1 Apr 2003 Legislative Assembly 989

TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2003

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

BROADCAST OF PARLIAMENT Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.31 a.m.): I move— That the document titled "Conditions of access for broadcast of proceedings" circulated in the chamber in my name be agreed to by the House in accordance with section 58 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. This is to facilitate the Queensland parliament being broadcast live over the Internet for the first time. Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS The following honourable members have sponsored e-petitions which are now closed and presented—

Recreational Duck and Quail Shooting Mr Lee from 525 petitioners requesting the House to act urgently to amend the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and ban the practice of recreational duck and quail shooting in Queensland.

Vegetation Management Mr Lee from 1949 petitioners requesting the House to amend the Vegetation Management Act 2000 and the Land Act 1994 to implement a rapid phase out of land clearing in Queensland. At the same time, farmers and landholders should be provided with a financial transition package to help them manage their land more sustainably, and alleviate any hardship caused by new clearing controls. Queensland should expand its National Park system to protect more native bushland, and provide incentives to encourage landholders to look after the bushland on their property.

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— 28 March 2003— Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland—Annual Report 2001-02 31 March 2003— Queensland Treasury Corporation—Half Yearly Report July-December 2002 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Duties Act 2001— Duties Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 47 Government Owned Corporations Act 1993— Government Owned Corporations (Ports) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 48 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994— Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 49 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990— Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment of Deed Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 50 Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002— Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 51 Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003— Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 52 Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2002— Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 53 990 Ministerial Statement 1 Apr 2003

Aboriginal Land Act 1991, Adoption of Children Act 1964, Ambulance Service Act 1991, Casino Control Act 1982, Corrective Services Act 2000, Court Funds Act 1973, Electricity Act 1994, Fisheries Act 1994, Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982, Land Act 1994, Local Government Act 1993, Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962, Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002, Residential Tenancies Act 1994, Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994— Discrimination Law (Marital Status) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 54 Adoption of Children Act 1964, Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962— Discrimination Law (Sex) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 55 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992— Penalties and Sentences Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 56 Land Sales Act 1984— Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 57 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002— Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) (Postponement) Regulation 2003, No. 58 Nature Conservation Act 1992— Nature Conservation (Protected Plants Harvest Period) Notice 2003, No. 59

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Broadcast of Parliament Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 a.m.): I am pleased to announce and confirm to members that we are now being broadcast live over the Internet. The 12-month trial of this Internet broadcast of the Queensland parliament has officially begun. Anyone with access to the Internet can now log on to www.parliament.qld.gov.au to listen to proceedings in the Queensland Legislative Assembly chamber. Queenslanders now have unprecedented access to their parliament. No longer will people need to be physically present in Brisbane to listen to Queensland's parliamentary proceedings. This acknowledges Queensland's decentralisation, its tyranny of distance, and it overcomes it. This service allows for improved accountability and transparency because the voters are more able to assess directly the performance of their elected representatives during parliamentary sessions. Children and young people in schools and higher learning institutions will benefit from a new way of learning about the workings of parliament. This should mean that new generations of voters are even better educated about the seat of democracy, and it is an excellent development for the future of democracy in Queensland. New amendments, passed by the House last week, extend protection in Queensland against civil or criminal liability to authorised broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings, which is why I introduced that legislation. Hansard remains the official parliamentary record, but the immediacy of the Internet broadcast gives a new dimension to democracy and carries added responsibility for all members. I remind the House that it is incumbent upon us all to be scrupulous about standards of conduct and not to abuse parliamentary privilege. I thank the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee for its support and delivery of awareness training sessions for members on parliamentary privilege and speech and conduct in the House. It is in everyone's interest for us to uphold the high standards that make the Westminster system the best in the world. Queenslanders accessing the Internet broadcast service will be required to accept certain conditions about how the broadcast material can be used. A breach of these conditions will amount to a contempt of the parliament. Again, I thank the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee members for their constructive feedback on these conditions of use. I am determined to improve the community's access to parliament, because democracy works better if people have access to the workings of the parliament. Vigorous community participation in our parliamentary system reinforces Queensland's identity as the Smart State. The launch of online petitioning was an Australian first. Since the e-petitioning system was launched on 26 August 2002, we have received 15 e-petitions as well as 61 paper petitions, which are now automatically posted on the parliament of Queensland web site. We invite participation, including criticism, from our constituents. Our historic sitting of the regional 1 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 991 parliament in north Queensland last year was also a popular success, with an estimated 8,428 people attending the three-day sitting. I hope the Internet broadcast of parliament proves equally popular, and I look forward to hearing Queenslanders' feedback about it. I thank members for their unanimous support of this initiative. I urge users of the broadcast service to give us feedback via the online survey. It is a service for Queenslanders, so every Queenslander's opinion counts. The audio broadcast trial will test the demand for this service and the community's views and will tell us whether there is benefit in further developing the service with video. I thank the Speaker, his Parliamentary Service staff and the e-democracy team of the Community Engagement Division within my department for making this virtual experience come to life.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Maryborough By-election Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 a.m.): I wish to inform the House that following the resignation of the former member for Maryborough, Dr John Kingston, on 24 March 2003 this morning His Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council of the Deputy Premier and me, issued a writ for the election of a member to serve in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland for the electoral district of Maryborough. The dates in connection with the issue of the writ are as follows: issue of the writ is today, Tuesday, 1 April 2003; close of the electoral roll is Saturday, 5 April 2003 at 5 p.m.; close of nomination of candidates is Tuesday, 8 April 2003 at noon; the polling day will be Saturday, 26 April 2003 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.; and the day for the return of the writ is Monday, 26 May 2003. I believe the people of Maryborough are entitled to be represented in this parliament, and I have moved as quickly as possible to facilitate an early by-election to bring that about. I want to thank John Kingston for his contribution to the parliament. I wish him and his wife, Joy, and children well. There will be much focus on Maryborough over the coming weeks as we prepare for the 26 April by-election. It will be virtually impossible for Labor to win the seat, but that does not mean we will not give it our best shot. This is a region that has strong National Party support at a federal level—in fact, 60.7 per cent support on a two-party preferred basis. Everything points to this being a lay-down misere for the new Leader of the Opposition. The people of Maryborough need a strong voice in this parliament, and they need a strong voice in the government. What I will be saying to the people of Maryborough is that I will be giving them every opportunity to have such a member. Later today I will be visiting Maryborough. While there I will be spelling out a number of things that we have achieved on behalf of that electorate. I seek leave to incorporate those in Hansard for the information of all members. Leave granted. That aside—our achievements in the region since February 2001 include; $97 million for the construction of a 500-bed Correctional Centre $61 million Queensland Rail contract to buy 11 new 4000 class diesel locomotives awarded to EDI Rail for the manufacture, testing and commissioning of the new locomotives at its Walkers plant in Maryborough. increasing the number of Police allocated to the Maryborough Police District by 16 since February 2001 $18 million for the Maryborough Hospital Redevelopment $11.8 million for the construction of a new nursing home in the Maryborough Hospital grounds—tenders will be called in November with construction to start next year. $1.1 million for the refurbishment of the Maryborough Courthouse $450,00 for the new administration block and general learning areas at Maryborough West State School. The region is one of seven across the State included in a trial where around 23,000 Queensland Year 10 students make history when more than 200 schools and 11 TAFE institutes across the State trial the next phase of the Smart State educational reforms The people of Maryborough need a strong voice in government. They will be best served with a member who can deliver for them. Already we have considerable interest being shown in who will be our candidate. I wish to tell the House that I will be visiting Maryborough later in the day. While there I will be inspecting the St Michael's Convent Building. It is to be restored thanks to a new State Government-funded project. The project is the latest in Maryborough electorate to be funded under the State Government's $470 million Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. 992 Ministerial Statement 1 Apr 2003

The initiative has committed $7.4 million to the electorate since it began in October 1998 and has created more than 1000 jobs. Skill Centred Regional Queensland will use $120 000 in Breaking the Unemployment Cycle funding to start the restoration of the historical building. It will provide paid jobs and work experience for 10 unemployed people in the process. The 16-week St Michael's Convent Restoration project will see the participants replacing damaged bearers, posts, floor joists and flooring, restoring roofing, gutters and down pipes, repairing interior walls, windows, weights, glass and timber frames and painting. The building stands on the grounds of St Mary's Primary School and is owned by the Catholic Church. The convent was built in 1898 and used by the Sisters of Mercy. It greatly adds to the cultural heritage of the community. This restoration project will ensure that this significant building will remain for future generations to appreciate. It also will significantly enhance the employment prospects of local unemployed people. Skill Centred Regional Queensland has run five previous projects assisting 73 unemployed people. The Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative aims to help create 56 000 jobs over six years. In the Maryborough electorate since the initiative began: 131 unemployed people have received paid work on community jobs through 16 projects that received $1.4 million from the Community Jobs Plan program; 269 unemployed people have received training, job-search and other employment assistance from community organisations that received $376 000 to run nine projects under the Community Employment Assistance program; 164 private employers and three group training organisations have received $353 000 in cash incentives for hiring 212 extra apprentices and trainees in crucial, skills-shortage industries; $4.8 million has been committed to 271 extra trainees and 13 extra apprentices, as well as 10 school-based trainees and one school-based apprentice, in state and local government agencies; $352 000 has been committed to placing 23 young people in green traineeships under the Youth for the Environment and Local Communities program; 60 unemployed, early school leavers were assisted under a Get Set for Work project that received $55 570; Eight employers have received $24 000 in cash incentives for hiring mature-aged job seekers under the Experience Pays program; and 68 job seekers aged 45 and over have received computer and job-search training under the Back to Work program.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Agribusiness, South-East Asia Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.): An agribusiness mission to South-East Asia in February 2003 has identified potential business worth more than $37 million to Queensland producers. At a time when we are suffering from the effects of the long-term drought, it is reassuring to know that these opportunities are available to our primary industries. One in five jobs in Queensland depends on exports, a figure that rises to one in four in the regions. So it is essential for trade missions such as this to identify new trading opportunities so that we can create more jobs for Queenslanders. I thank Sallyanne Atkinson, the special representative for South-East Asia, for leading this agribusiness trade mission to Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei under the global beef export development project. It included representatives from the Queensland beef industry, livestock supplements, wine and financial management sectors. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard for the information of members. Leave granted. Ms Atkinson reported that the delegation found an enthusiasm and a willingness to do business and certainly no overt hostility towards us as Australians. An objective of the mission was to promote the export of Queensland beef, livestock and agribusiness services into South East Asia and present opportunities to participants to identify market preferences and explore a variety of trade options. Food security is a very real issue in the region with increasing populations and limited land resources. The mad cow outbreaks in Europe and Japan have had an impact, creating hesitancy toward eating beef. However, Australia's clean and healthy food image is now being recognised. Both the growing middle class—which is expected to number a billion by 2010—and improved technology are leading to an awareness of western-style food and the development of supermarket conditions. This will be a major market for Queensland's food industry and we need to ensure that we stay in touch with its needs and its growth. There is a strong demand in each country for a viable dairy industry and Queensland is recognised as the most appropriate source of breeding stock because of its tropical climate. Other issues canvassed included the potential for investment in the Queensland food industry, exchange training in livestock handling, and joint ventures for re-export into third markets particularly the Middle East. 1 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 993

While talking about the beef industry, later today the Minister for Primary Industries will have some issues to raise in this House about difficulties accessing the Japanese market. That is why these agribusiness delegations are so important. We have to find as many markets as we can for our beef and maintain existing markets.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT James Cook University Singapore Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.): I want to congratulate James Cook University for launching an offshore initiative that gives it a major entry into Asia. The university has established JCU Singapore, a joint venture with PSB Corporation, a Singapore based company formed by the Singapore government. The initiative will fast-track the university's internationalisation strategy and is designed to attract an additional 5,000 international students by the year 2010. I am enthusiastic about this project because more exports mean more jobs for Queenslanders. This fits into our education and training industry export strategy which aims to double Queensland's education and training export earnings to $1 billion. JCU Singapore will offer courses in five foundation schools—business, education, engineering, information technology and psychology—with 20 programs ranging from certificate to doctorate on offer this year. JCU Singapore will achieve a base of 3,000 students in its fifth year and enrolments will plateau at 5,000 students in its seventh year. Because of time, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The chief executive officer of the PSB Corporation, Henry Heng, said at the launch of the joint venture that JCU Singapore was the first educational venture of its kind in Singapore, and possibly even in the region. Mr Heng said it was the first example of a fully-fledged, recognised state university and a local education institution coming together to resource and offer the entire range of academic curriculum of the partner university. JCU Singapore will run as a complete academic institution with administrative, marketing, academic functions, student support and counselling services. Professor Colin Ryan, a key senior manager of James Cook University, will be posted to JCU Singapore to oversee the academic responsibilities there and to ensure that the academic curriculum and quality adhere to university approved standards. With a faculty that is bi-lingual and with local and regional experience, JCU Singapore will work jointly with James Cook University to build up its course design and curriculum development capability to customise programs which are relevant to the employment needs and conditions in Asia. JCU Singapore aims to set up a full-fledged physical institution in Singapore by 2007, followed by multiple JCU satellite campuses or centres in the regions, specifically China, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Support for Refugees Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): I want to spell out to the House my government's support for refugees. The Queensland government gives refugees a range of support services through agencies including Multicultural Affairs Queensland in my department, the Department of Employment and Training, the Department of Families, Queensland Treasury, Education Queensland and Queensland Health. We announced services worth more than $1.5 million in direct and quantifiable support to refugees in the calendar year 2002. Refugees also benefit from many other programs and services to which we cannot attach a price tag. Examples of state government services that benefit refugees include the Community Training Partnership, Queensland Health providing $172,335 on an ongoing basis to facilitate access to mental health services, and a string of other services including the refugee work project, the refugee students support program and so on. I believe all members of this House should be aware of this detail. In fact, later today the member for Logan and I will be presenting a cheque to the Logan City Multicultural Neighbourhood Centre because of its importance to this community. There is a lot of detail here. I think every member in this House should be aware of it. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard because this needs to be understood: we do provide support for refugees. The federal government fails miserably in this area, but we do our job. Leave granted. 994 Ministerial Statement 1 Apr 2003

Examples of State Government services that benefit refugees include: Community Training Partnership ($504,800). In 2002 the Department of Employment and Training funded Australian Red Cross to help migrants and refugees prepare for entry into the Australian labour market. This project followed on from a similar project the previous year, with funding of $486,000. Queensland Health provides $172,335 on an ongoing basis to facilitate access to mental health services for refugees on temporary protection visas. This is a partnership between the Queensland Transcultural Mental Health Centre, Princess Alexandra Hospital's Division of Mental Health, South Brisbane Child and Youth Mental Health Services and the Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma. The Department of Family Services funds Mercy Family Services to support unaccompanied refugee minors. ($137,268). The Refugee Work Project ($97,870). In 2001/02 the Department of Employment and Training funded Mercy Family Services for an intensive employment and training program for young refugees on temporary protection visas. Refugee students support program. ($60,000). Education Queensland has made funds available for a part-time youth worker at the Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma for a two-year period; and In 2001/02 Queensland Health provided $35,000 to the Queensland Integrated Refugee Community Health Clinic to employ a part-time coordinator. Diversity makes us stronger—it also makes us smarter. Queensland Government Grants Organisation/project name—Project description—Amount Department of Employment and Training Australian Red Cross—Assistance to prepare migrants and refugees for entry into the Australian Labour Market—$504,800 Australian Red Cross: Community Employment Assistance Program for People from non-English speaking backgrounds—This project aims to build on the experience and knowledge gained through a Community Training Partnerships project and will link eligible participants with specialised employment assistance—$40,000 Mackay Regional Council for Social Development Ltd: Migrant and Humanitarian Entrants Employment and Training Support Network—The project aims to assist participants in gaining skills through needs assessment, literacy and numeracy assistance. The project worker will provide contacts with the non-English speaking background, migrant and refugee community—$60,000 Multicultural Development Association: Migrant and Refugee Employment Project—This project will provide a specialist employment service to complement the range of migrant services delivered by the Multicultural Development Association.—$60,000 Mercy Family Services: The Refugee Work Project—This project is an intensive employment and training program targeting the needs of young refugees who are on temporary protection visas—$97,870 Annerley and District Community Care Inc: Migrant Employment Information, Referral and Advocacy Service—The main objective of this project is to assist long-term unemployed migrants, women and refugees from non-English speaking backgrounds to find work in Australia—$60,000 Volunteering Queensland ACE-VET—Training allowed development of volunteer manager skills, continuing learning/professional development and improved employment prospects—$6,000 Wynnum Manly Employment & Training Association Inc. ACE-VET—Training enabled participants to gain employment or pursue higher-level education—$12,950 Arts Queensland Shift Media—A multimedia production developed through a collaboration between refugee Hazara artists and Queensland artists—$15,000 Lifeline—Development of new songs by the Scattered Peoples Choir—$4,890 Australian Red Cross—Refugee women showcase their Brisbane experiences through photos—$22,000 Department of Families Mercy Family Services—Support for unaccompanied minors in the Queensland Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Program—$137,268 Mercy Family Services—Provision of targeted legal, communications and living skills support for unaccompanied minors—$22,690 Queensland Treasury Refugee Claimants Support Centre—Volunteer Refugee Groups Project—$30,000 Lifeline—Community Worker funded at the Romero Centre to assist with the TPV refugees and other clients—$42,000 Education Queensland Inclusive Education Branch: Inclusive Learning Unit Refugee Student Support—Education Queensland has funded initiatives in partnership with Queensland Program of Assistance ASTT for the following ($60,000 over two years): 1 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 995

A part-time youth worker (over two years) to work with traumatised secondary students—$3,000 Reprinting of two professional resource packages for schools to assist their understanding of issues surrounding refugee students. Queensland Health Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma—To establish a coordinated refugee network of health services—$35,000 Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma—To deliver one (two-day) train-the- trainer workshop for mental health practitioners—$3,446 Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma Program—Culturally sensitive services to people who have been tortured or who have suffered refugee-related trauma—$172,335 Department of Premier and Cabinet. (Grants 2000 to 2003) Austcare Queensland Austcare: Refugee Week 2000—Events to increase community understanding of refugee issues and their contribution to Australia—$15,000 Refugee Claimants' Support Centre Multicultural Community Arts Project—Employ multicultural community arts worker to plan & run a series of workshops—$6,800 Austcare Queensland AUSTCARE Refugee Week 2001—Events to increase community understanding of refugee issues and their contribution to Australia—$15,000 Centre for Multicultural Pastoral Care Community Worker Project—Community Worker funded at the Romero Centre to assist with the TPV refugees and other clients—$50,000 Refugee Claimants' Support Centre Community Worker Project—Community Worker to assist asylum seekers and other clients—$35,000 Brisbane City Council: Community Development Services Branch Refugee Women's Action Research Project—Running a community development process with refugee women which will address such issues as social isolation, access to health care, educational support, safety—$25,000 Lifeline—Community Worker funded at the Romero Centre to assist with the TPV refugees and other clients—$50,000 Logan City Multicultural Neighborhood Centre Inc Temporary Protection Visa Entrant Support Project—Employing a part-time worker to assist TPV entrants to access a range of community support services in Logan City—$25,000 QPASTT Inc Building Inclusion for and with Young Refugees—Building inclusive communities for and with young refugees (aged 12-20) through engagement with high schools.—$22,750 Griffith University: Golden Key International Golden Key Refugee Tutoring Program—This grant contributed towards the cost of coordinating a volunteer tutoring program for refugee students in the Brisbane area in order to enhance their academic performance and social networks—$9,823 Austcare Queensland Co-coordinator Tertiary Preparation Program for Refugees—The grant employed a part time coordinator to develop and coordinate the Austcare/University of Southern Queensland Tertiary Preparation Program (TPP) for refugees in Queensland—$9,600 Austcare Queensland Refugee Week Queensland 2002—Events to increase community understanding of refugee issues and their contribution to Australia—$7,900 Anglicare: Anglicare Refugee and Migrant Services (Arms) Refugee Enterprise Facilitation and Micro- Entrepreneurship—The grant funds a feasibility study into the applicability of a model of enterprise facilitation to support micro-enterprise and increase economic development and employment outcomes for refugee and migrant communities in Brisbane—$25,000 Refugee Claimants' Support Centre "Australia's response to onshore Refugee Claimants and its impact on Queensland"—Publication of the discussion paper "Australia's response to onshore Refugee Claimants and its impact on Queensland" to enable information to be shared widely in the public on an issue—$2,000 Lifeline—Support for the referral of TPV clients to appropriate services through the Romero Centre—$10,000 Logan City Multicultural Neighborhood Centre—Support for the referral of TPV clients to appropriate services—$17,000 Austcare Queensland Refugee Week Queensland 2003—Events to increase community understanding of refugee issues and their contribution to Australia—$8,000

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Education and Training Reforms Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.42 a.m.): I am pleased to inform the House that applications have opened for the 2004 round of our government's Preparing for School trials. In this second round, an additional 20 state schools will join the 39 state and independent schools that have been in phase 1. I am also pleased to advise the House that both the Catholic and independent schooling sectors have resolved to join the second phase of the trials, with four Catholic schools and one independent school in the phase 2 program. These additional 25 schools will enrich the data being provided by the round 1 schools 996 Ministerial Statement 1 Apr 2003 and will more fully represent the diverse nature of Queensland communities and school types. Application kits are available on the Premier's web site, which also has a link to this site on the Education Queensland web site. All state schools were advised of the second round call for expressions of interest via a broadcast email. The Queensland Catholic Education Commission and the Association of Independent Schools of Queensland have communicated directly with their respective schools. Education Queensland and the non-state sector will be jointly responsible for the selection process. The second round will add further depth to the trials and issues being considered such as age range, proposed model of education, the location of prep classes in schools, curriculum details, facilities and resources. The selection criteria for the trials is the same as in the first round. Again, schools are required to address specific selection criteria and demonstrate a capacity to meet stated minimum requirements regarding facilities. Schools unsuccessful in round 1 can choose to resubmit their application, amend it or prepare a new application. Expressions of interest close on Friday, 2 May and successful schools will be notified in July. Given that there were 230 applications from state and non-state schools in round 1, I again expect strong interest in the second round of these historic trials. The Preparing for School trials represent an opportunity for the Smart State to strengthen its early childhood education provision. The 39 current trials continue to enjoy the widespread support of their school and broader communities. I have no doubt that the phase 2 trials will encounter similar enthusiastic support, and I encourage all members to work in collaboration with schools in their electorates to provide support to them should they decide to submit an expression of interest.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Training and Employment Strategy, Central Queensland Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.45 a.m.): The top priority of this Labor government remains jobs, jobs, jobs. As industrial development continues to expand in central Queensland, underlined by this week's announcement that the Aldoga aluminium smelter is now a step closer, there is a growing demand for skilled tradespeople right across the region. This is why the government has put in place its training and employment strategy for central Queensland. Adding momentum to this initiative is a partnership between the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE and the Mackay Area Industry Network, known as MAIN, which will make tangible progress towards addressing skill shortages. Through the central Queensland training and employment strategy, the state government will support this partnership by providing $50,000 to the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE. Mackay based engineering, mining and engineering support businesses formed the MAIN group to address industry-wide issues such as skilled labour requirements. MAIN member companies extend training by hosting each other's apprentices to broaden their skill base. The MAIN CARE program was subsequently implemented to support an increase in apprentices and the upskilling of existing workers. By working in collaboration, the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE and MAIN CARE will be meeting the needs of local industry by creating a pool of job-ready and world-class skilled labour available when and where they are needed. The partnership will also generate employment opportunities for Queenslanders. In its first six months, the partnership will provide training for 15 apprentices and trainees. Together, the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE and MAIN CARE are working to create meaningful solutions to local needs. This partnership will place both MAIN and the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE in a better position to identify entry-level and ongoing training needs of local enterprises. The Central Queensland Institute of TAFE will employ a project officer to provide the support to kick-start the program. This position will be based at the MAIN cooperative office in Mackay. Ensuring all training and assessment directly targets local industry needs, the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE will tailor its training to fit the program while continuing to meet its world-class standards. Our training and employment strategy for central Queensland provides a statewide response to address the training and employment needs of projects which are expected to have a value approaching $9 billion over the next 10 years. Governments have a responsibility to foster jobs growth as economic, social and cultural rights are equally part of the fabric of human rights as are civil and political rights, as the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights makes clear. These industrial projects will create 1 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 997 enormous economic growth in the central Queensland region along with job opportunities for many locals. The new partnership between the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE and the Mackay Area Industry Network will assist that process.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Label Buster Guide Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.49 a.m.): I rise today to inform the House of the new Label Buster Guide developed by Queensland Health. This publication is aimed at helping small to medium sized Queensland food businesses comply with new labelling requirements under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Members may be aware of the changes and reforms that have been taking place at the national level regarding food safety standards and our Food Standards Code. The Label Buster Guide was developed following a statewide survey of 3,000 food manufacturing businesses. We liaised with industry to determine the most appropriate way for government to provide them with the information they want and need about the requirements of the new Food Standards Code. The Label Buster Guide has been specifically designed to assist industry to know and meet their labelling requirements and assess their existing labels under the new labelling regime. The guide includes a checklist to help food businesses compare their labels to the code's requirements, and assist them to identify the areas where they may need assistance. It also provides handy information panels, advisory statements, percentage ingredient labelling for key ingredients, warning statements and allergen warnings. In addition to the Label Buster Guide Queensland Health has developed three industry specific guides to clarify special labelling requirements for the meat, baking and seafood industries. The Label Buster Guide is all about helping both consumers and food businesses. On all matters discussed throughout the national review processes, Queensland has lobbied consistently to ensure the protection of consumers. We have also defended their right to have access to the information they need to make an informed choice about the foods they eat, through the provision of information on product labels. This can be of critical importance to people who are dealing with potentially life-threatening allergies, such as with peanuts or albumin, or with other food intolerances. The Label Buster Guide is an example of the Beattie Labor government's commitment to maintaining a safe and diverse food supply by responding to the needs of industry and by giving consumers the ability to make informed choices about the food they eat. On Friday I will be attending another food council and I will again be arguing for the right of Queenslanders to know the country of origin of the food they eat, too. For the benefits of honourable members, I table those papers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Venture Capital Unit Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.51 a.m.): The Department of State Development's Venture Capital Unit has continued to encourage the survival and growth of businesses in Queensland, attracting a record $27 million worth of investment through the Capital Raising Pipeline. The pipeline is a shining example of how the Queensland government has partnered with private enterprise to stimulate organic growth in the Queensland business community, assisting 40 companies to raise $27 million over the past three years. This is a very worthwhile contribution. This is 32 per cent of the 127 start-up businesses that have gone through the entire pipeline program, a highly successful hit rate compared to the global industry standard of two per cent. Established in 2000, the Venture Capital Unit was created to assist start-up businesses get off the ground and survive their first few tenuous years. And an important part of the pipeline is the Founders Forum. The Founders Forum works closely with the Venture Capital Unit and State Development centres in south-east Queensland assisting early-stage businesses in all sectors. The Founders Forum, as an element of the pipeline, is an integral part of my department's strategy for developing industry, business and jobs. So far, the Founders Forum has been 998 Ministerial Statement 1 Apr 2003 responsible for 16 local businesses raising more than $12.5 million in private equity capital. The forum is an excellent way for companies to prepare themselves for investment. Both the Founders Forum and the Capital Raising Pipeline allow entrepreneurs to be channelled to the most appropriate group within the pipeline for assistance. And this ensures that the entrepreneurs are better prepared and can more easily access investment capital. On the other side, investors gain access to better prepared and qualified investments. Interstate investors say that investment assistance from the Venture Capital Unit and groups like Founders Forum do not exist to the same extent in other states. This framework makes doing business in Queensland very attractive. The Queensland Capital Raising Pipeline consists of practical programs which educate and assist new ventures in all types of industries to become investment ready. The pipeline assists high-growth businesses seeking investment and acquaints investors with potential investment opportunities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Maryborough Correctional Centre Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.54 a.m.): This is an exciting week for our government and also the people of the Wide Bay-Burnett area. I am pleased to announce that yesterday the first prisoners passed through the stringent security doors of the $97 million Maryborough Correctional Centre. Prisoners will be gradually brought to the centre over the next three months until a target of 200 prisoners is met. This target is part of the staged commissioning process which will eventually bring the prison up to its full capacity of 500 inmates. Rigorous testing has been under way, with a comprehensive risk assessment process designed to test the physical security, the structured procedures and staff training finding that the centre and staff are more than ready. This new prison signifies the final phase in the largest capital works expansion program ever undertaken in the Queensland correctional system. The opposition left us a legacy of ageing prisons so its shocking record on escapes from custody should come as no surprise to anybody. Our government has built new, modern facilities like the one at Maryborough to ensure the utmost security and safety for both staff and prisoners. The Wide Bay community is also very pleased to have this new correctional centre because with it has come an injection of 191 jobs so far into the community. One hundred of these jobs have gone to locals from the Wide Bay community. By the time the centre is running to full capacity, 240 jobs will have been created. During the construction phase hundreds of local workers were employed. To the end of June 2002 local workers performed 345,527 hours of work on the construction of this project. The contractor, Walter Constructions, also consistently outperformed state government targets for the hiring of apprentices and trainees. The community is so approving of this new facility that more than 10,000 people turned out to look through the prison at the community open days held on 22 and 23 March. This event raised $6,200 for Glendyne Farm, a charity for at-risk youth, along with $570 raised by local ambulance cadets who ran a drink stall, and $2,000 for the St Mary's Primary School, which ran a food stall. Can anybody ever forget the Jailhouse Rock Ball, which raised $52,000 for the Royal Flying Doctor Service? This new prison is a bricks and mortar example of the Beattie government's efforts to strive for safer and more supportive communities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Board of Professional Engineers; Contract Design Staff Pty Ltd Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (9.57 a.m.): I might add that the construction of the Maryborough Correctional Centre was project managed by the Department of Public Works. I am pleased to advise the House that another arm of the state government's consumer protection legislation is working to rid the building and construction industry of shoddy work practices. Already this year, state parliament has passed the toughest legislation in Australia to protect Queenslanders from building and construction contractors that flout the law or perform grossly defective work. In addition to this, I wish to advise that the Board of Professional Engineers has successfully taken disciplinary action against a company which was registered to provide professional 1 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 999 engineering services in Queensland. The company, Contract Design Staff Pty Ltd, has been found guilty of a disciplinary charge—that it is not fit and proper to be a provider of professional engineering services in this state. The charge resulted from complaints by home owners at Russell Island, Cooroy, Jimboomba and Currumbin. The allegations were of the most serious nature and included lodgment of false inspection reports for Russell Island and Jimboomba, which compromised the integrity of the inspection system. Plans and certifications for homes in Currumbin and Cooroy also had major deficiencies. The company appealed the decision of the Board of Professional Engineers to deregister the company, but the District Court dismissed the appeal. Late last year I introduced to the House new legislation for the registration of engineers. This new legislation does not provide for registration of companies, so the precise situation related above will not occur in the future. However, it does serve as an example of the resolve of this government to disbar from the practice of professional engineering those who engage in shoddy practices. Under the Professional Engineers Act 2002, which came into force on 1 January 2003, the Board of Professional Engineers will continue to register individuals to practise as registered professional engineers in Queensland, and will continue to have responsibility for the handling of complaints about the conduct of registered professional engineers. The new legislation I introduced last year aims to ensure that only competent persons provide professional engineering services in Queensland. The action taken against Contract Design Staff should send a clear message to all those who put out the shingle as a professional engineer or offer professional engineering services. The Board of Professional Engineers will be vigilant and will act to remove from practice those who are not worthy of the title 'registered professional engineer'. The legislation helps to ensure that registered professional engineers provide the service Queenslanders not only expect but are rightly entitled to, and that we have the full support of the engineering profession. Finally, I congratulate the new board, which for the first time is chaired by a woman, Professor Elizabeth Taylor, from the Central Queensland University, for its ongoing work in ensuring that we have the highest standard of conduct in the engineering profession of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Domestic Violence Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (10.00 a.m.): Last year the Beattie government established a new statewide domestic and family violence support and referral service, with separate free contact phone numbers for women and men, a 1300 number for service providers seeking information and support and another 1800 number being developed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in northern Queensland. DVconnect is a not-for-profit, Brisbane based company that is the main referral source for many of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program funded domestic and family violence accommodation services. It also responds directly to women and their accompanying children and men experiencing violence as well as provides the full range of government and community services. The Beattie government has committed $2.7 million over three years for the new service as well as an additional $110,000 to date to meet the transport and accommodation costs of clients. I can inform members that in the last six months the new service has averaged 5,820 calls per month and during this period has directly assisted more than 550 women and children into refuge. They are disturbing statistics but demonstrate that the new service is functioning effectively to support Queenslanders in need. The new $1.3 million Centre for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence officially opened at Central Queensland University's Mackay campus in October last year and provides leadership in research, education and evaluation, establishing a strong evidence base for effective practices within the sector. CQU provides the centre's premises, equipment, information technology and infrastructure and subsidises the salary of the centre's senior researcher, Associate Professor Helen Waite, and provides a postdoctoral fellowship, filled by Dr Susan Rees. The centre maintains a web site with relevant news and events from around the state, which to date has received more than 77,000 hits. The site is currently being upgraded to provide a 1000 Ministerial Statement 1 Apr 2003 facility for online discussion and debate as well as an interactive linked site for children that will incorporate games for both primary and high school aged children to develop values that reject violence and abuse. The centre is developing a program of visiting scholars, with funding from CQU, who deliver video-conferenced forums on recent research. For example, in February an academic from Bristol University, Ellen Malos, presented a forum on her research regarding children and domestic violence that was accessed at 11 sites across Queensland. A collaborative project with the Woorabinda women's shelter and the Woorabinda State School to develop an educational program for preschool to year 7 has commenced. Fact sheets on the recent changes to domestic violence laws have been produced in several languages as well as English. The centre is also publishing a regular newsletter and has commenced work on issues papers addressing domestic violence and family law issues and indigenous family violence. The centre is developing its capacity to provide assistance to community organisations collecting domestic violence data, and centre staff are also contributing to international and national conferences as well as publishing a range of papers on violence issues in other countries and interstate. The Beattie government is not just reforming and modernising laws governing domestic and family violence in Queensland. We are also reforming our service delivery structures to ensure that we maintain excellence and effectiveness in our research, education, evaluation and front- line support.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Japanese Beef Market Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.04 a.m.): Both houses of the Japanese parliament have now passed laws to increase the tariff on imported beef from 38.5 per cent to 50 per cent from 1 August this year. Japan is permitted to do this under a World Trade Organisation ruling if the level of imported beef increases by more than 17 per cent. The grounds for the increased tariff, or snap back, have arisen as the Japanese market recovers from the impacts of BSE in 2001 and 2002. For Queensland, the BSE detections heavily reduced our annual $1 billion beef trade with Japan. As a government, we have worked with industry to rebuild that market, emphasising our reputation as quality beef producers. That reputation will be further highlighted when Rockhampton hosts Beef Australia 2003 later this month. The fact is the Japanese market has not recovered. Beef imports to Japan for February remained five per cent down on where they were pre BSE. For an industry that continues to contend with severe drought and strives to rebuild the market in Japan, the snap back could not come at a worse time. However, I believe that the door has not been shut on this issue. An amendment to the laws was passed urging the Japanese government to take into consideration the impacts of the tariff measure, especially the impact on the price of beef paid by the Japanese consumer. Estimates already suggest that this could be more than three billion yen, or the equivalent of more than $400 million. I am concerned that the federal government will not pursue this issue any further. I fear the federal Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, believes it is a lost cause. Before travelling to Tokyo last month, Mr Vaile said that he believed there was little chance of convincing the Japanese not to increase tariffs. Our Prime Minister keeps talking about what is in the national interest. Australia's beef trade to Japan is in the national interest. I call on the Prime Minister to show an interest. Last year, when the United States imposed safeguard tariff measures on Australian steel, the Prime Minister was in there lobbying. He travelled to the US and discussed it with senior members of the US administration. He personally lobbied George W. Bush. I do not in any way discount the importance of the $US450 million steel market for Australia. But I remind honourable members that Queensland's beef trade with Japan is normally worth more than $1 billion. The fact is that John Howard has been missing in action on the issue of the Japanese beef tariff. I urge the federal government and the Prime Minister to use the next four months to lobby as hard as they can on behalf of our beef industry. One of the first ports of call for the federal government should be to seek a meeting with the new Japanese agriculture minister to be appointed following the sudden resignation of Tadamori Oshima yesterday afternoon. 1 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1001

