudesert, and I believe I have already responded to all the issues they have raised. As members will also be aware, I will be moving an amendment during consideration in detail of the bill to clarify that other activities such as rehearsals and sound checks, for example, can be conducted and that necessary building work associated with a special event can be undertaken. Amendment No. 1, which I have circulated, amends clause 7 of the bill to clarify the definition of ‘special event’ and ‘use’. It is all out there. Everyone will know exactly what the rules are and it will be in the bill. The definition of ‘special event’ is amended to include any rehearsal, sound and light testing and other ancillary activities necessary and incidental to holding a major concert, public assembly or religious event. In a rehearsal or testing for a major concert, a public assembly or religious event also forms part of the special event and is therefore subject to the regulation, including any conditions prescribed by a regulation for that special event. The definition of ‘use’ is amended to include the carrying out of building work within the meaning of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 necessary for a special event. Necessary building work will include, for example, construction of a stage, any structure for lighting or sound equipment associated with the special event. It is not a big deal, but I wanted to make sure that it was in the legislation, that no-one could argue about it and that everyone knew exactly what was achieved. 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1185

I know there have been some issues raised about local opinion. I note the contribution made by the local member, the member for Mount Coot-tha. I have to say that there has not been, as has been insinuated by those opposite, huge local opposition. The reality is that inevitably not everyone is going to be excited. I accept that. But we have received an enormous amount of support for this idea. This support has been across the board and has included local people. I note that Anne Boccabella has been publicly critical. I know Anne Boccabella very well. Anne was a member of the Labor Party. She was a member of my branch. I know Anne very well. Anne is actually a constituent of mine. Anne lives in Kelvin Grove; she does not live in Paddington. Anne is entitled to her view. Anne, as we all know, runs the Paddington Plug store on Latrobe Terrace. Anne would understand this: when I first moved to Paddington or Milton—I lived on the border; Heather and I for the first 18 years of our marriage lived in two different places in the area—there was a lot of objection from locals about businesspeople who moved in and took over houses and turned them into business enterprises, which is exactly what Anne Boccabella has done. She runs a small business there. I have been consistent, because I thought that what people like Anne Boccabella did actually gave character to Paddington. I supported people like Anne Boccabella when the locals did not want her there; they did not want people moving into local houses and turning them into businesses. It is a little ironic now to find Anne objecting to what is another development in her area. I say to Anne that what is really important here is that while she was part of a major development change to Paddington—a lot of homes, not just one, were converted into commercial premises and used for business purposes, like the Paddington Plug—the Suncorp Stadium, which has been there as Lang Park for decades, has made not just a significant contribution to sporting life but has also added flavour and colour to the local community. There are a lot of businesses that do business as a result of Suncorp Stadium. If members were to go into local business on Petrie Terrace— the local restaurants and the local stores—they would find an enormous amount of support for the activities at Suncorp Stadium. While the change in the use of houses in that strip to business purposes, which is what Anne Boccabella was part of, has been a critical change to the culture, so has Suncorp Stadium. We either want Brisbane to be part of the 21st century and grown up or we do not. Frankly, I think this change is long overdue. There was argy-bargy between the council and the state government at the time of the initial agreement that there would not be concerts held there. Frankly, that was a silly condition. We should never have agreed to it in the first place. Now the people of this community and the people of Brisbane understand that you can manage venues like this. As this wonderful city grows up and takes this wonderful stadium into the 21st century, we understand very clearly that public transport can move many people. The biggest objection that existed for local residents was not the noise; it was the parking across driveways. Through the use of public transport we can ensure that everybody enjoys the facility. I come back to the point that if this goes through—and I hope it does—we are going to have up to 22 major events a year with crowds greater than 25,000 people. We said up to 24 major events initially. I think those who have opposed this have done so for cheap political reasons. The member for Surfers Paradise could not contain himself: he had to name the local Liberal candidate for Mount Coot-tha. It has nothing to do with good policies; it has all got to do with politics and those opposite know exactly what it is about. It is all about some cheap political exercise that they are pursuing. Let me tell them this: the people of Brisbane are with us on this. The people of Queensland are with us on this. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Members of the Liberal Party can bleat all they like. They can stay in the 1950s. Queensland will go into the 21st century with or without them. I commend the bill to the House. Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 53—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, E Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 25—Caltabiano, Copeland, Douglas, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr LINGARD (4.25 pm): Obviously clause 4 is the main basis of the bill, where the word ‘events’ is changed to the words ‘events, or special events’. Quite obviously, the word ‘events’ is still overridden by the Integrated Planning Act 1997. Clearly, the words ‘special events’ are not overridden by the Integrated Planning Act 1997, even though later on the word ‘use’ will be controlled by the Integrated Planning Act 1997. My question is why ‘special events’ should be removed from the conditions of the Integrated Planning Act. 1186 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Mr BEATTIE: This makes no difference. The position is that special events will be subject to the Major Sports Facilities Act 2001. The definition here is simply to confirm exactly what it is. That is, you have the number of sporting events each year and you have the 25,000 person limit. There is no change in what these events are subject to. Mr LINGARD: Earlier the Premier quoted the Bledisloe Cup and discussed the papal visit being typical examples of special events. Mr Beattie: I wanted divine blessing for that bit. Mr LINGARD: They were spoken about as special events. My questions are why those particular events would not come under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and why it would be necessary to remove them from the controls of the Integrated Planning Act. Mr BEATTIE: I will double-check with my advisers on this, but all of these events have always been treated exactly the same way. The extra events—that is, the three concerts and the religious events—will be managed in exactly the same way as the other 18 sporting events held during the year. That is exactly what it is. That is right. Mr LINGARD: I thank the Premier for that explanation. However, my reading of the greens was that— Mr Beattie: They have always been exempt. The whole lot of them have always been exempt. Mr LINGARD: So there is no sinister reason for removing ‘special events’— Mr Beattie: No. They have all been exempt and this is treated the same way. Mr LINGARD:—to regulations so that you can bring in special regulations which will allow you to hold an event that does not comply with the Integrated Planning Act? Mr BEATTIE: The whole lot of them were always exempt. These will be treated exactly the same way as the other 18 sporting events that are held now. The reason I have spelt out the regulation is to specify just how many events. Now, I did not have to do that. The reason I have said that the regulation will have three concert events and one religious event is so that everybody knows the number. That will actually be in the regulation. I did not have to do that now, but I did it so that everyone would know. Those events will be treated exactly the same, in terms of planning regimes, as the other 18 sporting events. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr LINGARD (4.29 pm): Once again, I refer to the word ‘use’. This clause states— The use of the facility for the event is a lawful use of the facility, despite the Integrated Planning Act 1997 ... Clause 7 states that ‘use’ includes use within the meaning of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. My question is: why is there a difference between those two clauses? Mr BEATTIE: In a nutshell, clause 6 inserts a new part 4. The new part 4 is the authorisation of special events. It provides for ‘the lawful use of major sports facilities for prescribed special events’, and we know that. The new section 30A(1) provides that a special event prescribed under a regulation is a lawful use for a major sports facility, which is what the member just said. The new section 30A(2) provides that the use of the facility for a prescribed special event is a lawful use of the facility and that the Integrated Planning Act 1997, any provision of the relevant planning scheme, any development approval for the facility and any condition attached to the development approval do not apply. As I said, they have been the general conditions for sporting events. The provisions of any relevant planning scheme, development approval for a facility and any condition attached to the approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 will still apply to the use of any major sports facility when the facility is not being used for a prescribed special event. I think that answers the member’s question. It only applies in the circumstances of the special event. The new section 30A(3) provides that a regulation may be made to prescribe conditions on the use of the facility for special events; for example, to address issues associated with that use such as traffic management. Existing rules regarding parliamentary consideration of regulations will apply to enable parliament to consider proposed special events. I have set out what my government will do in relation to regulations. They are to allow for three concerts and one religious event. If a future government wanted to change that and reduce it to two, for example, it would have to bring the regulation before the House—unless, of course, it said ‘up to three’, in which case you probably would not have to bring it back. Let me give you a better example. If you wanted to have two religious events and therefore you wanted to change the number, you would have to bring the regulation back here. Mr LINGARD: My second question is probably outside the clause. The Premier talked about the walkway. In my contribution I stated that obviously the government has plenty of money because some 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1187 of the money from the poker machine levy is being pushed across to the health fund. Why could not the walkway be brought much further forward than 2008? I ask that because quite obviously 20,000 people walking down past the new fire and ambulance station is a recipe for disaster. Mr BEATTIE: The facilities fund, as I have indicated before, has been provided to fund this. There are funds available. I am going on memory now. I am happy to double-check this and if it is incorrect I will let the member know tomorrow. My understanding is that there have been two issues to be dealt with, one related to a dispute involving QM Properties in relation to Victoria Barracks, which has gone on and on like Blue Hills at the Brisbane City Council. As a former councillor, the member would know what I am talking about. Frankly, I have been pretty cranky about how long it has gone on, but people have private rights. I have made my view known to both sides or however many sides there are at City Hall about what I think should happen. I understand that it is fairly close to a resolution. I am not absolutely certain as of today but I think it is close to a resolution. Once that is resolved then what was an obstacle to the construction can be advanced fairly quickly. I want to indicate to the member that this has not been a delay of our doing, but clearly we need to cooperate and work with City Hall which is what we have been trying to do. On a number of occasions I have talked to my director-general about finding an impasse through this. I think we have done that. I think that both sides at City Hall have agreed to it. I certainly hope that is the case. In terms of the construction of the fire station, as the member would understand there is a major development going on there, too. I share the member’s view in relation to this issue. Terry Mackenroth and I have walked up to games at Suncorp on a number of occasions and I want to see this walkway built as soon as the member does. I have given a date. That date would have been sooner had this dispute not existed. Mr CALTABIANO: I would like the Premier to advise the chamber as to whether all of the planning conditions that were originally imposed as part of the development of Lang Park have been complied with for the current 24 events and, secondly, whether the regulations that are referred to in part 4, new section 30A(3) will also include planning regulation changes, not just event management changes? Mr BEATTIE: In terms of the first question, obviously what the member means—and I am not trying to be clever here—is the current 18 sporting events, because we have not held more than 18 of the 24. The member must mean that from his question. The answer to that is to the best of my knowledge, yes, the conditions have been complied with, otherwise those events would not have gone ahead. Those 18 events that have been held this year and, if I recall correctly, 15 events that were held in 2005 would have complied with the conditions. I am not aware of any breach. If I become aware of any breach I am happy to let the member know, but to the best of my knowledge the conditions that were agreed to for those 18 events that have been held this year have been agreed to. The second question relates to clause 3? Mr CALTABIANO: Part 4, new section 30A(3)—are there going to be any planning aspects associated with the regulation? Mr BEATTIE: I am not aware of any planning issues that have been unresolved or have been a complicated difficulty to date. What is contained here does not change any of that because, as I said in my reply, the traffic management that would have to be put in place for these extra four events would be the same traffic planning—which I assume is what the member was getting at—as applied to the other 18 events being held now and any other planning associated with the holding of these special events would have to be as it applied to the existing events because the definition of a major event is more than 25,000 people. So there would have to be some consistency in planning across-the-board. I am not aware of any difficulties or any issues that would apply. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr BEATTIE (4.36 pm): I have proposed this amendment to clause 7 for reasons of clarity, to be perfectly frank. I move the following amendment— 1Clause 7 At page 5, lines 16 to 19— omit, insert— ‘ ‘special event— 1 Special event means— (a) a major concert; or (b) a public assembly; or (c) a religious event. 2 Special event includes any rehearsal, sound and light testing and other ancillary activities necessary and incidental to an event mentioned in item 1. use, for section 30A, includes— (a) use within the meaning of the Integrated Planning Act 1997; and (b) the carrying out of building work, within the meaning of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, necessary for a special event.’.’. 1188 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

I will explain why I have moved this amendment. I also table the explanatory notes circulated in my name. If members look at the explanatory notes they will see that what this does is provide clarity about special events in terms of any preparatory work that needs to be done for a concert—building a stage, for example. The definition of ‘special event’ is amended to include any rehearsal, sound and light testing. These acts do not turn up to spend huge periods of time hanging around stadia. They turn up and they obviously do the lights and the rehearsal as quickly as possible so that they can actually perform. I want to be transparent about this so that people understand that when there is a concert there could be a rehearsal. Normally it is done the afternoon of the event because the acts do not spend a lot of time in one city. It also depends on whether it is a one-night stand, if I can use that terminology. For example, in Sydney the Rolling Stones did a one-night stand and that was it. They did a one-night stand in Melbourne and then they all disappeared. But if there are a couple of nights then they might do a rehearsal as well. We want to ensure that people understand that there would be the construction of the stage, testing of equipment and a rehearsal. I want everyone to know that these events include that sort of activity. That is what this amendment is about. Mr LINGARD: Naturally, I would have concerns about the construction of stages in the middle of a football ground, especially in a very wet season, and the problems that might occur. I know that has to be controlled in a different sort of way. My reason for speaking to clause 7 was that the Premier talked about being open with the truth and so on when he put forward his amendment. Surely, the words ‘one or more concerts’ masks the truth. I note his assurances of three major concerts plus one other special event. I wonder why the words ‘one or more concerts’ are in the legislation. Surely that means unlimited, unless the Premier gives a personal guarantee that there will be only three. Mr BEATTIE: I have actually done that by indicating to the House that the regulation I will introduce in relation to this legislation will actually set out three concerts and one religious event. I have stated that in the debate today and I indicated it publicly a week or so ago so that everybody understood exactly what the government was going to do. I could have held up what was in the regulation until well after this debate, but I felt it was important to do this. I am basically saying that it will be three non-sporting events and one religious event, and that will be in the regulation. If a future government—if the coalition is elected to government at the next election or in 30 years time; and I am an optimist!—wants to change that regulation then it has to do so on the floor of the parliament. I am signalling what will be in our regulation. If he wants to change that on a future occasion then he can do so. He would have to do it on the floor of the parliament. The opposition would be able to move a disallowance motion. There would be appropriate debate about it. The member will get a second chop at it if he wants. When the regulation comes in he can move to disallow it. I have decided that the most sensible way forward is to have a general provision in the legislation and have the specifics in the regulation. The point the member made at the beginning, which was a bit of an aside, was really not an aside at all because it is a serious problem about building a stage over a football ground. As a former footballer he would understand that. That is one of the reasons I wanted to do this, because I have been given a detailed briefing about the need for great care to be had in how stages are built, because damage can be done. They have the technology to make sure they do not do damage, but they might have to spend a little time getting that right. It is a very careful piece of construction. Mr CALTABIANO: I am very concerned about this particular item, because the amendment goes further than what the original motion contained in that a special event now includes, as it says, ‘a rehearsal, sound and light testing, ancillary activities incidental to an event mentioned in item 1’. In effect, that means that we have more events than the regulation says. A major international act will have a major rehearsal. It will be a full-blown event of similar length to the actual event on one, two or three nights before the event. That is just the way it is. The Premier talked earlier about Kiss, Springsteen or whoever it might be. Those acts do not come to this city and perform at Boondall without having a full dress rehearsal before they perform. Similarly, if they are going to come to Lang Park they will have a full dress rehearsal before they perform. In this amendment the Premier has, in effect, at least doubled the number of potential events of nuisance to the local residents. That is undeniable. I would like to find out what ancillary activities he was thinking of when he inserted the words ‘ancillary activities, necessary and incidental’? What sorts of activities was he thinking of that would obviously cause nuisance to the local community in these events? Mr BEATTIE: That is the sort of slippery nonsense that we are getting sick of in politics. Everybody knows that when a concert is held there is a rehearsal. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that. The Rolling Stones or Robbie Williams, for example, are not going to turn up and spend two nights or a week doing rehearsals for a one-night gig. That is not the way the world works. That is just a nonsense. That is just a slippery, dishonest— 19 Apr 2006 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 1189

Mr Caltabiano: Tell us what you think they’re going to do. Mr BEATTIE: Does the member opposite actually want to hear an answer or is he going to continue with this slippery dishonesty? Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Before he came here we heard that he was very slippery and dishonest, and he has demonstrated this today. He knows as well as I do that when a concert is put on the participants are very likely to rehearse on that afternoon. Bands like this are not going to be there the night before or 100 years before. It costs them money. Does the member think for one minute that if we are going to have three concerts that we are not going to have rehearsals? All I have put in this legislation is open transparency that, yes, there will be rehearsals and, yes, there will be lighting and sound checks and, no, there will not be a doubling of the number of concerts, which is what the member suggested. He should be honest about these things. These bands, as they do now, will come in, rehearse during the day— Mr McNamara: Sound checks. Mr BEATTIE: They will do sound checks during the afternoon, they will do lighting checks and they will perform that night. I have been overcautious here because I wanted some activity. What does ‘ancillary’ mean? It means that they actually bring in a stage and put it up. It means that they will have lighting equipment and sound equipment and they will have it that day. If anybody suggested to me that we could not have a rehearsal for a major international event, that would be dishonest. All I have done is put the honesty in here to make it transparent. It is not going to be night after night and a doubling of the number of nights, which is what the member just said. That is a nonsense and he knows it. Mr CALTABIANO: I am glad that the Premier has used the words ‘slippery and dishonest’ when it comes to this bill, particularly this clause. There is nothing more slippery or dishonest than bringing this amendment to this place after the guarantees that were given by the then Deputy Premier and the then member for Mount Coot-tha prior to the construction of Lang Park in its current form that there would be no concerts. Talk about slippery and dishonest! This government’s behaviour has been slippery and dishonest. Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. There is a question of relevance. Is there a question or some issue to be raised? This is a second reading speech contribution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Get back to the clause. Mr CALTABIANO: I will. I am just rebutting the Premier’s use of the term ‘slippery and dishonest’, which applies to his government in its behaviour and performance on this amendment. What we have heard from the Premier today is that in relation to international acts it will be contained in regulation—because the Premier has decreed it will be—that there will be no rehearsals, no sound checks and no light checks until the afternoon of the event. It is very important for the people of Mount Coot-tha and the people of Brisbane to understand what they are actually getting. I was asking for the Premier’s view about these rehearsals. Is it going to be night after night? He said no. The regulation, when it comes in, should reflect the Premier’s wishes that there will be no rehearsals, no light checks and no disturbance of the local community until the day of the event. That is what the Premier said and that is very important. I would like the Premier to confirm that, as he did before. Mr ROWELL: I raise a very significant point. I think the intent of this clause goes well beyond holding a benefit concert for the people who have been affected by Cyclone Larry. I think what the Premier is attempting to do with this clause is run a range of events over a period of time. I know that this particular area is very sensitive. I recall the Premier talking in his maiden speech about the Hale Street ring road and the impact that had on people. I am sure that the intent when the legislation first came in was to restrict the noise, the sound and that sort of thing to major events. I am a little concerned that we are using things such as the benefit concert for Cyclone Larry victims—those people who were badly affected by it—to bring this legislation in. I would like the Premier to comment on that, please. Mr BEATTIE: The reality is this: if we want to run a major event we have to run it in a world-class facility, and that is what Suncorp is. I know the arguments that took place about Ballymore with Rugby Union. My boys played it. So did I. I understand the love that a lot of people have towards Ballymore. When we come to major international events like the Bledisloe Cup Rugby Union fans want a world- class stadium. The same goes for a concert. It does not matter what its purpose—whether it is a concert for a noble cause, which the member for Hinchinbrook and I support and have talked about, such as for the victims of Cyclone Larry, or another concert or major sporting event for Queensland. Frankly, we have to have a world-class venue at which to do it. That is what Suncorp is. We have had a lot of debate about what took place between the state government and the Brisbane City Council concerning the development of Suncorp. The reality was that we wanted to ensure that this matter did not get caught up in the courts and appeals for years so that we were 1190 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 grandparents when Suncorp was built. Yes, there were some agreements reached between the Brisbane City Council and the state government. Those have been honoured and delivered. I thought at the time that the one in relation to concerts was crazy. We can have a limited number of concerts. We get points made simply because of politics. We saw this from the member for Chatsworth before. I understand that he has to make a political point about this. I say to the member for Chatsworth, ‘You have kids and I have kids. Your kids will want to go to see world-class acts.’ Mr Caltabiano: In the right place. Mr BEATTIE: What do you mean in the right place? Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I do not agree with that. Does the member know why I do not agree with that? I will take his interjection even though it is a broad question he asked. We spent a lot of time thinking about that. This is the right place. If members look at any stadium around the world—and I hope those opposite take this seriously—they will find that they work when they are within walking distance of the CBD. That is where they work. Mr Caltabiano: And effective public transport. Mr BEATTIE: That is right, I agree—effective public transport. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is why it worked. Roma Street station is there. People said, ‘Why don’t you build it at the RNA?’ Let me be frank with members. People live near the RNA. It was too far away. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I see what the member is saying. The problem with Roma Street was very simple. People talk about this being close to the community. What did we do at Roma Street? We built a world- class park at Roma Street and now people are living there. Why did people build around it? We said to the Brisbane City Council—and Jim Soorley was the mayor at the time; it was not the current mayor— ‘We will give you a rate base if we build parklands so that people can go and enjoy themselves.’ What we have ended up with here is the best of both worlds. We have a parkland and recreation area at Roma Street which people enjoy and we have people who live nearby. If we built a stadium they would have been affected by the noise anyway. Down the road we have Suncorp Stadium, which is a venue that had been used as a football stadium for generations. For those on the other side of politics I point out that the Leader of the House actually played football there and Deputy Speaker Fouras played football there. It has a long tradition. People actually walk there. Along Petrie Terrace there are all those wonderful restaurants. Gambaro is a great supporter of those opposite and me. Businesspeople have made a living out of this. These people love it. What have we done? We have diversified the city. We have made sure that we have public transport close by. We have an outcome that works. I know that we can all score cheap political points about all of this but this is a world-class stadium. To be frank, there should never have been an agreement between the state government and the Brisbane City Council saying that there could not be concerts there. It should never have been agreed in the first place. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: If those opposite would be patient, I will point out that there was a reason. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Bruce, do you want to listen or just talk at me? The reason was that we had to try to get some level of cooperation in a difficult relationship that existed between the state government and the council. That is why. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I did not make the point. I was simply saying there was a difficult relationship. The member can quite accurately identify the persuasion if he likes. It does not make any difference. It was still a difficult relationship, I point out to the honourable member for Moggill. We were trying to build a stadium in the same way that we ended up building Roma Street Parkland. The state government had to do both against some petty, ridiculous opposition, frankly. What we did was deliver. That stadium has now put Brisbane on the international map. Talk to anyone involved in any of the football codes and they tell us that. When I go to Rugby League and Rugby Union matches at that ground people are effusive in their praise of it because it is the right venue. Yes, we had some strained relations with Jim Soorley. That is hardly a secret. Out of that we ended up with this agreement to try to get some common sense at City Hall. That is what happened. It was a crazy condition. There is nothing unreasonable about having three concerts and a religious festival—four extra events—per year. 19 Apr 2006 Workplace Health and Safety and Other Acts Amendment Bill 1191