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Thermal Coal Export Industry Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.08 a.m.): The Beattie government is working closely with the mining industry to facilitate the expansion of the thermal coal export industry in Queensland. Undeveloped coal deposits in the northern Surat Basin at Wandoan and Taroom and the southern Bowen Basin at Theodore and Dawson contain significant measured reserves of thermal coal amenable to open-cut mining. The reserves at Taroom and Wandoan are typical of Surat Basin coals, which produce relatively low emissions—a desirable feature as power generators increasingly look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Queensland is already the world's largest seaborne exporter of coal. The development of these vast untapped reserves—along with associated rail, port, water and transmission infrastructure—would create many construction jobs and ongoing employment, significantly expand the regional economy and expand Queensland's thermal coal export industry. In 2002, the departments of Natural Resources and Mines and State Development completed preliminary work to determine the longer-term market prospects and indicative costs for these potential mines. These studies indicate that significant niche market opportunities can be pursued by facilitating early developments of Theodore and Wandoan in the first instance, with possible later development of Dawson and Taroom. As a result, Anglo Coal/Mitsui has signalled its intention to develop the Theodore reserve within the next few years. Development of Theodore would provide an infrastructure and marketing platform for subsequent development of the Dawson reserves. MIM is also well advanced in a pre-feasibility study of Wandoan and is likely to move to a full feasibility study later this year. Development of the reserves would require adequate water for coal washing to achieve an export product, as the ash content of these coals is relatively high. The electricity transmission system would also need to be augmented to provide for large- scale dragline operations at Wandoan. The government is currently working with Anglo Coal/Mitsui and MIM to identify infrastructure options, constraints and costs. In particular, the departments of Natural Resources and Mines and State Development are working with Anglo Coal/Mitsui and MIM to specify a water infrastructure study that will identify water supply options, constraints and indicative costs. An electricity transmission study will also be initiated in due course. These studies are one example of how the Beattie government is working with industry to facilitate the expansion of our coal export industry to help develop regional Queensland and create more jobs for Queenslanders.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mr P. Hope Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.12 a.m.): The Department of Emergency Services was deeply saddened to hear of the tragic death of Civil Aviation Safety Authority flying operations inspector Peter Hope recently. Peter was previously a senior pilot with the Queensland Rescue team in Townsville and was well respected in the industry, with more than 30 years' flying experience, including in the Vietnam War. Staff in the department and many other people best remember Peter for his part in the miraculous rescue of a Canadian couple caught in Cyclone Justin on 9 March 1997. With two former crew mates of Queensland Rescue, he flew the Townsville air unit helicopter on a rescue mission to find the ill-fated yacht and its two crew. Located 310 kilometres east-north-east of Townsville, in the Coral Sea, the crew fought against time to search, locate and retrieve the couple. This dramatic rescue received worldwide recognition when it won the prestigious Golden Hour Award, a salute to helicopter rescue excellence competed for worldwide. The award was presented to Peter and his crew mates, Angus McDonnell and Ian Callaghan, by the Helicopter Association International during the annual Heli-Expo in Anaheim, California in 1998. This award was in recognition of air medical and rescue crews who, through a particular rescue, or through contributions to the industry over time, have advanced the use of helicopters in this life-saving area of operations. Peter also received a commendation for brave conduct in the 1998 Australian Bravery Awards. Not only do Peter's colleagues remember him for this extraordinary feat; Townsville people and north Queenslanders also remember him for his dedication to the job and his love of 1002 Private Members' Statements 1 Apr 2003 flying. He started as a casual pilot with the government's helicopter rescue service from 1992 until he was appointed as a permanent helicopter pilot at our Townsville air unit in May 1995. Peter subsequently held the positions of senior pilot in Townsville and senior training and checking pilot in Brisbane. Peter will be sadly missed, and I would like to extend sincere condolences from the Department of Emergency Services and all members of this House to his family.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Award Wages Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.14 a.m.): I am pleased to announce the introduction of an historic wage ruling that guarantees a minimum rate of pay for all Queensland workers, whether covered by an award or not. From the first pay period after 1 April 2003, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has ordered a Queensland minimum wage weekly rate of $431.40 for full-time employees. For the first time in Queensland, the minimum wage will include employees not covered by an award or agreement. Importantly, as many as one in 12 workers are reportedly not covered by awards or agreements. Some of these people will be unaffected because they already earn a higher rate of pay, or they are exempted because of special conditions. But it is the non-award workers employed at the lower paid end of the working population, such as farm employees, domestic cleaners and gardeners, who will benefit by the introduction of a minimum wage. Combined with current leave entitlements and protection against unfair dismissal, this decision gives Queensland's lower-paid workers a broad safety net of wages and conditions. From 1 April, these workers will be entitled to a minimum rate of pay. Employees covered by an award or agreement that sets a higher rate of pay will retain their current entitlement. Workers younger than 20 are entitled to a percentage of the minimum wage based on age or experience, whichever gives the higher rate. This is great news for some of our most vulnerable workers in Queensland, and I would urge all members to help publicise this decision throughout their electorates.

NOTICE OF MOTION Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.16 a.m.): I move— That the Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2002 (Subordinate Legislation No. 339 of 2002) tabled in parliament on 25 February 2003 be disallowed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Ambulance Levy Mr JOHNSON: (Gregory—NPA) (10.16 a.m.): In this House last Wednesday evening the member for Southern Downs, the Leader of the Opposition, moved a motion that this parliament supports the principle that no individual or business should pay the proposed ambulance levy more than once. The member for Charters Towers was voicing her concerns about the unfairness of the new tax in her electorate on radio the week before last but did not support the Leader of the Opposition's motion of fairness. From time to time, governments have to make difficult decisions. These decisions must be structured and researched on a fair and equitable basis. However, the proposed ambulance levy does not fall into this category. It has been a confrontationalist issue wherein, again, the people of Queensland who are having a go have been told, 'You will do as we say.' Some in my electorate will pay 12 times, but they have no access whatsoever to ambulance—a typical socialist ploy that increases taxes and makes pay the people of Queensland who are having a go. I call on the Premier to show leadership, to revisit this unfair proposal and to restructure the levy so that all residential power users, with the exception of our pensioners, pay. We all want a fair go and we all want a world's best practice ambulance system, but we must all contribute fairly. I call on the government today to show that leadership, because this system is not fair and equitable. At the same time, I believe that the people of Queensland want it to be fair and equitable. Whilst many of our producers and people right throughout the length and breadth of 1 Apr 2003 Private Members' Statements 1003 this state are still under the pressures of drought, this is another tax that will have impediments as far as business goes.

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Rural Women's Awards Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (10.18 a.m.): I would like to give members a brief insight into a Department of Primary Industries initiative that has been successfully operating over the past four years—the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Rural Women's Awards. These awards recognise the incredibly valuable contribution women make to Australian agriculture through supporting projects that will deliver lasting benefits to the rural sector. I was delighted to represent Minister Henry Palaszczuk at this year's presentations to announce the winner and runner up. There were 17 entries, and the three finalists were Desley Vella, Georgie Hinchley and Teena Mammino. On her Babinda cane farm, Desley proposes to restore a cane cutters barracks into a museum documenting the social and cultural history of the sugarcane industry. Proceeds from this awareness exercise will fund environmental rehabilitation work on the farm. A tourism experience will follow with the provision of picnic spots in revegetated riparian zones and low impact walking trails adjacent to the World Heritage listed forests and wetlands. Georgie is a Bingle Bay fruit grower committed to her Tahitian lime orchard. Her project's focus is on the manufacture of marmalades, jams, dressings, chutneys, cordials and biscuits from second grade Tahitian limes. She plans to incorporate eco-tours of the property and packing shed. Over the past 12 months she has been trying new ways to minimise the use of chemical sprays, and part of the property has been revegetated with native trees, including a wetland water catchment area, to reduce the threat of nutrient run-off onto the Great Barrier Reef. Teena is a sugarcane farmer in the Burnett region. Her focus is diversifying from sugar and macadamia production to ice-cream making and tourism on the family property. The nuts are now grown in a 100 per cent chemical-free environment and the cane is green harvested. She plans to eventually export her ice-creams overseas. To say that I was impressed with the projects is an understatement. I am proud to have met these ladies and, although there could be only one winner on the day—that was Desley, who receives a $15,000 bursary—I know that the state is the real winner. These women are indeed an inspiration to rural Queensland.

Resource Operations Plan, Burnett Basin Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.20 a.m.): The Burnett Basin resource operations plan has all the marks of a plan to limit the growth and productivity of the shires in the area, at a time when future growth and prosperity has never looked better. Under the draft ROP many irrigators found their allocations were less than half the amount they used in the past, and that is based on average figures. Irrigators who had used water harvesting licences for over 20 years checked historical records and found their new allocations totally inadequate. It has long been recognised that the holders of water harvesting licences had included them in property assets and that most used their allocation, or had plans to. These allocations were a valuable asset and were viewed as such by the buyers of properties. To have them whittled away by Natural Resources is akin to robbery. In a submission addressing the draft resource operations plan, the Kingaroy Shire Council stated— It is recognised that Kingaroy is not in the area covered by the initial ROP, but we are however very concerned that the Burnett Catchment will be fully allocated with proposed new infrastructure nominated in the initial ROP. The submission from the Central Burnett Water Harvesting Committee included a statement that its members were unhappy with the water reform process to date and that DNRM officer Mr Greg Long had admitted that, if given a second chance, the draft ROP would be a fairer document. The committee begged DNRM to ensure that the last part of the process took Mr Long's admission into account to guarantee licence holders were to be no worse off than they had been historically. As it would appear that no shire councils or water resource committees within the area covered by the ROP are happy with it—and nor are those, it would appear, surrounding the area who are losing water allocation—I ask the minister to seriously consider the concerns offered in their submissions and review the whole process. 1004 Private Members' Statements 1 Apr 2003

It is a common phrase, but to act in haste is to repent at leisure. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but an enormous negative impact on many towns and surrounding areas could be the effect of this government, were it to act in haste at this time.

Mr N. Enright Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (10.22 a.m.): It is with great sadness that I rise to speak on the passing of one of Australia's most prolific writers and one of nature's true gentlemen, Nick Enright. Nick Enright was one of Australia's most successful stage, film and television writers. His credits included the ABC television mini-series Come In Spinner, the feature film Lorenzo's Oil and the stage adaptation of Cloudstreet, in collaboration with Justin Monjo. Nick was also well known as a dramatist, especially for his plays, including Daylight Saving, Blackrock and the fantastic musical The Venetian Twins. Since his first production in 1978, Nick's plays, radio plays, musicals and screenplays have been performed and broadcast constantly throughout this country and internationally. Nick's varied career also embraced theatre directing, acting, lyric writing, screenwriting and teaching. Born on 22 December 1950 in Maitland in New South Wales, Nick Enright came to international prominence as co-writer with George Miller for the screenplay Lorenzo's Oil, which received a Writers Guild Award and an Academy Award nomination for best original screenplay. Nick began his career in the theatre for J. C. Williamson at age 16. After graduating from university he spent a year as general assistant at the Nimrod Street Theatre and then gained his formal training at the New York University School of Arts. He taught at the New York University School of Arts, NIDA and the Actors Centre in Sydney. He was also co-founder of State of Play, an ensemble of young professional performers based at the Department of Performance Studies' Rex Cramphorn Studio, which debuted at the Sydney Festival earlier this year. A passionate and strong advocate for the arts, Nick will be dreadfully missed by his colleagues. He was an incredible artist who was committed to addressing the diminishing role of the actor and the arts in our community. Comrade, we will continue your legacy.

Racing Industry Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (10.24 a.m.): Regional and rural communities have been hard hit again by the Beattie government, particularly in relation to the social and economic impact of the cutback of country racing, which has been significant. A 48 per cent cut in race meetings has occurred since 2000. That has decimated country racing. This government has been heading down a predetermined track for quite a long time. I accurately predicted in this House what would happen to racing in Queensland. The minister said that she supported country racing. She clearly misled the House and clearly misled the racegoers of Queensland. The whole process of the set-up of Queensland Racing and its predecessors was shabby and deceitful. The minister had to be dragged through a CMC inquiry. The report stated that it could not establish to a standard of proof required to support any criminal or disciplinary charges. However, it recognised that the way relevant events unfolded gave rise to understandable concerns on the part of many observers. For instance, documents from the Attorney-General's office, which were provided on 14 and 15 March to the Department of Racing, were mysteriously sent to the fax of Bob Bentley on 15 and 16 March. Mr Bentley was subsequently appointed the chairman of the QTRB on 19 March. The minister knew that these documents had been put into the public arena and did not carry out her ministerial responsibilities by reporting the matter to the CMC. The minister hoped that no-one would find out. When we raised this matter in parliament the Attorney-General began a belated inquiry. The downs and the south west have been hit hard by this government in relation to cutbacks in country racing. There are about 34 clubs in that area. They have nearly all been hit. A lot of the ones that did survive—I am grateful for that—are holding one-day events, which are very important. However, those clubs are on notice, and they have to perform very well. Time expired. 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1005

Personalised Numberplates Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (10.26 a.m.): Driving on Queensland's roads from next month is about to get a whole lot safer and lots more fun. Honourable members should not be alarmed when they see Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck or Tweety Bird out and about on Queensland roads in the near future. These lovable Looney Tunes characters are featured on the latest numberplate series from Personalised Plates Queensland and were officially launched at Warner Bros Movieworld on the Gold Coast. I was honoured to officially represent the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Steve Bredhauer, at the launch. Sunday's launch highlighted the fifth anniversary of the highly successful private-public partnership between Queensland Transport and Personalised Plates Queensland. This partnership shows how government and business can work together for the benefit of the entire community. Over the past five years PPQ has contributed more than $14 million towards road safety programs in Queensland. At the launch I was pleased to present a cheque for $5,500 to the Starlight Children's Foundation on behalf of Minister Bredhauer. The donation represents money raised by Personalised Plates Queensland from the sale of the first ever Looney Tunes plate at the recent personalised plates auction at the 2003 Brisbane International Motor Show. I encourage all Queenslanders to think about purchasing their very own Looney Tunes personalised numberplate. For a mere $375, not only will your car look great as you drive around with your favourite Looney Tunes character, but you will also be benefiting road safety initiatives which might one day help to save your life or the life of a loved one.

Dental Services, Sunshine Coast Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (10.27 a.m.): I again bring to the attention of the House the deplorable state of dental services on the Sunshine Coast. I will share yet another genuine letter from a very concerned constituent of 73 years of age. He said— I am 73 years of age with all my own teeth. I rang the Caloundra Hosp Dental Clinic on the 24-3-03 to inquire if my two years was up to obtain a dental inspection and a scale + clean, and was informed that it was over two years since I was last there for treatment, + the waiting time was now 3 and a half years and growing. That will make it five and a half years that he will have had to wait. He said— I can not afford to have this done at a private dentist. After working and paying taxes for 50 years, I am upset that no one cares and the state is in a bad way. We have lived in the best times, and I feel sorry for the young ones. Perhaps the minister might also feel sorry for the young ones and the old ones who have worked hard, paid their taxes and looked after their health. This is certainly not being done at the moment on the Sunshine Coast. So bad is the situation at Caloundra Hospital that a group of residents are getting together to see if they can lobby the government to put a hospital in Kawana. I have said that I feel it would be much better if the government resourced Caloundra Hospital, where we have the infrastructure. All we need is funds for staff and equipment to open the second theatre and make sure it is working properly. Then there would be no need for citizens to be concerned about putting another hospital into Kawana. I think it is about time the minister acted. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Smart State Mr SPRINGBORG: (10.30 a.m.): My question is directed to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. I refer to leaked Cabinet Budget Review Committee documents which are to go before the CBRC later this month and also to an implementation strategy from the communications and Community Engagement Division of the Premier's propaganda unit entitled 'A strategy for the Smart State agenda'. In the interests of accountability and openness, which the Premier prides himself on— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I made a statement last week about the length of questions. This is not a time for statements; it is a time for questions. Would you ask your question, please? Mr SPRINGBORG: I table the documents for the interest of the House, Mr Speaker. Can the minister confirm that the government will be taking out full-page advertisements in major regional 1006 Questions Without Notice 1 Apr 2003 and community newspapers at an estimated cost of $100,000 to push the Smart State message down the throats of Queenslanders? Would this money not be better spent elsewhere? Mr LUCAS: Queensland has traditionally had an economy that is based on agriculture and mining, and that is an economy that has served us well. But I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, of all people, would understand that this state has to ensure it is competitive in the 21st century. When people in the electorate that he seeks to represent are looking for their jobs in the future and we go to Stanthorpe State High School and see the wonderful things it is doing in modern farming techniques or we go to other schools like Glenala State High School, which has programs with young kids looking at laptops and science and innovation— Mr Reynolds interjected. Mr LUCAS: And Townsville State High School, another example. That the Leader of the Opposition would want to pooh-pooh the Smart State is frankly galling. When the Leader of the Opposition was just a normal member of parliament, he joined the Premier and me at BIO 2002, as did the member for Robina. One of the things he did there and he did well was understand the importance of selling the Smart State to people. But it is not just a question of talking about our world-class biodiversity, or our top class ICT businesses such as Mincom, Technology One and start-up companies or the Institute of Molecular Bioscience; we have a role in selling it to the community as well. The Smart State is not just about people in lab coats at universities or top quality research being done at universities; it is also a question of those people in the community seeing a role for themselves. I will give some examples. People might think that things such as haircuts are pretty standard ordinary stuff, but we have a company like ShortCuts Software, which has developed customer relationship management software that is marketed throughout the world now. The third largest hairdressing chain in the United States deals with it. We need to communicate to people in the community that the Smart State means something for them, because it is the jobs in the future that will make their quality of life better. The honourable member also ought to realise that there is a partnership between those in rural and regional Queensland and those in the city. Just as people in smart industries grow better crops in rural Queensland, people in my electorate use better logistic chains and better IT to ship it out from the port of Brisbane. That is what the future of the Smart State is all about. I make no apology, nor does the Premier, for speaking long and loud about what we are doing in science and innovation because everybody has a stake in it.

Smart State Mr SPRINGBORG: I direct another question to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. Is it true, as stated by the Premier's Community Engagement Division, that— There is no integrated strategy across government to give effect to the Smart State vision. An overall integrated approach needs to be adopted to ensure that the vision of the Smart State does not remain rhetoric, but rather is adopted by all Queenslanders. There is confusion and cynicism within the public sector as with the general public about what the Smart State means. While the communication and community engagement strategy seeks to promote the smart things about Queensland, there is a danger that many of the positive messages could be undermined by not so smart examples. Is it true what they say in their communication strategy? Mr LUCAS: I am not part of the Community Engagement Division, so I will not comment on what it may or may not have written. But I will say this: there is nothing more dangerous than the Leader of the Opposition's behaviour here in running down the future technological and economic development of Queensland. If all he wants to offer kids in the future is driving a train putting coal overseas, then that is his business. But when my department of energy is working with the Minister for State Development on projects such as Aldoga or AMC, when the education minister is working on her IT policy and my department is implementing the Community Skills Development Program, that is about us working together. We will work long and loud to develop the Smart State, and it will be a challenge—particularly when we are dealing with troglodytes like the member on the other side who sees no value in putting a premium on innovation. We do; we see that it is important. I will talk about some other things that are important for us in the Smart State. Let us talk about our biodiscovery potential. There are more tree species in North America than there are in Europe, and there are more tree species in one hectare of rainforest in the Daintree than there are in North America. So the Minister for Environment and my department are working together 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1007 on biodiscovery policy. That is a policy for the future where we will have growth industries not only for people in science and universities but also for people in pharmaceuticals developing those drugs. We now know about the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the work that it is doing on phase 1 clinical trials. The member is not interested in that because, frankly, he is not in the last century, he is in the century before. It is very, very disappointing because the people with the most to gain from this are the people in rural and regional Queensland. We are world class when it comes to food producing, and it is about time that we put a premium and a value on it. I will work long and loud, as will my parliamentary colleagues and my ministerial colleagues, to promote the Smart State. If those opposite want to take great pride in running Queensland down and if they want to be atop a dunghill of coal rather than getting out there and seeing clean coal technologies, our world-class electricity industry, then that is the way they want to develop. But I think it is important that we take pride in the Smart State. Just for once could members of the opposition get in there and support it as well? It is not about my future; it is about the future of my children and their children and those who come after us. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Whitsunday, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Jubilee Primary School in the electorate of Gaven, and included in that group is Sam Mulherin, the nephew of Tim Mulherin.

Ethanol Ms JARRATT: My question is directed to the Premier. In the Toowoomba Chronicle on Saturday an article headed 'Big jobs too hard for Anderson' included another article where Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson made reference to the Labor Party being part of a massive campaign against the ethanol industry. Was this reported and is what he said right or wrong? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Whitsunday for the question. As we all know, not only is she a good member of parliament; she also represents the cane farmers and the sugar industry in her area. She knows that my government is committed to developing a program of encouraging the use of ethanol. So, Dear John: you are wrong, in a nutshell. I am disappointed that the federal National Party leader, John Anderson, has misled the people of Queensland with some inflammatory and inaccurate statements about ethanol. If we are to have ethanol, let us have some honesty about it. Let us have some honesty and some action from the Commonwealth. He was in Dalby on the weekend at a meeting attempting to drum up support for his party. He is reported to have said that the Labor Party was part of a massive campaign against the ethanol industry. As I said, Dear John: you are wrong. Two years ago my government set up an interdepartmental committee to investigate this issue. We have since organised and facilitated international conferences here on this issue. It was my government that encouraged BP to establish the national leading E10 trial right here in Brisbane. It was my government that again led the nation by having Q-Fleet vehicles in the south- east corner take part in the E10 trial. I thank the Minister for Public Works and the Minister for Environment because they were both behind it. Sadly, this ended last month because of the adverse publicity the industry was itself giving to ethanol. I have written this year to the Prime Minister urging him to legislate an ethanol cap. I will come back to that. Far from being part of a massive campaign against this industry, we have been one of the ones showing a lead in developing a green fuel. Instead of Mr Anderson attacking us, we would ask that he come on board and support us in our calls for the Commonwealth to legislate a cap. Until we legislate a cap, there will be uncertainty in the industry and that will undermine the whole opportunity for the development of ethanol. He should keep the broad, sweeping inaccuracies for elsewhere. He should be aware that we have been working for this industry, not against it, and we will continue to do so. I want to make that very clear. Without giving too much detail away, I hope to announce an expansion of our efforts with this in the coming weeks. But let us look at what I said to the Prime Minister. The Commonwealth government subsidy for domestic ethanol producers was put in place to encourage and maintain the use of biofuels in transport in Australia. The reality is that until we get the Commonwealth to do something about that cap nothing will happen. Accordingly, I sought the support of the Prime Minister for this: retention of a production subsidy for domestically produced fuel, ethanol or some alternative support mechanism for a domestic ethanol industry; sufficient time to allow the industry to become established in Australia, because five years would be more appropriate than the current 1008 Questions Without Notice 1 Apr 2003

12-month time frame; establishment of a 10 per cent ceiling for the ethanol content of petrol Australia wide; and introduction of compulsory labelling of ethanol petrol blends to show the ethanol content in the fuel. We want an ethanol industry. John Anderson is stopping us. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Callide, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Pacific Pines High School in the electorate of Gaven. Welcome.

Innovation Start-Up Scheme Mr SEENEY: I refer the Treasurer to the fact that given that only four of the first 30 projects funded under the government's Innovation Start-Up Scheme have been successful in attracting ongoing capital and, to quote the document that was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, as many as 12 of these projects are near or at the point where they are unable to proceed further because of the lack of capital, I ask: does he intend to provide the $5.8 million in funding sought as part of the Smart State initiative? Mr MACKENROTH: When the Leader of the Opposition asked this question this morning, he said that he had a leaked document which was being prepared for the Cabinet Budget Review Committee. Therefore, I have not seen the document so I do not know what is being asked for. I would need to have a look at that and the Cabinet Budget Review Committee would need to look at it and consider it in the deliberations of the budget. If the member bothers to come along on 3 June, I will tell him.

Townsville City Council; National Competition Council Fine Ms PHILLIPS: I refer the Premier to the fact that in November 2000 he announced that the state government would amend legislation dealing with competition reform so that Queensland would be responsible for determining what is in the public interest when it comes to competition reform. He promised that unelected bureaucrats in Melbourne would have much less power in deciding the fate of jobs and our way of life in Queensland, and I ask: can the Premier tell the House of the outcome of a battle with Canberra regarding a $270,000 fine by the National Competition Council in connection with Townsville City Council's refusal to introduce two-part water tariffs for residential customers? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Thuringowa for her question and I know her keen interest in these matters. I am delighted to be able to inform members that Queensland has won a $270,000 battle with the National Competition Council in relation to water tariffs in Townsville. In 2001 the federal government penalised Queensland with a permanent reduction of $270,000 to our national competition policy payments. This was because Townsville City Council had decided not to introduce two-part water tariffs for residential customers. The state government absorbed $216,000 of the penalty. The Townsville City Council then commissioned a report by Montgomery Watson which recommended against the introduction of the tariffs. The Queensland Competition Authority then investigated the situation and said that the council's decision was consistent with the Council of Australian Governments' water reform objectives because the implementation of two-part tariffs would not be cost effective. The decision was based on the following: there was no financial benefit; any reduction in demand for water would compromise the Greening Townsville Policy, which is an important contributor to increasing tourism and improving the city's image; and the council is committed to improving the efficiency of water usage. In 2002 the National Competition Council indicated that if the Queensland authority found in favour of the city council it would—guess what?—lift the penalty. I have now written to the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, requesting the lifting of the $270,000 fine and a return of all the money withheld from Queensland under this penalty. We have wanted a balance about competition payments and about the Competition Council and how it operates. We have to remember that one rule does not fit all in Australia. The very regionalisation and decentralisation of Queensland provides for particular considerations and particular problems which need to be addressed. National competition policy has produced some positive results, but it has also produced some major difficulties and major problems. We need to have an approach which is rational and sensible. Since we have been in office we have facilitated one change to national competition policy because it has been very difficult to get cooperation from the federal government. But this is a win for Queensland and a win for Townsville. I thank the member for Thuringowa because this win has been long overdue. We are going to continue 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1009 to have a sensible approach. If the policies of national competition do not favour Queensland, then my government will not support them, and that involves areas like, for example, electricity. Electricity is a very important ingredient not just in terms of the quality of day-to-day life but in driving the engine room of industry. We have to be competitive. One of the ways to do that is to have an effective electricity industry. We are not simply going to do what they did in Victoria, and that is to privatise the whole industry and as a result end up in a very difficult situation. We will avoid that by having a sensible balance. For example, in Millmerran we will have a private generator. We will have a balance where there will be a partnership between the public and the private, but we will maintain public ownership, particularly in transmission lines, in order to look after the public interest. That is what we are about. Government is about looking after the public interest and looking after Queenslanders, regardless of where they live. Members should think how hard it would be to get some of the big deals that the Minister for State Development has achieved in central Queensland without competitively priced power. This is about Queensland's future, and we are going to look after it.

Research and Development Funding Mr QUINN: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and Minister for Energy to information contained in the submission to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee, which was tabled this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, which states— Should this initiative not be approved, the significant amount of state and Commonwealth government funds directed to research and development in universities and research institutions will continue to underperform in terms of commercialisation outcomes, economic activity and accelerated job creation. I ask the minister: is this an admission that the Smart State agenda is underperforming and not delivering as he promised? Mr LUCAS: The Queensland government spends more per capita on R&D than any other state government in Australia. One of the challenges that we have is to work together with our departments to better use our R&D spend for the benefit of the state and our economic future. I am delighted that the honourable member asked a question about how we might deal with the Commonwealth, because one of the greatest concerns that I have when it comes to dealing with the Commonwealth is its continued lack of support of Queensland. Under various administrations of this state, even National-Liberal administrations, the response from the Commonwealth in terms of funding university places or funding research is just not good enough. Victoria per capita gets substantially greater than Queensland when it comes to R&D. That is just not good enough. During the Biotech Centre of Excellence bids Queensland had two of the four short-listed tenderers. So two of the four were from Queensland—one from QIMR and one based at Griffith University. I was the only state minister who went to Canberra to argue for the Queensland bids. We all know who the Commonwealth ended up funding. Alan Trounson's bid! I do not know what those opposite had to say about that at the time or what they have to say about it now, but the $46.5 million went to Alan Trounson instead of QIMR with its bioterrorism bid or to Griffith University with its biodiscovery bid for the future. That is what the Commonwealth did. We are world class in ICT. Our e-security cluster is the second biggest cluster in the world outside the United States. What happened with the National ICT Centre of Excellence bid? There is always talk of our rivalry with Victoria. We actually partnered with Victoria in that bid and also, to a lesser extent, New South Wales. That bid was about commercialising some of the ICT development that we do in this state and indeed in Australia. We also had partnerships with Telstra and other large corporations. What did the Commonwealth do? It funded the New South Wales-Canberra bid, again leaving Queensland in the lurch. With our $100 million Smart State Research Facility Fund we are the ones actually putting money into science in Queensland, not the Commonwealth. It is about time the Commonwealth put in its fair share. When the State Development Department and my department funded the fibre composites centre at the University of Southern Queensland, the best they got there—and I stand to be corrected—from the federal government was about a million dollars, not the $10 million put in by the state government. That is about our economic future. People in Toowoomba who are proud of Toowoomba, such as Kerry Shine, can point with great justification to the new stringers made out of fibre composite under the Story Bridge, developed with technology from the University of Southern Queensland. In New South Wales the first bridges are now being built with fibre composite technology from the University of Southern Queensland. 1010 Questions Without Notice 1 Apr 2003

The simple fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth government has to get in and support what is being done here. The Smart State starts in Brisbane and goes all the way up the coast of Queensland. But the Commonwealth seems to think, time and time again, that if it does not happen in Melbourne, Sydney or Canberra it is not worth doing. When the honourable member was in Canada with the Premier and me, he was very happy to promote what was happening in Queensland, for which I congratulate him. He seems to do the right thing overseas, but when he comes back home he plays politics and does not do the right thing. I urge the member to encourage people in Queensland to see the benefits for them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Albert, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Harrisfield State School in the electorate of Woodridge.

Managed Internet Services, Education Queensland Ms KEECH: I ask the Minister for Education: could she advise how Telstra's decision to withdraw from offering managed Internet services to the education sector is affecting Queenslanders? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I know the commitment she has to schools in her electorate and her interest in the Smart State agenda. I am very pleased to announce that Telstra's contract with Education Queensland for managed Internet services expires on 30 June 2003 and the contract was put out to tender following Telstra's announcement that it would withdraw from providing these services to the education sector. Today I am delighted to announce that the company successful in winning the tender to replace Telstra is a Brisbane based company called WebCentral. This Brisbane based company will ensure that jobs and expertise in this vital area are kept in the Smart State. The contract with this Brisbane company will commence on 1 July. It will initially be for three years with an option for extension for a further two. Telstra will provide assistance and support in the changeover. There are many benefits to the new system. WebCentral will manage Education Queensland's messaging, web access and domain name servers. It will also maintain the existing functions and features in schools but will be simpler to use and easier to access for both staff and students. Our government is relentless in its determination to make sure that computers, information and communication technology are an integrated daily part of every Queensland classroom. We are doing everything we can to make it both simpler and safer to use in the belief that that is an important part of making it a reality. We on this side of the parliament believe that Smart State is everybody's business and it is the business of everybody in schools and in every classroom. The new system will ensure that we have the capability to include single sign-on, which will allow staff and students to use a single password to access the school intranet and the Internet—a significantly easier pathway for staff and students. There will be extra security measures to protect the network from intruders and viruses. Advanced fire walls will protect illegal activity from outside and inside. Extra security measures will also ensure that students cannot access inappropriate material. WebCentral will manage ongoing hardware and software maintenance, backups and on-site monitoring of systems. Education Queensland is one of the largest Internet data centres in the world, with more than 540,000 single users. Under a new deal there will be room to expand the users and ultimately to allow parents access to the system. Education Queensland is an extremely prolific user. In a single month last year the network carried 1.44 trillion bytes of information, 89 billion bytes of mail, 317 web page requests, three million emails, 20 million requests for user account changes, such as a change of password, and up to 89,000 email viruses are removed every month. This is clear data that shows that Education Queensland is furthering the Smart State in our classrooms. Our teachers and students are active users of this service. The new deal offers a superior network at the cutting edge of world standards. It is a smart deal for the Smart State.

Emergency Department, Nambour Hospital Miss SIMPSON: I direct a question to the Minister for Health. I table several Queensland Health documents indicating that conditions within Nambour Hospital's emergency department are dysfunctional, dangerous and a debacle of the highest order. Nambour's emergency department went into bypass, meaning it could not take anymore patients, twice in August 2002, once in September 2002 and once in February this year. Obviously, the 17 beds currently available for emergency treatment are insufficient. The minister has about 15 emergency beds in 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1011 the new development yet to be commissioned. Considering the current situation, I ask: why has the minister not commissioned the extra beds and when, if ever, does she plan to? Mrs EDMOND: I welcome the member back from her trip to Asia, and I hope sincerely that she was not exposed to SARS while she was over there; luckily, so far Queensland has not had any problems with this very aggressive virus. In relation to Nambour Hospital, I am aware of the documents the member refers to. They were part of a wide-ranging FOI request. We keep hearing about how they cannot access FOI documents. I think about this many FOI documents went off to the opposition last week. Mr Purcell: About a metre. Mrs EDMOND: There was a pile of FOI documents about a metre high, including some statements regarding the Nambour emergency department. Those claims have been refuted by the management at Nambour Hospital. There was an inquiry after the allegations were made. It was found that there was some poor communication; that there was no need for those patients to have gone on bypass. I sincerely regret that they went through that. But I think it is worth noticing that some of the problems we are having around the state with emergency departments, as I have said, are because of the increasing number of GP-type patients—categories 4 and 5—that are turning up at our emergency departments. It is worth noting that even while Nambour is at the lower end of that scale it is still nearly 50 per cent; 46 per cent of people turning up at the emergency department at Nambour are GP-type patients, or categories 4 and 5. Everyone seems to be aware of that except those opposite. I read an article in the Courier- Mail on the weekend about how people were prepared to wait for hours and hours to see a GP who bulkbilled. The same is happening in our emergency departments. The people who cannot afford to access a doctor are prepared to sit for hours and hours in our emergency departments. They know that they will get quality care, but they also know that the emergency departments are full of people who are waiting to see doctors. That is why it is disappointing that we cannot even get a meeting with the federal Health Minister to discuss these issues. She cannot be bothered coming to the meetings. In Sydney on Friday all of the other Health Ministers are meeting over food issues. The New South Wales election is over, so she has run out of excuses. I would urge her to take advantage of all of the other Health Ministers meeting to discuss food issues to come along and talk to us about the Health Care Agreement, funding for our public hospitals, emergency departments and GPs. They should start talking about health issues instead of just sitting opposite and whingeing.

Science and Technology Awards Ms BARRY: I direct a question to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. Even this far from the front bench we understand the Smart State and its application and we would be happy to explain it to members opposite. I ask: how is Queensland going on the national front in terms of its science and technology endeavours and are we being recognised for our achievements in these smart industries? Mr LUCAS: It is always a pleasure to answer a question from a triple certificate palliative care oncology nurse who actually knows and understands the benefits of innovation for the medical future of this state and the wellbeing and health of its people. I thank the member for her question. It is not surprising that a Gold Coast engineer is one of this year's national science and technology awards, or Clunies Ross awards, recipients. I often talk about how Queensland punches above its weight when it comes to innovation, science and technology. Members opposite might be interested to know—I know the member for Moggill would certainly be interested to know, because just the other day he made a speech extolling quite rightly the virtues of the University of Queensland—that six of the federation fellows recently announced by the federal government came from the University of Queensland. That is better than any other institution in Australia. That shows what some of our institutions are doing. I want to talk about two Queenslanders who were successful in the Clunies Ross Science and Technology Awards last week. This is a very prestigious awards night throughout Australia. I could say that it is an Academy Awards night for the science and technology industry. The awards are a tribute to people who have made major achievements in their chosen field that have a widespread impact on society. 1012 Questions Without Notice 1 Apr 2003

Two Queenslanders were successful on the evening. Professor David Doddrell from the University of Queensland—and I understand that he went to school with the member for Moggill, so they obviously learned some good things going to school together—did work leading to fast and accurate MRI images. Of course, MRI images are critical to the health and diagnosis of people not only in Brisbane, Queensland and Australia but also throughout the world. Stephen Elliott—and members opposite who quite rightly have a great interest in water would be interested in this—undertook research in relation to what produces outbreaks of blue-green algae in drinking water. I was the only state minister at the Clunies Ross awards. In fact, I was the only minister at the Clunies Ross awards and I was acknowledged as such. Indeed, Hugh Morgan, who is no great supporter of my side of politics, was there and acknowledged the Queensland government's work in the area of science and technology. We are proud of our scientists, and I will praise our scientists and encourage other Queenslanders who see that as their future. David Doddrell developed technology from the University of Queensland that is now used in 70 per cent of the world's MRI machines. Seventy per cent of the world's MRI machines have Queensland's Smart State technology developed by David Doddrell who, I might add, at that dinner pointed out in no uncertain terms how proud he was to be a Queenslander when it comes to competing with other countries and other states. That technology is used in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and to assess the level of brain tissue damage that has been caused by a stroke. Stephen Elliott's aeration system stops discolouration, odour and bad taste in dam water. It also ensures that water constantly circulates and it uses five per cent of normal energy. Stephen's aeration system is used at the Little Nerang Dam, Swanbank Lake, Cooby and Perseverance dams, and dams and reservoirs from New South Wales and South Australia. It is a great privilege to go to these awards nights and sit with Queenslanders who are doing such wonderful stuff. They are creating the jobs of the future. We cannot create the jobs of the future; we can support them creating the jobs of the future. It is a pleasure, a delight and an honour to serve in a government that sees that as a priority.

Fine Defaulters Mrs PRATT: I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Police community liaison committees have expressed real concern with the current system whereby people convicted of the non-payment of fines are encouraged to enter into payment plans or community service before cancelling licences or attempting to recover goods from the offender. To quote from a police community liaison committee letter dated 26 March to the Attorney-General, 'very few of our local criminals pay their fines and the message is very clear to them that there is no punishment for committing crime. While it is considered reasonable to explore all financial recovery options before imposing the default period of imprisonment, the police and justice system employees reportedly share the same frustration.' I ask the Attorney—General: will he review this fine defaulting process to ensure that recidivist defaulters who are not prepared to pay the fine will do the time and give confidence back to our police and the public? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for her question. I have received a letter from that community police liaison group—I think it is based in the member's electorate—and I will be responding to them directly in the near future. I am not sure that the premise on which their concern is based is entirely accurate, that is, the proposition that most offenders do not pay their fines. The fact is that since we introduced the State Penalties Enforcement Register, the system of enforcement that we have in place, which until now has not relied on the imprisonment of fine defaulters, has collected 1.5 million fines worth $230 million. As a result of enforcement action taken to date—that is, civil enforcement action, follow-up, telephone calls, notices to people that they would face suspension or cancellation of their licence—SPER has collected in excess of $75 million and is collecting a further $46.5 million through formal instalment plans. Many of these instalment plans are being paid by automatic deductions from a bank account or from the person's Centrelink benefit. Twenty million dollars worth of fines have been finalised other than by payment. These can be finalised when SPER action causes the fine defaulter to resolve the fine with the agency that issued it or contest the fine in court. Fines can also be finalised through community service. Community service accounts for the resolution of at least $3.2 million worth of fines, with more than $830,000 worth of fines being 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1013 satisfied by community service at the present time. About $5 million worth of fines are under suspension pending the outcome of outstanding applications or investigations. There are about $30 million worth of fines still outstanding from debtors whose whereabouts are unknown. SPER has issued approximately 83,000 orders relating to licence suspension. Fewer than 47,000 of these orders remain in place. So members can see that, by and large, people who receive court fines or other forms of fines do attempt to contact SPER to make arrangements to pay their fine by instalment or, indeed, pay it out entirely. We are recruiting an extra 16 enforcement officers who will conduct enforcement campaigns across Queensland in the coming months. A similar project initiated in July last year resulted in the collection of over $210,000 through a special campaign. About $1 million remains to be collected from instalment plans set up as a result of that program. So progress is being made. I am constantly monitoring the performance of SPER. Ultimately, those people who are intransigent and do not want to pay their fine and would prefer to go to prison may end up there.

Anzac Day Ms STRUTHERS: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to Anzac Day commemoration ceremonies for students held since 1997. I ask: can the minister please advise the House if there is any support available for the ceremony? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. As she says, every year since 1997 there has been an Anzac Day commemoration ceremony for students, which is presided over by the Governor, His Excellency Major Peter Arnison, who is the patron of the Anzac Day commemoration ceremony committee. Since 1997, I am pleased to say that QR has provided support to students who attend that ceremony, because it gives them an opportunity to commemorate the history of Australians involved in conflict, particularly overseas, and the contribution that those people have made to our Australian way of life. Essentially, QR assists people by providing free transport. This year's ceremony will be held on Wednesday, 16 April. The ceremony has grown in size and importance each year since 1997. For example, last year over 2,000 students from 113 schools across south-east Queensland attended the ceremony. It is also hosted by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in their capacities as the honorary chair and deputy chair of the Anzac Day commemoration ceremony. Obviously, this year's ceremonies will be of special significance with Australian troops seeing active service overseas. The students from participating schools travel free of charge from Gympie, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Ipswich, Logan and all the areas of Brisbane. QR Citytrain is once again pleased to grant the ADCCC's request for assistance in transporting students to Central Station for this year's ceremony. As I have said, Citytrain has been involved every year by transporting the students free of charge. The Citytrain's group booking officer facilitates all school bookings to help meet the transportation needs of students who are travelling to the ceremony. A Citytrain special events supervisor assists to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the students. Another area of importance for QR and for the government is to ensure that students' safety is taken into consideration. So QR's station officers, train crew and transit service officers help with managing the large number of people who attend the ceremony and who come across central station. At the ceremony, students provide the cadet honour guard, a military band and choir. Students offer tributes to those who served and are currently serving Australia overseas. Young people separated by generations from those who fought at Gallipoli can recognise the contribution made to our nation by people who have served overseas for their country. The ceremony commemorates and pays tribute to this lasting legacy and the sacrifice of Australians in all conflicts in which we have been involved. I am pleased that both QR and the state government are able to support this important Anzac Day initiative.

Tilt Train Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Can the minister advise this House if any promotional material produced in relation to the diesel tilt train has been recalled and pulped? Will the minister confirm that this material was withdrawn because the people of Townsville took exception to the minister's shameless promotion 1014 Questions Without Notice 1 Apr 2003 of Cairns without recognition of the importance of Townsville as a destination? What was the cost to the taxpayer of this wasted material? Mr BREDHAUER: On the basis of advice provided to me—no, no promotional material for the Brisbane to Cairns tilt train has been pulped. There was a particular brochure which talked about the Brisbane to Cairns tilt train that did not mention Townsville. The people in Townsville took exception to that. I have had discussions with the members for Townsville, Thuringowa and Mundingburra, who know of my very strong commitment to Townsville in delivering fast and efficient travel train services. Not only that, the brand-new railway station is about to come online in Townsville this year—another major investment by this government in providing services to regional areas. It should come as no surprise that this member continues to whinge, whine and carp about the tilt train service, something which he has done since 1998 when I first became the minister. The Brisbane to Rockhampton tilt train and the Brisbane to Bundaberg daily return services have proved so popular that half the time people cannot get bookings because they are booked out. The Brisbane to Rockhampton tilt train took over 1 million passengers in its first two years of operation and has provided a $4 million boost per annum to the economy of Rockhampton alone, not to mention the boost to the economies of other cities on the seaboard between Rockhampton and— Mr JOHNSON: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister has been going for two minutes and he has not answered the question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BREDHAUER: He continues to whine and carp and criticise the Brisbane to Cairns tilt train as does his mate, the member for Hinchinbrook. They suggested there was a shortage of passengers on the train. There is no such thing. The operation of the Brisbane— Opposition members interjected Mr BREDHAUER: Listen to them. Let it be on the record today that the member for Hinchinbrook does not want Ingham, Cardwell, Tully and Innisfail to enjoy the benefits that the Brisbane to Cairns tilt train will provide to the people of far-north Queensland. It took seven minutes to sell out the first northbound service. Almost 4,000 people booked on that train in the first three hours that the bookings were open. The only people who oppose it are the members of the National Party who were supposed to stick up for the people in rural and regional areas. Their hypocrisy is exposed by the fact that they do not want these services to improve the economy and job prospects for people in their communities. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr BREDHAUER: I rise to a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition described the Brisbane to Cairns tilt train as a 'waste of money'. That will come back to haunt him. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I call the member for Capalaba.

Deep Vein Thrombosis Mr CHOI: Will the Minister for Health— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We need to hear this question. The House will come to order. The member for Capalaba. Mr CHOI: I know that the Minister for Health cares not just for the health and wellbeing of Queenslanders but also for visitors to our Smart State. Considering the importance of tourism to the Queensland economy, has any work been done here to address the threat to air travellers caused by deep vein thrombosis? Mrs EDMOND: I know that the member spends quite a bit of time on long distance travel to Asia, though I would urge him not to go to Asia at the moment because of the threat of SARS. 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1015

Once again, Queensland is demonstrating in the area of health research that we are indeed the Smart State. On top of all of those many initiatives outlined by my colleague the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, Paul Lucas, at the Royal Brisbane Hospital in recent weeks we began work on a world first human trial into new blood clot detection technology. This is a major step in the development of an improved test to diagnose blood clots early and accurately. It is a joint project involving the Department of Nuclear Medicine at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and a Brisbane based biotechnology company, Agenix Limited. This is a phase 1 trial, which means its purpose is to ensure that the new clot imaging technology does not pose any harm to patients. The trial involves 32 volunteers aged between 18 and 70. Once researchers are satisfied that the technology is safe, the next stage will be to conduct human trials to confirm efficacy. Accurate and timely detection of blood clots remains a major issue for health authorities around the world. A product that will improve the diagnosis of blood clots, including those that cause deep vein thrombosis, or economy class syndrome as it is sometimes called, could help prevent thousands of deaths each year worldwide. In Australia alone, it has been estimated that up to 10,000 people die of undetected blood clots each year. There are approximately 33,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis, which are blood clots in the leg, each year in Australia, and 4,200 cases of pulmonary embolism, which are clots in the lungs. The local company has developed a diagnostic imaging technology called ThromboView. It uses a clot binding monoclonal antibody attached to a radio label. Following injection of a few millilitres of ThromboView into a patient with a suspected blood clot, the antibody will flow through a person's body and bind to any existing blood clots. The resulting hot spots indicating the presence of the blood clot will be picked up on an imaging camera. The trial is being conducted at Q-Pharm Pty Ltd, a company specifically set up by the Queensland Institute of Medical Research last year to undertake phase 1 trials, and I for one await with interest the outcome. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Tablelands, I welcome to the public gallery a second group of students and teachers from Harrisfield State School in the electorate of Woodridge.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Ms LEE LONG: My question is to the Minister for Health. What is the Beattie government doing to protect the health of Queenslanders, considering the severe acute respiratory syndrome which currently is endemic in countries to our north and especially in the light of a news broadcast estimating that up to 1,000 deaths could occur in Australia from its effects and in the light of Queensland's proximity and tourist and travel links, particularly through the Cairns International Airport, with many of these international hot spots? Mrs EDMOND: As I mentioned earlier today, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about this flu in the media. While Queensland Health is monitoring the situation carefully, I would urge the public not to panic. I would also suggest, though, that if you do not have to go to Asia perhaps this is not the time to go. The World Health Organisation has issued criteria for diagnosing this new strain of flu. The Commonwealth government has forwarded that information to GPs around Australia. Queensland Health has alerted staff about it throughout our network of hospitals. We are blessed with highly skilled staff in Queensland public hospitals, and there are protocols for dealing with infectious diseases. In addition, our statewide hospital rebuilding project has ensured that we have state-of-the-art facilities for isolating infectious diseases if the need should arise. To date, there has been only one probable case of severe acute respiratory syndrome— SARS—in Australia that has been reported to the World Health Organisation. That patient is now well, has been discharged from hospital and has not infected anyone else. Worldwide, however, there have been more than 1,550 probable cases and 54 associated deaths reported by the World Health Organisation. It is worth noting that transmission of SARS is only through close contact, and there is currently no evidence of general transmission in the community. Anyone with concerns about SARS should contact their GP or ring the information line set up by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. That information line—the number is 1800 004 599—is open from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. For the benefit of the House I table the latest information issued by the Commonwealth of Australia's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Richard Smallwood. 1016 Questions Without Notice 1 Apr 2003

Duck and Quail Season Mr LEE: Can the Minister for Environment outline to the House why Queensland will not proceed with a duck and quail season this year? Mr WELLS: There will be no duck and quail season this year. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable Minister for Primary Industries. This is a decision that is based on the science. A glance at the map will show honourable members why. I have here maps showing the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the duck and quail season last time and this year. Obviously the dry has affected a much wider area than it did in 1995, when the season was last cancelled. The cancellation was a decision based on the science. The science has a number of strands. The map is only one of those. Taken into account are factors such as the current surface water in lakes, dams and wetlands throughout Queensland—obviously for a waterbird population this is crucial—the abundance of duck and quail populations in selected survey areas, summary statistics of previous seasons dating back to 1984, and the current drought situation and rainfall throughout Queensland, because rainfall is a critical factor. In making this determination I am assisted each year by a duck and quail advisory committee. Each season is reviewed by the Parks and Wildlife Service. The advisory committee is made up representatives of the RSPCA, the Wildlife Preservation Society, the Field and Game Association, the Queensland Ornithological Society, the Canine Control Council and the Sporting Shooters Association. Honourable members will not be surprised to find that people on that committee come to the table with certain very strong views. Some of those are never in favour of shooting the ducks; others are always in favour of doing so. There is a fragile consensus but a substantial one. That consensus is around the idea of sustainability. That committee has had a look at the science each year, and each year a determination has been made which is consistent with the science. The science says that this year it is not sustainable and therefore it cannot continue. I thank the honourable member for Indooroopilly for his question. It is a matter, I know, about which he has a deep and humane concern. These particular species are assisted by our transformation of the landscape. The primary industries we pursue increase the number of dams and watercourses available for these particular species to breed. They live very compatibly with us and actually benefit from what we do. I assure honourable members that, although that means that in most seasons a harvest of the ducks and quail is likely to be sustainable, when it is not and when the science says that it is not we will not have a season.