I do not know exactly when they will do the rehearsals. What I am saying is that that is my understanding of when they do them. We do not want them to have rehearsals night after night. That is a valid point for the member to make. Frankly, my understanding is—and I am not a promoter—that they largely rehearse the day of the concert because they keep performing around Australia. It is not as though they turn up for a rehearsal and that is the only time they perform. When the Rolling Stones arrive at Brisbane they have already done 74 concerts around the world. They do not need to get together and do much of a rehearsal. They rock up in the afternoon, kick the sound machine, make sure it is working, check the lights come on and then they do their gig. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is why. The songs are well known to all of them. This is why I got prickly with those opposite. This would not be their first opening night. These bands have had too many nights. They have had them all over the world and they will continue to have too many nights all over the world. They do not have to rehearse because they do it every night. They can sing their songs in their sleep. Mr McNamara: It’s only rock ‘n’ roll. Mr BEATTIE: It’s only rock ‘n’ roll, exactly right. I understand that this is good politics. If we were on the other side we would probably do the same thing. I am trying to tell those opposite that in the end this is a good outcome for this city. Anybody who has teenage kids or kids who are just older than teenagers, like I do and the member for Chatsworth does, would know that this is a good thing for this city. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.57 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.57 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 is aimed at preventing death, injury or illness caused at a workplace or a relevant workplace area by work activities, plant or substances. To achieve this, it has been proven that there is a relationship between the presence of representative structures such as health and safety committees and a more systematic approach to the management of workplace health and safety issues. The involvement of employee organisations in occupational health and safety matters at workplaces can result in beneficial safety outcomes. In Queensland, union representatives currently have right of entry under industrial relations legislation, which may include matters relevant to workplace health and safety. The new federal industrial relations laws override these laws but provide for union right of entry under state workplace health and safety laws. With the introduction of the federal legislation, clarity is needed about the powers that union representatives have to enter a workplace on workplace health and safety grounds. The amendment bill will clarify the current position and also put in place the appropriate procedures and safeguards for union representatives gaining access to workplaces on health and safety grounds. This change will also bring Queensland in line with other states and territories, namely, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. I would now like to detail the substantive provisions of the bill. An employee or office holder of a union wishing to exercise right of entry under the bill will have to hold both a federal permit issued under the federal WorkChoices legislation and a state permit under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1192 Workplace Health and Safety and Other Acts Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

1995. Federal permits will be issued by the federal registrar and state permits by the industrial registrar in Queensland. An employee or office holder of a union will not be eligible for a: • federal permit unless the official is a ‘fit and proper person’, taking into account the union official’s criminal record and whether the official has ever breached right of entry provisions in the past; and • state permit under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, unless the official has completed an approved training course on workplace health and safety and has not been disqualified from holding a permit in the past. The permit holder will be known as an ‘authorised representative’ and his or her union must have members or eligible members at the workplace. The representative may only enter a workplace under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995: • if they have a reasonable suspicion that the act has been contravened, and this contravention relates to or affects a member or eligible member of the union; or • to discuss workplace health and safety issues with a worker. Where the authorised representative has a reasonable suspicion that the act has been contravened, there is no requirement to give an employer 24 hours notice. However, the authorised representative will be required to detail the nature of the suspected contravention for the employer or occupier. If entry is for the purpose of holding discussions with members or eligible members concerning workplace health and safety, the authorised representative has to give the employer 24 hours notice of entry. Where an authorised representative enters because they have a reasonable suspicion that the act has been contravened, for the purpose of investigating this contravention, they are able to: • inspect plant, substances or other items in a workplace; • observe work carried on at the workplace; • speak to members, eligible members, or the occupier; and • inspect and/or copy documents, such as plant and machinery maintenance records and training records. However, where the authorised representative wants to access and review employment records, 24 hours notice is required to access these records. Access to employment records is important. For example, an authorised representative may need to access workers’ time sheets, rosters and overtime records to follow up on a complaint about fatigue. I want to make this abundantly clear: records can only be accessed where they are required to investigate a suspected contravention of the act and the authorised representative will need to detail for the employer or occupier reasons they require access to these records. I consider that a high standard of workplace health and safety training is essential to support these amendments. So from today, the director-general of the Department of Industrial Relations will be able to consider the approval of training courses. This will ensure that approved training is available as quickly as possible. I would now like to address the safeguards in the bill which ensure the effective operation of these provisions. An authorised representative must comply with workplace health and safety requirements that apply in any workplace they visit. They must not unreasonably hinder, obstruct, intimidate or threaten a person at the workplace; nor can they use or disclose information acquired, or exercise or purport to exercise one of their powers unless it specifically relates to workplace health and safety. I will not support any union representative who misuses his rights under this legislation. A breach of the statutory right of entry provisions, or failure to comply with an appointment condition, can result in the suspension, revocation, or a change of conditions of an authorised representative’s appointment by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The decision of the commission can be appealed to the Industrial Court. It is an offence to provide an authorised representative with false or misleading statements or documents, to obstruct an authorised representative and to impersonate an authorised representative. The federal legislation imposes significant penalties on unions and union officials for breaching the right of entry provisions. It also prohibits union officials from ‘acting in an improper manner’ or making misrepresentations. The penalties for a breach include fines of up to $33,000 for unions and $6,600 for individuals plus compensatory damages. The official as well as the union may also lose their right of entry permit. These changes will assist in further reducing the unacceptable rates of work related injury and disease in Queensland workplaces. We have already had some success in reducing workplace injury. Between 2000-01 and 2004-05 the injury rate per 1,000 workers has declined by 14 per cent. But we still need to do more and not lose sight of the fact that too many Queenslanders are injured in their workplaces. 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1193

The bill also introduces an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to affirm employment security for a worker who has sustained a work related injury or disease. Currently, the Industrial Relations Act 1999 makes it unlawful to dismiss an injured worker where they are unable to return to work for a period of up to 12 months. This ensures that seriously injured workers are provided with the necessary time to return to work, improving the likelihood they will return to work earlier. Rehabilitation and return to work are key to achieving the act’s objectives. As such, the amendment appropriately moves those provisions which protect injured workers from the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. In comparison, the federal legislation makes it unlawful to dismiss a worker because of a temporary absence due to illness or injury unless the absence is longer than three months in any 12-month period. To ensure all Queensland workers are treated equally and we can maintain our record of having the best performing workers compensation scheme in Australia, the security of employment provisions are rightly relocated to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Beattie Labor government remains committed to providing safe, fair and productive work environments. The amendments before us clearly provide greater clarity for employers and unions about the right of entry provisions for workplace health and safety matters. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Rowell, adjourned.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 30 March (see p. 1099). Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (5.07 pm): I wish to make a brief contribution to the bill. The shadow minister, the honourable member for Moggill, has already expressed some reservations about the interpretation of some clauses and important issues that arise from the amendments that are contained in this bill. The honourable member has acknowledged some areas of merit. He has also foreshadowed that he will move an amendment to erase loopholes that are still evident in this legislation that could allow more medical disasters such as those witnessed as a result of the actions of Dr Patel. After the avoidable tragedies that have occurred in Bundaberg through the Patel disaster due to the disgraceful mismanagement of our public health system, it is vital that we do not waver from upholding high standards to provide the people of Queensland with the quality doctors that they rightly deserve. The objectives of this bill are to implement provisions in anticipation of future national changes to streamline the registration of international medical graduates; to give the Australian Medical Council—or the AMC—more flexibility in certifying qualifications for general registration; to allow the Medical Board of Queensland, known as the board, to delegate more decisions to board members; and to require the board to notify the minister if it fails to decide a registration application within 25 days. This legislation is somewhat puzzling in that, on the one hand, it purports to speed up applications for doctors with a 25-day show cause if the Medical Board cannot make up its mind, yet it expects the same board to ensure that successful applicants have had sound and thorough training whilst processing them faster. The pressure to hasten decisions such as these is a recipe for the cutting of corners, as the member for Moggill has already stated, and gives the opposition cause for concern, particularly if the board is not resourced adequately. Medicine is very much about working to deadlines, literally speaking, as every second counts in real life medical emergencies. However, in order to do this efficiently and safely, the selection of suitably qualified medical practitioners is paramount. Medicine is all about getting the priorities of the patient right, not merely about focusing on bringing it in on a budget that is wholly determined by non-clinical personnel. All of those individuals who were responsible for the last few health budgets should be sacked and shamed publicly as they totally underfunded our public health system and all but destroyed the confidence of the people of Queensland. Whilst six senior positions were vacated for various reasons over the Bundaberg Hospital inquiry, a recent article in the Gold Coast Bulletin agrees that more people should have been punished over the scandals. Journalist Dean Gould says— People are still angry that there haven’t been enough scalps come out of the Bundaberg inquiry when negligence, incompetence, laziness and buck-passing were exposed on so many levels. The article continues— It’s still not enough to convince Joe Public that Labor has the courage and impetus to resurrect our Third World medical system, especially when the Premier tries to blame the Prime Minister for his own administration’s failings. 1194 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the doctors, nurses and ancillary health professionals who have continued to work under enormous pressure, to stave off the bullying culture and to provide the best care they can with limited resources. Good news stories abound from grateful patients who have required and received their care. Clauses 44(c) and 44(d) are of particular concern to the opposition, and the member for Moggill has dealt with these items in the amendment to be moved in his name. The member’s amendment would make sure that the registration of overseas trained medical officers is only valid for applicants who have completed their training in an accredited training facility recognised by Australian Standards and the Australian Medical Council. Current legislation has created a loophole for foreign trained medical officers to be registered here in Queensland due to their registration in a foreign country. The problem is that, although they meet the criteria to fulfil the requirement of the overseas registration entity, they do not meet the Australian Medical Council requirements. The member’s amendment would tighten this loophole and prevent overseas trained medical officers who had done their training in a non-accredited training facility from working in Queensland. Surely the government does not want a repeat of the Patel scandal. Standards vary greatly throughout the world and we must be diligent in our application process to protect those needing medical attention from treatment by unqualified practitioners performing under the guise of specialist surgeons and clinicians. In addition, the amendment omits reference to ‘the applicant’s command of the English language’ and inserts ‘the applicant is able to communicate in spoken and written English at a professional level with patients and other persons’. Many doctors—and, I might add, other health professionals—place significant importance on the first personal communication with the patient which in many situations is a face-to-face consultation. A contributing factor to their ability to diagnose quickly and correctly is being able to obtain correct, current and accurate information from the patient. Relying on test results alone and no verbal history from the patient only gives part of the picture and is therefore only acceptable in emergency situations. Being able to communicate clearly means being able to hear, understand and articulate to your patient as well as your colleagues to determine the best course of treatment. Patients who converse well with their health providers are not only better informed of their situation but also in a position to actively assist in their treatment and rehabilitation. Another section of this amendment seeks to tighten the specifics for allowing medical teaching under this area of registration and is to be commended. In essence, the real issue here is the abject failure of this government to plan for the needs of Queensland in the area of doctor recruitment—all buried in a culture of concealment and withholding of complaints. This government is still in denial, unable and unwilling to admit that this medical situation is of its own mismanagement, choosing instead to take out expensive taxpayer funded advertisements to blame the federal government. The government resorts to this Commonwealth bashing with predictable regularity with regard to roads, schools and anything else it has made a complete mess of and wishes to flick somewhere else, either to the federal government or to local councils. Government members have shown nothing but contempt for the patients of Queensland, and it is a pity they cannot find it in their hearts to show any humility, admit their gross negligence and apologise to all those innocent lives that have been deeply traumatised. I commend the member’s amendment to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (5.14 pm): I want to make a short contribution to the Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 2006. I know in the last 12 to 18 months there has been a lot of discussion and debate about health services in Queensland. I think it is time to see some sanity in the debate in relation to medical practitioners. I say from the outset that I am a representative of one electorate that does have foreign doctors working within the electorate, and the importance of those doctors in administering medical services to the people of that remote area of Queensland cannot be underestimated. While some of them have been subjected to a fair amount of scrutiny in recent times, they are very able medical practitioners. They are truly professional in the execution of their duties, and I think we are blessed to have those people in western Queensland. The scourge and fallout from the Bundaberg Hospital fiasco certainly has not done the situation any good regardless of whether the doctors are foreign or local. I think it is about time we started to show some courtesy and respect to the medical profession and tried to bring sanity back into the debate to resolve some of the problems that are currently confronting not only Queensland Health but also the private sector. There was a lot of debate about the Forster inquiry and its recommendations. I believe at this point in time a lot of those recommendations still have not been implemented. But I wonder how far down the track is Queensland Health in making sure that some of those recommendations are implemented. The real issue here is about providing the best quality medical services to all Queenslanders regardless of where they live—whether it is in metropolitan Brisbane, Cape York, western Queensland or wherever. I think we should be very proud of the medical services that we have in Queensland and the country as a whole. That is why I say here today—and I do not say this lightly—that these people 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1195 work under great stress. They work long hours and go beyond the call of duty a lot of the time. I know there is a shortage of doctors in Queensland. I know there is a shortage of doctors Australia wide. But, at the end of the day, I do not think blaming the federal government or anyone else is going to correct the problems. I think sane, responsible negotiation and looking at where the system is at fault are the only ways we are going to correct it. Politicking and grandstanding on an issue like this is certainly not going to get the outcome we want. We have seen the innuendo that has been levelled at different people over a period, and I do not think that has been helpful at all. I want to put on the record here today some of the issues that do concern Queensland Health throughout the state, and by that I mean administration and management. I believe that some of those areas have a question mark over them in relation to the delivery of services. I attended a meeting at Emerald a few weeks ago to try to resolve the medical services issues in the central highlands. It was a very responsible meeting at which there was genuine input and positiveness from everyone who participated in trying to get a quality health service for the central highlands. Today we are discussing the Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 2006. However, all the legislation in the world will not correct the problem if we do not have strategies and policies that will be beneficial to the people who work within the system. I am talking about people from all facets of health. I am talking about doctors, nurses, allied health—the whole deal. Administration people must work hand in hand with professional medical people to achieve genuine outcomes and to deliver the services that medical people want to deliver in Queensland hospitals, private clinics or whatever. I wish to elaborate on the role of doctors in country areas. It is very important to remember that, whilst all doctors have the right to private practice, in rural areas it can be very difficult to provide that service. The doctors do not have the backup staff and so on that many doctors have in metropolitan and larger regional centres. That should be taken into account. In relation to the legislation, I question the clause that refers to the Medical Board’s power to delegate or allow a board member, its executive officer or a committee, including at least one board member, to approve registration applications. If we are going to keep this solid and strong, the board collectively should make those decisions. We do not want to see the problems of the past reappear causing problems for and embarrassment to not only Queensland Health but also the professionals who work within Queensland Health. It is very important that we recognise what those professionals do in their line of duty and what they have been subjected to. For God’s sake, nobody in the community is more respected than medical practitioners. Ms Molloy: Nurses do pretty well. Mr JOHNSON: The member for Noosa should hang on a second. I take her point, but the top line of the professional services is provided by the doctors themselves. Nurses provide a very good service too. There is no doubt that they provide the main line of medical services after doctors, because they are on the job all the time whereas the doctors are not. However, when it comes to the blame game, the doctors cop the blame. That is precisely what has to be eliminated from the debate. At the end of the day, if we keep blaming people we will have no outcomes. When professional people come to this state, they will not want to work in Queensland hospitals or private practices. Those things concern me. On numerous occasions I have talked to the minister about medical services in rural and regional Queensland and the reinstatement of the Flying Surgeon in Longreach or Emerald. It is very important that doctors in places like Blackall, Barcaldine, Longreach and Winton have the security of knowing that that backup is available. Sometimes things do go wrong. Serious accidents occur, maternity cases can go wrong and so on. The Flying Surgeon service provides a backup that gives rural doctors a certain amount of security as they go about the business of delivering professional services. That is important. According to the legislation, the board will also be able to delegate its power to set conditions on registration. Whilst that might be a good thing, I question what those conditions might be. This morning I discussed momentarily with Dr Flegg how the bill expands the category of registration to enable medical teachers and researchers to engage in clinical work connected with their primary teacher or research duties. While that is good, it does enable doctors to register in Queensland for up to five or six weeks at no cost. That is the part that I question. I say this to minister: I do not believe that we need any concessions or loopholes that could allow somebody to slip through the net. Whether it is for a temporary or permanent measure, we have to make absolutely certain that this is watertight and rock solid. We do not want any recurrences of what happened in that central Queensland city. That is an indictment not only on the people of Queensland but also on the medical profession as a whole. They hurt from that. We need to make absolutely certain that that will not reoccur. Today I say to the minister that it is very important that the majority of the recommendations of the Forster inquiry in relation to administration services and the delivery of medical services across the state be implemented. The former health minister, Gordon Nuttall, put in place a strategy under which the local member consulted with district managers on a three-monthly basis. I thought that that was a very good idea. It was very fruitful and beneficial for me to have those meetings with the district managers at Charleville, 1196 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Longreach and Emerald. If we heard something negative about the profession or the department, we could take it back to those district managers. It could then be corrected at a local level without having the matter come back to Brisbane to go through the ministerial process. That was a very good policy decision and I hope we retain it. I want to touch on Queensland Health’s genuine understanding that, regardless of where people live, we have to strive for equality of services. While we cannot have complete equality of services in places like Quilpie, Cunnamulla, Barcaldine or Cloncurry, we must have backup services provided by the Flying Surgeon, visiting paediatricians, obstetricians and so on. All of those people do a magnificent job. I cannot sing their praises enough. When I consider the tyranny of distance, the type of work that they are trying to do and the time that they spend doing it, as well as their workloads, I think that their efforts are magnificent. For a while the maternity section at Emerald was closed and we have to get that functioning properly again. I have had a couple of meetings with the minister in relation to that. Last year in Emerald there were 297 births. One cannot say that it is a secondary birthing centre. It is a major birthing centre. In some years the centre has reported nearly 400 births. It is a major growth area. It is about the 12th largest birthing centre in Queensland. It is very important that hospitals in places such as Rockhampton and Mackay are not overtaxed because of the closure of a centre like Emerald. Smaller places around the Central Highlands, the central west and the south west have closed because of the old issue of indemnity insurance. I have discussed this issue with the minister. If private practitioners are allowed to perform in the public sector in emergency situations, we could arrest a lot of the problems that now confront maternity services throughout the state. Many doctors do not want to perform obstetrics because of the issue of indemnity insurance. Can one blame them? Eighteen or 20 years down the track there could be fallout over something that may or may not have had anything to do with them. However, they are the ones who will be blamed and penalised. That point is always in the backs of their minds. Anything at all that enhances or gives us better medical services, whether in the area that I represent, here in Brisbane, on the Gold Coast or in any part of Queensland, has to be in the best interests of the majority of people. While the minister is in the House I will again touch on my old pet subject of the delivery of medical services to the Diamantina shire. The shire still has to contribute over $100,000 in recurrent funding to pay nursing staff in the clinics at Birdsville and Bedourie. I plead with the minister and with the government as a whole to ensure equality of services in the Diamantina shire, where the ratepayers and the shire are contributing to the cost of operating medical services. Thousands of visitors attend at those two centres in that remote shire every year. Whilst the locals do take advantage of the local clinics and the Flying Doctor Service that supports those clinics, it is very important to remember that the visitors live in other parts of the state and country. Why should the Diamantina Shire Council pay for services delivered to somebody from outside the shire? That is unfair. It is time that we had closure in relation to this matter and that we reached genuine outcomes for the people of the Diamantina shire. They should have the same services funded by the same department, as are other medical services throughout the state. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (5.30 pm): It is my pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill, which amends the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 and the Medical Practitioners Registration Regulation 2002. I note that the bill implements provisions in anticipation of future national changes to streamline the registration of international medical graduates. Further, it gives the Australian Medical Council more flexibility in certifying qualifications for general registration, it allows the Medical Board of Queensland to delegate more decisions to board members, and it requires the board to notify the minister if it fails to decide a registration application within 25 working days. I note the comments of my colleague the member for Moggill and shadow minister for health. I agree with him that it may have been more desirable to better resource the Medical Board rather than give it an inflexible time frame, given the checks and processes that the board may have to undertake. I note the basic requirements for registration at present. These include English competency, the obtaining of a certified English translation of documentation and that they be of good standing and have certification in this regard. I also agree with the shadow minister—as do many other Queenslanders and members on the other side of this House—that Queensland patients want doctors who can speak English. There are doctors who want registration and cannot access the English test as quickly as they would like. I have received representations from constituents and other doctors and dentists who find this very frustrating. That is a matter that people would like addressed. However, patients would like doctors who can speak English. The bill enables qualifications for general registration to include medical qualifications recognised by a prescribed foreign regulatory authority—the bill refers to the General Medical Council of the United Kingdom; I will come to my specific thoughts on that in a moment—for registration in a class of registration corresponding to general registration, for example ‘“full registration” by the General Medical 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1197