Drought Mr ROWELL: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to his answer to question on notice No. 82, asked on 26 February, which related to the amount of state assistance provided to drought affected primary producers. I ask: why is the minister so reluctant to provide details on the level of assistance provided to primary producers? Is it because the federal government has provided Queensland with almost $30 million of assistance but this government has provided only a measly $2.24 million? Mr PALASZCZUK: Last Thursday I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition on the issue of drought. In my answer I referred to the level of assistance that the state government has provided to our primary producers over the last month. The state government has provided over $1 million of assistance in one month. For all intents and purposes, those amounts will grow. I cannot understand why honourable members opposite are carping in their criticism of the state government. This scheme has built on the scheme that has operated since the early 1990s. We have built on it. We have provided more assistance to our primary producers. We have extended it to the horticulture industry. Mr ROWELL: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. That is totally incorrect. During the period of time we were in government it was $2.8 million in six months. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr PALASZCZUK: I am not going to get into any sort of argy-bargy over how much those opposite provided and how much we have provided. Those opposite all know that the take-up by our primary producers has been pretty slow. As minister, I have tried everything in my power to 1 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1017 make primary producers access our scheme. We provided $1 million in the last month to our primary producers, and that amount will increase. As members opposite all know, most of the state government's assistance kicks in when the drought ends. Those opposite know the reasons. Our biggest problem is with the federal government, with its exceptional circumstances assistance. When will those opposite go down to Canberra and argue for our horticulturalists on the Sunshine Coast, who have been denied exceptional circumstances assistance by the federal government? That is the problem those opposite face. They will not go down to Canberra and argue the case for our horticulturalists. A month ago the feds announced that everyone could have access to assistance—pastoralists and horticulturalists. Yesterday the federal Agriculture Minister said that horticulturalists are out. The federal government keeps moving the goal posts. The bulk of the assistance that comes to our primary producers comes through exceptional circumstances funding. Our scheme is no different from the scheme that operated when those opposite were in government. I anticipate that the amount of money that is being given to our primary producers by the state government will increase month by month.

Tourism, Fraser Island Mr McNAMARA: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading. Fraser Island is the brightest jewel in Queensland's tourism crown and vital to the economic prosperity of both Hervey Bay and Maryborough. Can the minister inform the House of recent research which established the prime attractions to tourists and which will help local authorities to plan for the future? Ms ROSE: I thank the member for the question. Fraser Island's natural beauty, its untouched nature and its lakes and creeks are the big attractions to tourists, according to the latest Tourism Queensland research. The 2002 Fraser Island visitors survey included information from over 400 visitor interviews between August and September 2002 to identify the specific tourist appeals of the island. Fraser Island is a prime leisure destination, with eight out of 10 visitors spending time on the island for holiday or leisure purposes. The island continues to be very popular with campers, with almost two-thirds of all overnight visitors staying in camp accommodation. The most popular places to visit identified through the survey were the Maheno shipwreck, Eli Creek and Central Station. Fishing was also found to be a very popular activity for intrastate respondents. Those who have been there to chase the tailor or other species will not be surprised. However, this aspect was less appealing to interstate and overseas visitors. The visitors survey will help tourism stakeholders better understand the area's existing tourist market and plan for tourism in the future. The research profiled visitors to the island in terms of demographics and travel behaviour, and measured visitor satisfaction and appeal for specific aspects of the area. More than half of the visitors surveyed said that Fraser Island had exceeded their expectations, and another third said that it had delivered what they had anticipated. Aspects of the trip that received the highest satisfaction ratings were personal safety and security, the variety of things to see and do and the availability of tours. Of those interviewed, 39 per cent were from overseas, another 39 per cent were from within Queensland and the remainder were interstate visitors. UK visitors alone accounted for 17 per cent of all survey respondents, which indicates the popularity of Fraser Island in this market. While independent travellers accounted for nearly two-thirds of all visitors to Fraser Island, organised tours were more preferred by overseas visitors, with nearly 60 per cent opting for pre- arranged tours. Word of mouth was found to be the most popular information source for respondents when planning their trip to Fraser Island. Almost two-thirds of all respondents had not visited Fraser Island previously. Identified as possible improvements to Fraser Island were more and improved amenities. Tourism Queensland and the Fraser Coast-South Burnett Regional Tourism Board will use this research to plan for the region's future marketing and development and to maximise tourism in the area. The Fraser Island visitor survey is available on Tourism Queensland's research web site at www.tq.com.au/research/purchase/htm. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired. 1018 Matters of Public Interest 1 Apr 2003

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Smart State Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition (11.30 a.m.): There is a very alarming trend starting to emerge in this parliament. When the opposition asks questions, government ministers stand up and go into personal vilification and attacks on shadow ministers rather than answering the question. Just because we are adopting a positive politics agenda does not mean that this government is going to get a free ride, particularly in areas where it is falling down significantly and where it needs to be held accountable for its spending and its administration of departments in this state and for services which are so necessary and essential to Queenslanders. I refer to the Minister for Health, who this morning when asked a question by the shadow minister relating to some documents which were released by the minister's own department regarding emergencies at Nambour stood up and started attacking the honourable member personally and failed to answer the nub of the question which was put forward. It is the government's own documents which are being referred to. By way of example, I have here a memorandum from Dr Terry George, the Director of Emergency Medicine in Nambour, to a Dr D. Martin. He says of the Nambour General Hospital with regards to the Department of Emergency Medicine— At 8:00 our 16 treatment area departments had 16 admitted patients in it without inpatient ward beds to move to. This is a debacle of the highest order. How can the minister stand up and justify that? This is only one of the major areas of deficiency which the opposition has highlighted in the last week or so. It is about time that ministers stop playing personalities and start answering the questions put to them by the opposition. They are not going to be able to skip away from this by going into personal attacks. We will continue to pursue them on areas where they have failed to administer their respective departments. The Minister for Innovation and Information Economy stood up this morning and was not able to answer questions regarding documents which have been pre-prepared by his own department. Mr Shine: That's not true. Mr SPRINGBORG: We have the mouthpiece for the minister, the member for Toowoomba North, who has not even bothered to look at those particular documents. Has he seen those documents this morning? He has not even looked at them because they come from the Premier's department. They come from the Community Engagement Division. They come from the minister's own department. They are his own documents. They are his own public servants saying those things. It is not us; that is what his own people are saying about it. The minister stood up this morning and went into all sorts of personal attacks about how we are troglodytes and we do not support the Smart State agenda. I stood up publicly even at the Science in Parliament Week last year and commended the minister for his enthusiasm and the way that he is seeking to engage the community with regards to innovation and technology, but that does not mean that we usurp our right to be critical on areas where the government is underperforming. We know that IT, innovation, commercialisation and research are so important to the good performance of this state in the future. We know that. We know we need to broaden our base. We know we need to invest in technology, and we know we need to invest in innovation. That is an absolute given. That is why the member for Lockyer, the member for Robina and I were very happy to be a part of the government's process last year to support the biotechnology convention in Toronto. We went around that forum promoting Queensland as much as we possibly could, and we will continue to do that. What we also have to remember is that where there are areas where the government is underperforming we will reserve the right to be critical of them, pursue them and make sure that they are accountable for the funds which they have and make sure they are doing the right thing by the state. It is not just rhetoric. Its own document indicates there is a whole lot of rhetoric that goes with it. We know that innovation and technology are extremely important to so many areas of Queensland's economy and the lifestyle for Queenslanders now and in the future. Some of those benefits are pharmaceuticals; food security, which is so important not only to this state but also to the people that we trade with and our world in general in the future; engineering, whether it be mining or transport; and of course information technology. Whilst it is great to promote information 1 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1019 technology and have as many people as possible go to universities and study that area, we also have to be aware that it has a very high unemployment rate. When our IT graduates complete their degrees at our universities, have they got jobs in the short, medium and long term and are they sustainable? I think that is crucial. It is great to be promoting our engagement with regards to the IT industry in India, but we also need to be looking at the long-term sustainable jobs for Queenslanders who are going through our IT faculties and training in those areas. That is where we are falling down. Anyone who wants to have a look at the figures with regards to unemployment in those areas will see that to be true. It is all right to have an agenda. We will support that agenda, but it is also very important that we are prepared to look in an unbiased way at the way that particular agenda is being carried out. That is why I tabled those documents this morning. I would encourage all honourable members in the interests of accountability, which the Premier talks about and quotes, to have a look at those documents. Do not take my word for it. Have a look at those documents, because they relate to what the government's own departments are saying about the Smart State strategy. Here is a document which has been prepared for the minister's consideration last year in April. It says— The community engagement process is estimated to cost $360,000, in addition to staff costs. Funds for this have not been sought in the current budget round as the proposal has not been sufficiently developed in time. The Submission suggests that DIIE will fund the proportion of this that is directly related to its core business, with the remainder to be funded by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. This has yet to be agreed. This Smart State agenda is not something which has just popped up this year or last year; it is something which the government promoted when it first came into power in 1998. So this has been around for five years. If honourable members look at the litany of documents and the legacy of documents which we have here, the government's own documents show that policies have been drafted in 2000-01 which have never been implemented. They have been ignored. The departmental officers are continually trying to upgrade it and get it through the process. What we are seeing is something which is more about PR and rhetoric than a long-term sustainable process for an effective Smart State and the innovation and technology which comes as a consequence of it. The document I tabled this morning in parliament, entitled 'Communication and Community Engagement—A Strategy for the Smart State Agenda', prepared by the Premier's own propaganda division, the Community Engagement Division, says— However, while the brand is out there, and the Communications Services Group of the Department of Premier and Cabinet are developing criteria and guidelines for use of the Smart State brand, there has been no integrated strategy across government to give effect to the Smart State vision. Nor is there presently a coordinated and integrated marketing communication strategy to build up the brand value—that is, the value it has in the eyes of Queenslanders. These are the government's and the Premier's own documents, not the opposition's. They are the Premier's own documents. It goes on further to say, and there are so many juicy bits in this— An overall integrated approach needs to be adopted to ensure the vision of the Smart State does not remain rhetoric, but rather is adopted by all Queenslanders. So they themselves consider it to be rhetoric. That is what is implied in the document—that is, that a lot of it to date has been rhetoric. These are not our words but the Premier's Community Engagement Division's own words. It continues— While the public sector, through existing campaigns and information, is aware of the Governments commitment to promoting the Smart State, it is important to recognize the need to enrol all Government employees as 'ambassadors' of the Smart State. Presently there may be confusion or cynicism within the public sector, as with the general public, about what the Smart State means. As with the promotion of the 'smarts' within Government to the people of Queensland, the same process needs to be adopted for the large workforce that makes up the public sector. It continues further— As stated, 'it takes a lot of things to prove you are smart but only one thing to prove you're not'. While the Communication and Community Engagement Strategy seeks to promote the smart things about Queensland, there is a danger that many of the positive messages could be undermined by not-so-smart examples. As I said, these are the government's own documents, not ours.

Kytac Enterprises Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (11.41 a.m.): Today it is with regret that I rise to issue a warning to potential customers of a Gold Coast based company called Kytac Enterprises. Kytac 1020 Matters of Public Interest 1 Apr 2003

Enterprises is a national company which specialises in producing promotional material such as T- shirts and hats for businesses, charities and sporting groups. The Gracemere Swimming Club within my electorate contacted Kytac last year regarding a possible order of bucket hats embroidered with the club's logo for its mainly young members. Kytac provided the club with two sample hats which each member tried on for size and the bulk order was placed with the company based on the sizing of the sample hats. When the order arrived, club members were dismayed to find a significant size difference in the hats supplied and the original samples provided by the company on which the club had placed its order. On measuring the hats, the club found that the small/medium embroidered hats supplied by the company were 57 centimetres in circumference whereas the medium/large sample hat had a circumference of only 56 centimetres. More astonishing was the fact that the large/extra large hats supplied were 60 centimetres in circumference, nearly four centimetres bigger than the large/extra large sample hat. I have the hat with me today to illustrate to honourable members. I have a big head—a lot bigger than most of the children in this club—and, as members can see, this is the size of the hat. As members can understand, the club had legitimate concerns and promptly wrote to Kytac seeking a full refund of the purchase price on the basis that the hats supplied did not match the samples on which the order was placed and therefore did not meet the needs of club members. As honourable members would be aware, both state and federal consumer protection legislation provides that a customer is entitled to return goods and seek a refund if the goods purchased do not match the samples the customer was shown at the time of purchase. Further, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission advises that goods supplied by description or sample must correspond with the description or sample. Under the provisions of the relevant legislation, the Gracemere Swimming Club is therefore clearly entitled to a refund of the purchase price. In a letter to the club dated 19 February, Kytac virtually admitted its liability with its advice that 'there will always be several centimetres difference between suppliers' and 'the sample hats were from one supplier and the ordered hats were from another' of the company's suppliers. I table that letter for the information of members. Despite this, the best the company was willing to do was to offer the club replacement embroidered bucket hats at a wholesale cost of $4.83 plus GST. In other words, the company made a serious mistake, has admitted the same and now expects the club to accept the mistake and pay to have it rectified. On the club's behalf, I recently wrote to Kytac seeking the company's reconsideration of the club's refund request. For a company which prides itself on its reputation in being able to meet the promotional needs of its customers, this is a disappointing response. The response I got was that it was not going to do anything about it. It made it quite clear how the order stood, but it failed to acknowledge that the hats supplied were of a different brand and from a different supplier. The company's web site states that since opening its doors on the Gold Coast in 1992 its 'clientele has expanded on a rapid rate through word of mouth' and it now services virtually every town in the country. I would have thought that a company as nationally successful as Kytac Enterprises would be prepared to acknowledge any mistake and take appropriate steps to protect its reputation. The fact that Kytac is not prepared to do so leaves me with serious concerns about its ability to take care of the promotional needs of its clientele. If Kytac genuinely believes in the power of the word of mouth in developing and maintaining its reputation, then I would suggest it seriously reconsider its handling of this dispute and do the right thing by immediately issuing a refund to the Gracemere Swimming Club. After all, the club is only seeking what it is genuinely entitled to. I note that the letter that came back to me from the company said that it wanted to reiterate that Kytac Enterprises supplied 100 embroidered bucket hats in the requested sizes of 50 S/M and 50 L/XL—that is, what was ordered was what was supplied. As I said before, the sample was different to those that were supplied. Kytac Enterprises is wrong in attempting to shift responsibility to the club. If the sizes—and I have had this said to me by club members—were the same, there would not be a problem.

Liquor Industry Action Group Logan Corridor Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (11.46 a.m.): The Liquor Industry Action Group Logan Corridor is a group made up of licensees, representatives from hotels, clubs, sporting clubs, entertainers and other members involved in the liquor and hospitality industry. It includes clubs and pubs from Logan, Brisbane south and Beaudesert. The group is actively involved in the promotion of responsible service of alcohol and the improved safety and security of patrons and staff. It believes that this will flow on and build better community relations. In order to achieve this, it regularly meets and involves representatives of the Liquor Licensing Division, the police and 1 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1021 government members. An open dialogue has developed between police and other government representatives which fosters a cooperative approach in resolving issues facing the industry. During the meeting I attended the people present spoke of many issues they have with regards to security providers. While they believe many of the security officers are trying to do the right thing, they still have problems with a few cowboys, as they would describe them. On behalf of the group, I will be approaching the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Merri Rose, with their concerns. This group has not been sitting idle. When it said it wanted to improve community relations, it meant it. Last year the group initiated educational sessions for students in grade 12 in the Logan area. The sessions included issues such as binge drinking, drink spiking, illicit drug use and sexual assault. All these issues are real threats to our youth and indeed the not so young. Drink spiking is a growing concern for all of those who like to go clubbing. Leaving one's drink unattended has turned into a no-no, just as a woman would not leave her handbag unattended in a crowded room. The students received tips on reducing the risk of drink spiking happening to them and their mates. Binge drinking has been identified as a large problem associated with our young people. They go out with the intent of getting smashed on a Friday night or at a particular event as opposed to the person who regularly drinks every day. Both have serious health and social implications. Binge drinking and irresponsible drinking habits can often lead to situations such as fights, being vulnerable to sexual attacks or being in danger of hurting oneself through recklessness and a sense of no danger. Often this is when serious accidents occur. I congratulate the Liquor Industry Action Group Logan Corridor for its education initiative and informing our young people about the dangers involved in irresponsible drinking and for looking out for our young people by educating them on personal safety and alcohol issues. These are complex social issues that are facing both rural and city communities throughout Australia. I am pleased that in Logan we are being proactive about tackling these issues. I said at the beginning of my speech that the group had raised with me concerns regarding security providers. I admit that any industry can get its share of shonks. Unfortunately, we keep hearing more and more stories about security providers not doing the right thing by their employees. Then, on the other hand, we hear the stories about cowboy security guards. A security officer is usually the first person people come into contact with as they enter the front door of a hotel or club. It is vital that they are a suitable person to take on this responsibility and act professionally. When any of us goes to a club or hotel for relaxation the last thing we want is to be harassed or annoyed by a person who is intoxicated or a person who is being a nuisance, whether they have been drinking or not. Security officers must find their job very difficult. Having to escort people out of a building because of their behaviour would not be a pleasant task. How sad and disturbing it is that these incidents keep occurring in our community and often due to complex issues. It is also sad to say that this is not gender bias. The group informed me that incidents of violence involving females were rising. What I would like to stress is that this is not only a hotel or club responsibility; it is up to all patrons to act responsibly and to have respect for other patrons and staff. I congratulate the Liquor Industry Action Group Logan Corridor on the work it is doing in our community. Meeting regularly allows for the flow of ideas and solutions to problems facing the industry. The interaction between all members is good. Many are able to go away with new ideas that they have picked up from others in their industry. This involves not just one group, such as hotels or clubs; it is also about the entertainers, security people and others in the industry as a whole. I, too, gained a better understanding of the industry and look forward to attending more meetings. The member for Logan and the member for Woodridge have attended previous meetings and they, too, have found them very informative. Today I encourage other members to consider setting up their own liquor industry group, as I believe it is an important issue all over Queensland and it is something that can be very positive for our local community.

Gold Coast Fishermens Cooperative Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (11.51 a.m.): Commercial fishing on the Gold Coast is one of our very earliest industries. Historically, it was the second industry—second only to timber getting. The fishing fleet at the Gold Coast has continued at the Spit in the electorate of Surfers Paradise continually from the mid-1850s. Nowadays not only do they provide fresh seafood; they are a very firm part of the Gold Coast tourism industry. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that seeing the fishing fleet go out on the Broadwater at sundown or coming in at 1022 Matters of Public Interest 1 Apr 2003 sunrise strikes a chord with most residents. Certainly, it is a vista that people capture on canvas and love to see. I am sure, too, that my fellow Gold Coast members would agree that the Gold Coast fishing fleet operating from the Spit is part of the Gold Coast's heritage. Unfortunately, the lease of the premises of the Gold Coast Fishery Cooperative expired in 1999. Endeavours were made to negotiate a fresh lease with the Department of Natural Resources. The department has not unreasonably come forward with two matters that it said would be a bar to the commencement of lease negotiations. The first was the existence of the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 study and the other was the existence of a native title claim. The fishing fleet is now in possession only of a permit to occupy, which can be terminated virtually at any time. That does not give very much security to people who have to expend hundreds of thousands on boats and equipment. It does not do very much for the expansion or even the continuation of the industry. A report in the Gold Coast Bulletin on 26 March this year mentioned a representative of the minister's office as saying that the issue of the lease dispute was one for the Gold Coast City Council under its 2020 Harbour Vision plan. I have with me a copy of the minutes of that Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 meeting of 24 February 2003, when the committee unanimously—I repeat, unanimously—resolved that the council on behalf of the committee should encourage the state government to facilitate a development at the trawler site which will secure the fleet's tenure and build on the seafood and waterfront theme. Also in the Gold Coast Bulletin of 26 March Mayor Gary Baildon was reported as follows—I repeat this lest it be said that it was only a committee decision— Gold Coast Mayor Gary Baildon said both he and the council fully supported a permanent home for the fleet in their present location. I repeat, 'in their present location'. The issue of any concern of the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 committee has certainly been resolved. There is no issue there. There is total support for the fishing fleet to have its lease renewed at its present location. As a former member of the Gold Coast native title committee negotiating with the Koombumerri people, I also know that the Koombumerri people have no problems with the continuation of the fishing fleet. Over the years a number of members of the tribe have worked on the fishing fleet. Recently, I noted that Ariadne, no doubt with the support of the department, was able to negotiate an agreement under the native title legislation for another allotment at the Southport Spit not far from where the commercial fishermen operate. That would suggest to me very clearly that now is the right time for negotiations under native title to continue in relation to the area occupied by the commercial fishermen. Now that the problems have evaporated, I urge the minister to enter into meaningful negotiations urgently with representatives of the Gold Coast Fishermens Cooperative with a view to resolving this matter. It would be very much in the interests of the Gold Coast and would be supported greatly by the people of the Gold Coast if a new lease could be negotiated and resolved.

Golden Gate Caravan Park Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.55 a.m.): In June 2002 residents of the Golden Gate Caravan Park at Biggera Waters informed me of the park owner's intention to close the park and redevelop the site. As I began to act on the residents' concerns the difficulties facing the residents in relocating were quickly identified. Many of the caravan park residents were pensioners who had lived in the park for years, some for up to 10 years. Over time many residents had expanded their van by adding an annexe or an extra roof to stop the leaking when it rained. Not only did this practice make the physical removal of the vans difficult and costly; the dismantling of the vans often meant that the additional space could not be reconstructed, meaning those years of saving a portion of the pension to create a bit more space were now worthless. As I spoke with residents, I also learnt that this situation was not just a financial loss but also that residents had adapted emotionally to living in such a close-knit and safe community where they could still live independently. The caravan park was also close to transport, medical amenities and other services. Residents and I soon discovered that vacant permanent sites at caravan parks were limited, public housing waiting lists are soaring to crisis point, a new Gold Coast City Council policy prohibited permanent sites at public caravan parks, and the effect of the Howard government's decision to pull funding from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has begun to hit home. 1 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1023

Due to the recent loss of many affordable housing options for Queensland families, competition for the dwindling supply of low-cost rental housing has increased. As a result, rents have soared to levels unaffordable for low income and very low income households. The housing situation on the Gold Coast is also strained by the fact that most new dwellings in the private market are predominantly in the medium to high end of the market. I have written to the mayor of the Gold Coast seeking a meeting with him to discuss affordable housing options for the Gold Coast and to discuss opportunities for the state and the council to work together on this issue. But what I find deeply concerning is the federal government's lack of commitment to the national strategy to address the housing affordability crisis in Australia. The federal government's policies to date have done nothing other than exacerbate the housing crisis. With rental assistance costing more than $2 million annually and only available to Australians receiving Centrelink payments, millions of hardworking families battling on low incomes to pay the rent each week simply slip through the cracks. I call on the Gold Coast's four federal members to start supporting a national housing strategy and to work to reverse the downward spiral in Howard government funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which has seen Queensland lose $90 million under the current agreement and will see a further loss of $174 million under the next Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement starting in the middle of this year. Despite the funding crisis created by the feds, this government continues to show its strong commitment to providing affordable housing for Queenslanders by allocating $475.1 million for housing assistance in last year's state budget. Despite the overwhelming hurdles that the residents of Golden Gate face together, we have worked with the departments of housing and families, the developers and the Nerang Community Centre to ensure that the best results for as many residents as possible could be found. I am pleased to inform the House of the successful outcomes that have been achieved by working cooperatively with the agencies and residents. Mr Steve Littlejohn, John Halcro, Allan Finn, Andrew Barber, Corby Stefanvich and Housing staff were determined to assist right from the very moment of our learning of the park's closure. I understand that the Housing staff housed 17 families and approved more than 10 bond loans in a very short and urgent time frame. Thanks to Lyn Sturgess from the Department of Families, I was able to secure a one-off funding grant of $11,381 for the Studio Village Community Centre to employ a temporary support worker. I say a big thankyou to Veronica Cox and Karen Edwards for all their assistance. As times change and land values continue to rise, it is understood that sites such as the Golden Gate will be redeveloped. However, I believe that everyone has a moral obligation to assist those less fortunate, particularly in times of crisis. That is why I met with the developers to discuss what they could do to contribute to our efforts. The developers agreed to provide each resident $300 to cover removal costs, were open with the status of the council applications and time lines, and contributed an extra $6,000 towards the support worker application. Park resident, Mr Alec Paton, has been a tower of strength during these past six months. He and Golden Gate staff were a huge help in representing and helping the residents. Last year, there was a feeling of despair—a sad, yet angry sentiment at Golden Gate. But as a result of everyone involved working together, over 90 households were given a second chance. I will continue to work on the housing crisis problem for the people of the Gold Coast. I look forward to discussing the Gold Coast City Council's housing policy with the mayor as soon as practicable.

Industrial Relations Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (12.00 p.m.): The state government would really have us fooled that they are doing a great job in the field of industrial relations. Perhaps on this day, 1 April, one should try to put the issue into perspective. When we consider some of the unions—the Queensland Teachers Union, the Queensland Nurses Union, the Queensland Public Sector Union, the Queensland Branch of the Australian Workers Union, the Queensland Police Union, and numerous other unions—quite honestly, the government and the minister have really some explaining to do in terms of their industrial relations presentations. The minister has managed to ruin single handedly just about every enterprise bargaining negotiation that he has ever been involved in—the latest, of course, being the teachers dispute. I am aware that sometimes negotiations can become difficult. But when we hear some of the language flying and the use of the Queen's English, one really has to wonder whether that will achieve the desired result. During the negotiations, the minister has accused the QTU of using students as punching bags. I might add that that did not go down terribly well with QTU President, 1024 Matters of Public Interest 1 Apr 2003

Julie-Ann McCullough, who said that the comment would outrage her members. Certainly, I am aware that that has happened. Let us face it: the main goal of the QTU is to decrease class sizes which, of course, would provide a better learning environment for children. If the QTU is representing the interests of children and teachers, who is the Industrial Relations minister representing? Obviously, the minister, Mr Nuttall, does not care about improving teaching standards in Queensland. Of course, he is under great pressure from the Treasurer to save money. No doubt, that is part of the agenda in all of these negotiations. In the meantime, instead of working to reach an agreement with the QTU, the Minister for Industrial Relations is inflaming the situation by calling the negotiations a joke. Really, that is not quite the language that one should be using in such important negotiations. The minister has called the QTU dishonest, unlawful and irresponsible. Obviously, the minister did not want to reach an agreement with the QTU. The matter goes to arbitration and then only teachers' pay will be taken into account, not class sizes. So students miss out, because the Queensland IR minister has a little bit of a problem with foot- in-mouth disease. Meanwhile, the QPSU has released a newsletter revealing that the Beattie government has been responsible for the biggest ever cuts in the public sector. Already, 1,400 jobs have gone and 2,500 are about to go. Certainly, public servants are very, very worried about their future. The minister's representatives have informed the QPSU that the current EB clauses on employment security and consultation will not be carried into the next agreement. Instead, they want the employment security and consultation clauses watered down and changed to aspirational rather than binding. That translates to the government alone deciding future job cuts or changes in their workplace. The newsletter went on to point out that the government negotiators want to strip public servants of their rights to take protracted industrial action or access to the Industrial Relations Commission to conciliate on arbitration matters during the life of an agreement. These sorts of things are going on under a Labor government. So one really does have to wonder. This will severely erode any rights that the union has to protect jobs and conditions. Unfortunately, the demise of the Public Service is putting the public at risk. The QPSU has identified several issues: operations will be cut to eight hours instead of the previous 24, X-ray machines are to be turned off at night, and magistrates are making decisions on jailing and bailing without the benefit of criminal histories because the police advisory unit no longer operates 24 hours a day. Meanwhile, we have the nurses saga also perpetrated by the Industrial Relations Minister. Now, we have discovered that Queensland hospitals are being forced to find money to fund the excesses of the Queensland nurses' EBA. Time expired.