Council of the United Kingdom’. I note that this is dealt with in clause 7(1) in relation to section 44(d), to which the shadow minister will move an amendment. It states— (d) the applicant has a prescribed qualification that has been recognised by a prescribed entity for the purpose of a corresponding general registration. I am concerned that we will have to do a lot of prescribing and keep monitoring the organisation recognised by that prescription. In the example of the General Medical Council’s assessment of the doctor’s training jurisdiction, we will have to constantly rely on its assessment. However, we need to be confident in the training in that jurisdiction and confident that the doctor has been registered to practise and is practising or has practised in that jurisdiction. We can assume that the General Medical Council would not register any unsuitable person, but if we in Queensland have had problems with registering doctors then so potentially does the General Medical Council. Unless we can be confident that it is adequately assessing foreign regulatory authorities, and every one of them, and ensuring that those authorities are keeping up their standards, we will be accepting the word of the General Medical Council as to the standard of the applicant. I would like to quote the example of dentistry. My cohort of dentistry, who graduated in 1983, were able to practise in the UK by presenting proof of our qualification and certification of our mental health and good standing. That applied for years because their accreditation board recognised our dental degrees. However, for some period after I graduated—it may have been from the late eighties through to the mid-nineties—a cohort of Australian dentists were unable to be registered by the General Dental Council because their accreditation board was not given a trip to Queensland to assess our dental graduates. This means that a whole cohort of Australian dentists who are just as good as the ones who went before and the ones who have graduated since are not recognised by the General Dental Council. In relation to that cohort who graduated in the late eighties through to the mid-nineties, if we were to accept the General Dental Council’s recommendations as to their suitability for registration we would miss out on some dentists who, I assure members, are as good as the dentists who went before and who have come after. My point is that we should not look to the General Medical Council, although it may be a very good organisation. I think Queenslanders want us to assess the ability of the people who seek to be registered here. That brings me to the amendment foreshadowed by the shadow minister. The current legislation has created a loophole for foreign trained medical officers to be registered in Queensland due to their registration in a foreign country. They meet the criteria to fulfil the requirements of the overseas registration entity but do not meet Australian Medical Council requirements. The objective of these amendments is to legislate to amend the Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 2006 to ensure that registration of overseas trained medical officers applies only to applicants who have completed their training in an accredited training facility that is recognised by Australian standards and the Australian Medical Council. I think that is what Queenslanders want—not passing it off to the General Medical Council or to anywhere else. However, if it is passed to them, we should at least make sure the doctor is practising or has practised there and has registration there. The main reason for these amendments is to ensure that the highest medical standards are met for the people of Queensland by providing accredited and fully trained overseas medical officers who have been certified by the Australian Medical Council. This is essential to alleviate the possibility of an overseas trained medical officer who has done their training in a non-accredited training facility working in Queensland. The amendment to clause 7(1) does not seek to alter proposed section 44(c), which refers to certification by the Australian Medical Council, but inserts a new paragraph (d), which states— (d) the applicant— (1) has a prescribed qualification from an entity in the jurisdiction of a prescribed entity— that is, we will do the prescribing and we will do the monitoring. It continues— (2) has a corresponding general registration in that jurisdiction; and (3) is practising, or has practised, the profession in that jurisdiction. I think that is what Queenslanders want. I reiterate our support for the bill but commend the amendment to be moved by the shadow minister that finetunes the bill. That will ensure the registration of doctors in whom all Queenslanders can have confidence. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (5.37 pm): The Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill was introduced by the government as a step to avoid another occurrence of the infamous ‘Dr Death’ scandal. It is good to see an attempt by this government to rectify the problem identified in the inquiries that followed this tragic part of Queensland history. This bill is designed to expedite the medical registration process without compromising public safety. Public confidence in safety has already been compromised by the cracks which appeared in the supposedly stringent screening process that was already in place. Despite the minister’s assurance that all doctors will still have their medical qualifications and work history thoroughly checked before they are 1198 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 allowed to work in Queensland, this was the process that allowed Dr Jayant Patel to slip through unchecked and to cause a catastrophe. While all these checks and double-checks are supposedly taking place, rural and regional Queenslanders are still missing out on vital services. The availability of general practitioners in rural areas is well below that of the cities. In 1998, small rural centres averaged 93 GPs per 100,000 people. Other rural areas had 77 GPs per 100,000 people and remote areas had 68 GPs per 100,000 people. All country areas are well below capital cities, which average 122 GPs per 100,000 people. Adding to this, the suspension and closure of services across the state in small rural hospitals has placed great strain on medical services in larger regional centres. Any endeavours that will ultimately restore services need to be encouraged. In the QCOSS research paper 3, released in June 2004, recommendation 69 suggests the maintaining and expanding of health services to rural and regional areas. This was due to the ever increasing costs to patients to access health services and the diminishing number of local health services. In reality we have hospitals and communities waiting on doctors and patients ultimately putting their health at risk. The government says it is difficult to attract doctors to country towns. I would like to address some of the reasons that make it difficult for rural and remote Queenslanders to attract doctors. The lack of remote supervision is a problem that is holding up the appointment of doctors in our rural and regional hospitals. The Alpha Hospital has been without a doctor for nearly six months. There is a doctor who has been ready to take up this position for months but they are unable to because supervision or a mentor is not available. Finding professional mentors to become remote supervisors should be a priority. Despite great technological advances, the position of remote supervisors is not one that practising GPs find appealing without some form of incentive. Greater incentives need to be offered to GPs willing to take on this role. This role could be filled by GPs in a mentor position travelling throughout rural and regional Queensland mentoring doctors. This should be recognised as an essential part of the advancement of rural health. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the admission of rural doctors who have the right to private practice. The inaccessibility allowance excludes many doctors in smaller towns, specifically those with the right to private practice. Considering the huge burden alleviated from Queensland Health when country doctors are granted the right to private practice, one would think the government would support these doctors in every possible way. The exclusion from the inaccessibility allowance, despite the general inaccessibility to larger metropolitan hospitals, is an added burden to communities trying to attract suitably qualified doctors to their towns. These doctors leave their practice whenever they are needed at the hospital. They stay on call for excessively long hours and are under considerable personal strain. The Rural Doctors Association of Queensland has been working to achieve reforms of the model to ensure better terms and conditions for doctors working under these conditions and I hope that the government will recognise their plight and not abandon them because of their right to private practice. Another issue that needs to be addressed is that in just two years 1,691 doctors have left the public hospital system. Serious questions must be asked and answered to determine the cause of this mass exodus of professionals from the system. The government needs to take a long hard look at the culture it has created to determine ways to promote the health of every Queenslander—regardless of whether they use or are employed by the health department. No matter what checks and balances are in place to ensure the qualifications of overseas trained medicos, it is pointless if they refuse to work for a public health system. The government needs to ensure that the climate in which they will work is workable and free of bullying and intimidation. While streamlining the application process will ensure that doctors are in hospitals faster, a lot more has to be done to ensure that they stay there longer, in particular in rural areas where they are most needed. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.42 pm): I rise to speak to the Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 2006. After the tragedy that was Patel and the families that were so sadly affected, this government set a high bar in terms of registration of overseas doctors and the vetting of those overseas doctors as far as appropriate qualifications are concerned. It was nothing less than what the community expected. However, it has been problematic in terms of the timing of approvals for doctors who do have good qualifications and who could appropriately and should appropriately practise in Queensland. While revisiting the process for accrediting doctors that do come from overseas who are overseas trained, we must be certain never to reopen the spectre of unqualified doctors practising as occurred at Bundaberg. The shortage of doctors in particular affects rural and regional Queensland. I know that sounds parochial, but it is a fact. The travelling time and distances in the south-east corner to be able to access a doctor are much more achievable than in rural areas and it is worse in the remote areas. There has to be a concerted effort in terms of attracting doctors to rural and regional Queensland—not just GPs but the broad spectrum of specialties as well. 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1199

Subsequent to the federal government’s announcement of several hundred full fee-paying places in universities around Australia I had a discussion with a doctor in my electorate. He expressed concerns to me that, whilst that allocation is fine, the reality is that the majority of people who will take up those full fee-paying places will most likely come from the more populated areas and they will be from the higher socioeconomic areas as well. In Queensland the probability is that the majority of those places will be taken by young people living in the south-east corner whose families are in the higher socioeconomic level. When they are qualified they will want to stay in the south-east corner. He was speaking from experience when he said that the majority of them will be reticent to move out to rural and remote Queensland not only because they have their family systems established here in the south-east corner but also because this provides for them all of the non-medical interests that they have. You can argue the rights and wrongs of Queensland’s involvement in doctor training; the reality is that we are short of doctors and we have to look at all of the options. He suggested in an impartial way— he was not being party political—that the Queensland government fund a number of scholarships to encourage rural and regional students to come in for their training. We only have the two training places—here in Brisbane and James Cook. I know that when Wendy Edmonds was the minister there were some medical positions that were created and were bonded. It is much the same principle as that, but he was talking about these new federally allocated full fee-paying places, and he suggested that if the scholarships were offered by the Queensland government there would be an opportunity for the government to direct those students, once qualified, into areas where medical support is in short supply. He also made the observation, and I think a valid one, that where doctors are trained in the south- east corner and remain in the south-east corner there is a disproportionate allocation or return of Medicare funding because those doctors, particularly the ones that the Prime Minister announced, will receive a provider number and if they are concentrated in the more populous areas of the state the higher proportion of Medicare dollars will end up in the south-east corner. He was looking also from the angle of a more fair-handed distribution of Medicare dollars across the state. I believe that the suggestion has some merit. I questioned him in some detail about the reasons for his proposal. He has put it forward specifically to get a better spread of doctors across the state and, equally importantly, to ensure that a better and fairer spread of Medicare dollars is expended across the state and not just in the concentrated population areas. There have been some problems, I believe, in terms of the loss of doctors like those that specialise in obstetrics in rural and regional Queensland. There are a lot of hospitals which do not do births and patients are reallocated to other hospitals. As the doctors and hospitals that are able to accept births diminishes, the number of births that are occurring at the side of the road is growing. Increasingly, doctors are not available at the hospitals because of an understandable concern in relation to the health system in Queensland which has copped a pasting over the last 12 to 18 months because of Patel and because of some systems reviews. Further, the health system is looking at reducing its liability. In reducing that liability and referring new mothers or mothers about to give birth to hospitals some distance away, more and more of these babies are being born on the side of the road with often a hapless father having to perform the duties of a midwife or doctor. I would ask the minister to review that. To my mind it would be better that there be some trained nursing staff or trained doctors on call for these births rather than having them be born on the road, say, to Rockhampton or other regional centres to which rural mums and dads are being referred. I would again raise an issue—and this is not a criticism. I have written to the minister about our oncology services, and overseas trained medical practitioners may constitute some of the staff who will fill these vacancies. We have an oncology service that operates out of the Gladstone Base Hospital. The doctor there, Dr Atkinson, does a wonderful job. He also sees 32 private patients out of the Mater Hospital that has been funded through the MSOAP program, which is a federally funded program. I was contacted with concerns that the feds might pull that funding at the end of April. I have received verbally from the minister’s office—and I do thank him for that—some promising comments in relation to ensuring the retention of that service but nothing in writing. I again draw to the attention of the minister the importance of that service to those 32 people. Before he was minister, there was a time when the oncologist at the hospital pulled the pin without any warning. For several months the patients, who were already quite sick, had to travel to Brisbane. That would have been at quite a significant cost to the health service as well. These people are already contending with quite a deal in their lives. They certainly do not need to travel. I again put that issue before the minister for his consideration. All around Gladstone we have qualified for what has been termed ‘areas of need’. Those suburbs, except for Boyne-Tannum, are serviced either from Boyne- Tannum or Gladstone. Certainly there is a need for additional GPs and other medical staff at the hospital. For some time we will be reliant upon soundly qualified, appropriately qualified overseas trained doctors. So this bill is incredibly important. However, again I have to reiterate that I believe the community expects that those doctors who are accepted for service in Queensland have to be appropriately trained and able to communicate well in English. Some people came to me and it was not a racist approach or a critical approach but an 1200 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 approach of concern. They had made an appointment in a surgery with a doctor they had not seen previously. They were genuinely concerned that they were misprescribed because the doctor could not understand them and they could not understand him. It is important in medicine that that communication be clear and it is important that both parties clearly understand the information being provided and the information being conveyed so that an appropriate and accurate diagnosis can occur. I certainly support the minister in his attempts. I look forward to an improvement in the staffing in our hospitals, particularly in rural and regional Queensland. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (5.53 pm): I rise to speak very briefly to the bill. My intention in my very short speech is to highlight the great work that the overseas trained doctors have done in my electorate, particularly in the Mackay Base Hospital and Sarina Hospital. My intention was to actually name those doctors. However, I have not received permission from the minister to do that. I wanted to genuinely recognise the great work that they have done. I emailed the minister at 3 o’clock this afternoon. I cannot name them unless I get the minister’s permission. Mr Robertson: You have my permission. Mr MALONE: That is fine, but I have not got their names with me at this stage. With respect to the doctors who have taken up the load in the Mackay district, I have to say that we would be in extremely difficult circumstances if we had not had those overseas trained doctors with us. The work they are doing throughout the district is marvellous. They really have come to the fore over the last few years. The previous speaker talked about language problems, and there are always issues in terms of that. Where there is a will there is a way and, fortunately, we have got through to some extent. I would like to talk about a couple of the issues that are bugging my area to a certain extent. One of those relates to the Patient Transit Assistance Scheme. Quite often in my electorate people travel for up to 150 kilometres to see a doctor. There have been many instances when they have had to come to Sarina to actually attend a hospital, and that portion of that journey is not compensated at all. The mileage is calculated from the time that they arrive at the Sarina Hospital and are passed on to the Mackay Base Hospital and further north, possibly to Townsville or Rockhampton. So the 150 kilometres that they have had to travel to their primary care facility is not calculated in the transfer assistance program. That is a huge impost on some of those people who live quite a distance away from hospital. I would also like to pick up on one of the issues that the previous speaker spoke about in terms of the delivery of children on the side of the road. As the shadow minister for emergency services, I have to say that that is becoming very prevalent. The first response, obviously, is that, if the mother is fortunate enough to be travelling with her husband or partner, there is some help. The next response, obviously, is to the Ambulance Service. It is unfair in a lot of respects for them to be placed in that position, even if the birth is straightforward. It is certainly a much greater issue if there is some difficulty. There are some real concerns in relation to the more regional and country areas of Queensland in terms of birthing facilities. A common-sense approach has to be taken to this issue. If there are no doctors available, certainly we need midwives or nurses trained to work or who are currently working in the hospital system to deliver babies under some sort of teleconferencing scheme, which most of our hospitals have in place currently. As I said previously, I say congratulations to all the overseas trained doctors who are working in our hospital system in the Mackay district. I would also like to congratulate those doctors who are working in the system under very difficult circumstances. Over the last couple of years there has been an outcry or a bit of a vengeance attack on doctors within the health system. We need to recognise that they are sometimes working under the most appalling and difficult conditions. My thanks go to all of the doctors in the health system, including the overseas trained doctors. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.58 pm): I will only be a couple of minutes, so I will not take up too much of the minister’s time. The case of Dr Patel has really highlighted a lot more issues and made people a lot more concerned about foreign doctors than ever before. Many of our small towns, particularly in rural areas, would not have a doctor at all if not for foreign doctors. In my life—and I am going back to my childhood and referring to both states I have lived in—the doctors I have been to have often been foreign. The service they have given has been exemplary. What those foreign trained doctors did not know they learned quickly. I remember my mother being bitten by a red wasp. Her Indian doctor did not know what a red wasp was or how it would affect her, but he was very diligent, read up on them and she was cured of her bad reaction in no time at all. To the foreign doctors in my electorate who have come to the area I want to say: Thank you for taking a chance on rural areas because without you we may not have doctors in our very small communities. One thing that has been mentioned before is that rural areas do suffer the brunt of any doctor shortage. It is very difficult to attract them to these areas. Often they do not believe that they will get the diverse cases that they would get in metropolitan areas. Perhaps it needs to be considered that when foreign doctors go to rural areas they be given an opportunity to spend some time in the city each year so that they have a diverse range of cases and that their knowledge is current in diverse areas. The member for Gladstone mentioned women giving birth on our roads. Kingaroy has a reasonably sized hospital but many of the private doctors are giving up attending births because of liability and other such issues. It is dangerous to have a young mother on the side of the road giving 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1201 birth. People in a lot of towns have to travel a long way to give birth. If a lady in Blackbutt or the outer reaches of Blackbutt or Proston gave birth to her baby with short notice she could easily be caught out on the road. It could be three-quarters of an hour or more to the hospital. I know that women who have their babies quickly are extremely lucky. Any mother would say that that is a blessing but they might not deem giving birth on the side of the road in the middle of the night lucky. A husband would dread being put in the situation of having to assist his wife give birth to their child, however fulfilling it might be after the event. The case of Jessica Costello shows how strange incidents can occur at any particular time. We must be very aware that although a lot of people think it is very natural to have a baby, which it is, complications can arise prior to birth, during labour or further down the track. We have to be very aware of that. Half an hour ago I got a letter from a young girl who talks about her pop. Doctors find out what is going on with patients, what treatments they need and so on. She says that her pop needs renal treatment. He has to go to Toowoomba, which is a long way away. It just about wrecks him. It costs him to go there. He needs to go three times a week. He can only afford to go twice so he only has two treatments. So the doctors prescribe what he needs but it cannot be supplied because of his financial hiccup. The Cherbourg Hospital has a dialysis machine but it is basically for self-care patients. This man is too old for that. He is not eligible for that. At the moment it is not up and running, anyway. There are instances where doctors do their jobs, prescribe what needs to be done, but if equipment is not up and running it makes it very difficult for all and sundry. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Foreign doctors can address the doctor shortage. On the whole they do a good job. Not every foreign doctor should be condemned because of the likes of Dr Patel. He was a major glitch in the system. It was unfortunately discovered too late and a lot of people suffered because of him. I hope that sort of thing never happens again. Doctors generally do speak reasonable English. Some do not. Many people find it difficult to listen to people with very heavy accents. It could be a two-way street. Their English may be acceptable to some but difficult for others to understand. Miscommunication and doubts can occur. I would ask everybody who has foreign doctors in their towns or areas to welcome them because without them they may not have any health facility in that town. Help them to become part of the community. Make them feel welcome. All of us can benefit from that. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (6.05 pm), in reply: I thank all members who have participated in the debate. I have some comments to make in summary. In his contribution the opposition spokesperson raised the issue that the Medical Board may cut corners to meet the 25-day reporting requirement. The reporting rule will apply only to applications which have taken longer than 25 days from receipt of a complete application. Interestingly, the board is already achieving this standard and is committed to lowering it further. To this end, the board has approached me to amend the act to enable it to delegate the power to approve straightforward applications. It is already achieving that 25-day requirement. It wants, as we do, to see it reduced even further. As a result there are those consequential amendments about delegating authority with the appropriate safeguards in place. The government has supported the board in this initiative through the provision of a $1.25 million grant to redevelop its registration software. This will enable it to provide modern internet based services to all registrants. The Medical Board today released a media statement with respect to the successful tenderer for that new software system. Notwithstanding the 25-day reporting requirement the bill expressly provides that the board’s overriding obligation remains to act independently and in the public interest. The board has directly advised me that its focus remains on standards for registration and it will not be cutting corners. With respect to the issue of allegations or suggestions of lowering of standards, I point out that a number of members have expressed concern that the bill may result in a lowering of standards of registration of international medical graduates. The AMA has also expressed a concern that the power to prescribe qualifications recognised by international authorities will shift responsibility for setting standards to those international authorities. I can assure the House that qualifications will not be lowered and that qualifications and international authorities will be prescribed only on AMC and Medical Board advice and in consultation with the AMA and relevant colleges. In relation to changes to the qualification requirements for international medical graduates, I make the following comments. It should be noted that these changes relate to general registration. This was something that a number of opposition members did not realise in their contributions. These changes relate to general registration only. International medical graduates seeking registration as specialists will still be referred by the Medical Board to the relevant college for assessment. 1202 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