Liberal Party Preselection Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (12.06 p.m.): Under the old preselection rules of the Liberal Party, voting was easy: people simply looked up the arrival times of the overseas flights, allowed overseas visitors and voters time to clear customs, picked them up in a bus, there was a bit of driving time to a smoke-filled hall in the western suburbs, and the process started. In fact, it was often so streamlined that the Liberals were able to announce the results even before a vote had been cast. Under the new rules, it is a bit trickier, but the rorts still persist. I refer to the Moggill preselection. The Moggill preselection will start at 8.30 a.m. on Saturday, 12 April this year. It will be held in the rural setting of the Karana Downs Golf Club. The venue and the timing of the preselection were determined by the Liberal Party chairman of the Ryan FEC. According to a copy of the FEC minutes that I have managed to obtain, the chairman is a Mr Galt. This would be unexceptional if not for the fact that Mr Galt is also a candidate for the preselection. So the Liberal Party candidate for preselection chose not only the timing but also the venue of the preselection to suit him and his supporters. This is an ongoing theme for that great Liberal Party philosophy of individualism. It rivals the rort of the federal member for Fisher who, without warning, announced the time and date of a preselection that he was going to hold the next day. This was done to forestall any challengers. These actions are clearly against the spirit of the new legislation that calls for transparency in the preselection process. A candidate for the preselection has a conflict of interest if he 1 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1025 determines the time and the place of where the preselection is held. I call upon the State Electoral Commission to have a close look at this preselection in Moggill, given the extensive rorting that has been the low-water mark of Liberal Party politics in the western suburbs. What about the impact of this on the rank and file members of the Liberal Party? In the Ryan preselection, they had to put up with the shameless ethnic branch stacking—the fly in, fly out preselection rorts where the only one who benefited was Qantas, which was given increased access to the road to profitability. But what about those faithful ladies who have manned the cake stalls and information booths in Ryan for years? If they want to get to Karana Downs in time to vote at 8.30 a.m., all the way out there on the Saturday morning, I fear they will have to catch a 5 p.m. bus on the Friday evening! In some more unfortunate circumstances, they might even have to camp out overnight just to secure a vote. I call on the lord mayor of Brisbane to come to the rescue of these otherwise disenfranchised Liberal Party stalwarts and put on a special bus on the Saturday morning that will arrive in time for them to vote for the Liberal Party candidate of their choice in Moggill. But even if Mr Galt is not successful in using this device, then the fall-back for unsuccessful candidates is, as I have said to this House before, the performance agreement that all candidates for the Liberal Party have to sign. In a couple of months, the Liberal Party state executive will come along with a shonky piece of research and put down a candidate who does not belong to the faction of the ruling clique. We would think that the performance of Mr Galt already makes him unavailable to be a Liberal Party candidate, because there is a provision in this agreement that excludes a candidate if they bring the party into disrepute. Choosing the time and venue of your own preselection when you are a candidate should qualify you for disqualification. Mr Robertson: I thought members who brought the Liberal Party into disrepute were nominated for the Senate! Mr MICKEL: I could not dare comment on that. I see that as a low attack on my good friend Senator George Brandis. I heard the member for Caloundra interrupting me just before. She would not sign one of these in a fit, and that is why, reluctantly, she is leaving us at the next election.

Pollution Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (12.11 p.m.): Today we are faced with unacceptable pollution. Common knowledge, let alone verified research, demonstrates an unacceptable level of pollutants of a permanent nature in the shape of plastics, particularly plastic shopping bags. I have to admit that my family uses these bags, but a practice followed by many Australians I suspect is to recycle them as tidybin liners. Nonetheless, they still end up in landfill. Plastic bags are responsible not only for degradation of potentially valuable land, impeding growth and water flows but also the deaths of many thousands of marine and land creatures. These facts can be hotly disputed by sources in the plastics industry who, among other claims, say that plastic bags in waste and landfill sites prevent leaching of undesirable contaminants into watercourses. Of course, it may be argued that this latter claim may be correct in some part, but I suggest rather that it indicates that our present control methods over these other contaminants are inadequate and that we should concentrate on removing the potent threat posed by the iniquitous shopping bags. Industry has made some efforts to produce biodegradable products, but these efforts are insufficient as the breakdown happens far too slowly and allows much damage to occur in the meantime. Evidence supplied by Clean Up Australia shows that Australians use about 6.9 billion plastic bags per year. It is said that most users are well aware of the environmental impact of these plastic bags but fail to account for what is termed embodied energy—probably forgivable to most because I am sure that many have never heard of the term, particularly in this connection. Embodied energy, I am informed, refers to the energy used in the manufacturing process. Clean Up Australia says the embodied energy is reused within the resource loop during the recycling process. Just to provide a little food for thought, it takes only 8.7 bags to contain enough energy to drive a car one kilometre. These figures translate further. The average Australian is said to use around 354 bags per year, suggesting that each Australian wastes enough fuel for 40 kilometres of travel every year. Each household wastes enough to drive 101 kilometres. According to current research, this means we waste enough embodied petroleum energy to drive 747.2 million 1026 Matters of Public Interest 1 Apr 2003 kilometres every year. Further, I am told that the entire Australian road fleet, says Clean Up Australia, wastes enough to supply the national needs for in excess of four years. There are two ways we can address the problem of plastic waste. First, we could use the stored energy in genuine recycling projects or, perhaps to some a more preferable method, phase in the banning of plastic shopping bags, assisted by a government subsidy to assist shoppers in the purchase of more permanent receptacles such as calico bags. This state government does in fact speak long and loud of its environmental policies, so why is it that at the same time whilst locking up vast tracts of public land and then charging us for the right to enter it, it fails to take more practical measures like ridding us of the plastic menace? Has the government—and I include the federal government in this expression—considered how much we are spending as a nation on the control of land-filled pollutants when much of that might be addressed by the control of such a large section of pollutants affecting the land that we live in?

Development in Toowoomba Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.15 p.m.): Recently there have been a number of exciting developments in the Toowoomba region. These developments, in the fields of mining, power, policing and sporting facilities, will ensure Toowoomba continues to play a vital role in southern Queensland. The Beattie government, by encouraging and investing in new and exciting industries in and around our city, is further boosting Toowoomba's image in regard to these enterprises. Recently, the New Hope Acland Mine was opened by the Premier. I was privileged to be there at the time. The coal mined from this area has higher hydrogen, lower nitrogen and average sulphur levels, making it the lowest producer of greenhouse gases compared to other coal from around the world. About 300 jobs were created during construction of the mine, and operational staff levels are expected to reach about 95 within six months. This area had recently been hit by job losses due to drought and dairy industry changes, so the employment created by the mine was much needed. The venture will provide revenue to all levels of government, and local small businesses will receive potentially substantial benefits from the operation of the project. The mine, located about 15 kilometres north of Oakey, will produce about two million tonnes of thermal coal each year, with more than half of its annual production being exported to Asian markets. New Hope will be transporting coal substantially by rail, which will reduce the impact of trucking on the community and result in the better use of rail infrastructure. I thank the Minister for Transport for ensuring Queensland Rail's involvement and for the $15 million upgrade of the Toowoomba range rail line. Just prior to this, the Millmerran Power Station was opened, again by the Premier, and is now operating at full production, delivering reliable, low-cost electricity to customers through the national power grid. Millmerran Power is one of the most efficient power producers in Australia, producing up to 840 megawatts of electricity from two generating units, 24 hours a day. It comprises a power station and adjacent coalmine, transmission system and water supply pipeline. The project has taken three years to construct, costing $1.5 billion. The plant features the latest environmentally efficient technology, meaning it uses less coal and less water than conventional coal-fired stations to produce the same amount of electricity. The power station and coalmine are designed to ensure scarce natural resources are efficiently used and waste is minimised and recycled. Millmerran Power employs over 150 people, which is a boost to the predominantly agricultural region. It will contribute around $850 million in direct wages over 50 years, plus a further $1.7 billion in operational spending. I wish to mention and congratulate the Toowoomba City Council's involvement in the supply of part of its waste water to this project—a very smart idea. The Premier recently travelled to Toowoomba to open stage 1 of the new M&S State Equestrian Centre, which is now one of Queensland's premiere horse sporting centres. The first stage, costing approximately $1 million, was funded primarily by the state government. This stage involved the site being levelled, the building erected, and lighting, car parking and basic amenities installed. The centre has already hosted numerous events, including various equestrian events, a major display area for the agricultural show, the APRA rodeo finals, and the Toowoomba Country Music Breakout. In fact, the Australian Professional Rodeo Association was so impressed with the facility that it has committed to using it for the national rodeo finals until at least 2010. Stage 2 will see walls and permanent tiered seating added to the structure, while stage 3 will complete the venture with a mezzanine level and grandstand, as well as toilet, shower and catering facilities. 1 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1027

Once funding for the second stage has been approved, it is expected to be finished by the end of the year. The horse industry is the fifth largest industry in Queensland. By sponsoring initiatives such as this, the government is ensuring the industry maintains a high priority. I commend the role of Mr John McDonald and the committee and staff of the Royal Agricultural Association at Toowoomba. Toowoomba's athletic oval has undergone a $2.5 million redevelopment and was officially opened recently by Deputy Premier, Terry Mackenroth. The opening saw the Brisbane Broncos play the Sydney Roosters in a National Rugby League trial before a record crowd. The redevelopment consisted of new dressing rooms, a function facility, canteen facilities, a first-aid room, a media conference room and new media facilities. The surface of the grounds has also been significantly upgraded. The Duncan Thompson Stand has had extensive work done to it. The venture was initiated to ensure Toowoomba has a multipurpose, national standard facility close to the industry. Now we have a venue that can host state, national and even international events when the opportunities arise. The Minister for Industrial Relations has refereed there on many occasions, I believe. Mr Nuttall: He has indeed. Mr SHINE: I take that interjection. I have called on sporting and community groups around Toowoomba to make applications for use of the grounds. They will be used not only for Rugby League competitions but also for events such as local and international music concerts, weekend or Friday night markets and other community events. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Caloundra, I welcome to the public gallery students, staff and parents from Harrisfield State School in the electorate of Woodridge.

Jet Skis Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (12.20 p.m.): Yesterday Premier Peter Beattie and Transport Minister Steve Bredhauer foreshadowed tougher controls on jet skis. They said that cabinet had considered a range of measures to regulate the use of jet skis as a result of growing public concerns in coastal communities about safety and noise. They said that industry groups and people living in areas where jet ski use is common will be consulted about the options for tighter controls. There has been a lot of consultation about this already. There is no doubt—I have made a number of representations to the minister; I know that I am not the only one—that over a period of time since the last regulations came in jet skis have caused major concerns to people in all coastal holiday areas. They are noisy. A great percentage of their operators do not consider other people who are either in the water—often they are families who have come to these places for picnics—or who are living next door. Certainly there are responsible jet ski operators, but unfortunately they are overshadowed by the hoons that frequent these watercraft. There was concern in my own community about the consultation that went on before. There was a feeling that it was a closed case—that the departmental representatives were not really interested in listening to the concerns of the people and had their own agenda. Concern was raised about the quality of the information that was subsequently passed on to the minister. I ask the minister to make sure that this time he is well plugged into what the community is saying and not just listening to the representatives who may be sitting there, because obviously some people have their own agendas. There are concerns about safety. Yesterday the Premier mentioned that jet skis make up less than 3.5 per cent of registered recreational boats but accounted for between seven per cent and nine per cent of reported safety incidents in the past three years. What is really concerning is that jet skis accounted for between 11 per cent and 22 per cent of marine accidents resulting in a death or serious injury in that three-year period. There is no doubt that the majority of people in Caloundra want jet skis banned from Pumicestone Passage because the regulations that have been put in place are not working effectively. For them to work effectively we would have to have people down there policing, 1028 Matters of Public Interest 1 Apr 2003 particularly all weekend and on public holidays, because that is when people who are not locals come and create havoc for the people who live there. There has been considerable correspondence between various members in my community and the minister and his department, particularly Boating and Fisheries. I think the Water Police and Boating and Fisheries are trying to do their job, particularly the Water Police. I congratulate them on their actions in Pumicestone Passage, particularly recently. When they are there the jet ski hoons operate like lambs. I know that the Water Police cannot be there all the time. We do need more Water Police resources. I will be writing to the Minister for Police very shortly about that. I realise that the numbers have been increased recently. We certainly increased the numbers when we were in government. With more and more population in the area this matter needs more attention. We need more boats, but particularly more officers, because they cannot be everywhere at once. I believe that Boating and Fisheries have only one boat and two to four staff to cover the area from north Coolum right down to the end of Bribie Passage. It is very obvious that they cannot cover all of those waterways, including the canals and fisheries. They are also tasked with looking at the sizes of crabs and fish caught and cannot be there all the time to regulate jet skis. Boating and Fisheries obviously needs more resources. Of concern also to my constituents is that when they have contacted Boating and Fisheries they have been told that they have to provide much more information about these jet ski operators, such as the registered number of the offending craft, the date and time of the offence, specific details of the alleged incident, the exact location of the alleged incident, the make and colour of the offending jet ski, the number of persons and their own name. As a result of this, a group of Caloundra residents made themselves into a community group to try to regulate what was happening along there or at least provide information, particularly along Pumicestone Passage, to the people who were creating these offences. As a result of this, one of my constituents was accosted by a jet ski operator. I ask the minister and the Premier to act very quickly in toughening these regulations. Time expired.

Brisbane Urban Corridor Planning Study Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (12.26 p.m.): The long-awaited draft recommendations of the Brisbane Urban Corridor Planning Study were released yesterday. The Brisbane urban corridor is part of the federal government's National Highway system, which includes Granard, Riawena, Kessells and Mount Gravatt-Capalaba roads. The state Transport Minister, Steve Bredhauer, after strong representation from me and other state members representing the area, convinced the federal government to conduct the study of its National Highway. The study relied upon a partnership process between the community, the client agencies and the technical consultants. This study was unique as it was developed to get the community to lead the process of identifying issues and developing solutions. The Brisbane urban corridor has three important roles today. It is a regional freight route, an urban arterial road and a road providing local access. The community identified literally hundreds of issues. The major priority issues were trucks; safety, including health and quality of life; pollution; congestion; road design; policies and planning; access; and property. The planning study recommends a total package of 57 draft actions aimed at three major strategies: reducing traffic, particularly trucks traffic; improving traffic operations, safety and local accessibility on the corridor; and vehicle surveillance systems for Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. For the first major strategy, many of the draft recommendations have an emphasis on reducing truck traffic. Some of these include conducting a 12-month trial allowing trucks to travel free between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. on the Logan Motorway and Gateway Motorway extension; for QML, the toll road operators, to introduce incentives for multiple trips by trucks, to improve toll plazas, to have a wider distribution of e-toll transponders, and to establish a truck stop on the motorway; to improve directional signage on the Ipswich Motorway; to introduce strategies or legislation to limit non-essential transport or dangerous goods on the BUC; to investigate the ability of the Logan Motorway to accommodate higher mass limit trucks; to identify incentives for logistics companies to relocate closer to the motorway; and to improve the east-west feeder system to link to the South East Busway. The second strategy to improve traffic operation has a number of key recommendations, including to investigate some large road infrastructure, such as the provision of overpasses and 1 Apr 2003 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1029 underpasses at key intersections such as the Garden City precinct, Mains and Kessells roads, and Beaudesert and Granard roads; to provide up to five pedestrian refuges on Mount Gravatt- Capalaba Road; to undertake safety improvements near Auckland Street; to investigate the priority of traffic signals at Greenwood Street; to review speed limits with a view to reducing the whole route to 60 kilometres per hour; to develop new strategies to limit excessive noise; to introduce new vehicle, emission and fuel quality standards; to introduce more red-light camera and speed camera coverage on the corridor; and to work with the BCC to reduce the number of properties with direct access to the corridor. The third strategy in regard to vehicle surveillance I believe is extremely innovative and may lead to some great benefits for the quality of life of residents along the route. The key recommendation is to investigate the introduction of a pilot scheme of surveillance technology to provide 24-hour monitoring activity along the corridor at Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. This will collect information relating to vehicle and driver behaviour, including overloaded and overdimensioned trucks, unregistered vehicles, speeding vehicles, and noisy and polluting trucks. I believe this recommendation should be further extended to include the tracking of the trucks' registration plates. It should also have a small tracking station on the Ipswich Highway, just before the intersection of the Logan Motorway and the Ipswich Highway at Gailes. Technology should be able to be developed that would identify trucks that are using the corridor without the need to. Once there is knowledge of who is using this route when an alternative is available then pressure, including possible legislation, can be brought to bear to ensure truck drivers use the Logan Motorway and Gateway extension instead. These are the major draft recommendations. The community have until 16 May to make their final comments to the BUC study team at the Palmdale Shopping Centre. After this date, the study team will make final recommendations to the federal and state governments. A number of recommendations have already been implemented by the state government, including police crackdowns on speeding trucks and repairs to local footpaths. I and the other state members will make strong representations to the state Transport Minister about any remaining recommendations that are the responsibility of the state government. We will be asking the minister where possible to move quickly to address the local concerns outlined in the report that are clearly the state government's responsibility. However, at the end of the day, this road is a federal government responsibility, and I would now ask for the same commitment from the federal member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, and the federal Transport Minister, John Anderson. The study has been characterised by a high degree of community involvement. I believe the recommendations contained in the draft are an accurate reflection of what the community wants. I would also like to congratulate the study team led by Jan Taylor of Jan Taylor and Associates and Phil Stay from the Department of Main Roads for an excellent job thus far, particularly in getting the community involved in the entire process. Now is the time for the federal government to back up the community's concerns and fund these recommendations. I will ensure that the state plays its part in implementing the recommendations, and it will be a win-win for the community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Liddy Clark): Order! The time for debate on matters of public interest has expired. Before calling the minister, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the President and the Honorary Secretary of the Pinkenba branch of the Pensioners League, Pam Simms and Betty Baldwin.

SUGAR INDUSTRY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (12.31 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Sugar Industry Act 1999, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk, read a first time. 1030 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

Second Reading Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (12.32 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill represents a further milestone in the transformation of the Queensland sugar industry. The bill signifies further achievement of independence for industry with transfer of ownership of the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations (BSES) and Cane Protection and Productivity Boards (CPPBs) to industry. The process of determining the best way for industry to advance its R&D through this bill commenced prior to and is separate from those industry reform matters currently being negotiated by the state and the Commonwealth. BSES is the sugar industry's dedicated research and development organisation. The CPPBs provide advice and service to canegrowers on issues such as pest and disease control and productivity enhancement. A core outcome of this transfer from statutory administration to industry management will be a strengthening overall of the viability and competitiveness of the Queensland sugar industry. This bill is a direct result of industry support for sectoral reform, and reflects a forward-looking view that industry should take a greater role and responsibility for managing its own organisations. Indeed, under this government there has been significant change which has seen the bulk sugar terminals, marketing of raw sugar and canegrowers' organisation all transferred to industry ownership. All three incorporation exercises were the result of government agreeing with industry on the desirability for industry ownership of industry assets and were strongly supported by industry. Industry also expressed interest in pursuing ownership of BSES. In May 2001 cabinet established a joint industry-government steering committee to develop recommendations for the incorporation and transfer of BSES to industry. The recommended structure before us today, a company limited by guarantee, is the result of the hard work put in by the steering committee. It has majority industry support and it also meets government's requirements. Provisions in this bill to enable dissolution of CPPBs are again a result of requests from and consultation with industry. A number of CPPBs have indicated they wish to move to alternative structures to achieve better local management. Under existing legislation CPPBs are restricted in that they are able to incorporate but not dissolve. As industry needs have evolved over time, CPPBs have become more aware of the restrictive nature of statutory prescribed functions and the need for greater flexibility to respond to other divergent expectations in different areas of the industry. Six CPPBs, have already taken the opportunity to manage their own future as incorporated entities. This bill provides the remaining 12 CPPBs with the option of transferring functions to an industry owned entity or dissolution by 30 June 2004. After this date any remaining CPPBs will be dissolved and assets and liabilities transferred to the BSES replacement entity. In addition, this bill introduces changes to the Plant Protection Act 1989 as a consequence of the transfer by BSES of its functions to the industry owned replacement entity. These alternative arrangements for plant health management mirror existing arrangements, and importantly provide industry with effective protection from threat of disease in sugar cane. Let us briefly consider the benefits that will flow from this bill. For an industry to be proactive about its future, it must be responsible for its decisions, actions and direction. Whilst BSES and CPPBs remain statutory, they remain accountable to government and as a result may tend to be less responsive to industry, which are their key stakeholders. Transfer of BSES and CPPBs from statute will provide the sugar industry full ownership, responsibility and accountability for the day-to-day operations, and allow management and use of assets in the best interests of industry. This sense of ownership and accountability will encourage industry to take a more active role in directing its future. Additionally, the transfer by BSES of its functions to the industry owned replacement entity will provide industry with new opportunities. These include access to new research fund sources, greater flexibility, opportunities for strategic alliances with other industry and research bodies, and greater potential to capitalise on its skills and resources through commercialisation. I am confident that transfer of BSES functions will enhance the industry's R&D capacity and performance, and enable continued advancement of industry. Transfer of BSES and CPPBs to industry ownership complements other structural adjustments within the industry. These changes 1 Apr 2003 Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Amendment Bill 1031 will enable the industry to develop the flexibility to better meet existing and emerging challenges posed by the changing environment in which the industry must now operate. Capacity for dissolution of CPPBs offers the potential to better tailor service provision at a local level for growers and millers. More efficient, streamlined delivery, and cost competitive structures will place industry in good stead to maintain a profitable position and realise potential growth through innovation in an increasingly competitive marketplace. As part of these reforms, the Queensland government will transfer over $45 million worth of assets to industry. This should again demonstrate to industry this government's commitment to full industry ownership and belief in the industry's capacity to manage its future, just as the transfer of more than $380 million in the bulk sugar terminal assets to industry ownership did in the government's first term. This bill marks a great opportunity to empower industry to create a vibrant, profitable and competitive industry future. The potential benefits of a more competitive sugar industry for those within industry, rural communities and the state as a whole offer much hope in these times of great change and uncertainty. These proposals have the support of industry and, in my view, deserve the full support of all members. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

PASTORAL WORKERS' ACCOMMODATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.40 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act 1980. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.40 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Amendment Bill 2003. The objective of the bill is to amend the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act 1980 to implement the recommendations of a review of the act. The act provides for the accommodation of workers employed in pastoral work. The department recently reviewed the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act 1980 and the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Regulation 1989. A tripartite committee was formed with the department, the Australian Workers Union and Agforce to formulate the recommendations. Officers of Building Codes Queensland within the Department of Local Government and Planning were also involved in the review process. The amendment bill amends the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act to put into effect the recommendations of the review committee and to reflect current legislative principles and drafting practice. The major amendments contained in the amendment bill are as follows: ¥ The meaning of 'accommodation' for purposes of the act is extended to include transportable accommodation where such accommodation is of an equivalent standard. ¥ The meaning of 'worker' in the act is extended to ensure that the minimum standards of accommodation are provided for all workers who perform pastoral work, including persons who perform work under a 'contract of service' or 'contract for service'. Currently the definition is limited to 'contract of service'. ¥ The act is amended to provide that the amount that may be deducted from a worker's wages for damage to accommodation caused by the worker or workers is increased from $40 to $100. This amount has remained unchanged for some time. ¥ A current anomaly and confusion is addressed in that it is confirmed that the responsibility for approval of building plans for new buildings, or additions or structural alterations to buildings, will be the responsibility of local government. Currently, plans must also be lodged with an 1032 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

inspector of the Department of Industrial Relations. The department will be a 'concurrence agency' in that, where necessary, building work will be referred to it for assessment of compliance. This aligns with current government policy in terms of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to consolidate all state regulations affecting building work into the building regulations. ¥ Occupiers of pastoral properties will be required to give written notice to the Department of Industrial Relations of any crutching operations, as well as the current requirement to give notice of shearing operations. The reason for this amendment is because accommodation may be used in both these instances. The reason for notification is to alert the department as to when accommodation is in use for purposes of inspection. Alternative communication methods will be allowed in extenuating circumstances where written notice cannot be given. ¥ New provisions will be added requiring occupiers to keep unused buildings securely closed and ensure buildings are kept free of vermin. Also, areas surrounding buildings are to be kept free of long grass to ensure safe access and reduce fire hazards. A number of amendments of an administrative nature have been made in consultation with the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel to reflect current drafting principles and practice. These amendments include the following: ¥ Each offence provision within the act is identified and the appropriate maximum penalty unit amount is inserted at each provision. This replaces the existing general penalty provision and is in accordance with current legislative principles. The standard maximum penalty of 10 penalty units reflects the penalty that currently exists for an offence against the Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Regulations 1989. ¥ It is clarified that any person may commence proceedings for an offence under the act which is in line with current legislative principles. ¥ For the purposes of various administrative functions under the act, references to 'chief inspector' have been replaced by 'chief executive' as the appropriate officer should be the chief executive of the administrating Department of Industrial Relations. These functions include permitting the provision of temporary accommodation for workers under specified circumstances such as where accommodation is destroyed by fire and extending the time in which an occupier must comply with a notice to comply issued by an inspector. ¥ It is clarified that inspectors for purposes of the act are inspectors under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 which reflects the current position. ¥ Evidentiary provisions have been amended to provide appropriate provisions for purposes of the act based on accepted drafting practice. It is intended that the amendments contained in the bill will commence on a day to be proclaimed. This is necessary in view of the fact that the recommended legislative changes to pastoral workers' accommodation also involve the making of a new regulation to replace the current one and the making of a Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Standard which will contain the building related provisions. It is important that the amendments commence simultaneously with the commencement of these instruments. The process of drafting and finalising both the new regulation and standard is currently ongoing, with commencement being proposed for 1 July 2003. Extensive consultation has been conducted with the key industry stakeholders regarding the preparation and finalisation of this bill. All stakeholders are supportive of the bill. The proposed amendments contained in this bill will result in the simplification and rationalisation of the obligations and entitlements of both the occupiers of pastoral properties and their workers. The changes will ensure that the legislation better reflects contemporary needs and operations. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Liddy Clark): Before calling the Clerk, I welcome to the gallery teachers and students from the Pacific Pines High School in the electorate of Gaven.