As I said in my second reading speech, the changes to the qualification requirement are to allow Queensland to promptly implement processes being developed by the AMC to streamline general registration of international medical graduates while maintaining high standards. In early March the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council endorsed a proposal to develop a process by which the AMC can identify competent international medical regulatory authorities. Competent authorities are authorities whose course accreditation processes are as rigorous as the AMC’s course accreditation process. These processes will be developed in consultation with the AMA and colleges and, due to mutual recognition considerations, can be implemented only following national agreement. So Queensland is not going out on its own. This is about establishing a national system that gets over the hurdle. If another state had a lower level of registration than, for example, Queensland through mutual recognition, doctors going through that system could get a job in Queensland. What we want to do is put a stop to that. It is not about Queensland lowering its standards. It is about getting a national standard in place so that there is seamlessness and consistency right across the country. Accordingly, the qualifications and competent authorities to be prescribed will be those recognised by the AMC as meeting Australian standards in accordance with the nationally agreed process. That would allow graduates with the prescribed qualifications to apply directly to the Medical Board for registration. I asked members to note that making a regulation is not an all-or-nothing option or an abrogation of the government’s responsibility, as alleged by the shadow minister. The members opposite should observe that under proposed paragraph (d) of clause 7 of the bill the qualification must be prescribed as well as the authority which accredits it. Accordingly, the regulation will be able to specify particular qualifications, for example primary UK qualifications recognised by a body such as the General Medical Council but exclude others, for example some European qualifications recognised by the same body. The government will specify only those qualifications that the AMC has assessed as meeting Australian standards. Members should also note that the Medical Board will retain the discretion to set internship and other supervisory conditions on any applicant’s general registration. In relation to changes to the qualification requirements for the teaching and research category, I note that applicants applying for special purpose registration practice in connection with research or teaching will be required to meet the same standards required for area-of-need registration. Accordingly, if the applicant is seeking to practise as a specialist, the board will refer the applicant only with the approval of the relevant specialist college. Members have also raised concern that the amendments to the special purpose teaching and research category may become a back door to unrestricted general registration or specialist registration. The AMAQ also raised this issue. I can assure the House that these provisions do not open up such a loophole. The objective of the amendment to the teaching research category is to allow universities to be more competitive in attracting teaching and research staff. Currently, teaching and research doctors who want to practise in their field need to go through two separate and concurrent registration processes. There are a number of limitations to ensure that the amendments to allow special purpose registration to be granted for practice in connection with teaching or research will not become a back door to registration. Firstly, the amendment that expands an existing category of special purpose registration requires teaching or research to be the primary activity. Any clinical practice is secondary. The amendment specifies that any practice must be in connection with teaching or research, which is the primary purpose of registration. Secondly, the board is able to grant special purpose registration only if it is satisfied that the person has the qualifications and experience that the board considers suitable for the proposed activity. The legislation requires that a person must also be fit to practise in the profession. Thirdly, if the applicant is seeking to practise as a specialist, the applicant must satisfy the board that he or she is appropriately qualified to practise as a specialist in the same way as an area-of-need registrant must do when seeking to practise as a specialist. The board will then refer the applicant to the relevant specialist college for a competency assessment. An applicant who does not meet college standards will not be registered as a deemed specialist. Members may also note that the board retains the power to impose conditions that it considers necessary or desirable for a special purpose registrant to competently and safely undertake the activity that is the purpose of the registration. These limitations mean that a doctor registered as a special purpose registrant for teaching or research cannot use this registration as a back door to unrestricted practice and they cannot engage in clinical practice that is unconnected to the primary teaching or research purpose of their registration. Finally, I would like to deal with the issue of English language competency. There has been concern about how quickly or how regularly testing can be undertaken. It needs to be understood that English language testing is undertaken by a private company, not by the state. The course is accessible in over 200 countries and can be sat at most major cities in Queensland and Australia. The organisation that runs the test has recently changed its policy to enable those who fail to resit the test immediately 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1203 rather than wait what was previously three months to resit the examination. This change in policy commences next month—from 1 May. So there will be an improvement in the capacity of applicants who are required to demonstrate English language competency to access those internationally recognised courses. I understand that those tests are conducted every month or so. So they are readily accessible. Now those who fail can immediately resit those exams in the next month rather than wait another three months. That is an improvement. I know that change would be most welcome. I have to say, though, that I think there is somewhat of an inconsistency in the opposition on this issue. In February this year during question time the member for Toowoomba South asked me a question about a particular doctor in Toowoomba. He encouraged me to somehow intervene on this doctor’s behalf so that he could provide services in Toowoomba. There is nothing wrong with that, even though I am unable to influence the registration process. But putting that inconsistency aside, as the member for Toowoomba South and former health minister knew, that doctor did not get registration because he had failed the English language test. So the opposition that is calling on me to toughen up the English language test is comprised of a former health minister who asked me to ignore that test—if I had the power to do so. I will put that inconsistency aside. I do not want to dwell on that in any particular way. But I place that inconsistency on the record in terms of the opposition’s health policy. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Dr FLEGG (6.16 pm): I would like the minister to give a short response to this query. This is an odd provision because, basically, the minister is legislating to instruct that the board do its job efficiently. I am not aware of this sort of thing being done before. The minister indicated in his closing comments that the board is already achieving the 25-day turnaround. I am interested in the reason the minister felt it was necessary to legislate for the board to do its job efficiently. If the board is already achieving that turnaround time before this bill is passed, which refers to delegates and so forth, why was this not able to be achieved earlier? Mr ROBERTSON: It is a simple proposal. Over the past number of months I have been keen to ensure that the Medical Board performs its functions efficiently to ensure that the assessment of the qualifications and, therefore, the registration of overseas trained doctors as well as Australian trained doctors is undertaken as efficiently as possible without impacting upon the quality of their decision making so that we can get those doctors out working in our hospitals as quickly as possible. I am pleased that the board is already meeting the targets that we establish through this bill. I think that putting that target in this legislation acts as a reminder to the board of the importance of the need for efficiency as well as to ensure the ongoing quality of their decisions. There is nothing untoward in that. In fact, performance measures are a feature of legislation relating to a number of other areas. This clause signals how serious we are that the Medical Board performs its work diligently and efficiently whilst at the same time ensuring that the standards that are required to ensure public confidence in the registration process are maintained. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Dr FLEGG (6.19 pm): Again, I am a little puzzled. Clause 4 is going to add an administrative burden to the Medical Board. Clause 6 legislates in pretty broad terms that a person with a high level of expertise in organisational management, customer service or business must be appointed to the board. Clearly when provisions in clauses 4 and 6 have to be imposed on the board this indicates a pretty high level of dissatisfaction on the part of the minister with the performance of the board. Mr ROBERTSON: I think all organisations benefit from a broad range of skills around the board table. A board that has only very narrow representation I think suffers. That is a general rule that applies whether we are talking about the Medical Board or any other board in any other industry. What we are trying to do is ensure that the membership of the board provides not just a range of clinical skills but also a range of administrative and business skills. As we have seen today, the board is putting in place a new software system. As talented as doctors are in a whole range of fields, they are not always at the cutting edge of software development or organisational capacity. What we want to ensure is that the Medical Board benefits from a wide range of experience that ensures that they can do their work not only in a clinically sound way but also in an administratively sound way. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. 1204 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Clauses 7 and 8— Dr FLEGG (6.21 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 7— Page 6, lines 8 to 10— omit, insert— ‘(d) the applicant— (i) has a prescribed qualification from an entity in the jurisdiction of a prescribed entity; and (ii) has a corresponding general registration in that jurisdiction; and (iii) is practising, or has practised, the profession in that jurisdiction.’.’. 2 Clause 8— Page 6, after line 21— insert— ‘(1AA) Section 45(1) (b)— omit.’. 3 Clause 8— Page 6, after line 24— insert— ‘(1A) Section 45— insert— ‘(1A) Also, in deciding whether an applicant for general registration is fit to practise the profession, the board must be satisfied the applicant is able to communicate in spoken and written English at a professional level with patients and other persons.’.’. We have looked at clause 7 pretty long and hard. I note the comments that the minister made in his reply in relation to paragraph (d). It is certainly not clear to us that that is what that paragraph means. Our amendment removes any doubt about clause 7. This is the clause whereby we will not only register medical practitioners in Queensland who have been approved by the Australian Medical Council, which is currently our accepted standards body, but also register applicants who, in the words of the bill, have a ‘prescribed qualification that has been recognised by a prescribed entity for the purpose of a corresponding general registration’. My concern is that we are allowing overseas prescribed entities, by definition, to determine what qualifications will be acceptable for registration in Queensland. I think there is a real danger in that. I think there is a real danger in passing off any decision making in relation to what is acceptable to bodies outside Australia that are not normally charged with the responsibility of laying down standards. In the three amendments that I have moved, we have prescribed that. I would like the minister to note that, despite my reservations, I decided to move amendments rather than oppose the clause in its entirety. Because of the prevailing circumstances, we have accepted what the government is seeking to do in terms of accepting graduates for registration in Queensland from some of these overseas prescribed entities, but we would like to see it tightened up. There are three components we would like to see tightened up by these amendments. The first is that when we accept a prescribed entity overseas—and we have not opposed that happening in Queensland—we should only consider qualifications that come from the domestic jurisdiction of that overseas entity. So in the case of the General Medical Council, our amendment would have the effect that it would only apply to British qualifications and not overseas based qualifications that the General Medical Council may from time to time approve. The second component which I do not believe is contained in the act and should be contained in the act is that the person should not only hold the prescribed qualification but also actually be registered within the prescribed entity. I do not see any provision in the legislation that would require, for example, somebody whose qualification was acceptable to the General Medical Council to be currently registered within the jurisdiction of the General Medical Council. So I have sought to tighten that up. The third component that we have sought to tighten up by these amendments is that the person who is to be accepted for registration in this country, as well as having a qualification from within the prescribed entity and as well as being registered to practise medicine within the prescribed entity, should also have practised medicine within the prescribed entity at some time—not necessarily at present but at some time. In most cases—perhaps even in an overwhelming proportion of cases—these factors would apply, but I think they should be expressly stated so that we do not end up with a small number of loopholes. As we have seen before in Queensland, people can be very adept at finding and exploiting loopholes. Mr ROBERTSON: The amendments are not acceptable to the government. I can only reiterate that the government’s bill does not lower standards or open any loopholes as alleged by the shadow minister. The responsibility for setting qualification standards for overseas graduates will not—and I repeat, will not—be handed over to foreign regulatory bodies. Once the AMC processes are implemented, it will be the AMC that determines which overseas qualifications are suitable for general registration. It will be the same qualifications and authorities which are prescribed. The opposition should note that under the proposed paragraph (d) of clause 7 of the bill, page 6, lines 8 to 10, the qualification must be prescribed as well as the authority which accredits it. Making a regulation is not an 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1205 all-or-nothing option. The regulations will be able to specify particular qualifications—for example, primary UK qualifications recognised by a body such as the GMC—but exclude others, for example some European qualifications recognised by the same body. What that means is that, for example, the European community has a very well-developed system of mutual recognition across national boundaries. Using this as an example, if you were trained and have qualifications from France in the EC, those qualifications are recognised in the UK. So, under the member’s argument, the AMC would recognise the French trained doctor because his or her qualifications are recognised in the UK. That is the member’s concern, as I understand it. But that is not the case with respect to what is being proposed, because the AMC will have the discretion to not simply recognise the fact that this French trained doctor has mutual recognition of qualifications in the UK but will make a separate determination as to whether those French qualifications are, in fact, acceptable and meet Australian standards. As I understand it, not being an expert on French medical skills, that would rule out the automatic recognition of the French qualified doctor who may be working in the UK and wants to come to Australia. There would still have to be that assessment process as to whether the French qualifications meet our standards. That is the saving provision that is contained in our primary clause. Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr ROBERTSON: As I was saying before the break, the opposition’s amendments are not supported by the government. In our view, they are unnecessary because of the arguments that I outlined in part before the break. I take this opportunity to repeat those arguments. The opposition’s concern, which is not illegitimate I might add, is that this will allow general practitioners who have not gone through medical schools that we consider to be of suitable quality to practise in Queensland. I answered that in some detail using the example of the European community. The honourable member for the Darling Downs does not appear to be listening to this debate, but he should because this question impacts quite significantly on electorates such as his which are looking to attract overseas trained doctors. I hope that by listening to my argument he will see the error of the opposition’s ways in relation to this matter. I hope that he will realise that once again he has been misled by the Liberal Party. Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: I think it is true, and I was using the example of a doctor who qualified in France. As a result of the European community’s mutual recognition, that doctor may have an entitlement to practise in the UK. However, under these provisions, that does not mean that he or she would be recognised in Queensland under the recognition of UK qualifications. There would be a second assessment of the original qualifications. That provides, quite substantially in my view, the protection that the opposition is seeking which is why we say—and I repeat—that the responsibility for setting qualification standards for overseas graduates will not be handed over to foreign regulatory bodies. It will be handled by the AMC. Eventually it will provide for national consistency, which is an important issue in terms of mutual recognition. Wherever in Australia a registrant receives his or her registration, all states and territories in this country can be assured of the appropriateness and veracity of those original qualifications. Therefore, the amendments proposed by the opposition are unnecessary and would defeat the purpose of the government’s amendment to section 44. The objective of the government’s amendment is to allow Queensland to promptly implement processes being developed by the AMC to streamline general registration of international medical graduates while maintaining high standards. The opposition’s amendments would frustrate that objective. By requiring the applicant to have general registration and be practising, the amendments will exclude graduates of medical courses that have been accredited by the AMC, for example, young UK graduates whose qualifications are equivalent to Australian qualifications and who want to come to Queensland to do their internships. Those are the graduates whom we are trying to attract. For the reasons outlined, the opposition’s amendments are opposed by the government. Dr FLEGG: Some of the comments the minister made before and after the dinner break are troubling me. As I understand it, the minister indicated that these provisions are aimed at enforcing a national approach in relation to qualifications and prescribed entities as laid down or approved by the Australian Medical Council. I am quite certain that that is not the case. In the future it may look forward to a national approach. Mr Robertson: That is what I said. Dr FLEGG: I am quite happy to say that in the future I would be very supportive of a national approach to accredit particular qualifications from around the world. Frankly, that is long overdue and the AMC has been very slow in dealing with accrediting qualifications. In fact, to date the only country of any note that it has accredited is New Zealand. 1206 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

I wish to make this point totally clear because it is capable of being confused. In his second reading speech the minister stated— The bill broadens the qualifications for general registration to include recognition of medical qualifications, not only those certified by the Australian Medical Council but also those recognised by certain prescribed overseas registration bodies, such as the United Kingdom General Medical Council. He went on to say— Holders of prescribed qualifications will be able to apply directly to the board without going through the AMC assessment process. In fact, these regulations are a bypass of the AMC process. As things stand at the moment, this is very much a Queensland show, because under this act the prescribed entity and the prescribed qualification are set by regulation of the Queensland minister. The implication that I drew from the minister’s comments, particularly before the dinner break, was that the AMC was going to drive the process of which qualifications were to be accepted. That is not the intent of this bill or how it stands at the present time. That is why we are adamant that we need the extra protections that are contained in these amendments. I notice that the minister has not actually raised any objection to the intent of our amendments. If he is supportive of the intent of the amendments, I wonder why he does not choose to support them. Clearly, under this bill there will be an interim arrangement whereby the Queensland Minister for Health, by regulation, will prescribe overseas qualifications not yet prescribed by the Australian Medical Council to allow the bypassing of the AMC assessment process by applicants from various overseas constituencies. Mr ROBERTSON: I appreciate the argument advanced by the opposition spokesperson. However, the detailed explanation I provided tonight should have put his mind at rest in terms of any misinterpretation he may have had of what was in the second reading speech. I take issue with the member’s suggestion that Queensland is going down this path unilaterally. Over the past couple of months substantial work has been undertaken with the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council to move towards a national consistency. We are not introducing national consistency through this legislation. It is true to say—and I have never represented anything other than this—that this is a move towards national consistency. I am pleased to hear that the opposition spokesperson agrees with that move. When I took over this portfolio it became blindingly obvious to me that we should question continuing down the path of separate jurisdictions and assessment processes. This is a step along the way. However, are we doing something pre-emptive? No, we are not. In terms of prescribing in regulation, once this bill is passed, as to what jurisdictions will be recognised in further detail, we would be informed in that process through the ongoing deliberations by the AHMAC—the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. This is necessary preparatory legislation that we are putting in place. It does not mean that Queensland is putting itself out there in a way that is inconsistent with the general approach being taken by other state jurisdictions. Dr FLEGG: I seek leave to table the notes that go with the amendment. Leave granted. Question—That Dr Flegg’s amendments be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 21—Copeland, E Cunningham, Douglas, Flegg, Foley, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, Rowell, Simpson, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 44—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Schwarten, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Clauses 7 and 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Dr FLEGG (7.47 pm): I will not labour this point because it continues on from some things that were said earlier. However, clauses 10, 11 and 12 all have the effect of amending the legislation to provide for the bypassing of the normal Australian qualifications and assessment process through the AMC. Earlier, I made it clear that a national approach would be welcomed and supported by us. However, in the amendment and in my earlier comments I made it very clear that there is a danger in amending the legislation to bypass Australian assessment processes and, even worse, to flick responsibility for deciding what qualifications will be accepted and automatically registered in Queensland onto various overseas bodies. In my view, it is inherently dangerous. 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1207

Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, allow the normal Australian qualifications, the normal assessment under the AMC, to be bypassed. Queenslanders have seen, much to our cost and pain, what happens if loopholes are opened. If you act expediently in order that registrations are quicker and more numerous, there is still a price to pay if you drop standards. I want the record to be very, very clear in relation to our concern about this. Mr ROBERTSON: For reasons I have already outlined, we reject the argument. There is no dropping of standards. I have repeatedly stated that. In fact, the member for Moggill’s position has changed quite significantly from his second reading contribution. He actually stated then that he was comfortable with the recognition of certain overseas qualifications. He now expands that argument, I suspect as a result of finally understanding the government’s proposal and understanding that his amendments are unnecessary because of the qualifications and guarantees that I have provided. There is an inconsistency in the argument of the member opposite. He quite clearly stated in his second reading contribution that he had no objection to the recognition of certain overseas qualifications in the way that we have planned. We have provided the additional guarantees that he originally sought. For him to now argue in this way suggests to me that there is more than a hint of desperation in his contributions to this debate. Dr FLEGG: The minister is having a flight of fancy there. In fact, it is absolutely consistent. I said in my speech at the second reading stage and also during these contributions that I do accept, under the circumstances that prevail in Queensland, that we will give recognition to certain qualifications. All of my comments and the amendments that we have moved, debated and voted on give effect to other matters that would make this process much safer. The minister is quite off the mark to suggest that that is any sort of inconsistency. In fact, from the opposition’s point of view we have been very responsible in our approach to the bill and we have not opposed aspects in relation to accrediting certain overseas qualifications. What we are not comfortable with is the idea that responsibility for choosing any of those qualifications should vest in a so-called prescribed entity. In fact, we should be making those decisions ourselves. Mr Robertson: It doesn’t. It rests with the AMC. Dr FLEGG: The minister interjects that the decision rests with the AMC. It is very, very clear from the bill and from the minister’s own second reading speech that under regulation of this bill the AMC can be totally bypassed. I am not sure if the minister understands his own bill or not. He interjects that the decision is made by the AMC, but that is not what is written in this bill and it is not what he said in his second reading speech. It is determined by regulation under this bill, not by the AMC. Mr ROBERTSON: The problem is that the member is pre-empting what is going to be put in the regulation. The member does not know what is going to be put in the regulation because the regulation has not been struck yet. I have given the member guarantees during my contribution as to what would inform us in terms of what gets put in the regulation. To suggest and believe, as he is putting forward, that we will go down a certain path in constructing the regulation is an argument that is not open to him without proof. The member does not have proof to support what he is suggesting. I have given the member guarantees that it is the AMC that will inform us as to what are the appropriate qualifications to receive recognition in a regulation. That should be sufficient in terms of allaying the member’s concerns. To suggest otherwise is frankly scaremongering. The member has no proof because the regulation does not, in fact, exist. If the member is unhappy with the regulation when it is actually brought to this place he will have the ability to move disallowance to prove or otherwise his argument. That is the appropriate time to argue that position—not go off, as he says, on some flight of fancy to try to pre-empt what is in the regulation when it has not yet been written. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 and 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Dr FLEGG (7.54 pm): Clauses 13, 14 and 15 basically deal with the short-term registration provisions. These are the provisions that allow for registration under certain circumstances for a period up to five weeks. The opposition is not intending to oppose these. In fact, I can see some benefit in allowing a process of short-term registration for medical practitioners up to five weeks, and I note that the fees for registration will be waived for these short-term attendances. I simply reiterate that I hope these provisions are not used in any way to dilute standards. We do not fundamentally disagree with the concept of a fee-free, short-term, five-week registration but, again, none of these things, in our view, should be used as a loophole to allow people who do not meet our normal standards to practise. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. 1208 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Clauses 14 and 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Dr FLEGG (7.56 pm): We have an amendment in relation to clause 16. This is a clause that has caused a bit of concern, not just within the opposition but also within medical circles. Clause 16 deals, in fact, with the registration of somebody who comes into Queensland for teaching purposes to practise. On my reading and the reading of others of this bill, there is a loophole where somebody who comes in to teach for a defined period of time would be eligible to practise to some degree within Queensland whilst they were here teaching. We consider that this could open up a loophole where somebody who comes in to teach is, in fact, then allowed to go off and see and treat patients without having actually achieved the normal registration of medical practitioners. The intent of the amendment that we have circulated is that registered medical practitioners who come into Queensland to teach are only registered or permitted to practise on patients who are incidental and part of their teaching, such as for demonstration purposes to students, but not practise in a broader sense. If they are to practise beyond that which is necessary for their teaching then clearly they should obtain registration as provided for elsewhere in the bill. I know when people read this sort of clause they think in terms of some visiting professor or other person who would be thought of as being very highly qualified, and I am sure that is the case in many, if not most, cases of people teaching. But people should bear in mind that there are many, many medical disciplines. Some of them are more orthodox and some of them more well regarded than others. It is also open to the danger that somebody who comes here to teach ends up practising or treating patients within areas that do not really come within that person’s area of expertise. I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 16— Page 9, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert— ‘(ii) while engaging in the medical teaching or research, engage in instructional practice of the profession, including instructional practice of a specialty.’. Mr ROBERTSON: The opposition’s amendment is not supported. The objective of clause 16 is to allow universities to be more competitive in attracting teaching and research staff. Currently, teaching and research doctors who want to practise in their field need to go through two separate and concurrent registration processes, one for teaching and one under area-of-need provisions. The Medical Board has been approached by the University of Queensland and James Cook University to ask if these processes could be streamlined. That is what the government’s amendments do: they remove unnecessary red tape by streamlining the two processes into one. The opposition’s amendment is therefore redundant. The bill already prevents registration under the teaching or research category from becoming a back door to practise. It does this in a number of ways. First, the government’s bill already requires teaching or research to be the primary activity of registration under this section. Any clinical practice must be secondary. The amendment specifies that any practice must be in connection with their teaching or research, which is the primary purpose of registration. Second, the board is able to grant special purpose registration only if it is satisfied the person has qualifications or experience that the board considers suitable for the proposed activity. The act requires that the person must also be fit to practise the profession. Third, if the applicant is seeking to practise as a specialist, the applicant must satisfy the board that he or she is appropriately qualified to practise as a specialist in the same way as an area-of-need registrant seeking to practise as a specialist. The board will then refer the applicant to the relevant specialist college for competency assessment. An applicant who does not meet college standards will not be registered as a deemed specialist. Members may also note that the board retains the power to impose conditions that it considers necessary or desirable for a special purpose registrant to competently and safely undertake the area which is the purpose of their registration. These limitations mean that a doctor registered as a special purpose registrant for teaching or research cannot use this registration as a back door to unrestricted practice and they cannot engage in clinical practice that is unconnected to the primary teaching or research purpose of their registration. Dr FLEGG: I note the minister’s comments. We are not convinced. We are still of the view that this is not sufficiently tight. To describe, as the minister did, all of those processes in relation to Medical Board approvals and so forth as someone who may be here for a very short period is not realistic. I note the minister’s comment that it is a requirement for the visiting teaching medical practitioner that teaching must be their primary activity. Unless they have obtained normal registration procedures, we are of the view that the teaching should be the only activity, and patients treated should be only those who are necessarily treated in the course of their teaching activities. So we are not of the view that this is sufficiently tight to ensure that it is not used as a loophole, and that is the reason for our amendment. Amendment negatived. 19 Apr 2006 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Bill 1209

Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Dr FLEGG (8.03 pm): It was actually clause 17 that I had a comment on, but it was only to be a brief comment anyway. I do not want to labour the point or be ungracious because the aspect of deeming of specialists is not really the subject of this particular bill. It is raised more as a collateral issue. Clause 17 deals with the deeming of specialists and I want to have it noted that, in principle, we do not approve of the deeming of specialists under any circumstances. That means that we are opposed to clause 17. However, the provisions that allow for deeming are contained elsewhere. So I did not want to labour the point in this particular one. I think we should record the fact that we do not approve of the deeming of specialists. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Dr FLEGG (8.04 pm): We have probably canvassed clause 19 fairly well. Again, it deals with the short-term, five-week registration process. The only comment that I have in relation to clause 19 is that the board is required to report to the minister if applications are not processed within 25 days. The minister has dealt with that in some of his earlier comments. I take on board the fact that he says the 25- day rule is already being largely complied with. I take it and I hope—and I have not spoken to the Medical Board—that means the board is adequately resourced to process these applications within the 25-day period. I note the provision in there that the applicant will not be named in the report to the minister. I think that is appropriate. In relation to clause 19, there is an apparent contradiction between proposed new section 165A(4) and (5). The bill makes it clear that proposed new subsection (5) overrules new subsection (4), which states— If the board decides to grant the application, the registration remains in force for the period decided by the board and may not be renewed or restored. This is in relation to the short-term, five-week provision. Just to make that clear, new subsection (4) says that this short-term, five-week registration, to which we have not raised any objection, cannot be renewed. That is a pretty important clause. Otherwise, the government would open the possibility of using the short-term provisions and rolling it over every five weeks, as has been done with some temporary entry visas. Then we go on to new subsection (5), which states— However, a person may apply for registration under this part, including short-term registration, even if the board has previously granted an application by the person for short-term registration. So new subsection (4) says that the short-term registration cannot be renewed and then subsection (5) immediately after automatically overrules it and says that these short-term registrations can be renewed. I am uncomfortable with the fact that legislation is so contradictory. I am not sure of the intent of the drafter in subsection (5), which seeks to overrule subsection (4) so that these special arrangements for short-term registration can, in fact, be rolled over to make a medium-term registration. Mr ROBERTSON: Very briefly, again the interpretation by the member opposite is not a correct one. Proposed new subsection (5) provides that in cases where, for example, a five-week period is granted in January, that does not rule out that applicant taking up a position as a locum in June or July, or some months after that. All that does is— Dr Flegg: What period of time will that happen? Mr ROBERTSON: There is no mandated period. Dr Flegg: It is just an automatic rollover? Mr ROBERTSON: No, it is up to the discretion of the board to renew based on the circumstances before it at that time. It is not an automatic rollover; it does require a reassessment, and that is appropriate. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 24, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time. 1210 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

CHILD SAFETY (CARERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 28 February (see p. 305). Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (8.10 pm): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution in the debate on the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. The opposition supports the intent of this bill and the reasons for its introduction. Provided some concerns the opposition has are addressed satisfactorily, we will support this legislation. The main purpose of this bill is to transfer the responsibility for the criminal history screening of carers from the Department of Child Safety to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, consistent with current blue card processes. In August last year the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act amended the Child Protection Act 1999 to have the chief executive of Child Safety obtain police information about potential carers. This bill repeals those provisions and transfers the criminal history screening to the commission. Essentially, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian will do a standard blue card check and provide that information to the chief executive. The chief executive will also check a number of other records that are not part of the blue card regime. These checks include checking the department’s own database concerning child protection histories, checking domestic violence records and checking traffic histories. Based on this information the chief executive will make a determination whether or not to grant a carer certificate or licence. From the outset let me say that the basic proposition that the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian undertake the criminal history searches is a very sensible one. However, there are a number of practical issues that I would like to take this opportunity to clarify with the minister. Whilst I fully appreciate the reason the chief executive will search the department’s own records regarding child protection histories, the minister is aware that on a number of occasions the records of the department leave a lot to be desired and are, in fact, sometimes wrong. I acknowledge that a lot of work has been done to improve the quality of the data that the department holds. I want the minister to ensure that the appeal process which will apply to matters other than the holding of a blue card, which I believe to be an appeal to the Children Services Tribunal, is a prompt and responsive service. I have some similar concerns regarding the chief executive’s consideration of domestic violence records. Domestic violence is a very serious issue in our society. Unfortunately, it is all too often a precursor to a number of child safety interventions. As the minister well knows and we all know, domestic violence issues are fraught with difficulties when it comes to making determinations. In every case there are at least two sides to the story. Unfortunately, it is not unknown for one party or the other to use the domestic violence process to try to gain advantage over the other party. If the chief executive examining a domestic violence record then makes a determination solely on the existence of a domestic violence order, the actual circumstances may be far more complex than just the existence of an order may indicate. This is another area that may result in appeals to the Children Services Tribunal. The chief executive is to access road safety traffic histories to also assist in determining whether an authority or licence is to be issued. The reasons for the chief executive wanting to be aware of a domestic violence history or child protection history is obvious, but access to road safety traffic histories is somewhat less obvious. Many queries on this issue have been raised with me. I can certainly acknowledge that a history involving drink driving may be of a great deal of interest, as would a history that indicated a total disrespect for the law and authority, say, repeat licence disqualifications together with offences involving unlicensed driving. But then again, that is totally different from a minor speeding fine, which many people do incur. What I believe this parliament deserves to know is what elements of a traffic history are to be taken into consideration by the chief executive and what weight is to actually be afforded to these elements. For example, to determine if a driver’s licence is to be suspended or cancelled for traffic offences a demerit points system is utilised. As I have said previously, I do not believe that a simple traffic offence would be grounds for an authority to be denied or cancelled, but it does beg the question: what would? It is particularly important for applicants to understand this in the first place, and there has to be equity in the way different cases are treated. I would ask the minister in his response to detail these arrangements and explain how the process is to be accountable. For example, are there to be published guidelines that the chief executive will make available to clarify what aspects of a traffic history are likely to lead to action being taken to deny or withdraw authorisation? Should this be left to a subjective assessment of a person’s traffic infringement we would be very concerned, and this could very certainly be grounds for appeal by applicants and, at the end of day, lead to probably far more unnecessary red tape. I note from the explanatory notes that it is proposed that the chief executive will establish a central unit to manage the personal history screening of applicants and to liaise with the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. My question to the minister is: will this unit be 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1211 established using existing staff or will there be additional staff? This is an important point, because we all know about the workload pressures on officers of the department. Even if the initiatives proposed by this legislation are sensible, if they amount to additional workload to be undertaken by existing staff then the opposition has very serious concerns. I noted recently the serious revelation in an article by Sean Parnell in the Australian of 6 April. He stated that there were more than 12,000 child abuse complaints being assessed by the department. He also noted that a third of these had not been allocated to a caseworker. This backlog was of such concern that the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian wrote to the chief executive and, as a consequence, the commission is intensifying its monitoring of the department. I specifically would like to know whether the 4,525 complaints that were yet to be allocated to an officer had been taken into consideration when the minister announced the reduction in case loads per officer. It came as no surprise to the opposition that the main area of concern is to the south and west of Brisbane. I will simply state that the opposition raised particular concern about workloads in these areas last year. It is our belief that the full consequences of these problems are yet to be revealed. On page 14 of the explanatory notes to this legislation in the section titled ‘Administrative Costs’ it is reported that the commissioner will experience an increase in applications for blue cards and that no additional costs are to be incurred by the government in the implementation of this legislation. Therefore, I can only assume that no additional resources have been allocated to either the commissioner or the department. I ask the minister to address specifically that issue in his reply, because that is a matter of major concern to us in terms of the implementation of this legislation. Mr Reynolds: You want more staff or less staff? Mrs MENKENS: More. More staff seems to be the common-sense answer when there is this backlog. I assure the minister that there is a serious concern about the existing delays in the processing of blue card applications. Currently, there is a major backlog. These delays can have serious consequences. It appears that the minister is well aware of those delays, because this legislation anticipates them. Provision has been made in the bill to enable an extension of the period allowed to approve a carer or a licensed care service to ensure that applications are not deemed refused because ‘the blue card application takes longer than normal to process’. I certainly acknowledge that many people contact our offices because of a backlog in the processing of blue card applications. Clause 2(1) inserts a number of transitional provisions. They relate to applications for blue cards that are still outstanding. I find it interesting that the government acknowledges that there can be and are delays in processing blue card applications and, therefore, it very sensibly gives itself some flexibility in this matter. I certainly acknowledge that this is rather tight legislation that sets up a lot of regulations and legalities. It is necessary for the government to allow itself that flexibility. However, I find it somewhat hypocritical that no such flexibility is afforded to people in the community who are required to hold those blue cards for their employment. For instance, child-care workers have their employment threatened when the renewal of their blue card is delayed. There are other applicants for blue cards, such as students. Quite a few students have come to my office about this matter. They are university students and other students who are undergoing work experience in child-care related industries. They have shown me documents that indicate that their blue card applications have been delayed by almost six months. Those delays are impacting seriously on their studies and their employment prospects. That is a concern. I certainly do not criticise the blue card process. I know the reasons for it. But a huge amount of red tape and bureaucracy has been set up that is causing a great deal of difficulty. With the introduction of this bill, we are presented with the government acknowledging, firstly, that there are delays in processing the applications for blue cards. We are certainly seeing that happen in the workforce. Secondly, the government acknowledges in this legislation that it will increase the number of applications. I do not know how many more blue card applications will require processing. I am interested to know if the minister can give a guideline as to how many people will be affected. Thirdly, we see in this legislation that the government is not going to allocate additional resources to accommodate this increase in workload. I ask the minister: what resources will be allocated to accommodate this extra processing? I know there is already concern about the existing workload of the workers in the department and that there is a major concern among staff about the impact of this legislation. I am surprised—and also very disappointed—that those workers’ union representatives are happy to sit by idly and allow this further burden to be placed on them. Mr Reeves: You support unions, do you? Mrs MENKENS: I support unions to assist their workers. I am very disappointed when I see unions not supporting their workers. That is the purpose of unions. I am sure every member in this House would agree with that. I am disappointed that we are not hearing from the union representatives about this burden that is being placed on their workers. Is it any wonder that so many workers wonder what they pay their union fees for? 1212 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

This bill also introduces categories of regulated employment and regulated businesses which includes licensed care services. Provision is made for adult members of a carer’s household to be permitted to undertake regulated employment after applying for a blue card but before a notice has been issued. A transitional period of six months will allow persons time in which to apply for a blue card. In relation to licensed care services, the nominees and directors of these services are also required to be screened. It will also be a condition of their licence that all persons engaged in relation to the provision of care services and all persons employed by that entity must also have a blue card. That is a sensible precaution. In preparing this legislation, the department must have provided the minister—and hopefully the commissioner—some estimates of the additional number of blue card applications that will need to be processed. Therefore, in the interests of open and accountable government I ask the minister if he could provide to the parliament details of this assessment. How many additional blue card applications per annum does he anticipate will result from this legislation? Further, can the minister assure this House that this additional workload will not have an adverse impact upon the process undertaken by either his department or the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian? In addition, this legislation proposes to extend the care agreement so that, with parental consent, the child can be placed in out-of-home care for no longer than 30 days. This extension is to permit protective and care needs to be assessed. The previous arrangement was that an initial assessment period could not exceed 30 days and could be extended for up to six months. This legislation proposes that if after 30 days the assessment has not been completed and the child cannot be returned safely to parents, the chief executive must apply to a court for a temporary assessment order or court assessment order. In view of the significant impact that these departmental decisions can have on a family, the opposition believes that this is a worthwhile amendment. This legislation permits a transitional period of a further two months for approved relative carers to become approved kinship-carers. This is a very important matter and one that I think is coming into play a lot more. This provision also acknowledges the practical implications of the time taken to undertake screening. Again, I note that no similar provision is allowed for other employees who require processing of their applications. Whilst the opposition acknowledges the need for members of the household of a foster-carer or kinship-carer, it is worth noting the difficulties associated with the practical administration of this provision. Just so that members of the House have an appreciation of the definition of an adult member of the household, I will describe what that means. It obviously includes any adult permanently residing at the house, but it also includes visitors on a regular basis, regardless of the length of time of the visit, who will be caring for a child. So it includes frequent visitors who, as a guide, stay overnight for eight consecutive days; for once a week for each week over a four-week period; for once a fortnight for each fortnight over an eight-week period; or for once a month for each month over a six-month period. That, I understand, is a guide. But many families have what I call a railway station house—there are a lot of people coming and going. People who are carers are community people who care for people, care for children and also care about others. Often these houses are like community houses. I understand why these regulations have been put in place. I mention these practice guidelines to give the House some idea of how invasive these requirements are. I understand that they are very sensible, and I understand the reason the department has to do this. It is very difficult. Mr Reynolds: The paramount consideration is the child. Mrs MENKENS: Absolutely. I certainly agree. I realise the ramifications of the red tape that exists, but I am also aware of the effort that has been put into looking at the many scenarios. I am aware that the minister and the department have looked at this, and I acknowledge that they have tried to look at all the different scenarios that can occur. It is a very difficult situation. I certainly understand the trauma involved in coming up with these provisions. In theory, and indeed in practice, if as a carer you have a relative from interstate or overseas who wants to come and visit, if they propose to stay just over a week this becomes difficult because they will have to apply for and obtain a blue card. It is going to set up quite a number of difficult situations. Unfortunately, given previous situations, the department’s hands are tied and I fully understand that. I am just indicating how very complex this gets and how many people are likely to be involved. The other aspect of this legislation is that we must be very careful that we are not creating a false sense of security. The reality is that just because someone has a blue card does not mean that they will never commit an offence. I know that we have bipartisan agreement on that. We are all fully aware of that. Nor is there any guarantee that people are who they say they are. That is also another very difficult situation. Despite all the advances in technology, we do not even have secure passports. In our community there are people living with false identities and that may well be associated with a past they are trying to escape. These are all part of the complex problems that I am aware the department has looked at and has to address. 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1213

I note that this bill now includes the principals of non-state schools as prescribed entities who can receive relevant child protection information and can share that information with other non-state schools and non-government organisations. My understanding is that this provision will complement existing arrangements regarding state schools and, again, is a sensible provision. I understand this will enable sharing of information between state schools and non-state schools. As I say, this is a very sensible situation. I was interested to note during previous debates the issue of the reliance of the department upon the confidentiality requirements of legislation to suppress criticism of its actions. I will acknowledge that the current minister is better than his predecessors in relation to this, but confidentiality presents a real problem for me as a shadow minister. I now see that, according to the last four sentences of the minister’s second reading speech, this bill also contains amendments so that the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian can provide reports to the Premier including details of individuals without breaching confidentiality. The reasoning for this in the minister’s own words I found rather interesting. He said— The improved information sharing provisions will ensure that the Premier of Queensland has the necessary information to make informed decisions about the legislation. Quite frankly, that does not explain to me at all why the Premier needs to be supplied with confidential information about individuals. If the Premier needs that confidential information about individuals to be able to make informed decisions about legislation, what about the rest of us? It is all very well for the minister to say that the information will be treated with confidence by the Premier and his staff in accordance with the legislation. If that information can be provided to him, what about the opposition? Families come to us aggrieved by decisions of the department but by law they are unable to give us the details. We then make representations on their behalf to the minister, and the minister and the department rely on the same confidentiality provisions to decline to provide us with a meaningful answer. I again make the point that if it is good enough to provide the information to public servants I do not see why it should be denied to an elected representative of the people of Queensland. I note that this bill also addresses an oversight whereby certain previous amendments did not include transitional provisions. I would like now to address a number of matters raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The committee has commented on the provisions of clause 13, which removes reference to the payment of a carers allowance by regulation and instead provides that the allowance be decided by the chief executive. The committee notes that the preference for regulations relates generally to fees and charges that can be subject to disallowance. As this previous regulation relates to payments to volunteers who provide carer services, the Statutory Instruments Act does not have the same relevance. The reason for this change is to permit greater flexibility for the chief executive given the frequent amendment of allowances and the large number of different items covered by the allowances. The problem with flexibility is that it raises issues of accountability and equity. I note that clause 14(2) provides that the amount of the allowance to be decided by the chief executive must be worked out under a written policy of the department about the payment of allowances to carers for a child’s care and maintenance. As this provision is effectively removing parliamentary overview from the equation, it would be appreciated if the minister would do the parliament the courtesy of tabling the policy document when it is developed. I note the amendment that the minister has circulated today and particularly the change of date from 30 April to 31 May. The minister did explain this at the briefing, and I understand the implications and necessity for the change. At this stage I also acknowledge and thank the minister, the director- general and his staff for their very open and frank discussions at the briefing. I did appreciate that. I acknowledge the minister and thank him very much for that. I note the change from 30 April to 31 May. We have discussed that and I understand it. I assume that the dates of 31 July 2004 to 31 July 2006, amended from 30 June, will be a follow-on from that specific situation. I understand why that has occurred. Certainly, we have no problems with that particular amendment. I have become increasingly disturbed by the huge number of child safety concerns raised by disaffected families who come into my office and other offices. Those concerns are being raised by foster-carers and advocates. Through the minister I am aware that the issues dealt with by the child safety department are highly emotive. Often they are very personally intrusive issues that distress families. However, I am concerned that an alarming number of issues are coming forward that seem to indicate overzealous knee-jerk reactions by staff in some situations. There are cases where parents are being victimised and when they complain that they are being victimised, they are told that they are troublemakers and are threatened with dire consequences. In several cases I have heard of threats such as, ‘If you complain, we will take your child off you.’ I do not know whether this is the result of overworked staff or an unhealthy culture of bullying in the department. I draw the minister’s attention to such allegations and the causes behind them. Mr Reynolds: There is an open and transparent complaints system. 1214 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