INDY CAR GRAND PRIX AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 11 March (see p. 366). Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (12.48 p.m.): The opposition supports the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. I note the comments made by the 1 Apr 2003 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1033 minister in that hosting international sporting events generates income for the state, creates jobs and gives us valuable global exposure. He said that over the past 12 years Indy has grown to be a showpiece event for the state, injecting approximately $50 million into the Queensland economy each year and continuing to grow. I remember at one time when Indy did make quite an amount of money we gave money for the Winton Waltzing Matilda Centre, which has grown since then. It is important to ensure that, if the Indy Car Grand Prix does make an amount of money, we just do not spend it in the south-east corner but look at projects like the Waltzing Matilda Centre at Winton. This bill provides for amendments to the legislative requirements to conduct the annual Indy Car Grand Prix. The secondary aim of the bill is to improve the staging of motor racing events on the Gold Coast by addressing deficiencies in the existing legislation, removing redundant provisions and reflecting current drafting practices. It undertakes a number of changes, including clarifying certain powers of the race promoter, such as the duration in which the promoter may remove unattended vehicles that are preventing construction. It also removes obsolete references to repealed acts. It codifies the powers of 'appointed person' that are currently prescribed under regulation. Similarly, powers under regulation dealing with the powers of authorised persons to act in prescribed areas will also be codified. I note that this provision ensures that police officers may be appointed as authorised persons. Obviously, we support that. The bill requires the promoter to be satisfied that the person to be appointed as an authorised person is qualified for appointment because the person has the necessary expertise or experience. It also provides for the conditions of appointment of an authorised person and how the powers of an authorised person may be limited. Most importantly, it ensures that the conditions imposed on authorised persons who are police officers do not affect their powers under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 or any other law of the state. This will include police powers established under common law. By omission of section 23, the racing event will now be able to be declared a special event under the Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act. We accept that this needs to be done to enable international health practitioners, including medical practitioners, nurses, chiropractors, physiotherapists and osteopaths, to provide health care services in Queensland to visitors participating in or preparing for the event, despite their not being a registered health practitioner in Queensland. It appears that the Gold Coast Motor Events Company, referred to as the GCMEC, which runs the event on behalf of the event promoter, the Gold Coast City Council, and all parties consulted have supported the bill. I have not run into anyone who is upset about it. This is important because the bill specifically allows the promoter to designate an area as a restricted area by the placement of a sign marked 'restricted area'. It is important that the Gold Coast City Council agrees with that. It will allow a permitted person, as defined in section 2 of the act as a promoter or person who is authorised in writing by the promoter, to enter and remain in the restricted area. It is pleasing that the bill ensures that people entering the declared area are fully informed about the activities and items prohibited in that area. The promoter, prior to commencement of the declared period, has to erect a sign at the entrance of the declared area notifying people about the activities that are prohibited in the declared area during the declared period and the items that may be confiscated if taken into the declared area during the declared period. The remainder of the legislation provides specifics about alcohol and other material that is prohibited on the grounds. The National Party accepts the need for this legislation and certainly will support it. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.52 p.m.): The staging of the Gold Coast Indy is recognised throughout the world. This annual racing event, which takes place in Australia's most recognised and picturesque playground, the Gold Coast, is the highlight for many motor racing enthusiasts and those who just enjoy the exciting carnival atmosphere. The events of September 11 have impacted on many aspects of our life and the commercial world. The Indy is no exception. Currently, the act is very restrictive and would not facilitate changes to the event if necessary. The events of September 11 could have impacted on last year's Indy race. If this had happened, the staging of an alternative racing event would have been virtually impossible. This highlighted the need to amend the current act to ensure that this entertaining and extremely profitable event for Queensland is able to operate in any form necessary. This bill will amend the act to provide a legislative framework for the conduct of an annual motor racing event on the Gold Coast—one that is not specifically linked to any single motor 1034 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003 racing event. The current act is also due to expire in December 2003. I am very pleased that the state government has agreed in principle to extend the CART and the event for a further five years to 2008. I remember the first Indy race on the Gold Coast in 1991. Not only was I fortunate enough to attend; I was also working for Australia Post at the international airport and I got to see the Indy cars and teams arrive and leave the country. The most memorable moment was meeting driver Bobby Rahal. Not only did I get to speak with him; he took great pleasure in showing me the trophy he had won for coming second. I always love going to the Indy. It has a wonderful atmosphere. I love the motor racing. The track is very exciting. There are also beach activities and there is always heaps going on track side, which makes it a very packed and enjoyable day or number of days, whatever the case may be. It is such a great event and I cannot wait for this year's. In fact, I have only 205 days left to wait. It is not only Indy I love; I love most forms of motor racing. This bill will provide greater flexibility for the Queensland government in negotiating an alternative motor racing event on the Gold Coast, such as my favourite motor racing category, the V8 supercars. If something should happen to Indy 300 and it is not able to take place for some reason, the bill will ensure an alternative racing event can take place. As the member for Springwood, I think it is only appropriate that I am the V8 groupie that I am, as V8 enthusiasts know that Springwood is well known for being home to renowned Bathurst and V8 winner Dickie Johnson and his son, Steven. It is also home, and has been home, to many other racing car drivers, such as Bap Romano and Alf Grant. Shailer Park, which is in my electorate, is home to Terry Skene, the owner of Kingston Park Raceway, who has also been known to race a Porche or two around the racetrack. Having been to Bathurst, Lakeside, Willowbank and other racing tracks on many occasions, I think I have credibility when I talk about the great atmosphere of attending a motor racing event. I do have one regret in life, and that is not becoming involved in the sport. I always said I would love to become involved in marshalling, time keeping or some form of admin role, and I never did do that. However, I hope that in my older years I will find some way to become involved in the sport. And I wouldn't say no to a lap around Bathurst with Brockie. This bill inserts into the act a number of provisions that are currently in the regulation with respect to the appointment of authorised persons. As authorised persons have prescribed statutory powers that may infringe on the rights of other people, it is more appropriate that provisions surrounding their appointment sit in the act. Access to and conduct in a declared area is intrinsically linked to the exercise of powers of authorised persons. These, too, will be inserted into the act from the regulation. Safety is an important factor in the industry. While motor racing is a dangerous sport, measures to reduce the risks are happening all the time. Access to and conduct in the declared area is extremely important to the safety of drivers, their teams, volunteers and spectators, and the powers and responsibilities of authorised persons are more appropriately placed in the act. I also note that the proposed section 16(2) requires the promoter to be satisfied that the person appointed as an authorised person is qualified for appointment because the person has the necessary experience or expertise. Proposed section 18(1) requires the promoter to issue an identity card to an authorised person. The card needs to contain a recent photo of the authorised person, a copy of their signature identifying that they are an authorised person, and an expiry date. Proposed section 19 requires that an authorised person when exercising their powers is to produce their identity card or have it displayed so it is clearly visible. These are all necessary requirements for a safe environment to stage the event. The events of September 11 have made these requirements more necessary than ever. I am pleased that the Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act will ensure that the specialist medical support through the overseas specialists that travel with Indy teams continues, and therefore section 23 is unnecessary in the Indy act and will be removed. While I believe that Australian medical practitioners are the best in the world, it is important that Indy drivers and their teams feel comfortable knowing that their medical teams are with them. I know that the medical support provided at Indy is first class and world renowned for its high quality. I witnessed the medical and emergency response when an accident occurred at the beginning of last year's race. Australians should have been very proud of these men and women, who swiftly responded and provided the best possible medical care. I look forward to visiting the medical services centre at this year's Indy and talking to the Queensland ambulance officers who not only do great work at that event but also do a magnificent job every day for the people of Queensland. 1 Apr 2003 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1035

Queensland is well known for staging magnificent international events. Indy is watched by an audience of some 700 million people. That means big tourist opportunities and a boost to the Queensland economy due to spending as a result of Indy. To the Deputy Premier I say that I am extremely pleased that this bill has been brought into the House. Indy is an important international event that brings entertainment and many opportunities to the Gold Coast and Queensland, not to mention a lot of enjoyment to me. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): The Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 aims to reflect modern drafting practices and to improve the running of motor racing events on the Gold Coast by addressing deficiencies in the current legislation. The move to amend this legislation is in line with the Beattie government's commitment to promote Queensland as a state that fosters sporting excellence and builds on its reputation for hosting international events. Hosting international sporting events generates income for the state, creates jobs and gives us valuable global exposure. I realise that not only Gold Coast residents but also Queenslanders and, indeed, thousands and thousands of motor enthusiasts right across Australia enjoy this truly international event. We on the Sunshine Coast are also proud of the international exposure that we receive through the Mooloolah triathlon. The event commenced in 1993 as the Mooloolaba triathlon, a local community event, but since 1997, with the assistance of Queensland Events, this event has incorporated the Australian Olympic distance triathlon championships and the event has grown to become a multisport festival, including the Australian championships, an open triathlon, a teams triathlon, an ocean swim, a five kilometre run/walk, a Superkidz triathlon, beach volleyball, a fitness and fun expo and Triathlon Australia's annual gala awards dinner. Over 3,500 athletes took part in the event over the weekend just past. The event is conducted by United Sports Marketing, an events markets management company that is based in Noosa. The Sunshine Coast is privileged to be the home of internationally recognised United Sports Marketing's Garth Proud, who we know does a superb job—as he did with the Goodwill Games triathlon. When we have such quality event organisers, it is easy to see how the Mooloolaba triathlon event will continue to grow and impact so positively on the Sunshine Coast and its economy. Queensland Events was established to capitalise on the success of Brisbane World Expo 88. It is a government company with a mission to grow Queensland's economy through major events. Queensland Events is in the business of bringing world-class major events to Queensland to ensure a continuous stream of interstate and international visitors while at the same time profiling Queensland nationally and overseas to encourage future tourism and investment. We have elevated events to a policy platform in government, Events—the Queensland Way. This policy includes to maximise the economic development potential of major events; to create a regional event development scheme, which is funded annually with $1 million; to encourage development and growth of regional events; to continue to support icon events such as the Gold Coast Indy, the Asia Pacific Masters Games and the Woodford Folk Festival; to develop a strategy to ensure and enter into long-term agreements for major events; and to grow existing and emerging events. The role of Queensland events is two pronged: firstly, it secures and supports major international and national events that bring new money to the state, profile Queensland and create a sense of community pride; and, secondly, growing and developing events in regional centres, such as the Sunshine Coast, that increase local economic activity, and that enhance the appeal of the destination and the overall visitor experience. That is achieved through the Queensland Events Regional Development Program—QERDP. We can be proud that Queensland now has the largest calendar of regional events of any state in Australia. The Queensland Events calendar supports over 60 events. Other current Sunshine Coast based events to receive Queensland government investment through Queensland Events are the Woodford Folk Festival on the Sunshine Coast hinterland—and I am sure that members would be well aware of that as it receives international exposure—the Noosa triathlon multisports festival and the Australian PGA championships, which were staged in Coolum for the first time last year. Also under QERDP is staged the ginger flower festival at Yandina, the Noosa long weekend, the national community music muster at Amamoor, the ABD Thumpernats at Conondale—and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Thumpernats are close to your heart—and the 2003 Australian motocross championships at Conondale. 1036 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

Both Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast residents are all well aware that this Beattie Labor government recognises not only the benefits of being a competitor or being involved in these types of marvellous events but also how extremely important it is for visitors to come to our region, enjoy our hospitality and, naturally, come on back. Of course, those people have to tell their friends. I am proud to be part of a government that supports not only major international events such as the Gold Coast Indy but also regional events up and down and across the length and breadth of Queensland. I would like to commend the minister and his staff. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (2.35 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. This event has become a tourist attraction and an event marked on people's calendars. I have friends who live in Townsville, Cairns and out west. They come down for this race each year. They meet friends whom they have met previously at the race, because the race has now been running for about 12 years. They look forward to going to this race each year. It gives them an opportunity to come down to the beautiful Gold Coast. They like the atmosphere—the race has a great atmosphere—and they meet old friends whom they have been with at the race from years before. The race now is a very important part of Queensland. This legislation will rejig a few of the regulations so that we can change the nature of the race, if we need to. Some mates of mine reckon that we should change the nature of the race and put in the V8s, the big supercars. When the supercars are running on the Gold Coast, it might be quiet—there might be just a quiet buzz—but when the supercars are brought onto the track, not one balcony along that track does not have people leaning out watching those supercars. I am not much of a petrol head. I used to go to the Bathurst race when I was young. I mainly went there to drink and see friends, not to watch the race. But now that I am older, I have become a fan of the Indy for the simple reason that it really is a spectacular event. It is a showcase, and upwards of 200 million people get to see how good Queensland is and they might want to come here as a holiday destination. The race is the best unpaid advertising that we could possibly have. People from all over the world see this event run in such a professional way. They think what a great event it is and they want to come to see it. This legislation will ensure that this race continues to the year 2008. Of course, we know that it will continue past that date—past the next five-year contract. In relation to this event, I want to pay tribute to a few people. From day one, the builders labourers have been associated with this event in helping to set it up. Before I became a member of this place, I worked for the Builders Labourers Federation. We did a deal with the people who stage the event to construct all the concrete barriers. They have continued to be used. We also built the grandstands and put up the scaffolding. The race is really a great employer. Mr Mackenroth: Would it be done quicker if you were still working for them? Mr PURCELL: Repetition makes things go better. I could possibly give the minister an answer through the next people I am going to pay tribute to. The minister, being a tradesperson, would understand that people get better at doing things as they progress. Mr Neil Roberts: What about the work the electricians do? Mr PURCELL: Who are they? What are they—wire pullers? I am sure that the builders labourers will make sure that the event continues to be good. They will make sure that the barriers are erected in time, that the scaffolding is well built and that all the areas where people work are safe. I pay tribute to a company by the name of Paveset Australia. Col Fleming, the owner, runs the business in the electorate of Bulimba. He is a neighbour of mine. I have known Col for a long time. Col completed the first profile and design of the track. They gave him a bad design to start with. He had to work with some fairly primitive information. It took him over three nights to do the first survey of the road. How long does it take Col to do the survey now? Anywhere between half an hour and an hour. Col has patented equipment that makes this task quicker. Every two years he redesigns and resets the road for them. If there is any part of the road that the drivers or owners want altered, Col simply drives around the circuit and, using this technology, such changes are calculated. The machine does it all. It is a bit hard to do that with builders labourers; we are just turned on all the time. We are such good workers that we will continue to work with the Indy people to make it a great event. 1 Apr 2003 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1037

I commend the minister and his staff for introducing the bill. If the minister has any influence at all, let us have more V8 supercars at the event, because people love them. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (2.42 p.m.): This bill is about making the Gold Coast Indy a more successful event which will continue to provide significant economic benefits to the Gold Coast and Queensland as a whole. The bill contains a number of provisions which facilitate the running of the event, including clarifying certain powers of the promoter regarding the period of time in which that person can remove unattended vehicles obstructing the race site the appointment of authorised persons and their powers of access to and conduct in the declared area of the race. The bill also provides that visiting international health practitioners who do not have Queensland registration may provide health care services to visitors participating in or preparing for events within a declared period. As the Treasurer said, the Gold Coast Indy is now a showpiece event for this state. The spectacular pictures of the Gold Coast beaches beamed to over 700 million people in 195 countries are worth their weight in gold. Now, in addition to the Indy enthusiasts, the event will host the V8 supercars which will attract an additional audience and deliver even more economic benefits to the state. It is on the issue of economic benefit that I shall make a few more comments in support of this bill. As a general rule of thumb, the Premier said earlier last year that for every 167 domestic or 65 international visitors to Queensland we create one job for a Queenslander. Additionally, for every dollar that we invest in major events, such as Indy and the Gold Coast Marathon, we gain a return of $24 in benefits. So major events are not just about their entertainment value; they are significant economic drivers of our economy that generate substantial income and jobs for local people. Last year the Gold Coast Indy recorded a record 297,835 attendances over its four days. That injected over $50 million into the local economy and resulted in 175,000 visitor nights to Queensland. That means jobs for local people—and not just in the short term. That level of investment sustains jobs due to the spin-off effects of increased tourism and ancillary industries and services that are established. Sporting events such as the Indy are the major contributor to the economic impacts of major events across Queensland. The Rugby World Cup series later this year is expected to attract up to 55,000 fans, creating around $200 million in direct benefits to the state. In the non-sporting field, this year Queensland will also host the 94th International Annual Rotary Convention. Direct spending by participants is expected to be in the order of $60 million. Each year, around one million people visit Queensland for meetings and conventions, and this provides an injection of around $1.6 billion into our local economy. I mention these other examples to highlight the importance of government investment in events such as the Gold Coast Indy and why that investment needs to continue. This bill will facilitate the running of the event, which now has in principle agreement from its owners to run for another five years in Queensland. We look forward to the continued success of the Gold Coast Indy and the significant economic benefit that it brings to Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON: (Gregory—NPA) (2.46 p.m.): In speaking to the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003, I shall canvass a series of issues. I join with the opposition spokesman, the member for Beaudesert, in supporting this piece of legislation. From the outset, this is a very important piece of legislation in so far as it puts in place a promoter for the event. Whilst a lot of people are not into motor car racing, the Indy Car event highlights a very important tourist day on the Queensland tourist calendar. It highlights one of the great events of the year on the Gold Coast where the majority of Queenslanders and the majority of the Australians tune in their TV sets to see what is going on and who are the winners. From day one, this event has been great for Queensland. While it is all very well for some people to criticise events such as this, it is also important to recognise the positives of an event such as this. The Deputy Premier is endeavouring to appoint a promoter to promote the event. This promotes not only the event but also Queensland. The planning of an event such as the Indy does not occur the week before it commences. That is applicable to most major events today. The programming and the staging of the 2003 event started last year at the completion of the 2002 event. Every year it is an international event. We are drawing international drivers and international technology, but the most important aspect is the showcasing of Queensland. In the future the V8 motor cars will be a feature. Again, that will create a new interest for the enthusiasts of that facet of motor racing. It is about showcasing a facet of the motor industry about which many are enthusiastic. The V8s are always a big part of the Bathurst event. 1038 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

The Australian Falcon and Holden cars and the V8 technology so associated will be a very important part of promoting not only the event but also an industry within this country. That is the important factor—promoting what is traditionally Australian. This is a real plus, because when we promote the Australian cause we promote Australian jobs and Australian industry. In real terms, Australian products are put at the forefront of the international stage. This is another way of marketing the products that we in this nation produce. I think this is a real plus and the minister is to be commended for it. Winton is no longer a part of the Gregory electorate. It is now a part of the electorate of Mount Isa, which the Police Minister represents. Back in the days of the Borbidge government, about $600,000 of Indy proceeds was injected into that centre for the establishment of the fantastic Waltzing Matilda Centre in Winton. Tourism has grown in that area as a result of that project. That is an example of the flow-on benefits of Indy. I heard the member for Nudgee talk about the spin-offs from this event. I thought his use of the word 'spin-offs' was very fitting, as we are talking about car racing. Really, this is about the spin-offs that will advantage other parts of Queensland and tourism in this state. Regardless of where we live in this state, we must promote each other's backyards. Not everybody wants to see a car race. Not everybody wants to see the Great Barrier Reef. Not everybody wants to see the outback. If we can market what other people have we will have gone a long way towards putting in place a very comprehensive and good way of marketing and selling Queensland. We know how important tourism is to Queensland. We know how important the Indy grand prix is to the Gold Coast, how important the Gold Coast is to Queensland, and how important Queensland is to Australia. When we talk to international visitors about Australia we hear a lot of them identify with the Gold Coast straight away. It is an icon of Queensland. It is a seaside strip. There are seaside strips right up the coast of Queensland, right up to Mossman, Cooktown and so on in the north, but the tourists come to the Gold Coast and that is what we have to market. I wish to speak about major sporting facilities in this state. The Lang Park project is probably 90 per cent complete. What a fantastic stadium that will be. Whilst Lang Park is one of the icons of Rugby League in Queensland— Mr Reeves: I can't wait to get there. Mr JOHNSON: I can't, either. Mr Mackenroth: I can't wait to see the Broncos do the Doggies. Mr JOHNSON: The Deputy Premier and I ought to have a little wager on this. Mr Mackenroth: They are actually complying with the rules now, aren't they? Mr JOHNSON: I think a few other people out there are running a bit scared in relation to the rules. I think we will see things happen as time goes on. I am looking forward to the encounter between the Dogs and the Broncos, because I know it will be a good one. It will be a hard played game, as the minister well knows. I think at the end of the day the Dogs— Mr Mackenroth: I will take you out there to watch them lose. Mr JOHNSON: I will go out there with the minister. I will have my Dogs stole and I will wear my Dogs cap. I know that the minister's loyalties lie with the Broncos. I have always been a Dogs supporter, but underneath I have a soft spot for the Broncos and the great man at the helm, Wayne Bennett. What a magnificent general he is. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr JOHNSON: No, I have not got it anymore. Probably one of the greatest games in our nation is tennis. Tennis seems to be synonymous with Melbourne, come the start of the year with the Australian Open. A lot of people in my electorate have said to me on numerous occasions—I think I have said this to the Deputy Premier—that the next thing the government should have on the agenda is the construction of a tennis stadium in this city. That is something the opposition would totally support. We have great golf courses and other sporting venues in Queensland. We are a sporting state. We have certainly been deprived of a proper tennis stadium since Milton closed. It was certainly obsolete, outdated and antiquated. I believe we could be at the forefront of tennis again. We could return to the international marketplace of locations for major tennis tournaments. The government should look at how it can construct a venue like that. A lot of people play tennis. They play it into their later years. It is not just a young person's sport. It is a great social game and 1 Apr 2003 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1039 a very important part of many people's lives. I would dearly love to see a tennis stadium built here in Brisbane. I am sure every member of this House would support that. I congratulate the Deputy Premier on the bill. It is paramount that we support each other's backyards when an event is being held there, whether it is the grand prix or whatever. At the end of the day— Mr Reeves: The Birdsville Races. Mr JOHNSON: Good point. There were some 6,000 people there last year. The Premier and his wife were the guests of the Birdsville Race Club. It was a magnificent event. Boyarin won the Birdsville Cup, got pipped at the post by about a nose for the Bedourie Cup and won the Betoota Cup. Those three races are the main events in the Diamantina shire. They are great sporting spectacles in the bush. Country racing has been on the lips of many people in this place over recent weeks. I believe those races are a sporting spectacle in their own right. A lot of country racing is. It is very important that we do a close evaluation of country racing. It is an important part of the social fabric of a lot of the western, northern and country regions. I know that country racing has to be viable. At the same time, it is important to local people, regardless of where they live—just as Indy is to the Gold Coast, just as Lang Park is to Rugby League in Brisbane, just as the Swamp is to the Crocodiles in Townsville. These are all important issues for us as Queenslanders. I believe we have to promote them so we can capitalise on our sporting prowess. The most important thing we have is our children. We should provide them with good sporting complexes, regardless of where they live, to give them the opportunity to excel and go to the top. Those young people who excel in sport give us so much pleasure and so much to be proud of. As the custodians of this state, we should always be looking at avenues to create an environment in which we can further enhance and grow sport in this state. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (2.58 p.m.): As an ex racing driver it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Indy Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. Mr Johnson: I am an ex racing driver, too, but the police didn't like my style. Mr ENGLISH: I spent a number of years racing Formula Vees in and around Queensland and Australia. I take this opportunity to thank the engineer who built my cars and prepared them, John Alder, and his business at Rochedale, Volks Engineering. He did a fantastic job. The fact I am here today is a testament in many ways to his engineering skills as I have had a number of rather large accidents and managed to walk away every time. On that basis, I would like to explain the background to this bill. Originally, when the Indy Car Grand Prix Act 1990 was introduced, the category of racing that we are talking about was generally known as Indy cars. It was managed by an organisation called CART, Championship Auto Racing Team, and the category was generally known as Indy cars. However, because of an internal split in that organisation in America, the category fractured into what we now know as champ cars, which race on the Gold Coast, and another league called the IRL, the Indy Racing League. The Indianapolis circuit took ownership of the splinter league. Hence, to a certain degree, it has legal ownership of the title 'Indy car'. That is why the current cars racing around Surfers Paradise are now known as champ cars, not Indy cars. On the basis of that dispute in the US, it is quite right that we amend our legislation here to reflect the changing nature of that event and also to recognise that it is not now just Indy cars or champ cars that are the feature races. We now have V8 supercars playing a very important role in that meeting, and I think last year their status was further elevated by seriously increasing the amount of track time they got. I think that increased spectator interest as a result. I would like to compliment the organisers on increasing the V8 supercars' input. I must admit that I prefer to watch open-wheel racing cars go round and not the overgrown taxis that we see in the V8 supercars. I would like to compliment a team racing in the V8 supercars, and that is the Sirromet winery team, with its team driver, Paul Morris. I would like to compliment Sirromet wineries on the amount of effort they put into running a professional V8 Supercars team. I notice that the team was unfortunately involved in an accident a few weeks ago in Adelaide, where the car sustained substantial damage. I am pleased to hear that Paul Morris walked away in one piece. I certainly hope the team is able to repair the car and get it back on track for the next round of the V8 championships. 1040 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that this government is being tough on hoons because the street is not the appropriate place to drive like drivers that we see in V8 supercars or Indy cars. These are professional racing drivers. The road is not the location to drive at high speeds. If people want to drive fast, then they should get involved in club level motor sport. They should go out to Queensland Raceway and drive a sedan or an open-wheel racing car or take part in the drags out at Willowbank. There are many legal and socially acceptable forms to enjoy the experience that I and many other people have felt by driving motor vehicles fast. There are a range of legal options, and I encourage people to take up those options. This bill declares the event at the Gold Coast a special event under the Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act. I would like to compliment the professionalism of the medical staff at all race meetings in Australia. Certainly the need for this declaration is that the US series, just like the Formula One series, has specialist medical officers attached to them, and this is to provide recognition of the skills of those specialist officers when they come over here. It allows them to treat and practise here to try to help save drivers' lives. The specialist trauma knowledge and skills that these doctors have may help a young Queenslander or a young Australian involved in an incident on these tracks. I think this is a good thing, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (3.03 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. As one of the Gold Coast members of parliament, I wish to make my contribution to the debate on the Indy car grand prix bill. As many members may be aware, the Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix is one of the premier events in Australia. The Indy 2002 event attracted almost 300,000 people over the days of the carnival. They are not necessarily race car devotees; many are there to witness the atmosphere that has been gradually created since its inception. It has made a substantial and sustained contribution to economic growth on the Gold Coast. When it first came into effect, it filled a void when things were very, very flat on the Gold Coast. It has just blossomed since then. The Indy represents a worldwide free advertising campaign for Gold Coast City. It is Australia's premier tourist destination, and probably all contributes to this. The flow-on effect that this has had on employment and business in Gold Coast City is substantial. The bill not only seeks to reform the Indy Car Grand Prix Act 1990 but also provides legislation for the conduct of an annual motor racing event on the Gold Coast. It aims to improve the performance of motor racing events on the Gold Coast by addressing the existing legislation and removing redundant provisions to reflect current drafting practices. I also bring to the House's attention some of the provisions of the bill. In general, the act and Indy Car Grand Prix Regulation 1990 provided for the running of a motor racing event on the Gold Coast under a commercial agreement with the Championship Auto Racing Team Inc., known as CART, and under the champ car racing series. It should be noted at this point that CART is known as a company incorporated in Michigan, or as someone else declared under a regulation to the body controlling the Indy Car World Racing Series. The amending act provides for the appointment of the race promoter and outlines the promoter's rights and responsibilities. A 'promoter' according to the bill means the person declared under the regulations to be the promoter for the year. The bill provides a promoter's rights and responsibilities, as it gives the promoter control of the declared area and the power to enter and carry out the works. In the process of conducting duties, the promoter may also appoint a number of authorised persons. Those authorised persons also have the power to prevent persons from entering or leaving the declared area and to confiscate anything placed on the structure or confiscate any material that can be used to erect a structure or any other prohibited object brought into the declared area. The declaration of the area and period in which the event is to occur each year is done by regulation. The Queensland Beattie Labor government is heartily committed to the continuation of Indy races on the Gold Coast and has agreed in principle, as we heard last year, to extend the agreement for a further five years until the year 2008. To Gold Coasters, this means the streets of Surfers Paradise will again give way to high speed international racing in 2003 from 23 to 26 October. This sporting event is to be broadcast worldwide to almost 200 countries, with a viewing audience of approximately 700 million people. You cannot buy that kind of advertising. The bill recognises the significance and growth of the Indy racing event, including the contribution of the V8 supercars series and the other motor racing categories. I suppose that has attracted more people because V8 supercars have such a huge following in Australia. The bill also addresses deficiencies and works to modernise the act by removing outdated references to now repealed acts and by utilising modern drafting practices. I must once again compliment the 1 Apr 2003 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1041