Mrs MENKENS: It is a concern. I have no doubt that the minister will share my concerns about those particular situations. As he knows, I bring many situations to his attention as they come to me. I acknowledge that the work done by the officers is extraordinarily challenging and I applaud them. Sometimes they face personal danger because of their work and many situations must cause them real distress. Some wonderful work has been done and is being done by many of those very loyal and professional officers. I acknowledge and applaud those efforts. However, every child is an individual. In our community every child’s safety and security is imperative. None can be allowed to fall by the wayside because of the inability of a department to address his or her case or the ineptitude of a department’s officers for whatever reasons. This morning the minister stated that he is spending $40 million on a capital works program for office space et cetera for child safety centres and zonal offices. As I said earlier, I agree with his comments about the excellent work that the child safety officers undertake. Certainly we all agree on that. However, where is the most need? Is it for new office space or for more child safety officers? Since when did bricks and mortar become more important than people? I would have been far happier if the minister had told us that he was appointing more staff to deal with the backlog of notifications rather than putting up new buildings. The opposition is also concerned about the implementation of the integrated client management service. I am aware that the execution of so many of the reforms within the CMC report is reliant upon this system. Amongst information technology professionals it is common talk that this implementation is way behind schedule and questions are being asked about the process. I challenge the minister to tell the parliament exactly the stage that this implementation is at and when it will be completed. In conclusion, the opposition supports the principles of this amending legislation. However, the opposition looks forward to the minister responding to the specific matters I have raised. Our major concern is that this additional workload is not being matched with the necessary resources to undertake the work. I genuinely ask the minister to address this matter before I can give a full undertaking to support this legislation on the floor of the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.44 pm): I rise to speak to the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. As the member for Burdekin has just very clearly identified, this is an important piece of legislation in more ways than one. I know that the minister has a very difficult task ahead of him in relation to this portfolio. It is probably the toughest portfolio in any government. When we are talking about child safety, we are probably talking about less than two per cent of the children of the state. This department was set up only a couple of years ago and it has been under the spotlight. Many people have commented on the dollars that have been sunk into it. A moment ago the member for Burdekin made reference to the provision of $40 million for new buildings. I concur with her sentiments that it is very important that we have more professional personnel to care for children in need. The minister might like to elaborate on that in his summary. The departmental officers work in very trying and difficult situations. I have seen the work that the officers do at Emerald, Longreach, Charleville and other places throughout my electorate. People tend to forget that it is not a nine-to-five job. Those officers continue to work when others have left work and begun other activities. We have to be more accommodating and understanding. We have to be more concerned about the real issues that daily confront the officers of the Department of Child Safety. One of my main concerns with this bill relates to the screening of people—seeking out possible criminal records or histories—to see if they are suitable to be associated with the care of children on a daily, weekly, monthly or even yearly basis. At this point, I have to pay tribute to foster-carers. They are the best people in our society. They work against the odds. They not only care for children but also love them dearly. It takes a special person to open up their hearts and the warmth of their own home to somebody who has been abused or neglected. We are not talking about infants, but kiddies of various ages. That makes those people all the more important. I put them on a pedestal. I know many of them, although often their names are not made public. The important fact is that such people live in every community, even though we may not always know who they are. It is very important that we respect the work that they do in conjunction with the officers of the Department of Child Safety. This evening I want to touch on the issue of the blue card for people who work in any area involving children. Before I came into parliament I was a pony club instructor. Now, I would have to have a blue card to do that job. Regardless of the job or the environment, it is a sad state of affairs when people whom we know we can trust have to have a blue card to do their job. However, that is the society that we have been bedded with and, unfortunately, we have to go with it. I ask that the minister takes on board this criticism, which involves an area that has not expedited the use of blue cards. To get an accurate account of who the cardholder is, we should look at placing a photograph on the card. My wife is a schoolteacher by profession and she is working at a small school in the electorate. Because she is not a permanent teacher employed by that school, she needs a blue card. The other day she showed me her blue card. I said, ‘Anybody could take that card. How do you identify the person named on the card if you don’t know them? It could be a complete stranger or somebody working in disguise in the department.’ 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1215

I believe that we should look closely at this situation. I know that it will slow the process down, but it will certainly make it more accurate. We need to keep out those who are not proper and fit persons to work with children, especially in the very fragile area of neglected children and children who are subjected to more abuse than the other 98 per cent of kiddies around the state. It is not easy. I know that the process will be long and that this will slow it down. However, I really think that we should consider it. The commission’s blue card screening process, as the minister stated in his second reading speech, has a high level of community acceptance and confidence. There is no doubt about that. However, as this is the prerequisite for working with and providing services to children, it is very important that we get this part of it right. That is why I emphasise it this evening. I trust that the minister will take on board my point in relation to a photograph on the blue card. Considering his portfolio of Child Safety, I think it is especially important. Most of us have photographs on our ID cards. Whether it is a driver’s licence or our parliamentary ID to allow us to move around the parliamentary precinct, they have to have a photograph. In relation to this fragile and vulnerable area, we must be more precise in how we go about things. A photograph is one way of tidying up the process. There is another issue that I want to touch on in relation to this legislation. A child is not placed in a carer’s control unless that person has been fully scrutinised or fully investigated by the chief executive. This is a good part of the legislation. However, we need appropriate people working within these areas, regardless of where they live in the state. The chief executive has his own employees who undertake those investigations. It is very important that that process is thorough and, as part of the legislation, is done in conjunction with police checks so that we get this aspect right. It is very important to remember that many of these children are taken from families with a criminal element and from domestic violence situations. These kiddies come out of families that certainly do not provide the love, care and protection that the majority of families do. It is very important to recognise that many of these children come from broken homes. We know what de facto relationships can be like from time to time. A lot of abuse and criminal activities come out of dysfunctional families. There must be a close working relationship between the chief executive and the Commissioner for Police to ensure that we have controls in place. At the end of the day, children—regardless of whose children they are—are our most important natural resource. They are sacred to the community and they are not negotiable. I do not care whose children they are; they are not negotiable. It is our right and our responsibility, regardless of who we are and whether or not we have children, to ensure that the environment in which they are placed is a safe environment. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. I take that interjection from the honourable member for Darling Downs. We must ensure that it is a safe, caring and loving environment and that those children are not subject to trauma, heartache and hurt. They have been removed from environments where they were subjected to unacceptable behaviour. In essence, this legislation has many very good aspects in relation to carers and adult members of their households, if carers have adult children or other family members living in their household. This is a very good piece of legislation. The minister now has a precaution in place to tighten up the provisions relating to the safety of the children by ensuring that people within that household also have a blue card. That is a very important function. In many communities there are many people—as in the minister’s electorate, and he knows what I refer to—who fall into this category. It is very important that we get this absolutely right. I have said tonight, and I will say it again, that this is not a political issue. I trust that we will have bipartisan support from every member of this parliament. We must make certain that precautions are put in place to create an environment where children—wherever our children are and whoever’s children they are—can go about their daily business in safety, whether in the playground, at school, at home or walking down to the shop for mum or dad. I think it is very important that criminal checks be done on people so that we get that aspect of it right. It is very important that the Department of Child Safety and the Department of Police and Corrective Services have a very close working relationship. Then the people who do the wrong thing can be monitored, watched and brought to justice, and we can make absolutely certain that we get it right with the placement of children in foster care. There is another fact I want to touch on quickly. The chief executive has to undertake checks to ensure that we have the right people examining the suitability of foster-carers. I ask the minister to elaborate on who might undertake those checks and where those people will be placed. Will they be from Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville or where? It is important that we do not place too heavy a burden on the already overtaxed personnel in the field, who are doing an exemplary job. I will give members an example of what these people do. A couple of years ago a young lady was working with the Department of Child Safety in Emerald. In fact, she is still there. She had to travel out to Winton to pick up an infant child and bring that child back to foster care in Emerald. We are talking about a distance of 600 kilometres. She had to pull up in Barcaldine, probably at about 10 o’clock at night, to 1216 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 feed that child and then continue on for another 300 kilometres to Emerald, probably arriving there at 1 or 2 o’clock in the morning. That is the sort of work that these people do, against the odds. This young woman—she was only 20 or 21—was caring for a child and driving in the middle of the night. That is the work that these people do. It is all very well for people to criticise them, but they are doing a damn good job. We have to ensure that we assist them to do a better job by putting more people in the field—as the member for Burdekin just said—and making certain that the personnel who work in the area of child safety are happy and comfortable in their work environment. If they do not want to get out of bed in the morning and go to work, then we know that there is something desperately wrong in their workplace. Mr Reynolds: They are real community heroes. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. We should be shouldering our responsibilities more by giving those people the credit and the acclamation that is due to them from the community because, by God, they do an excellent job. One further aspect I wish to touch on is the material obtained by the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian monitors through the police commissioner. The minister might make mention of this in his summary. In relation to the data that is obtained and recorded about family situations, how is it recorded, how is it monitored and how accurate is it? You record that data for your records and some of it is recorded for police records. Is there a network between the police department and the minister’s department to make certain— Mr Reynolds: The commission for children and young people? Mr JOHNSON: Yes. Mr Reynolds: Absolutely. Mr JOHNSON: It is synchronised? Mr Reynolds: Yes. Mr JOHNSON: Good. That is an aspect that I wanted to question the minister on. Another issue is in relation to section 143(1) of the Child Protection Act 1999, which provides that if the chief executive fails to decide an application from an authority within 90 days, the application is deemed refused. In many areas, as is the case in the area that I represent, there is the tyranny of distance and a shortage of people to work in these areas of professional care that we are talking about tonight. The minister has made mention of a crossover time for the application and the processing of the card. Are people going to be penalised if the card is not processed where there is a shortage of these people? The point I am making is that it is paramount that we keep these people in the field. Where the processing of the card is not expedited and we have a limbo period of a week or 10 days, I would like the minister to clarify what the situation will be with those personnel in question. If such persons apply to renew their blue card and the existing blue card expired before that date, will the process be expedited? That is the point I make. The important factor here is are those people going to be notified by the department that they are not going to be removed from their position of trust? It is important that we, as members of parliament and people who are leaders in the community, continue to monitor and understand the situation of child safety. As I say, it is the responsibility of us all, it is the responsibility of those people out there in the community who do care, and it is one thing that we can be proud of as Australians. We live in a country which is rich with resources and everything one can possibly think of, but we have this element of decay in our society that none of us are proud of. One thing that I hope and pray I see before I die is all children in this state and in this country living in a safe environment; an environment that we can be proud that they can grow up and be educated in and be the good, profitable citizens that we want them to be. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (9.01 pm): At the outset I join with and support those concluding remarks of the honourable member for Gregory. I believe that the intent behind this bill is precisely what he is hoping that we will achieve here tonight and in the future in terms of legislation dealing with the safety of children in Queensland. As I have indicated, this is a significant piece of legislation and Minister Reynolds in particular is to be congratulated, as is his department and supporters, because there really is nothing more important than the safety of our children in Queensland. The Beattie government, as members will recall, went to the last election on the promise of improving child safety in Queensland and this bill is another fulfilment of that raft of legislation dealing with improved safety and protection of our children. I appreciate how important child safety is and one must always sympathise with parents who are concerned about their children’s health and wellbeing, in particular those children who are in care. One can imagine the anguish that parents in that situation ought, and I am sure do, feel. I am confident that the government and the departmental officers make decisions with the best interests of those children in mind. 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1217

This amendment bill transfers the screening of criminal histories of people who propose to care for or who are likely to associate with a child whilst that child is in care from the Department of Child Safety to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. This transfer means that the commission is able to gather all relative information with regard to a person’s history. This hopefully will lead to the making of fair, just and consistent decisions on their ability to care for children based on precedent and expertise. What it also means is that the commission is able to maximise the resources available to it. It also means that potential carers receive a more standard approval process. This bill indicates further that the Queensland government continues to make Queensland children safer. In my own electorate of Toowoomba North and Toowoomba generally, the electorate shares in that part of the record government investment of $40 million recently announced by the minister. I place on record my thanks and the thanks of many people in Toowoomba to the minister for travelling around the state and explaining what is going on with respect to that $40 million investment. His visit was very well received, in particular by the people involved in child safety. I appreciate his personal support. What it means to Toowoomba is that two new child safety services centres will be constructed in 2007. These centres will provide areas for children and foster-carers, as well as secure office space and family conference facilities. These resources are necessary for a better community and safer children and are now being built in Toowoomba. This is another example of investment by the government in the future of Toowoomba itself as well as, of course, the more important investment in the children of Queensland generally and Toowoomba in particular. I wish to mention three points in conclusion. The first is that in Toowoomba a suspected child abuse and neglect team has been established. This team, I am assured, will be a step forward in achieving the goal that we all should share—the goal of a society without child abuse and a community where no child is ever neglected. That should always be our vision and our aim. I commend the government for that move. Secondly, I also place on record my thanks to the minister for addressing the child safety officer shortage that we have suffered in Toowoomba over the last 12 to 18 months. He made sure a task force came in to pick up the slack and deal with the large number of notifications which skyrocketed over the last couple of years because of various factors, including the success of the implementation of government policy making the community more aware of child abuse. This, of course, has the unfortunate result, in a sense, of creating more work. That task force came in and helped to clear up the backlog. But as well as that, the staffing level itself has been increased significantly and I appreciate that. I know the member for Toowoomba South has made representations and comments about that in the past. I am sure all members on the Darling Downs are grateful for that work that has been done. Finally, as a lawyer I make mention of the fact that increasingly in legislation of this nature, but also in other less important legislation in the sense of the subject matter of it, there seems to be little differentiation between the word ‘charge’ and ‘conviction’. I can understand that it is important that knowledge be gained of charges that have been brought unsuccessfully where children are involved. But as a lawyer I am also conscious of—and I would ask the minister and the government generally always to take into account—the fundamental principle of the rule of law which is the presumption of innocence. That is also an important consideration and something that should not be lost sight of. I am very pleased that the minister has presented this legislation. I reiterate the congratulations that I offered earlier and look forward, as I think all members of parliament do, to working with him in his important task. Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (9.09 pm): On reading the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006, the first impression I had was that there is absolutely no reference to the Aboriginal and Islander communities. In fact, neither word ‘Aboriginal’ nor ‘Islander’ is mentioned anywhere in the legislation. I ask the minister to make a comment on that and whether it is considered that Aboriginal and Islander communities would fall directly under the provisions of this act and that everything in it would pertain to them. If they do, then I would have very serious concerns. Any of us who have been involved in Aboriginal and Islander communities would realise that, especially in terms of foster care, there are certain differences between both Aboriginal and Islander communities and our own European communities and that these differences need to be understood. Just to quote an example, both the minister and I would understand that it might be easy to remove children from a home situation on Palm Island and bring them back to Townsville for the purpose of foster care because there would be many relations on the mainland of those people who live on Palm Island. However, it would be a completely different situation on the Lockhart or Mapoon settlement, where those children cannot be removed from those communities because it would not be wise to do so. There is a need for special people who are trained in the culture of Aboriginal and Islander people and who would understand what is the situation with foster care in relation to many of those children. 1218 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

The minister would also understand that it is still acceptable within an Aboriginal community for a family with four or five children to allow two children to live with another family. Those sorts of things within the culture of those families need to be understood. When I was the minister in this particular portfolio, which was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do, I found it most difficult to deal with the very delicate situations within those communities when European people did not understand the cultures of those people. Therefore, some differences would have to occur. I find it hard to understand how legislation could be designed to cover everything, including our own communities and the Aboriginal communities. Mr Reynolds: That is all covered by the previous legislation with Indigenous recognised entities and Indigenous people working with the child safety officers. Mr LINGARD: I note that this is the third part of it, and I appreciate that. I wonder whether any studies have been completed. Some people were looking at the foster care situations within those communities and were trying to prepare reports and I wonder whether something very special has been done. I wonder who is making the assessments within those Aboriginal communities. I know that within the Department of Communities there are now special assessors. Now that this role has been taken over by the children’s commissioner I wonder whether the department is doing most of the assessments itself or whether the minister is still allowing outside assessors to do many of these assessments on foster care applications. I wonder whether the blue card applications are very similar to the Disability Services Act. In applying for a blue card a person does have to outline their criminal offences. I refer back to the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act, which was passed in 1986 under which a person does not have to make an employer aware of something which occurred more than 10 years previous if it was not a major indictable offence such as rape, armed robbery, drug trafficking, sex offences or fraud. Under the rehabilitation of offenders act we did not require a person to notify those offences which occurred more than 10 years ago. Mr Reynolds: We will get the whole of that from the Queensland Police Service. The Queensland Police Service will work with the commission and give all that detail to the commission for the blue card. Mr LINGARD: In the case of a person who, within a home situation, is over 18 years old and is not one of the direct applicants to be a foster-carer, will that person’s history have to be related? Mr Reynolds: Yes, it will. It will be because they will need a blue card and they will go through exactly the same test. The Queensland Police Service will give to the commission all of the details regarding that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! We will have an opportunity for this during the committee stage. Now is not the appropriate time to provide the details. Mr LINGARD: I appreciate the comments. I would also then ask the minister: if it is relevant for those people who are over 18, why is it not relevant for those people who are over 15? Certainly those children who are over 15 who are in a home situation, especially in Aboriginal and Islander communities, would be those who might be considered necessary to be checked. Mr Reynolds: We will have that through child protection. Mr LINGARD: What are the chances for rehabilitation of those who have committed offences as a 16-year-old and reach 35 or 40 years to become worthwhile foster care parents? I am also concerned about the complete removal of what might be considered institutional care for Aboriginal communities and for our own communities in exercises like BoysTown. At one stage BoysTown had 84 children in rehabilitation services. The most depressing thing I ever encountered as a minister was to receive a call at half past six on a Friday night from a young officer saying that they had a child who has probably been through 20 houses and what would they do with that child for the weekend? I know that too many times the minister’s department has had to put them in motel situations. Surely that is not suitable and surely the government must at some time come to a decision and say, ‘There need to be places—not necessarily BoysTown—which are more appropriate to locate that child over a weekend.’ I notice that coming through BoysTown at present there are some services which might be regarded as minor institutional care. However, I would hope that this department is not going to say that, because of some of the things that occurred in some of the institutions supposedly many years ago, there is absolutely no intention to return to care which was provided by BoysTown and some of those carers outside Cairns who looked after some of the children in the Aboriginal and Islander communities. With those few words, I would like to hear the minister’s comments again about exactly what is happening in Aboriginal and Islander communities regarding foster care. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.17 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. There is no doubt that this is an attempt to improve the greater 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1219 protection and safety of children under the care of the state government. I note that in the minister’s second reading speech the minister said— The commission’s blue card screening process has established a high level of community acceptance and confidence as a prerequisite for working with, or providing services to, children. He then goes on to talk about how it is, accordingly, appropriate that the blue card be extended to children in care under the Child Protection Act 1999. He further says in his second reading speech— In the short term, Queensland and interstate criminal, domestic violence and traffic history checks of the proposed carer and their adult household members and an assessment of the person’s suitability will be considered by the chief executive when approving provisionally approved carers. In the longer term, those carers and adult members of their household will need to apply for blue cards as part of the substantive application to be a foster or kinship carer. I have read the bill and I have listened to other speakers, in particular the contributions of the member for Beaudesert and the member for Gregory. The member for Gregory made the great comment that there really should be a photo to go with the blue cards. What we see in the legislation is an attempt to put in place more checks and balances in relation to people who are going to be the primary carers of children under the responsibility of the state government. I ask the question, as a number of grandparents have raised with me when they have come to see me during the short time I have been a member of parliament, about the natural parents’ ability and capacity to be the ongoing parent of their grandchild when the mother of the child is a heroin addict and the baby is born with an addiction to heroin. We talk about the fitness of parents to be parents. This legislation is setting out a whole range of new steps where people have to demonstrate their capacity and fitness to be a carer of a child. I question the consistency of not just the state government but also the federal government when it comes to the issue of responsible parenting in Australia and Queensland. I will be very interested to hear the minister’s response to my comments in his reply. There are rights and responsibilities associated with being a parent. To think that mothers are bringing into this world babies who have addictions to drugs such as heroin and other addictions simply because they were not prepared to be a responsible mother or parent really raises the question about how fair dinkum this state government is in making sure we are consistent and send a very strong and clear message to all parents in Queensland that it is not simply one’s right to bring a child into this world but also a very serious responsibility. That requires mothers not taking drugs or smoking during the crucial months of pregnancy, as I understand it. I would be very interested to hear the minister’s comments about what he has been doing about this issue at the ministerial forums—that is, when he meets with his fellow ministers and the federal minister. He is looking at extending the responsibilities in this bill. He is endeavouring to extend this responsibility to parents to ensure that they are fit and proper to be the full-time guardians and carers of children. I really look at all the checks and balances that we are requiring of foster-parents and wonder what would happen if we tried to apply some of these same checks and balances to people in the community who are raising their own children. I will be interested to hear the minister’s response to that. I will be interested to listen to the contribution of other members during the debate and also in the consideration in detail stage. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.21 pm): The safety of children is the basis of all policy in the Department of Child Safety, and this amendment bill will put additional safeguards in place to ensure that these most vulnerable children are not subjected to yet more abuse. I am sure that most of our foster-carers are good people and take every care with their young charges, but these measures are yet another avenue to ensure they are in a safe and caring environment. These amendments are about further strengthening the child safety system by bringing all foster- and kinship-carers into the blue card system administered by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. Last year this parliament passed amendments which expanded the criminal history information that the Department of Child Safety could obtain and consider when deciding whether to approve or renew someone to be a foster- or kinship-carer. It will transfer the criminal history screening for foster-carers to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian and, most significantly, require all adult members of the carer’s household to be screened and issued with a blue card. The Department of Child Safety will need to be satisfied that applicants and the adults in their households have been issued with blue cards before granting the applicant a certificate of approval as a carer. This will apply to all adults who sign the application form who are members of the household when the application for carer is made. Adults who may join the household after the application is made will still be required to apply for a blue card, but this will not delay the decision of the department as this is often required as a matter of urgency. In the case of licences to provide a licensed care service, the Department of Child Safety must be satisfied that the nominee and any directors have blue cards before issuing a licence. As a matter of policy, licences will be issued to residential licensed care services subject to a condition that the licensee does not employ a person who does not have a blue card. For shared family care services there will be a condition that the licensee does not employ a person to support an approved carer unless 1220 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 the person has a blue card. It is a known fact that people who wish to abuse the trust of children have in the past tried to position themselves where they have access to vulnerable children. These measures provide added protection. If an applicant is refused a certificate of approval or a licence by the Department of Child Safety because a person required to have a blue card does not, there will be no right of review of the department’s decision. This is because the person refused a blue card has a right of review in most cases to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. Foster- and kinship-carers and their household members will be classed as volunteers under the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act and will not be charged an application fee for blue cards. The act prohibits volunteers from commencing regulated employment until they have their blue card. This bill amends that provision to exempt household members from that requirement. This means that people can apply for a blue card and join a household and the Department of Child Safety may obtain their criminal history at that point to ensure they do not pose a risk to the child. The amendments also allow for children to be placed, in emergency situations, with provisionally approved carers. This category of carers includes people who have applied to be foster-carers or kinship-carers but have not had their application fully processed at a time when the department needs to place a child with them in an emergency situation. When needing to place a child in an emergency situation, the Department of Child Safety will retain the power to obtain criminal histories of provisionally approved carers and their household members but will not require them to possess a blue card due to the emergency situation and the impracticability of waiting for a blue card application to be processed. However, they will require a blue card to be approved on their substantive application to be a foster- or kinship-carer. This is a practical, common-sense package of amendments that provides enhanced safety for children and young people in care. It is a positive step towards establishing a minimum threshold for the screening of employees and volunteers involved in government service delivery. Logan and its surrounding areas have been granted $21 million for the protection of the most vulnerable of our children. This says one thing. It says that we have many young people and children who are in very at-risk situations. I think that is a great indictment on our community. I commend those who come into the foster caring and kinship situation. They are true heroes in our community. We know that the role that they play is not easy. It is often a very difficult one. It is heroes like these who are going to really mend the hurts in these young children. I wish them all well. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.28 pm): I rise to speak to the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. At the outset, I add my voice to that of other speakers who have paid tribute to our foster-carers and other carers in a number of categories of support for the work that they do. It is certainly a demanding job. The children whom they foster, even through kinship arrangements, have often been through experiences that make caring for them a challenge. Yet those who accept responsibility to nurture and love and care for these children do so wanting, in the main, the very best for them. There is only a small number of people who volunteer in these areas for whom this legislation is required. Tragically, it is because there is that small element of predators that we continue to have to revisit the issue of blue card legislation. I also place on the record an acknowledgment of the work of the officers of the Department of Child Safety. They work in an area in which the incidence of good news is often few and far between. Often, they are the bearers of bad news and constantly need to be encouraged. Certainly, in the main I have valued working with the staff of the Department of Child Safety and previously the department of families, particularly the staff of those departments who have been in Gladstone for a long time. They are certainly wonderful people to work with. Child abuse is abhorrent. I do not think there is any blunter way of putting it. As I have said, the need for this legislation has become evident because it has been found that in some cases the perpetrators of that violence against children were in a position of trust and they abused that trust. They have been in a position of succour and nurture of those children and they have abused those responsibilities. I am not arguing about the need for strict legislation that protects as much as possible the environment in which children are placed. However, I believe it must be restated that the blue card process will not magically remove any risk posed to children. Some people who have a blue card still could, for whatever reason, decide to abuse their position of trust. There are problems with the blue card system and I want to raise a small number of them today. I have had a parade of contacts to my office about renewals for blue cards taking a significant length of time. Some carers are being put in a position in which their role is at risk because they have not received a renewal of their blue card. I must place on the record that representatives of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian have been very good to deal with in terms of liaising with them about hold-ups in the blue card process and the potential implications of those delays to the applicants. Some of the people affected are day care providers with the Salvation Army and Anglicare. 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1221

The delay in the renewals of those people’s blue cards has meant that they were not able to provide day care. In some cases, those people had not received their renewals by the Thursday or the Friday of one week and their card expired on the Monday of the following week. As I said, the people I have dealt with at the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian have been wonderful in trying to address that problem. However, the fact is that it takes six to eight weeks to process a blue card application. The introduction of further categories of people requiring a blue card—and I am not arguing about the validity of introducing additional categories of people requiring blue cards—has placed on the commission and others involved an additional workload that they are not coping with well. They are doing a brilliant job, but they are not coping well. I would like to hear from the minister about the additional resources that will be made available to the department to deal specifically with the processing and renewals of blue cards to ensure that they are done in a thorough and timely manner. The thoroughness of the process must not be diminished. More resources have to be allocated so that that process is undertaken in a timely manner. This legislation will require all foster-carers and kinship-carers to obtain a blue card. I have already said that child abuse is abhorrent. We need to protect our young people as much as possible. Children are vulnerable and trusting. Once they are in the care of a person, if that person abuses their trust, sometimes it is some time before that abuse is uncovered. Sometimes the children are unable to articulate what has happened to them because they have either been threatened or they are just too young to realise that the behaviour they experienced is abhorrent. I wonder whether the minister has undertaken any assessment of the possible reduction in the number of individuals and families who may offer their services as foster-carers or, to a lesser extent, kinship-carers—not because they do not want to go through the process but because they see it as an additional layer of work. Kinship-carers particularly are emotionally bound up in a situation that requires them, as a family member, to step into the breach and say, ‘I want to be considered as a kinship-carer.’ Has there been any assessment undertaken of the possible reduction in the number of people coming forward to fill that role not because they have a criminal record but because the process is becoming fairly labour and paperwork intensive? The experience of my office has been that the process for the Department of Child Safety to assess a kinship-carer applicant takes between six and nine months. So a child who is taken out of a home situation and put into departmental care will still experience a significant period of disruption and dislocation before they are placed into the care of an aunt or uncle, a grandmother or a grandfather. During this time these kids, who have already been traumatised for whatever reason—whether it is abuse, or whether they have been in an unsuitable or inappropriate home—are being abused again by the process, albeit less seriously. So I seek from the minister information about the resources he is proposing to provide to the department in terms of processing these blue card applications and renewals. What assessment is being done on the impact that this process has on the number of people who put themselves forward to be foster-carers or kinship-carers? These foster-carers and kinship-carers, particularly foster-carers, are usually people who have a great compassion for the community. There is a small recompense for the job they do, but it is gobbled up in the cost of having a child living in their home. Will they be required to pay the application fee for the blue card? The care those people provide is not a job. If the minister could reply to that query, that would be wonderful. Those people should not have to pay when they are offering their services so generously to either family members or the community at large. I also wish to raise another matter with the minister that he may have already given some consideration to. Since the introduction of the blue card, quite a number of organisations in Queensland have a blanket requirement that, irrespective of the task a person volunteers for, that person must have a blue card. I received a complaint from somebody who went to the Kirra surf-lifesaving titles. It was relayed to me that parents who came to watch their children race were not allowed past a roped-off area unless they could produce a blue card. I have no doubt that Surf Life Saving’s motives were honourable. The organisation wanted to protect itself and to ensure that nothing untoward occurred. I received a phone call from a parent who attended this event but who did not have a blue card because they had no reason to have a blue card. That person wanted to watch their child at this event and wanted a reasonably close vantage point so they that could yell, ‘Come on, Johnny.’ That person was not allowed to do that. They were made to stay behind a roped area because they could not produce a blue card. I would be interested in the minister’s response to that situation, because it seems that some organisations are imposing on volunteers a blanket requirement for a blue card irrespective of the area of volunteering and they are using the state government’s legislation as the reason for insisting on that requirement. I would be interested to know whether complaints have been made to the minister in relation to that matter. Along with all the other members who have spoken to this bill—and the minister himself said this—I agree that the primary consideration is the child. Nobody could possibly argue with that. It is more than a sentiment; it is a principle. However, in achieving that principle, we have to keep not in balance but at least in mind the fact that, where there is an obligation to have this extra layer in terms of applications, there will be those who will say, ‘It’s all too hard; I’m not going to offer my services.’ Again, 1222 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006

I am not saying that there should be a decrease in the vetting process of people; I just bring that matter to the minister’s attention, because people are saying to me, ‘I won’t be getting into that. It’s all too hard now.’ In an ideal world, grown-ups would act like the responsible adults they are supposed to be. They would act like the nurturers and carers of their own children and, indeed, other people’s children the way they are supposed to. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where there are mongrels, both men and women, who are prepared to take advantage of their disproportionate position of power and use that to hurt children in any number of ways. On that basis, I support the minister in all of his attempts to provide better protection for children as they grow up in our community. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (9.39 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill, which transfers the criminal history checks for carers and others from the Department of Child Safety to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, is an important plank in the child protection reform program. The bill also introduces new provisions for suspension and cancellation of approvals to care. If the commission suspends a foster-carer’s or kinship-carer’s blue card or if the person withdraws their application for a blue card—for example, when applying for a renewal of a blue card— the chief executive must suspend their certificate of approval. If the commission subsequently cancels the carer’s blue card, the child safety department must similarly cancel the carer’s certificate of approval after their right to seek a review by the Children Services Tribunal in relation to the commission’s decision has expired or their review is dismissed. Persons whose blue cards are cancelled because they have been convicted of an excluding offence have no right of review. If a household member’s blue card is suspended and they remain in the household, the child safety department must suspend the carer’s approval. If the commission subsequently cancels the person’s blue card, the department will have the discretion to cancel the carer’s authority after the household member’s right to seek a review of the commissioner’s decision by the Children Services Tribunal. If the household member in question leaves the carer’s household then the department must not cancel the carer’s authority in these circumstances. In the case of a licence for a residential care service, the requirements will be similar to those for household members. The department must suspend the licence if the blue card of a nominee or director is suspended but must not do so if the person leaves the licensed care service. If they remain and their blue card is subsequently cancelled, the chief executive has the discretion to cancel the licence after the person’s right to seek a review through the Children Services Tribunal but must not cancel the licence if the person leaves the service. The current discretionary power of the chief executive of the child safety department to suspend or cancel a licence will remain with an amendment to add to the discretion in circumstances other than those relating to the status of a person’s blue card. This bill also includes additional notification obligations for people associated with licensed care services. Employees will be required to notify the nominee if they apply for a blue card but later withdraw their application or if they have to reapply for a blue card because there has been a change in their criminal history. Directors will be required to notify the nominee of the same matters and, in addition, if they are charged or convicted of an excluding offence as defined by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act. Nominees will then be obliged to notify the child safety department of this information from employees and directors and, in relation to themselves, of the same information as directors are obliged to report. This bill contains a retrospective provision whereby all existing carers, household members and persons associated with licensed care services at the time these amendments commence will have six months to apply for a blue card. Applications to become a carer or for a licence that is being processed when the amendments commence will be included in the retrospective provision. This bill further enhances the protection of Queensland’s most vulnerable children and young people. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (9.43 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. As a broad general principle, the legislation errs on the side of caution and comes down in favour of the child so that the child’s safety comes first, and that is why I am supporting this legislation. I have previously spoken on the current situation of child carers in the Bundaberg-Burnett area, making this House aware of comments made to me by private psychologists. I feel it is necessary to reiterate what these professionals have told me in relation to background checks of carers looking after children. I think the minister has paid attention to those comments made to me by psychologists that I have spoken about previously in this chamber. This bill streamlines the process of attaining blue cards for carers. The psychologists I have previously spoken to are concerned by the department’s inaction saying that in past months and years it did not always follow through properly and was cutting corners in the process. In the past, instead of carrying out thorough background checks before a child is placed in a 19 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1223 home, there were a lot of cases where children were being put in homes with carers who had not had full background checks completed. I compliment the minister because this legislation, we hope, will streamline that process and stop that happening. Psychologists believe that this was happening quite frequently, especially in an area like Bundaberg-Burnett where there is a shortage of carers available. The system is under pressure to find carers for these children. The department was tempted to take the risk and place those children who have nowhere to go with a carer prior to their background checks being completed. The department apparently labelled this as risk management. You can call it whatever you like but it is still cutting corners, which has the potential to be very dangerous for the children. As I have said before, it all comes back to the fact that we do not have enough adequately trained and approved carers. That is a major problem in regional Queensland—in particular, in the Bundaberg-Burnett region—and that needs to be addressed. The government, as the shadow minister has pointed out, has admitted that there are delays in processing background checks for blue cards, and creating an additional provision in the legislation that enables an extension of the period allowed to approve a carer or licensed care service will ensure applications are not refused due to the length of time it takes to approve these applications. I would hope that these background checks are taking a fairly lengthy time to approve because those checks need to be thorough. With those few words, I support the legislation. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (9.46 pm): I rise to support the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill transfers the criminal history background checks for foster-carers and kinship-carers, adults living in their households and the nominee and any directors of residential care services from the Department of Child Safety to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. In addition to establishing the front-end blue card process for these people who will have children placed in their care, this bill introduces new provisions for suspension and cancellation of approval to care. We need to ask ourselves why this sort of legislation needs to be introduced at all. Some people try to lay the blame for children being abused at the feet of the state or that nebulous concept ‘society’. But we need this sort of legislation and the state needs to step in because families have failed their own children. Most abuse—and there is some debate as to whether it is 85 per cent to 95 per cent—occurs in apparently normal households by adults in apparently normal heterosexual relationships who live in apparently normal suburban homes. Although great media attention is given to ‘stranger danger’ and abuse within institutions, these latter groups are responsible for a relatively small percentage of child abuse. Let me state clearly that any abuse by strangers and within institutions is to be abhorred, but we must not be blinded by the misunderstandings of where most abuse occurs. It occurs in apparently normal families. The state has to step in when these family relationships fail. It is unfortunate that the greatest media attention leads to the understanding that strangers or people not known to the child are the major abusers. In most cases the abuser is known to the child and in the significant majority of cases it is a relative or adult carer. I congratulate all who work in this difficult area. It is very stressful and emotionally draining. During my time in parliament I have come to know a number of dedicated professionals in the field. I congratulate all officers on the work that they do. The Beattie government is the first government in the history of Queensland to take seriously the safety of Queensland’s vulnerable children and young people. Since this government embarked on a wide-ranging reform program just over two years ago, I have been either amused or astounded at the attacks from some opposite. It is interesting and unfortunate that, despite the opposition claiming to offer bipartisan support for the reforms, they have taken a number of opportunities to attack the department of Child Safety and the magnificent work undertaken each and every day by our dedicated child protection professionals. We are lucky that the professionals working in our department are so committed, because it must be hard for them to go about their traumatic work against the background of continuing attacks from the opposition and others in society. Now we all know the truth. Mr Johnson: Who is attacking here? Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I take that interjection. This legislation has received support from both sides. If someone has had a problem, they have explained the issues that they believe need to be supported in order to protect our children. However, when an issue arises about a difficulty that has occurred with a child, opposition members have been quoted in the media as saying that the government has failed and that the work is not being done. As others on this side have pointed out, by establishing a department of child safety and by making the notifications mandatory, the number of notifications of abuse has risen. Part of the difficulty is that the case loads have increased—not because there is more abuse but because the abuse is being notified. If a problem is actually identified and a process of reporting is put in place, notifications will increase dramatically. That happens with sexual abuse and child abuse. I do not 1224 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 19 Apr 2006 have a folder of media cuttings with me, but I know that in the past few years, when so much money and effort has been put into personnel, training and offices for this department, I have been disappointed that criticisms have come from people opposite. Members have heard before about plans for major injections of new staff, officers and resources across the state. While some may criticise the reform agenda, they know that the children in their electorates are better protected as a result of the Beattie government’s reform than they ever were during the sad and sorry days of some previous coalition governments. I will come to that in a minute. The amendment before the House today further adds to the historic child protection reforms that this government has implemented over the past two years. The safeguards that are in place for children and young people in the care of the state are better now than at any time in our history. The child safety system has been substantially overhauled and receives much greater priority than in the past, not least during the time of the former Borbidge government, which relegated these matters to the bottom of the list of its priorities. I said I would make reference to that for the members opposite who queried my comments before. I ask them to look at two things. If they look at the budget allocation and priorities given in this House in terms of legislation and work done, they cannot say that child protection had a high priority. I am sorry that the member for Beaudesert is not in the chamber, because I would like to say this directly to him. When he was the minister, my wife worked in an administration position of fairly low responsibility within the then department of family services. Two departmental social workers from Brisbane called together a group of their associates because they were unhappy with what was being said and done. The minister and the director-general, the Rev. Allan Male, came to the meeting. The officers were told, ‘As a department, your job is to keep this department off the front page of the Courier- Mail.’ They were told that their work was now a PR exercise to stop things hitting the front page of the Courier-Mail. They were not given the support, the encouragement or the direction that they needed to protect children in what was then the department of family services and Aboriginal and islander affairs. They were told that their job was to kick the department’s activities off the front page of the metropolitan paper. The message was very clear. This is not a criticism of the shadow minister, but she may like do some research into who left the department at that stage. She would find that extremely dedicated and long-serving members of the department went interstate because they could not tolerate the directions that they were being given, or the tone and the practices within that department. I believe that the Rev. Allan Male was a very good-hearted person who did a lot for some people. However, as a senior administrator—a director-general—he did not have the skills, the administrative abilities or the policy concepts to run that department. He was a PR person and that is why he was appointed. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: He was a political appointment. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I take the interjection from my colleague. The Shaftsbury Centre is near her electorate. Some terrible things happened in terms of funding when the Rev. Allan Male was the director-general. The Shaftsbury Centre received funding in a manner that was totally unaccountable. In the two brief years that the coalition was in government, by its words and its actions it proved that it gave this area nowhere near the priority that this government has given it. We could have made it difficult for the Forde inquiry to operate. This government did not do that. This government gave that inquiry everything it needed to open up the festering sore of child abuse and expose it to the glaring light of public scrutiny. This government then allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to bring about better protection for our kids. In the 15 years that I have been a member of this place I have seen very little evidence in terms of question time, notices of motion or policy alternatives to suggest that the opposition supports children. Members opposite have supported legislation brought in by this minister and his two predecessors, but in terms of asking questions of our ministers and raising policy issues they have failed. From listening to the questions that they raise and the issues that they want to speak about, it seems to me that members opposite are more interested in protecting cattle and wheat crops than protecting children. Members opposite talk up law and order issues and call for bigger and bigger penalties and sentences for crimes, yet when it comes to strengthening families to prevent crimes against children we hear no questions asked of ministers, no issues raised and no motions put. The Borbidge government expected departmental officers to deliver child safety services on the smell of an oily rag. A mere $65 million was budgeted for child safety. The current government gives vulnerable children and young people a much higher priority, with over $400 million being spent in this area. This government has established a stand-alone, dedicated child safety department and has increased the number of staff employed by the former Borbidge government many times over. Just in the last two years the budget has increased by over 100 per cent. I congratulate the minister and his predecessors for doing that. Labor governments actually care about the child safety system and the children who are in it, unlike members opposite, whose priority was keeping the department off the front page of the Courier-Mail. 19 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1225