Minister for Sport for the wonderful job he has done. He has personally contributed to the wellbeing of the carnival, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (3.07 p.m.): When the Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix Act was brought in in 1990, it was brought in in a terrible rush, perhaps something appropriate for the subject. I remember being told that I had two days in which to digest the act and to make appropriate comments. I think it is fair to say that the act itself has borne the test of time fairly well, but equally it was reasonable that there would be would be some tweaking necessary after the act had been in force for some years. Believe it or not, there is still considerable opposition to the holding of the Indy grand prix on the Gold Coast and it does seem as if quite a large number of those people opposed live within the electorate of Surfers Paradise. That is not unreasonable because that is where the track is. People who were residing in their present homes before the first Indy race have every reason to complain that a very noisy and disruptive event was imposed upon them without their approval. Those strong and very real and sincere objections to the Indy race are gradually diminishing with time as some people who hold objections advance to a better world and others sell their properties to people who come knowing that the Indy race will be held on that circuit each year. However, I do believe that this bill does miss an opportunity. A few years ago when studying the subject of tourism law at Bond University I did a thesis on the basis of a compensation program for people who were seriously inconvenienced or harmed by the Indy race. It is akin to the compensation program at Sydney airport where travellers pay an extra $1 or $2 per ticket into a fund and those people who are assessed as being greatly damnified have the ability to make a claim on that common fund for compensation. I would have liked to have seen something in this amending bill today to address that problem, because that would have made the Indy race very much more acceptable to the people in the electorate which I represent. Nonetheless, it must be said that the majority of people on the Gold Coast, according to all of the surveys that have been carried out, do favour the continuation of the Indy race. Certainly, it is a great time on the Gold Coast for those who do not live within the precinct. There are a few things contained in the bill that possibly would be better commented upon at the committee stage, but I would have thought that clause 28 relating to occupants' passes might have taken the opportunity of saying that there would be no charge for the pass. There can be conditions imposed. One might be able to argue that a condition could be a fee. That would be totally unacceptable. I looked in vain for some definition of 'place of business'. Perhaps that is in the principal act. Certainly, people who occupy residences or have a place of business are entitled to an occupant's pass. Certain things are unsure in my mind—for example, if someone owns two apartments can he say that that is his place of business and demand an occupant's pass? I am also a little concerned with clause 33 relating to the non-placement of posters and advertising signs. In principle it is quite acceptable. I am a bit worried that it does not say that those signs already there are accepted and there could be some potential argument as to the wording in the clause at the moment. Equally, existing businesses may wish to put up additional signage. One would have thought that perhaps that might have been accepted. I believe that clause 39 and the following clauses relating to authorised persons do take the law of Queensland or perhaps the practice a little further than might be the case by enabling, I presume, security officers to have certain quasi police powers. I do know that certain officers employed by, say, universities do have limited policing powers. I could see that authorised persons, apart from the police, would be security officers or people of that ilk. I find it to be quite interesting. I am not opposed to the concept, but I find it quite interesting. Perhaps that could be used as a parallel in other cases where shopping centres are seeking to have private policing or mall committees might be seeking to have certain powers for some of their authorised officers. I find that to be interesting. As I said, I do not really oppose it but it is something that we can use in other circumstances as well. All in all, I certainly have no opposition to this bill. I will certainly be supporting it. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.13 p.m.): It is my absolute pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, and in doing so may I confess my personal support for and interest in the Indy carnival. I must admit, however, that I never thought of myself as a racing car fan until I attended the very first Gold Coast Indy in 1991. The race did not fail to impress and from then on I was hooked on the atmosphere and the excitement as the cars screamed down the Gold Coast Highway turned Indy track. In its first year spectator numbers nudged just on 130,000 and the event was being criticised from all angles. But persistence and support are what have built Indy into the pulsating, colourful and fantastic 1042 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003 event that it is today, and I would have to say that the Gold Coast community has had a bit to do with that. Now the four-day Indy carnival is Australia's premier event and this year it could attract up to and over 300,000 people. What is so special about Indy patronage is that a good majority of the Indy visitors are local Gold Coasters. What amazes me is that no matter how big the crowd I always manage to run into people I know as I walk the perimeter of the track. Indy attracts the car racing enthusiasts who prowl the pit watching the teams prepare and coordinate tactics and who follow each lap with a stopwatch. But for the Gold Coast and the state the Indy carnival offers even more. Cafes and restaurants throw open their doors to Indy themed streets, hotels are packed, Indy girls search for elusive modelling opportunities, in excess of 700 jobs are created across several industries and the Gold Coast's beautiful scenery is beamed to 700 million people in 190 countries throughout the world. This is the Indy as we know it today, and the Beattie government continues to strongly support Indy by contributing $10.95 million towards staging the event that generates more than $50 million a year. The bill before the House today is an indication of the Beattie government's commitment to the Gold Coast. The bill will amend the act to provide a legislative framework for the conduct of an annual motor racing event on the Gold Coast which is not specifically linked to any single motor racing event. In addition, the current act expires in December 2003 and the Queensland government has agreed in principle to extend the agreement with CART and the event for a further five years to 2008. This necessitates a legislative framework being in place to support the conduct of a race beyond 2003. This bill will provide greater flexibility for the Queensland government in negotiating an alternative motor racing event on the Gold Coast such as the V8 supercars should the Indy 300 racing event fail to continue or not take place in a particular year. This bill reflects current drafting practices and will improve the running of motor racing events on the Gold Coast by addressing deficiencies in the current act and removing redundant provisions. Complementary amendments will be progressed to the regulation through the proposed Gold Coast Motor Events Regulation 2002, and the bill inserts into the act a number of provisions currently in the regulation about the appointment of authorised persons, the codification of their powers and access to and conduct in the declared area. As authorised persons have prescribed statutory powers that may infringe the rights of other people, provisions around their appointment and powers sit more appropriately within this act. Similarly, a number of provisions about access to and conduct in the declared area which are intrinsically linked to the exercise of the powers of authorised persons are being inserted into the act from the regulation. This is consistent with the current drafting practices and accords with fundamental legislative principles. Another aspect to the bill which I want to highlight to the House is the removal of section 23 of the act. Section 23 allows the sanctioning body to appoint visiting health practitioners and paramedics to practise in relation to competitors in the Indy event during the declared period. Every year two medical practitioners from the United States of America are contracted to provide specialist health services at the Indy event. An Australian medical team assists them. In the future, the Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act 1998, the special events act, will be relied upon to enable visiting practitioners to be appointed for the Indy event. Finally, I take this opportunity to praise the efforts of the 1,500 volunteers who work during the Indy carnival. I have met a number of residents who have put up their hand to work as volunteers over the four days of Indy. Many of them have worked at every Indy since day one. The volunteers and all the ambulance and police staff do a great job at Indy, and I look forward to seeing them again at this year's Indy. This legislation provides for the running of Indy to get better and better. I thank the minister for continuing to support this event, an event that is now an icon event for the Gold Coast. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.18 p.m.): I rise in support of the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill aims to improve the operations of motor racing events on the Gold Coast and by doing so will reinforce our state's reputation for sporting excellence. It will also assist in boosting our state's reputation as the premier state for hosting international sporting events. Let us be clear: these events create jobs and, as the Minister for Employment explained this morning, we are a jobs, jobs, jobs government. These events also give us exposure around the world. I understand that the Indy is broadcast to 195 countries with an audience of some 700 million people. This is extraordinary and it helps our tourism industry immensely. I understand that the V8 Supercar motor racing series has been confirmed as an event. I have to admit that I have been to only one V8 supercar race 1 Apr 2003 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1043 at Willowbank in my home city of Ipswich, but I enjoyed it immensely. I hope to go to many more in future years. I do not think anyone would describe me as being a revhead, but we had an enjoyable day out and many of my constituents were there cheering on their favourite motor racing teams. I am sure that many people from Ipswich will be at this year's events, some with more interest in the V8 supercars. In fact, some may even be our famous Ipswich lappers. However, Indy will always be the focus of the carnival. The government has agreed in principle to continue this racing event for a further five years, and this bill supports the agreement. Part 4 of the bill relates to access to declared areas. Proposed section 23 states that the promoter may, within the declared area, place signs marked 'restricted area'. Only permitted entrants are allowed into these areas. Section 26 relates to access to the motor racing circuit. It outlines that a person must not enter the motor racing circuit during the declared period unless the person is the driver of a racing car or a service vehicle, emergency vehicle or a vehicle authorised by the promoter. This is commonsense. Proposed section 28 refers to occupants' passes and section 29 refers to entry by ticket. This section outlines that the promoter may issue a ticket and charge a fee for entry into the declared area during the declared period. Such a ticket entitles the person to enter the declared area on the days and times as stated on the ticket. Section 31 refers to reserved areas, seats and blocks of seats. Part 5 deals with conduct in the declared area. Basically, the promoter must erect a sign outside each approved entrance warning people about activities that may not take place in that area and items that may be confiscated if taken into the declared area. In summary, a person must not place a placard, poster, advertisement or other thing on a building, fence or other structure without the consent of the promoter. A person must not distribute printed material in the declared area between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on any day without the consent of the promoter. Section 36 outlines that people must not bring an animal or bird into the declared area without the consent of the promoter. Again, this is commonsense. Part 6 of the bill refers to the powers of authorised persons in some detail. I would like to thank the minister, his staff and Public Service advisers for this bill. Consultation was undertaken with all government agencies, the Gold Coast Motor Events Company and the Gold Coast City Council, and all supported the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (3.22 p.m.): In rising to support the Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, I note that, as my name was placed last on the speaking list, there must have been some recognition that, although a Gold Coast member, I have never attended an Indy Car Grand Prix, nor do I intend to. I am not a fan of these noisy petrol-driven sports. However, I am a fan of regional events that contribute significantly to the economy of Queensland. The Indy Car Grand Prix is more than a race; it has gone on to become an international event. Over the past 12 years Indy has grown from a Gold Coast sporting showpiece to a major event that injects approximately $50 million into the Queensland economy each year. It receives tremendous media attention, both national and international. Scenes of Gold Coast beaches, its beautiful hinterland and the Gold Coast lifestyle are broadcast into the lounge rooms of 700 million people in 195 countries. This is good news for Queensland and great advertising for our state and the whole country. In addition to the Indy 300 series, I note that the member for Springwood is very excited that the Gold Coast has now been confirmed as an official round of the V8 supercar motor racing series. Therefore, it is timely that the bill aims to improve the running of the event by clarifying certain powers of the race promoter. This afternoon other members have discussed the provisions of the bill and, therefore, I will not do so. Although the focus is on the track and the pits, 1,350 volunteers work day and night to ensure the smooth running of the event. Corporate hosts, grandstand, gate and information booth officials as well as marshals will be required once again this year as volunteers. I thank the 2002 volunteers, many of whom will be back again travelling from interstate and giving up their annual holidays to work hard in making Indy the successful showpiece that it is. For car enthusiasts and those who just want to have a good time enjoying the environment, from 23 October to 26 October this year— Ms Stone: Two hundred and five days to go. 1044 Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

Ms KEECH:—the member is counting the days—the Surfers Paradise Indy track will be the place to be, especially for the member for Springwood. However, when drivers, volunteers and international tourists are looking for a break from big boys' toys they can drive 20 minutes north along the M1 motorway to the electorate of Albert, where the real Gold Coast begins. Mr Foley: Hear, hear! Ms KEECH: I thank the minister for his interjection. There they can enjoy a big day out at Dreamworld, a fair-dinkum hot pie at Yatala and take home an Aussie souvenir to remember in the form of a Driza-Bone jacket from Eagleby. Two other groups in particular are welcoming the 2003 Indy grand prix—the official causes for this year, Surf Life Saving Queensland and Kids Help Line. I congratulate the Treasurer and the Beattie government on their financial support of the Indy Car Grand Prix 2003. In addition, I thank the Gold Coast Bulletin and the Gold Coast City Council for their fantastic support of this exciting event. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (3.26 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their support of the Gold Coast Indy, and particularly the opposition for its bipartisan support for the continuation of this great event held on the Gold Coast each year. A couple of issues were raised by the local member, the member for Surfers Paradise. He raised issues in relation to passes, signage and the lights. There is no change to the existing situation. The provisions that were in regulations will now be contained within the act. The member is reading them as new provisions. They are not new provisions at all; they have been taken from the regulations to the act and placed into the legislation itself. There is no fee charged to businesses or to the local residents. In fact, the passes that they get are free. Residents are also entitled to guest passes. In relation to signage, that is covered by existing regulations. Once again, it will be covered within the act. It does not regulate signs on businesses. It regulates signs that people may wish to put up for the duration of the race. It is actually regulating new signs that will be put there for that period. Last year's Gold Coast Indy was estimated to generate about 175,000 visitor nights and have economic benefits for Queensland of more than $50 million. The race is broadcast to a potential international audience of more than 700 million people in more than 190 countries, and people from all over Australia come to the Gold Coast. Earlier this year, the Gold Coast Motor Events Company announced that Lexmark, a global technology company dedicated to printing solutions, has been signed as the naming rights sponsor for the Indy for the next three years. The Indy will be known as the Lexmark Indy 300. The passing of this bill will enable the Gold Coast Motor Events Company to complete the signing of CART to ensure that the race is able to continue. At the end of next week, I will accompany John Cowley, the Chairman of the Gold Coast Motor Events Company, to America to finalise the negotiations and to sign a new five-year contract to ensure that the Indy race is able to be held on the Gold Coast into coming years. This year, once again, the Indy will be a double-header, with the Lexmark Indy 300 and also the Gillette V8 supercar Challenge, which will be the 11th round of the Australian V8 Supercar Championship Series. We saw the success of that last year by having the V8 supercars as a championship round rather than just an exhibition round. I think that added immensely to the race and helped to ensure that we reached a record crowd of 298,000. We are looking forward this year to breaking the 300,000 mark. Also this year, which is the 13th year of the race, at some stage during that event we will see the three millionth spectator pass through the gates over the 13 years to see the race. I thank the members of the parliament for their support. We look forward, with the passing of this legislation and the signing of a new agreement, to the continuation of what is a great event. Last year the event was explained to me by a journalist as schoolies week for oldies. It is that absolutely, because it is a corporate event where people go and have a great time. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to. 1 Apr 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 1045

Clause 15— Mr LINGARD (3.31 p.m.): With reference to clause 15, page 5 of the explanatory notes states — Modern drafting practice requires— and the word 'requires' is used very strongly— that the appointment of a person with statutory powers, which may infringe on the rights of other people (such as authorised persons) should be done through primary legislation rather than regulation. I can understand why the explanatory notes state that, but I hope that in the future anything that may be done to the act which may be done by regulation is not limited. In other words, if something else has to be done to the act, I hope that we do not have to keep on changing the act all the time but that we can still rely on the regulation. Mr MACKENROTH: If we made a regulation that was not allowable, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee would make us aware of that. For 12 years we have used the regulations. We know what is required and we have just simply brought them into the legislation. Mr LINGARD: Clause 15 contains many long new sections. I wonder why police have to be appointed as the authorised people. Obviously, the promoter cannot contravene the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act in terms of common law, but why is it necessary to have police referred to as the authorised people? Mr MACKENROTH: It is necessary for me to explain, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not present to debate the next bill. So we will keep debating the clauses until he arrives. One would think that if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was on the ball, as he told us that he was going to be, he would be here waiting for that legislation to be debated. Mr LINGARD: New section 22 of clause 15 refers to identity cards. It seems unbelievable that a person who does not hand back their identity card within 21 days will be penalised $1,500. What makes an identity card within the period of the Indy so important that it would be necessary to charge him $1,500 for not returning his identity card? Mr MACKENROTH: It is only a maximum penalty. It could be a lot less than that. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr LINGARD (3.35 p.m.): Clause 16 refers to confiscated items. It seems that the promoter can work out what he will confiscate and then the person who has had that item confiscated has to apply to the promoter to get it back. Obviously if something is confiscated there is going to be a severe disagreement between people. If it is that the promoter says that he is not going to return the item, then he is allowed to sell the item after three months. Who will be the referee if the person who has lost the item and the promoter disagree, especially if the promoter is allowed to then sell the item after three months? Mr MACKENROTH: If an item is confiscated from a person—and it would be an item that is not allowable on the site—the person who is confiscating the item is required to give a receipt or a voucher for that article to that person. After the race, that person can submit that voucher to get the item returned. If the Indy did not have the item and the person had the voucher, then of course that person would have a claim against them. Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 21, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

STATUTORY BODIES FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 29 October 2002 (see p. 4146). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.39 p.m.): I rise to participate in this debate on the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 2002. 1046 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003

It is the first amendment bill that I as shadow treasurer have had to deal with. The statutory bodies financial arrangements legislation was first introduced into this parliament in 1982 by the then Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport, the now Sir Llew Edwards. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SEENEY: I take the minister's point. The original legislation came about as a result of changes in the dynamics of the Australian capital markets. As the market for financial instruments has become increasingly more sophisticated, so, too, have government agencies needed to keep abreast of financial innovations. As a result, the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act was set up to address the financial limitations on statutory bodies. Llew Edwards, the then Treasurer in 1982, said of those limitations— Borrowing and investing powers of Queensland statutory powers has remained basically static. Accordingly, the means of borrowing available to many statutory bodies in Queensland no longer reflect the requirements for the markets for which they sought to borrow, nor were they capable of investing in the newer forms of secure investment. This was the impetus for the introduction of the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act back in the early eighties. Among other things, the original piece of legislation also introduced the Government Development Authority, which has since been moulded with the investment arm of the Treasury Department to form the Queensland Treasury Corporation. QTC now operates as the state's corporate treasury services provider with responsibility for providing financial risk management advice and also funding more than 99 per cent of the Queensland public sector's total borrowings from a range of both domestic and international markets. The current proposed amendments are designed to exert a greater degree of regulatory control and certainty over the financial operations of the statutory bodies. The government, according to the Treasurer's second reading speech, believes that the need for such change is in recognition of the higher risks involved in today's complex financial markets. It is interesting to look at some of the changes being proposed by the amendment bill. The first of the changes deals with part 7, division 3, of the current act. Part 7 deals with derivative transactions, fund managers and other financial arrangements. Division 3 specifically provides statutory bodies the power to enter into what are called 'other financial arrangements' with the Treasurer's approval. These so-called 'other financial arrangements' include financial arrangements necessary for or incidental to the exercise of another power under the act or financial arrangements that are not otherwise allowed under the act, including such things as investment for more than three years, investments other than in Australian money and investments undertaken outside Australia, loans by a statutory body, and the giving of guarantees by a statutory body. It was originally intended that statutory bodies would only require the approval of the Treasurer to enter into financial arrangements where the general competency powers of the body, such as the power to enter into a contract under its substantive act, were either insufficient or no specific power existed to enter into that type of transaction. This will still be the case, as I understand it, under the proposed amendments. However, because there is no specific mandatory requirement for the Treasurer's approval to enter into financial arrangements under part 7, division 3, there has been a level of uncertainty, particularly in regards to the higher risk transactions. In effect, there is a grey area that exists between the general competency powers of a statutory body and the specific requirements of a statutory body, such as the need to seek approval from the Treasurer before entering into an arrangement under the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982. Because statutory bodies may believe that their general powers under their authorising act enable them to enter into a certain transaction, the problem is that there is an overlap between this general power and the specific transactions that require the Treasurer's approval. As a result, this bill proposes to identify a list of specific transactions that come under the existing definition of financial arrangements in part 7, division 3, and will now be called type 1 financial arrangements and to add to those transactions a mandatory requirement of approval by the Treasurer to enter into that specific type of transaction. However, type 1 financial transactions will not require approval by the Treasurer where the substantive act of the statutory body expressly conveys a power to enter into a type 1 transaction, thus maintaining the status quo for that particular transaction. Even if the statutory body is of the opinion that the general powers under their substantive act would allow them to enter into one of the new type 1 financial arrangements, there will still be a mandatory requirement for the Treasurer's approval. The current 1 Apr 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 1047 definition of a financial arrangement exists under the act and the proposed new list of type 1 financial arrangements. This bill, in reviewing the definition of financial arrangements, has made a number of changes. Certain financial arrangements have been amended or removed from the definition as these are arrangements that a statutory body should be able to enter into under its general competency powers. The proposed type 1 financial transactions will include: entering into or performing a deferred payment arrangement if the payment period is more than three years; entering into a joint venture, partnership or trust; forming or participating in forming a corporation; and acquiring, consolidating, dealing with, disposing of, holding or issuing bonds, debentures, inscribed stock, shares, stocks or other securities of any statutory body or corporations. Type 1 transactions will also include entering into an arrangement, covenant, guarantee, promise or undertaking to meet liabilities or obligations incurred by or to a person, whether or not the person is party to the arrangement, covenant, guarantee, promise or undertaking. They will also include underwriting an issue of debentures, shares or other securities and they will include entering into an arrangement prescribed under a regulation as a type 1 financial arrangement. The types of transactions that are listed are considered by the drafters of this bill as involving a high degree of financial risk and therefore will require mandatory approval from the Treasurer even where the statutory body may have the ability to enter into the type of transaction under their general competency powers. The proposed changes will see a greater degree of risk management being applied to the financial operations of the state's statutory bodies and a greater degree of control of the management of that risk by the Treasurer and, through the Treasurer, by the government. All of the abovementioned transactions come from the original definition of a 'financial arrangement' in the act. The remaining list of transactions will now come under the guise of category 2 financial arrangements. Under the proposed amendments, there will be a new part 7A that will deal with the remaining arrangements not included in the type 1 financial arrangements definition. Type 2 financial arrangements will include: borrowing an amount of money; lending an amount of money; investing an amount of money; taking land or an interest in land; acquiring, consolidating, dealing with, disposing of or holding buildings or other structures for providing infrastructure or other facilities for the public or part of the public, including, for example, entertainment centres, light rail systems, port terminals, sporting stadiums, toll roads, transport infrastructure and waste treatment facilities; granting or taking a lease, or letting or taking on hire for a period a building, equipment, land, machinery, plant or other property, including a finance lease, as lessee, lessor, hirer, owner or tenant; granting financial accommodation by or to a person, whether or not the person is a party to the arrangement; accepting, discounting, drawing, endorsing or issuing a bill of exchange, promissory note, payment order or other negotiable instrument, or other negotiable instrument, other than a cheque within the meaning of the Cheques Act 1986; holding property as a trustee of an agent; acquiring, consolidating, dealing with, disposing of, holding or reissuing foreign currency; and entering into another arrangement prescribed under regulation as a type 2 financial arrangement. For the transactions that have been listed, the authorisation requirements on statutory bodies will be as follows. Where a statutory body wishes to enter into a type 2 financial arrangement, the Treasurer's approval is required where it has not been allocated express borrowing or investment powers under part 5 or 6 of the act or if it does not consider its general competency powers are sufficient for the remaining non-borrowing and investment arrangements that are defined as type 2 financial arrangements. The difference with type 1 financial arrangements is that, even if the general competency powers did allow a type 1 transaction to occur, the Treasurer's approval would still need to be sought. Under type 2 transactions, no approval is required if the general competency powers of the statutory body cover such a transaction. As part of the proposed amendments there have also been some definitional changes in sections 44 and 45 to the permitted range of investment products that statutory authorities are able to enter into. However, the changes appear to be only semantic. There is no real change to the range of products that statutory bodies may enter into. Sections 44 and 45 deal with the investment powers of the statutory authority. In particular, the sections that refer to the Queensland Investment Corporation and the Queensland Treasury Corporation will be amended to allow for changes in the names of QIC and QTC products to be altered in the act by a regulation as opposed to an act of parliament. This is achieved by product 1048 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 1 Apr 2003 names being replaced with general references. Specific product names will now be contained in regulation, rather than in the act itself. The move will allow for increased legislative efficiencies. There are also some changes made to part 9, division 2 of the act. Part 9, division 2 deals with general approvals given by the Treasurer. Division 2 allows the Treasurer, via gazette notice, to approve the exercise of powers under this act by a statutory body. The division will be amended so that the Treasurer may attach conditions to any general approvals issued to a statutory body. Therefore, it is proposed that section 70 be amended to include a new provision so that when the Treasurer issues a general approval the approval may be 'on conditions the Treasurer considers necessary or desirable'. I believe that gives the Treasurer the powers it is necessary for someone in that position to exercise to properly discharge the responsibilities of whoever occupies the position of Treasurer. The general intent of the proposed amendments is to clarify, from a risk management point of view, the exact financial arrangements that statutory bodies may enter into of their own accord and those transactions that require the sanction of the Treasurer. Generally, the amendments provide that where there is a high risk involved in a proposed financial transaction then there will be a mandatory requirement on statutory bodies to seek the approval of the Treasury before such a transaction can be executed. The opposition will be supporting the proposed amendments. In light of the recent volatility in world markets, I think increased scrutiny of investments by governments has become a priority. Mr Fouras: Hear, hear. Mr SEENEY: There is a responsibility for governments and treasurers to properly manage all of the money that is invested on behalf of the people of Queensland, whether that money rests within the GOC structure or not. The responsible minister must always be responsible. The member for Ashgrove says, 'Hear, hear.' That is something I think we should bear in mind, not only when we pass legislation such as this but also during question time, when I ask questions of ministers about the activities of the GOCs. The bottom line is that the government is still responsible for that money. The Treasurer, as the shareholding minister in most cases, is certainly responsible and should be answerable. Mr Fouras: Being a nice guy suits you. Mr SEENEY: I am always a nice guy. Irrespective of who sits in the Treasurer's position, there is a responsibility on the Treasurer to be answerable for that public money, even if it does reside within the GOC structure. To my mind, that is something this piece of legislation makes easier. It makes it easier for the Treasurer to be fully responsible. It makes it easier for the government to maintain control over the money that resides within the various GOC structures. And so it should be. It is government money. It is public money. The risk that is associated with the range of activities that are undertaken with that money should rest with the government. Essentially, that means that the decisions should rest with the Treasurer. This bill makes that more clearly defined. It makes it easier for the Treasurer to exercise that control over those funds held within the statutory bodies. I certainly support that concept. Hence, the opposition will be lending support to this piece of legislation. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (3.54 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 2002. This bill contains mainly technical amendments to ensure there is adequate regulatory control over some of the higher risk financial arrangements that statutory bodies may enter into. The amendments will clarify high-risk arrangements that will now be defined as type 1 financial arrangements. A type 1 financial arrangement includes forming corporations, entering into joint ventures and acquiring shares. Type 1 financial arrangements will require prior approval from the Treasurer, unless the statutory authority has express powers in its act or another act to undertake this type of financial arrangement. All type 1 financial arrangements are high risk and impact on business functions. Those business functions affect ordinary Queenslanders, so it is vital that Queensland has legislation that provides control while not impeding statutory bodies to undertake business functions. Legislation for good financial arrangements and advice is not only needed in Queensland for statutory bodies; it is needed in Australia to protect consumers. Last year the Commonwealth government enacted the Financial Services Reform Act. This act repealed chapters 7 and 8 of the Corporations Act and inserted a new chapter 7, which deals with financial services and markets. 1 Apr 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Bill 1049

The new chapter 7 included a new licensing regime for people who provide financial services, a new regime for the licensing of financial services and markets and new conduct requirements for financial service providers, including product disclosure statements for financial products. Recently the Australian Consumers Association and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission conducted a survey of quality advice by financial planners. They received 124 financial plans that were assessed by a panel of experts. These plans were assessed against good practice standards, consumer expectations and regulatory obligations. Written advice was judged against a comprehensive financial plan based on industry good practice standards and legal requirements. The following deficiencies were regularly found in the plans. They failed to provide an advisory services guide and they failed to show how the recommended strategy and action were appropriate for the client. Participants in the survey complained that the plans were hard to read and padded with generic information. Those planners ignored their key requirements, and higher fee investments were often recommended without showing why they were better. The survey also discovered that planners recommended selling existing investments without showing how new investments would be better. It was also interesting to note that the overall quality was significantly worse if the planner was paid only by commission. Only half of the planners provided a financial plan that was judged as acceptable when measured against good practice standards and the consumer's request. In other words, there is a 50 to 1 chance of getting a good plan. Planners displayed no independency. Instead they often promoted products or services that gave them the best commission. Then they provided little information as to why they selected that product or service. When four banks own 50 per cent of planning services, is it any wonder there is no independency? Not one bank had its plan ranked in the good category. When one in five advisers relies purely on commission, it is clear that a conflict of interest exists, and that conflict of interest is not disclosed. Low income families who struggle to get a few dollars together are usually attracted to these advisers as they cannot afford large up-front fees. They are not being informed and educated. Instead, they are being sold products that the advisers have a vested interest in. The industry has had three surveys of it conducted in the past decade, yet it still does not meet high professional standards and has not improved client services. In other words, consumers should be very wary. Some people get a bit of cash behind them and want to make full use of that money for the future. They are mums and dads who have gone out with a little money behind them to invest—sometimes for their children's future education costs, sometimes for their kids' weddings and sometimes just to have something for a rainy day. They go to a financial planner expecting honesty and transparency, and unfortunately they are not receiving it. While one can argue that investing money comes with a risk, these mums and dads are not getting the service they are paying for and are not getting what they have asked for. Instead, they are getting a salesman, usually working on commission, for a particular product or service and not true independent advice. The Howard government wants to see superannuation handed over to people such as this. They believe that people can be educated and informed to make their own decisions about investing. Where will they get this true and honest advice? It certainly is not coming from the financial advisers. The Howard government wants to put our hard earned life savings with people who have had a decade to get their act together and have done nothing about it. In Britain, the Thatcher government went down the track of deregulation and many people lost money. In fact, 13 billion pounds were lost by everyday people expecting to have a pension when they needed it. Instead the floodgates opened to salespeople who sold what was in their own best interest and not what the client needed. When it comes to superannuation, the Howard government's track record is not that good. I refer to the launch in Brisbane by the Prime Minister of the superannuation and savings policy. The Howard government called on mums and dads to start planning retirement on behalf of their babies. In fact, it encouraged parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles—anyone, really—to start putting money into superannuation for the little ones. In fact, it even made contributions up to $1,000 tax deductible. A Senate committee recently asked revenue minister Helen Coonan, who was responsible for setting up the scheme, how it was going. Since 1 July, when the scheme started operating, not one account has been opened. I wonder why. Could it be the obscene charges that came 1050 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003 with the scheme? Superannuation is a serious matter for all Australians, and it should be for the federal government. It should not be thrown out to sharks who will only feather their own nests and look after the best interests of investors. Superannuation, investing and looking after what little cash one can save is complex. We need to be able to trust the person who is giving advice and know about any conflict of interest they may have. Financial advisers have to start coming clean and start providing a service that meets their clients' needs. I believe it is important that Queensland has certainty in the management of financial powers of statutory bodies, and that is why I am supporting this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (4.00 p.m.), in reply: I thank the opposition for their support for this legislation. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 22, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