In conclusion, the opposition has got behind these reforms, and I congratulate them for that. I ask them to be reasonable in what they expect of a department that has opened up notifications in a way that has never happened before. I ask that when things go wrong the criticisms that appear in the media are based on relevant information and not hearsay, and I ask them to understand that the professionals working in the department need their support. I support the bill before the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Reynolds, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.58 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Police Resources Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (9.58 pm): On behalf of north Queensland residents I wish to raise some very serious concerns regarding inadequate police resources in the region. Currently, after 4 pm each afternoon all telephone calls to the local police stations in Ayr and Home Hill are diverted to the Townsville call centre and all calls to the local police are attended to by this call centre. Unfortunately, on a number of occasions recently calls have been dialling out and going unanswered. This is directly due to the lack of human resources available to attend to those calls. On occasions there are only three personnel on duty to service a very large area of the country. At busy periods, especially weekends, it is impossible for them to handle this huge workload. In January alone, over 40,000 calls were logged to the Townsville communication centre. Many of the calls merit police attendance but most people are reluctant to use 000 out of consideration for maintaining this number for emergencies only. Members of the community no longer feel safe. They have a basic right to police protection. They expect a police response. They need to know that when an incident occurs that warrants police attendance, they can contact their local police and have this occur. However, due to the Beattie government’s and the police minister’s shameful neglect of the service, the north Queensland public can no longer depend on this essential service. On 24 February this year, police officers took the unprecedented step of holding a stop-work meeting in Townsville to protest the lack of staff numbers to adequately service the northern region and also to highlight the critical staff shortage in first response members. Over 200 officers were concerned enough to ignore directions from senior staff not to attend the meeting, where the minister belatedly promised that an extra 34 officers would be provided within six months. As it stands, the local station in Ayr alone is understaffed by at least 10. The basic human requirement to feel safe and the need for law and order in our society is being met by only a few dedicated police officers. Members will be aware of a recent shooting incident in Collinsville. Only one officer was available and on duty in Collinsville at the time. Several other incidents that night needed police attention. The lone officer on duty had to call for support from the Bowen Police Station, which is one hour away. The minister cannot continue to ignore or dismiss the public and serving officers when they air their concerns. It is impacting negatively on our existing police men and women, who struggle to cope with their workloads, and it is sending out the wrong message to those members of the community who consider themselves immune from police action. It is unsafe for the public and police officers alike. Empty promises by the minister are doing nothing to improve the situation. I call on the minister to immediately increase police numbers in the north, and I expect the full support of the north Queensland Labor members in calling for their constituents to receive the same level of police service and care as those in the south east. Palm Beach State School Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (10.01 pm): Last week, in company with the Minister for Education, I visited the Palm Beach State School and was reacquainted with the non-graded system that is in place there. We were met at the front gate by the school leaders, Sean Seymour, Annelise Walters, Sam Reed and Olivia Moody. Their pride in their school was immediately obvious. Palm Beach State School operates on a multi-age philosophy. It does not place children in classes based on their age, as is the traditional method, but moves them through three stages: junior, intermediate and senior. Advancement is based on their social and physical achievements, as well as their intellectual ones. This allows the school to build the curriculum around the students, rather than fit the child into the curriculum. It also allows for greater continuity with teachers, as the children often spend two or three years working in partnership with the one teacher. Decisions on the appropriate time for a child to move through the stages are made by the parents and teachers in consultation and based on the child’s current needs rather than their age. 1226 Adjournment 19 Apr 2006

Palm Beach State School calls its classes ‘families’, which further encourages a spirit of collaboration. There are four junior, three intermediate and four senior ‘families’. This arrangement allows the school to use its teachers in different ways. Many of the ‘families’ have two or even three teachers. This allows the classes to use a variety of groupings, often based on the interests of the children themselves. Multi-age philosophy has many advantages for children. It encourages an atmosphere of collaboration rather than competition. Older children are encouraged to develop a sense of responsibility and nurturing for younger students who are part of their ‘family’. Most importantly, it allows for developmentally appropriate teaching, which means that children learn at their own pace and can experience the satisfaction of achievement, even if they learn more slowly than others of their age. Multi-age philosophy also allows for students who are quicker than the average to be encouraged rather than held back. Children often go through stages of learning and those who have moved at quite a slow pace can suddenly accelerate, either through social maturity or through overcoming some obstacle. Multi-age philosophy means that there are options for teaching those students. Palm Beach State School is one of very few schools that offer this philosophy. Its results are impressive. During our visit to the school, the students were pleased to show the minister their performing arts talents—talents fostered by the caring teachers at Palm Beach. Despite some negative publicity about the activities of some youth on the southern Gold Coast, staff and students were anxious to show us that not all young people are troublemakers. The students at Palm Beach obviously love their school and are involved, interested and enthusiastic. I congratulate the staff and students at Palm Beach State School. It is a real inspiration. Dentistry and Oral Health Guild; Griffith University Dental School Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (10.04 pm): I take this opportunity to inform the House of a recent launch that I attended on the Gold Coast. On 31 March, I attended the launch of the Dentistry and Oral Health Guild. The guild is chaired by a friend and colleague of mine, oral surgeon Gerry Thurnwald. It aims to promote and support the research activity of the Griffith University School of Dentistry and Oral Care. This was a really fantastic networking event. It saw the coming together of the local profession with academics and students at the Griffith University dental school to discuss the profession and its needs for the future, and to support the Griffith University dental school. The vice-chancellor of the university, Ian O’Connor, the dean of the dental school, Professor Newell Johnson, and senior staff were present, among them the former federal member for Ryan, Leonie Short. To the amazement of many of my fellow practitioners, dentists are bemused at the current obstacles faced by the dental school in light of the Beattie government’s continued neglect of Queensland’s health system and, consequently, the oral care sector within it. They are bemused by the fact that Queensland Health will not enter into a service agreement with the school. Queensland Health does not want to pay the university’s dental school what it will cost the university to run a clinic that will relieve the overburdened public dental health system. This is the ‘commitment’ of a government which told us only today in question time that it really is fixing our health system. I ask: if that is the case, why will it not enter into a service agreement with the Griffith University dental school? Without a service agreement, final-year students in dentistry and dental therapy are unable to treat eligible children and adults on the Gold Coast who need dental care. This is an unacceptable situation when current public sector waiting lists vary from two to five years. I have been contacted by several third-year students at the university who cannot understand why they cannot help waiting patients today; honestly, neither can I. They are Lyndall Jarimenous, Tiffany Jamieson, Viola Laurel, Kim Adams and Cheryl-Ann Haines. I am happy to table their letters to me, asking for my help. I commend them for their efforts and for their initiative. It is a win-win situation for Queensland. Queensland’s future dentists, dental therapists and hygienists gain clinical skills and competence in a range of dental procedures, while patients on waiting lists receive the urgent treatment for which they have been waiting. In fact, this is how we treated patients at the University of Queensland dental school, often sourced from the dental hospital next door in Turbot Street. We have willing practitioners and willing patients but no funding to secure a service agreement. The government needs to engage these people. By not engaging these eager practitioners to assist in addressing the shortage of dentists in Queensland, the government is being hypocritical after it welcomed the dental school only a year ago with fireworks and balloons. I urge the government, out of frustration—as do most of the dental professionals who were at the guild’s launch, as does the dean of the dental school, as do the students, and as do the Queenslanders on the enormous dental waiting lists—to seize this opportunity to address the shortage of dentists, dental therapists and hygienists in Queensland and to secure a fair and equitable service agreement with Griffith University as soon as possible. The federal government funded the dental school. I now call on the Queensland government to help fund the patients that could be serviced by it. 19 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1227

Working Against Violence Support Service Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.07 pm): It was a great honour recently for the Working Against Violence Support Service, or WAVSS, in Woodridge to have Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, Governor of Queensland, officiate at the opening of their new premises. This year marks their 12th year of service to women and children. They have developed a beautiful and tranquil sanctuary, where quiet space, counselling rooms, a fun room for children and relaxed outdoor areas are available. This centre services a wide area, including Logan, Beaudesert and the northern end of the Gold Coast, and is a partner in the widely acclaimed Fax-Back program. This program enables police who attend a domestic violence incident to offer counselling to both the victim and the perpetrator. WAVSS offers crisis support counselling, therapeutic and support groups for women and children, community education to prevent domestic violence, as well as training to workers from other organisations. Youth and Family Services offers personal counselling, group therapy and anger management to the perpetrator of the violence. Domestic violence is a blight on our society in all its ugly forms, from physical, emotional, financial, deprivation of liberty outside the home, right through to violence within dating relationships. It is especially tragic for it occurs in the very place where women and children should receive love, care and protection. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the workers at WAVSS over this 12-year period for their holistic, caring approach, for their sensitivity and for their ongoing support during this stressful period for women and children. The present staff, under the leadership of Mercedes Sepulveda, carry on the good work supported by chairperson Miss Vivien Braddock and her board of management. WAVSS has formed significant working partnerships in the area and the refurbishment of this new facility was a magnificent example of many partners coming to the fore to assist. It was a number of years ago that the first seed of an idea was planted to think about purchasing their own premises. It seemed like a distant pipedream. Much planning and a huge effort has gone into producing what is a fantastic centre. Funding was received from Jupiters Casino, the Ian Potter Foundation, Community Renewal and the Gambling Community Benefit Fund. In-kind support was given by a gardening supply firm and line- marking business, architects and many other individuals. Forester ANA Management assisted in the actual purchase and Queensland Credit Union was very accommodating in assisting them to acquire their mortgage. One very significant partner in the refurbishment was BoysTown, whose young people very ably carried out the internal work through Community Jobs Plan funding from the Department of Employment and Training. This, of course, will lead to these young people acquiring jobs or going on to additional training or apprenticeships. I can certainly attest to their great workmanship. Congratulations should go to the Department of Communities for its constant support and funding of this valuable service. Time expired. Keep Australia Beautiful Awards Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (10.11 pm): On Saturday, 8 April I attended the Keep Australia Beautiful Awards 2006 to support my home city of Redcliffe in the Australian Tidy Towns finals. It was a great night and I commend the awards organisers on encouraging positive community spirit and involvement in environmental activities and waste management into the future. Redcliffe was named Queensland’s tidiest town for 2005 from a field of 211 other entrants and subsequently became Queensland’s entrant in the Australian Tidy Towns awards. Since first entering the Tidy Towns competition years ago, thousands of volunteers, community groups, schools and the council have worked in partnership to protect and improve the magnificent environment in and around Redcliffe. I am proud to say that all of the efforts have paid off as Redcliffe was awarded the 2006 Keep Australia Beautiful achievement award for environmental innovation on the night. The major award for Australia’s tidiest town went to Collie in Western Australia. Queensland is trying to get it back next year. The Australian Tidy Towns judge, Dick Olesinki, said Redcliffe’s innovative approach to water conservation and leading example in energy efficient building design complemented our city’s pledge to a sustainable future. Mr Olesinki completed a 1½ day tour of Redcliffe in November last year, taking in Pelican Park, Scotts Point, Margate Beach, the Redcliffe jetty, Suttons Beach and a walk to Settlement Cove Lagoon. The judge also visited locations around the peninsula including the Redcliffe Leagues Club, Youth Space, the Belvedere Hotel, Botanic Gardens and the Redcliffe Museum, meeting tourism volunteers and a variety of people from our community along the way. I have always considered myself an advocate and local tour guide of the Redcliffe peninsula and I know that all of the best spots were shown to the judge so a well-informed decision was made. The environmental innovation award symbolises our community’s long-term commitment to managing the environment in and around Redcliffe in order to preserve its uniqueness for future generations. 1228 Adjournment 19 Apr 2006

I might say that the award trophy was appropriate, as anyone who has travelled to Redcliffe via the Houghton Highway will know of our famous pelicans sitting above the flow of traffic waiting for the right target, preferably a car with an open roof. The trophy was a junkyard collection of parts welded together to make a pelican. The CEO of Keep Australia Beautiful, Kylie Johnston, said Redcliffe is without a doubt one of the most sustainable communities in Australia. I agree with this and will use my position as the member for Redcliffe and passion for the community to play a proactive role in encouraging and upholding innovative environmental and resource management. The Redcliffe community’s willingness to get behind a worthwhile cause is immeasurable and I commend their involvement in a Life After Larry fundraiser I hosted on the same weekend as the awards. Over $3,600 was raised with all moneys handled by the Rotary Club of Redcliffe City. The Rotary Club of Redcliffe City has arranged for the funds to be transferred to the Rotary Club of Innisfail for distribution as required in the community. Redcliffe will host the regional award ceremony for this year’s Ergon Energy Tidy Towns Awards in July and Redcliffe will be trying to be back on the winners list for these awards. I wish the volunteers, community groups and the Redcliffe City Council— Time expired. Nu Life Cardiac Program Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (10.13 pm): Last month I had the opportunity to attend the graduation of patients who had completed the Nu Life cardiac program at the Heart Disease Prevention Centre at the Noosa Hospital which was researched and developed by preventative cardiologist Dr Tony Neaverson. The Nu Life cardiac and lifestyle programs are designed for those who have suffered a heart problem, who are at risk or who want to improve their health. The program provides a six-week course of physical activity, nutrition and relaxation for patients who have had or are at high risk of cardiac disease. Participants undertake high intensity interval training along with dietary modification for 30 minutes three times a week. Approximately 300 patients have attended the program over the past five years. This graduation recognises patients who have rehabilitated, improved their health and changed their lifestyle for the better, many after major cardiac events. The rapport and tongue-in-cheek digs between patients and Dr Neaverson provided many laughs throughout the presentation. The connection between participants and Dr Neaverson and his team was evident. The testimonial of graduates was positive and inspiring. Many I spoke to had significant physical improvements and now lived a healthy and active lifestyle as the norm rather than as the exception. As a community we welcome initiatives such as Dr Neaverson’s Nu Life cardiac program which work towards effective preventative medical programs. In partnership with a broad cross-section of service providers and relevant stakeholders, Queensland Health developed the Queensland Strategy for Chronic Disease 2005-15. It was launched in December 2005. The Queensland government has committed an initial $155 million over a four-year period to address chronic disease prevention and management. Cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, type 2 diabetes and renal disease account for a substantial number of deaths in Queensland. A significant portion of these deaths are preventable through healthy choices and behaviours. It is a timely reminder for us as individuals to be acutely aware of the value of preventative measures when it comes to our health. While we continue to nurture a climate of positive change as a community, we must remember that ultimately it is a lifestyle choice that we must all consider sooner rather than later. My congratulations go to Dr Neaverson, Bridget Abell, Christine Barnes and the dedicated staff on the program. My congratulations also go to the participants and I give my most sincere best wishes for many healthy and happy years ahead. Hope Rwanda Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (10.16 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the wonderful work of a program called Hope Rwanda. Members would know that in 1994 for 100 days the streets of Rwanda ran red with rivers of blood. More than one million innocent men, women and children were systematically slaughtered by machetes one at a time. The speed and ferocity with which the violence took place is nothing short of 100 days of horror in the history of this great nation. The international community may have turned its back in the past but now we have the opportunity through Hope Rwanda to make a difference. This is an unprecedented show of global compassion covering the same 100 days of the actual genocide. One country, one mission, one time, shoulder to shoulder, Hope Rwanda, 100 days of hope. The genocide has left an indelible imprint of suffering and pain that is still unresolved. Rwandan people have experienced entrapment on an unprecedented scale. Consider this: 15 per cent of children are orphans because of the genocide; 19 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1229 two per cent of the population are HIV orphans because of the genocide; and 250,000 women were raped during the genocide, and Hope Rwanda seeks to restore sexual integrity to abused Rwandan woman. The life expectancy in Rwanda is 39 years and 85 per cent of the population live on less than $2 a day. How is Hope Rwanda bringing hope to this sad place? By building schools, homes, wells and orphanages; providing medical care such as immunisation, open heart surgery and dental care; providing education programs, buildings, medicines, food, bicycles, Bibles and everyday essential items; providing education aids such as nutrition and hygiene; fostering microenterprise development and leadership training for teachers, nurses, builders, pastors, doctors, business leaders, youth workers and musicians; and supporting churches and humanitarian groups that are already working in Rwanda and caring for widows, orphans, prostitutes, prisoners and those without hope. They are also coordinating individuals and organisations initiating projects within the 100 day focus. My own daughter, Chelsea, went to Rwanda last week from Bradford in England to sing backing vocals for Darlene Zschech on a new album to raise funds for Hope Rwanda. I will bring further information regarding this fantastic program to the attention of members of the House but let me say at the outset how much I commend Mark and Darlene Zschech for kicking off this fantastic work. Montrose Access Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.19 pm): On Monday, 10 April I had the honour of officially opening a recently refurbished parent flat at the Montrose Access premises at Corinda. Montrose Access currently provides hands-on disability management services to over 500 children throughout Queensland. These children and their families benefit from Montrose Access via physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, social work, recreation activities, respite, orthotics and access to hydrotherapy and an equipment loan pool. Sometimes families come from country centres and remote communities to access services in Brisbane for their children with disabilities. Montrose Access management decided that it would be helpful to these parents to have some on-site accommodation to make their stay in Brisbane more comfortable and to help overcome the financial hardships people face in those situations. The cost to transport and accommodate a whole family is significant. Other costs including specialist medical appointments, the purchase of mobility equipment and home modifications put a hole in the family budget. The flat provides wheelchair-friendly accommodation at a minimal cost to clients of Montrose Access so that their child can attend hospital and other medical appointments. Sometimes families can use the flats to allow their children to attend on-site services such as the neuromuscular clinic or even for the family to have a holiday and visit friends in Brisbane if it is available. The Rotary Club of Rocklea assisted with the painting of the walls in the flat. President Geoff Bartholomew and secretary Ron Clohessy from the club were present at the official opening. I commend this organisation for their volunteer service to great community causes such as this. MacKinley Brisbane, age 9, and his mother, Lauren, were also present on the day. They were regular users of the accommodation when they were living in regional Queensland. MacKinley has Duchenne muscular dystrophy—DMD—a degenerative condition that causes the progressive weakening of his body’s muscles. Although Montrose Access has an outreach team of therapists who regularly visit MacKinley, he needed to travel to Brisbane to attend specialist appointments. Mrs Brisbane said the family would not have been able to cope without the accommodation and Montrose Access services. The two parent flats were originally built in 1976 as live-in accommodation for the centre matron and caretaker during the period when clients were in residence. At this time, the flats were built to house staff only and no consideration was given to ensuring that the facilities were accessible for people with disabilities. An application to the Gambling Community Benefit Fund was successful and modifications were made to ensure greater accessibility for Montrose Access clients and make the accommodation more user-friendly. Funds were used to make the bathroom, kitchen and doorways accessible for individuals with limited mobility, particularly children in wheelchairs and those who rely on mobility aids. The fund has been of great assistance to many of my local community organisations in need. Westside Community Services recently received funds for a people mover. Agnes Water, Sewage Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (10.22 pm): I have recently been contacted by residents of Agnes Water who have alleged that raw sewage sludge from septic tanks is being pumped into an open pit at the Agnes Water-1770 waste management facility. Most disturbingly, they also allege that this raw sewage sludge has been pumped into that open pit for over 10 years. Those residents also provided me with photos of the Miriam Vale Shire Council truck pumping sewage into that pit. I have passed those pictures on to the environment minister. Last week, on Thursday afternoon, I visited the Agnes Water- 1770 dump and saw first-hand the sewage sludge pit. 1230 Adjournment 19 Apr 2006

The sewage pit is situated approximately 300 metres from residential housing; 500 metres from Tom’s Creek, a small tidal creek which feeds into Round Hill Creek; and approximately 600 metres from a surf beach. The worker who mans the dump office, 50 metres from the sewage pit, told me that his mosquito bites take about a month to heal. In past months I have written to the environment minister about the residents’ concerns. Today I received a letter from the minister for environment which confirms that her department has known for more than 12 years about the existence of the Miriam Vale shire’s sewage pit at the Agnes Water land fill. I table a copy of that letter. The minister says that her department does not believe current practice is ideal. That has to be the understatement of the year. This is a disgraceful environmental and public health issue that this government has known about and turned a blind eye to for the duration of its incumbency. It begs the question: how many more sewage sludge pits are operating in Queensland while this minister makes lame excuses and turns a bureaucratic blind eye? The minister claims that the EPA has placed a number of conditions on the Miriam Vale Shire Council to operate the Agnes Water land fill, including sewage pit operations, and these conditions do not authorise the disposal of untreated sewage but, rather, residues from treatment plants and septic treatment systems. I would like the environment minister to explain to my constituents who live 300 metres away from the government approved pit what is the difference between residues from septic systems and untreated human waste? It is my understanding that the tankers connect to the septic tanks, ingest their load and then discharge the fluid into the pit. For all practical purposes, the sewage is untreated. It would have the same amount of germs and harmful pathogens that are present in untreated human waste. Certainly, last week it looked like human waste and smelt like human waste. I also had conversations with the mayor of the Miriam Vale shire, Mr Tom Jeffery, who told me that it is his understanding that sewage dumping does not have EPA approval. The minister says that it does. What is the truth of the matter? How can the minister say that she is protecting the environment— Time expired.

Burpengary West State School

Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.25 pm): I have spoken many times in this parliament about the high population growth in the Kallangur electorate. Addressing this growth is a constant challenge to all levels of government. It is particularly satisfying for persons such as me as the local member because we can play a role in the development of the necessary infrastructure in our local electorate. That is one of the great things about being the member for Kallangur in this parliament. In this case tonight, I am pleased to say that the construction has started of a $14 million state school at Rowley Road in Burpengary west. This is a high-growth corridor in the Caboolture shire. About 300 students from prep to year 7 are expected to enrol next year. Once the school is established, student numbers are expected to level out at about 650 students during that period, but the school will grow to around 800 students. I hope that the new school will reduce the pressure on the Burpengary State School, which has a student population nearing 1,000. I am pleased to see that the education minister has announced that the principal’s position will be advertised in the coming months. He has advised that the successful candidate is expected to start work in October to get the new school ready to open in 2007. A number of issues are involved with the new school, principally the location of that school, which is an area of 6.17 hectares and bounded by Kurrajong Drive, Rowley Road and Hauton Road at Burpengary. That site consists of five allotments and is regular in shape, almost forming a rectangle. The importance of the site is that not only is it located in a fast-growing area, but it is located directly opposite the Caboolture Regional Environmental Educational Centre. That will play a direct role in the education of students at the school. The facilities are under construction. The tender for the design component was awarded on 27 February. Construction has been awarded to Northbuild Constructions Pty Ltd. It has commenced construction of the school, which will open for the 2007 year. There are a number of other key issues involved in it, mostly to do with bus set-down areas—they are matters for negotiation with the Caboolture Shire Council—and other traffic issues, which will be negotiated with the Caboolture Shire Council over a period. As I said before, I look forward to the appointment of the new principal and meeting that person when they are chosen. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.28 pm.