CORONERS BILL CREMATIONS BILL Second Reading (Cognate Debate) Resumed from 27 March (see p. 981). Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (4.02 p.m.): I rise to participate in this cognate debate on the Coroners Bill 2002 and the Cremations Bill 2002. Dealing firstly with the Cremations Bill, the object of the bill is to make sure that a body which is the subject of a suspicious death or should otherwise be reported to a coroner is not cremated before the death is the subject of a thorough investigation. Generally, a body cannot be cremated or buried without a cause of death certificate, and this requirement therefore prevents the destruction of evidence which may lead to criminal charges. Current provisions under the Coroners Act 1958 require that a body has to be examined by a second doctor prior to cremation, and similar provisions are in force in most other Australian jurisdictions. The Cremations Bill 2002 maintains this important safeguard. Like the Coroners Act 1958, there is a provision that a doctor other than the doctor who issued the cause of death certificate must issue a permission to cremate. Prior to permission being given, a second doctor must examine the body except where an autopsy has been carried out as a result of an order by the coroner. This bill also has a secondary purpose, and that is to ensure as far as possible that bodies that contain pacemakers or other similar devices are not cremated, as these devices may explode and cause injury during the cremation process. The bill achieves the objective by providing that permission to cremate cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable certainty that the body does not contain anything which may explode or otherwise cause injury during cremation. We live in modern times and, with modern medical science and procedures always advancing, this provision could become even more important as more devices are implanted and utilised to preserve life and improve the quality of life. Other elements of the bill include a provision that, where death occurs overseas and the body is repatriated to Queensland, it is still subject to the act and a permission to cremate will still have to be obtained. The bill also alters the common law rights of a person or representative to determine how a deceased person's body is dealt with. No longer can a deceased's wishes to be cremated be thwarted. The act requires that a deceased's body be cremated if that is his or her wish. The bill also places obligations on those in charge of crematoria to give the ashes to the applicant and also to keep the applications of permissions to cremate, except where the coroner issues the permission to cremate. Under the prevailing law, a de facto partner cannot make an application for permission to cremate or object to a cremation, and this shortcoming is rectified in 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1051 this bill by giving a de facto partner the same rights as a spouse. This provision is consistent with the amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 which was recently passed in this parliament. Turning now to the Coroners Bill 2002, this bill brings to the coronial system an emphasis on preventing deaths and a compassionate approach to families in what is always a very stressful and traumatic time. For the first time Queensland will have a state coroner who will bring a proactive and preventive emphasis to the coroner's duties. There will be an emphasis on identifying emerging patterns and recommending changes to prevent future deaths. This will be particularly important in workplaces where technology and systems are changing more rapidly than ever. There will be better information and access to documents and also, in recognition of our multicultural society, the bill will ensure greater sensitivity to different cultures and beliefs. Every magistrate is a coroner and that continues under this bill. Some 3,000 deaths are reported to coroners each year, and in our decentralised state it is important that we have an efficient coronial system with reportable deaths properly investigated, and this bill will go a long way to achieving that objective. The bill will make the State Coroner accountable for the smooth running of the Queensland coronial system, and he or she will provide a coordinating role, which will be a vast improvement on the present somewhat ad hoc system. As mentioned by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, the new system will be efficient, effective, responsive and compassionate. I congratulate the Attorney-General and his dedicated and hardworking staff, and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (4.06 p.m.): At the outset I wish to congratulate the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on this bill. I know that a lot of hard work and effort has been committed to this bill by the Attorney-General, his staff and officers of the Department of Justice over a long period of time. The bill overhauls the coronial system in Queensland with a much stronger emphasis on preventing deaths and a more compassionate approach to families of the deceased. I wanted to speak on this bill today because I know first-hand of the trauma that families go through when a loved family member has passed away through tragic circumstances. A family in my electorate lost their beloved daughter in tragic circumstances, and it has taken years for that family to come through this trauma. Her father moved to Goodna to be closer to the cemetery. He could not work due to overwhelming grief, yet over a period of years he has received counselling and the support of our community and is now back at work. A more sensitive understanding and compassionate approach to families is welcome in these sad and tragic circumstances. I am particularly pleased that there will be increased sensitivity to different cultures and beliefs, as I have a high level of people from multicultural backgrounds in my electorate. I am also pleased that families will be given greater access to coronial documents during the investigatory process, as their need to know and their need to be acknowledged is very important. There are nearly 3,000 deaths in Queensland each year that are reported to coroners. Coroners need to be located throughout this state. So it is important that this bill provides that every magistrate is also a coroner. The bill creates a position of State Coroner. This is a first for Queensland, and the appointee will be responsible for the efficient operation of the coronial system. The State Coroner will also be responsible for the investigations into reportable deaths. It is a very important position, and I am pleased that the State Coroner will provide an annual report on the operations of the State Coroner's office and the operations of the act annually. The annual report must contain the State Coroner's guidelines for that particular year, a summary of the investigation, including the inquest into each death in custody and a summary of any other investigation that the State Coroner considers should be brought to the minister's attention. These are accountability measures that reflect modern day public administration practices. This is a historic bill before the House. I thank the minister and his department, and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.09 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Coroners Bill. As the previous speaker said, in many instances the work of the coroner is in particularly tragic circumstances and in those circumstances the family of the deceased person deserves special consideration. Usually these sorts of issues only ever come into our offices—at least in my experience—when there has been a protracted period of time between the death of a person and the release of the body for burial or the release of the coroner's report. Therefore, 1052 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003 keeping the family advised of the process and advised of what is happening will in some way ameliorate the grief that they experience. Living in a vacuum is an experience that adds to the grief felt by family members at times of grief rather than assisting with it. I want to clarify a couple of issues with the minister. It is my understanding that the legislation proposes to open up options for coroners to actually make reports in situations where the coroner believes on the basis of the information they have garnered there would be opportunity to prevent a repetition of a similar incident. That is welcomed. Certainly, people in those positions become very astute at understanding causes of death and causes contributing to death and would also be in a position to recommend very practical mechanisms to prevent or at least to assist in preventing those incidents occurring in future. It has been stated that the current system in Queensland has been criticised to the point that it has been argued that coronial recommendations or comments have been ignored by state government agencies, resulting in needless deaths. Coroner's reports in relation to the mining industry can easily be criticised as out of the expertise of the coroner or that the recommendations are inappropriate or impractical in terms of the mining industry. I welcome this change where the coroner's recommendations will carry a greater weight and will have a great deal of influence in remediating or preventing further incidents. I am fairly sure that most members were sent a letter from a religious group wanting an inclusion in this legislation that a person who chooses spiritual healing and subsequently dies is exempt from the coroners process. I understand where such groups are coming from—the Christian Science Committee on Publication for Queensland in particular, and I do not have the letter with me—but I read a couple of letters they forwarded to members of parliament. While I can understand the sentiments that they are offering, I believe that to include in the bill the amendment they are seeking is fraught with danger. However, I would seek clarification from the minister as to what opportunities there are for ill individuals who choose not to pursue conventional medicine but choose actively and with competence alternative medicine—whether that is through naturopathy and natural healing or through a spiritual element such as prayer and fasting and those sorts of things one would find in a spiritual community—to make their wishes clear before their death so that it is evident that there has not been criminal activity, that the ill person has considered their options, both medical and non-medical, spiritual and non-spiritual, and made an informed choice. That is the issue that is at the nub of the request for the amendment from this particular group. My concern about including such an amendment as it is proposed is that it allows for all groups—there was no qualification for the type of group or the type of person who would take leadership in that healing ministry—to adopt their own process for dealing with illness whether it was not only appropriate in spiritual terms but appropriate in humane terms, in acceptable community terms. Many of us here have a faith-walk. It will not be the same one, but many of us here understand the process of prayer, of anointing with oil and all those processes that can be used to address a person with an illness. To address the concerns that this church group has put forward to us, I again would like the minister's response as to the mechanisms available to the ill person while they have competence to identify and designate the path that they wish to take and how that relinquishes the attending assistants—that is, the people at the church or whatever it is—from criminal liability, or indeed if it is possible. Like the previous speaker in this debate said, there have been incidents in my electorate in this regard. There was one lady in particular whose son had been incarcerated and released and was found deceased on the side of a river. He was not found in my electorate but another electorate. However, his mother lived in my electorate. It took a period of time for the coroner's report to be released—and it was not a simple matter because the cause of death was complex, the time of death was difficult to ascertain, and the movements prior to his demise were also unknown. Waiting for the death certificate to be released only added to this lady's grief. She did not have a good command of English and any mechanisms that can be put in place not to circumvent the process but to make the process kinder, to include the affected people more closely, to keep them informed of where the investigation is at and to keep them in that information loop is welcomed. It is a very difficult area. I look forward to the minister's response to my questions in relation to the alternative medical processes. I support the bill. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (4.16 p.m.): The Coroners Bill 2002 represents a major overhaul of Queensland's coronial system with a stronger emphasis on preventing deaths and a more sensitive and compassionate approach to families. For the first time Queensland will have a coordinated, standardised and accountable system overseen by a state coroner. As an electrician 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1053 by trade, I and a number of other members on this side of the House know what it is like to work in a very dangerous trade. Many electrical workers have lost their lives and often leave a family in immense grief, sometimes not knowing how their husband, father, son, brother was killed. Compassion when dealing with these issues should always be a priority in my opinion, and the Beattie government has identified the need to design the new coronial system to be far more sensitive and compassionate towards families. There will be improved information and support, a greater sensitivity to different cultures and beliefs and families will be given greater access to coronial documents during investigations. Queensland is a decentralised state and to have an effective system we must have coroners located throughout the state. Therefore, the bill contains the current act's provision that every magistrate is also a coroner. At the same time, the Coroners Bill will create for the first time in Queensland the position of a state coroner who will ensure that the coronial system operates efficiently and that reportable deaths are investigated to the appropriate extent. The bill modernises the categories of deaths that have to be reported. In particular, it provides that deaths in care and deaths in custody have to be reported to a coroner. Both these terms are comprehensively defined in the bill. All deaths in custody have to be investigated by either the state coroner or a deputy state coroner in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There must also be an inquest. This bill will herald a much-needed change which will maintain and guarantee a coronial system that is efficient, effective, responsive and compassionate. I commend the minister and his department for the hard work that has been done in formulating this bill and the consultation that has been involved, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.19 p.m.): I rise to speak in favour of both the Coroners Bill 2002 and the Cremations Bill 2002. Firstly, I wish to comment on the Coroners Bill. In general terms, the role of the office of coroner is the investigation of fatalities from violence, sudden death without a known cause, death during medical procedures, and death as a result of accidents and suicides. It is also a function of coroners to determine whether further proceedings should be constituted as a consequence of the cause of death. Having said that, Australia's law and practices are increasingly adopting the preventive approach. This means the coroners office should operate in a way that takes a key role in preventive action. I understand there are those who oppose this view, but it is my opinion that it will help to prevent future deaths from similar causes by allowing coroners to comment on matters connected with deaths, particularly public health or safety issues and the administration of justice. There are problems with the current system. Difficulties such as regional disparity, lack of coordination and the lack of a single point of accountability are some of the reasons for this bill. This bill provides for the appointment of a State Coroner to oversee and coordinate the coronial system throughout the state. This will ensure a consistent, more rigorous and supportive system. The State Coroner will report annually to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, who will ask agencies to respond to recommendations that affect them, which will then be reported to cabinet with the coroners report. This bill emphasises preventing deaths, empowering the coroners to enforce recommendations, allowing for a more coordinated, standardised and more accountable system. I congratulate the Attorney-General and his team on their work in this regard. I now turn to the Cremations Bill 2002. The main purpose of this bill is to ensure that the body of a person whose death is suspicious or should otherwise be reported to a coroner is not cremated without discovery. Similar to the Coroners Act, it contains a requirement that a doctor, other than, of course, the doctor who issued the death certificate, has to issue a commission to cremate, and the doctor must examine in detail the body prior to the permission being given. The Cremations Bill 2002 has a secondary objective, which is to guarantee that a pacemaker, for example, is removed from a body so as to avoid accidental explosion during cremation. There is also a secondary reason why pacemakers should be removed, namely, to avoid a second-hand market for those devices. Pacemakers are very important devices and quality should be guaranteed. This bill addresses some of the deficiencies in the current provisions. I commend both bills to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (4.22 p.m.): I rise to support both the Coroners Bill and the Cremations Bill, but I will confine my comments to the Coroners Bill 2002. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing both of these important reform bills to the House. As the Attorney noted in his second reading speech, it is almost 50 years since the current legislation governing 1054 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003 the activities of coroners was introduced into the parliament. This bill recognises that modern society demands and deserves special skills and in particular sensitivity be an integral part of the operations of the coroners office. The State Coroner will still perform the core function of investigating deaths and making recommendations to prevent future deaths, but most importantly the new bill appoints a State Coroner to oversee the operations of Queensland magistrates, who will continue to operate as coroners, and to ensure that reportable deaths are investigated appropriately. The effect of the bill is to recognise that coronial inquests are investigations, not just judicial determinations. These investigations must be conducted thoroughly, professionally and expeditiously. The State Coroner will ensure that coronial investigations are not only conducted with the necessary regard for the law but also with the benefit of the most up-to-date and sophisticated investigative and forensic skills and techniques. I know that the Attorney-General will in due course announce the appointment of a person to fill the position of State Coroner. It will be a very important appointment. I have no doubt that the new State Coroner will be a person with high legal skills, vital investigative experience and a proven ability to meet the needs and expectations of parties interested in the outcome of any particular investigation. The bill allows the coroner to issue a search warrant and to provide police with search powers accordingly. The clear intention of the bill to both arm coroners with direct investigative powers and to also engage with the families of deceased persons is very welcome. This bill requires the coroner to take into account particular concerns raised by a family member or other person with a sufficient interest. There is no doubt that informing families of the time lines and processes and taking into account their concerns needs to be a central part of the coronial process. The need of families to be informed is vital if those family members are to accept the outcomes of the inquiry. This bill builds into the coronial process a set of requirements for the removal, storage and, if desired, the return to family members of organs required for an autopsy. Similarly, the bill sets out those issues that the coroner should consider in deciding to hold an inquest. I am very pleased that the wishes of family members must be taken into account. I support the bill and take this opportunity to congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing yet another well thought out, balanced and necessary legal reform to the parliament in this the second term of the Beattie government. I commend the Coroners Bill and the Cremations Bill to the House. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (4.25 p.m.): In rising to support the Coroners Bill 2002 and Cremations Bill 2002 I will confine my comments to the Cremations Bill. I note that the bill alters the common law rights of a personal representative to determine how a deceased person's body is to be dealt with. It requires that a deceased person's wishes that his or her body be cremated are to be carried out. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee considered that the bill's conferral of power on a person to bind his or her personal representatives, for example, a family member, to follow the deceased's directions in the disposal of the body as enhancing the rights of the individual. Clause 8 of the bill provides that a cremation cannot occur if a person has not left a will and certain people object. If a spouse, adult child or parent of the deceased person objects, the cremation cannot occur. Again, as a member of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee—I note that the member for Pumicestone is beside me; she also supported this clause— Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Absolutely. I agreed with it 100 per cent. Ms KEECH: Yes. The committee found that clauses 7 and 8 override common law rules but are not objectionable and, again, are an enhancement of the rights of the individual. Presently, a de facto partner cannot make an application for permission to cremate or to object to a cremation. Now a de facto partner will have the same rights as a spouse consistent with the amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 recently passed by this parliament. We can be forgiven for believing when we look at the clauses that there are frequent family problems at the stressful time of the death of a loved one. As legislators, we are aware that provisions in bills come about frequently in exceptional cases rather than in the norm. In researching the Cremations Bill, I spoke to two businesses in the funeral industry in the Beenleigh area. J. G. Lohrisch is a 100 per cent Beenleigh family owned funeral directors. Richard and Vicki Lohrisch have continued to provide incredibly supportive and caring services to the people of Beenleigh in their time of need. In addition, with regard to the crematorium industry, I spoke to Phil Connolly from Newhaven Funerals. Again, this company is 100 per cent Queensland owned. These two company representatives said that thankfully these days families do not see death as 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1055 a taboo subject. In fact, it is very rare for a person in their wills to direct what is to happen to their body. Instead, family members usually know whether the deceased would wish their body to be cremated or buried and they are happy to follow the deceased person's wishes. In fact, Mr Connolly said that in 30 years of business, he had never known a family to object to a cremation or argue over funeral arrangements. The response from Mr Lohrisch and also from Mr Connolly was that, these days, cremations are far more common. In fact, about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of burials are cremations. I would also like to congratulate the honourable Attorney-General, the Minister for Justice, Rod Welford, for the amendments to the Cremations Bill, and I particularly thank him for the explanatory notes that have accompanied the amendments. The funeral and cremations industry, like any other industry in the marketplace, is a competitive one. The amendments seek to recognise the sometimes competing interests of these two industries. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (4.30 p.m.): There could be no more traumatic occurrence than to have a family member, and particularly a child, killed in a road accident, murdered or take their own life. Indeed, there are myriad events that can catapult a family into a nightmare from which they feel that they may never awake. Similarly, the unexpected death from a medical condition or procedure often leaves many questions unanswered. It is for these reasons that I strongly support the Coroners Bill 2002. The measures provided in this bill, while not taking away the hurt, will streamline processes so that additional trauma will not be caused by undue delays and insensitive treatment. Every magistrate will act as a coroner, thus giving coverage to the entire state, and a state coroner will be appointed to ensure efficiency of operation, a central collection of data and the ability to act in the national system. It is of particular interest to me as the member for the seat of Woodridge, which has a large number of different cultures represented, that this bill gives consideration to cultural sensitivity. While it is recognised that an autopsy may delay funeral arrangements, it is significant that coroners will now be required to weigh up the importance of ordering an autopsy, taking into consideration the cultural traditions, with the benefits to be gained from information derived from an autopsy. In other words, if it would cause undue stress and additional suffering to the grieving family, then the coroner should have significant reasons for ordering the autopsy. For example, within the Islamic faith, burial is required to take place within 24 hours. It is important that the ritual of bathing the deceased be performed by members of the same sex as the deceased. The crematorium at Nursery Road has facilities to perform this ritual. So to someone of the Muslim faith, timing is very important. Within the Maori culture, a three-day period of grieving and rejoicing with tears and laughter takes place. As with our Pacific Islanders and indigenous Australians, it is important that the body be intact. I believe it is imperative that those working in the coronial offices, as well as places such as the John Tonge Centre, are well versed in cultural traditions and have special training in appropriate behaviour. It is so important that loved ones know that their deceased family member is treated with respect and that all organs and tissues, where possible, be placed back into the deceased. It should be remembered that many of these cultures view the body. So it is also important that they be released in the best possible condition. I note that the bill gives certain directives to the coroner when making a decision as to whether an inquest should be held—situations such as a death in custody or a death in care—as well as those inquests that are ordered by the State Coroner, Attorney-General or the District Court. The bill has taken note of recommendations following the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and given appropriate guidelines. This bill is designed to bring greater sensitivity and compassion to the way in which we handle these cases. It also ensures that services are uniform across the state and that efficient investigations are carried out that may avoid similar deaths or add to our medical knowledge of treatment of certain diseases. It can make recommendations as to how treatment and procedures are carried out following road trauma. I commend the minister and his staff for what, after all, is a bill of compassion which will lead to greater efficiency, responsive practices, improved investigation and greater sensitivity to families. I commend the bill to the House. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (4.35 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Coroners Bill 2002. As the House would be aware, in June 2002 the Queensland Labor government announced an overhaul of Queensland's coronial system. Included in that overhaul were to be changes to the 1056 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003 coronial system that had been under pressure for some time. Many of those proposed changes are included in this bill. The Attorney-General has described this bill as providing for the first time in Queensland a coordinated, standardised and accountable system overseen by the State Coroner. But more importantly, this bill has been designed to provide a system that is sensitive and compassionate in the way in which it deals with families. It provides for improved information and support, prescribing sensitivity with regard to different cultures and spiritual beliefs, and greater access for families to coronial documents during investigations. This bill also takes a great leap forward in the manner in which autopsies are performed. Although the bill gives the coroner authority to order a doctor to perform an autopsy, the coroner must always also state in the order the type of examination to be conducted. Before ordering an internal examination of the body, the coroner must consider the feelings of the deceased person's family. That is because the bill takes into account that such a procedure can be distressing for families, especially if this type of examination is at odds with the family's spiritual beliefs or cultural traditions. In this way the family can remain informed of just what is happening to their loved ones. This system stands in stark contrast to my shocking experience when I was a student nurse. I can clearly recall the occasion when a number of student nurses, including me, were invited into a room to witness an autopsy of a newly born baby. The infant was dismembered to investigate how death occurred. Ms Nelson-Carr: That would have been terrible. Ms MOLLOY: It was pretty horrific. Perhaps we were not at the level of education that one would desire to address that situation with a clinical disassociation. Whilst I am 47 now, I can vividly remember what I observed. Some of the nurses left the room fleeing, screaming, crying and very distressed. But what was worse was that the parents had not given permission for a large group of young students to witness the dismembering of their little infant. This legislation is not just timely; it is about time that we as a humane—or purportedly humane—society started to treat members of our community with respect, for example, respecting that infant in its death and respecting the parents in their grief. In this bill there is a focus on identifying emerging patterns. All of our coroners will have powers to recommend changes to prevent future deaths. As I have said, we have designed a new coronial system that will be far more sensitive and compassionate towards families. There will be improved information and support, a greater sensitivity to different cultures and beliefs, and families will be given greater access to coronial documents during investigations. Nearly 3,000 deaths a year are reported to the coroners throughout the state, requiring some level of investigation. An effective and efficient coronial system can play a valuable role in preventing future deaths. Queensland is a decentralised state and to have an effective coronial system, we must have coroners located throughout the state. Therefore, the bill continues the current act's provision that every magistrate is also a coroner. At the same time, the Coroners Bill 2002 creates for the first time in Queensland the position of the State Coroner, who will ensure that the coronial system operates efficiently and that reportable deaths are investigated to the appropriate extent. That has not always been case in this country or this state. My husband's brother, Michael Molloy, died in a motorcycle accident when he was very young. He was a pillion passenger. The driver of that motorbike claimed at the time to have been the pillion passenger. Therefore, Michael Molloy's family really believe that his name should have been cleared, because we know scientifically that people who are pillion passengers at the scene of an accident are not in any position to take hold of the handle bars of a fast travelling motorcycle. The State Coroner will be the central point to facilitate Queensland's ongoing participation in the national coronial information system. To ensure administrative consistency and best practice, the State Coroner may issue guidelines about how coroners perform their functions in relation to investigations generally. These guidelines must have regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and must be issued about the investigation of deaths in custody; investigations of deaths involving human remains found in suspected traditional burial sites; and the doctors who are approved to conduct autopsies. The State Coroner will have to provide an annual report about the operation of the act. The bill modernises the categories of deaths that have to be reported. In particular, it provides that deaths in care and deaths in custody have to be reported to a coroner. Both these 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1057 terms are comprehensively defined in the bill. All deaths in custody have to be investigated either by the State Coroner or Deputy State Coroner in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There must also be an inquest. The reason for defining 'death in care' in the bill is to give certainty to whom it applies. The bill also provides guidance for circumstances where a Queenslander dies interstate or overseas. A Queensland coroner would not investigate such a death if the death had been reported to a coroner in that place or a cause of death certificate is issued. This ensures the coronial system does not duplicate investigations and that families do not have to suffer further distress. However, there is a safeguard that provides a power for the Attorney-General to order a coroner to investigate such a death. The bill enhances the investigation powers of coroners. It also amends the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to allow the coroner to issue a search warrant and to provide the police with a search power under the warrant. It provides an additional entry power to police on suspicion of death or injury. Under the bill, coroners and police can require people to give them information relevant to an investigation. People do not have to give this information if they have a reasonable excuse which includes a possibility they could incriminate themselves. The bill acknowledges the importance of autopsies in the coronial investigation process. A coroner who is investigating a death must order an autopsy, except in circumstances outlined in the bill. Before making an order for an autopsy requiring internal examination, the coroner must consider where this may cause distress to a deceased person's family because of cultural traditions or spiritual beliefs. Any information, document or other evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of the evidence given by the witness cannot be used against the witness in any criminal proceeding. If these comments impact on the operation of a government agency, the coroner will forward them to the appropriate minister and chief executive. This is a compulsory requirement in relation to deaths in custody and deaths in care. The Attorney-General also gets a copy in these cases. The State Coroner's annual report must contain a summary of each death in custody investigation and a summary of any other investigation that the State Coroner believes should be brought to the Attorney-General's attention. We recognise the stress caused to families by lengthy coronial investigations and we realise the importance of the family being able to access information quickly. The bill allows for family members and other persons with a sufficient interest to access investigation documents about the death directly from the coroner. For public interest reasons and for the protection of people's privacy, there are safeguards to ensure information is not released inappropriately such as any information which may prejudice a police murder investigation. The coroner will not release information about the personal affairs of people, such as information about a person's medical history, unless it is essential to the investigation. It is now almost 50 years since the current legislation was introduced into this parliament. This new bill provides for a single point of accountability and central coordination for the Queensland coronial system by establishing a State Coroner. It will provide coroners and police with the powers needed to do their job properly. This bill will herald a much needed change which will maintain and guarantee a coronial system that is efficient, effective, responsive and compassionate. I commend the bill to the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (4.45 p.m.): I also rise to support the Coroners Bill 2002. As has been said, this will overhaul Queensland's coronial system. This will have a strong emphasis on preventing deaths and a better understanding and empathy for families. This, of course, means that with improved support to families, including cultural sensitivity and more access to coronial documents during investigations, it will go a long way to preventing future deaths. Having coroners located throughout the state will continue as well. This will ensure that every magistrate has the right to act as a coroner. The creation of a State Coroner will ensure efficiency and accountability and will modernise the categories of death that have to be reported. The bill also has provision for guidance in circumstances where a Queenslander dies interstate or overseas. This was not the case prior to this legislation. Now, the investigative powers of coroners is greatly enhanced. In the past, deaths in Queensland escaped rigorous scrutiny because of an inability to fully investigate. Coroners could investigate the direct causes of a person's death but could not actually investigate the factors that possibly contributed to it. For instance, a death in care could have occurred because the person had inadequate care and treatment and that could have contributed to their death. Another example is a death following an electrocution. Coronial findings will now be cross-referenced to identify patterns in causes of death. 1058 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

The new State Coroner will be supported by staff and the new legislative framework to conduct inquiries and issue recommendations to prevent deaths and accidents in the private and public sectors. This position will have broad powers. It will have access to a sophisticated database of deaths and causes and an investigative team which could be supplemented by seconded police. In the long run, the government will actually save money with the recommendations from an efficient office of the State Coroner. Medical negligence is one area where this could apply. And in suspicious circumstances a State Corner would be more able to identify a probable murder case as well. The national coronial database, funded by the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, will be able to assist doctors who need to report deaths that may not otherwise have been reported. Justin Melbon in the August 1998 Journal of Law and Medicine talks about prevention of deaths becoming increasingly the focus of coronial processes. He states— Coronial legislation either adopts a narrow approach in which coroners are restricted to reporting on how a reportable death occurred or a broad preventative approach in which coroners also recommend ways of preventing deaths occurring in similar circumstances in the future. Australian law and practice are increasingly adopting the preventative approach which inevitably requires the coroner to recommend ways in which organisations as opposed to individuals should take remedial and preventative action. The rationale behind the adoption of a preventative coronial system based on an inquisitorial investigation of all the known facts, issues and circumstances is, as he goes on to say— A preventative coronial system provides a community benefit that is not provided by the criminal or civil law. Although both play a preventative role, it is a subsidiary round. Criminal punishment is partly designed to discourage future offending both by the offender and others in the community. The law of negligence also plays a role in encouraging the adoption of standards and practices which will prevent foreseeable loss. However, both systems fail adequately to address the issue of preventing future death and inquiry in a focused and systematic way. A systematic approach recognises as a starting point that the party ultimately required to avoid death and injury in an ongoing way will invariably be an organisation, as opposed to an individual. I add my congratulations to the minister and I commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (4.49 p.m.): The Attorney-General, the Hon. Rod Welford, has led some very significant law reform in the last 12 months. The Coroners Bill is yet another example of law reform driven by our government that will improve the lives of Queenslanders significantly. I support this bill as it will introduce a new coronial system that will be more effective in preventing future deaths, for example deaths in custody that have been the subject of a significant inquiry and responses by government over the past decade or so. It will also provide a more supportive, more compassionate and, importantly, more culturally appropriate response to families enduring grief and the processes associated with coronial inquiries following a death. I am aware that the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome association, under the leadership of CEO Kathleen Zaruben, formerly Brookes, has been one of the vocal organisations calling for these reforms to the coronial system in Queensland. SIDS has been working actively to achieve a state coroner, to achieve more information for and involvement of families in the investigation of deaths, and to achieve a more comprehensive investigation of deaths, particularly cot deaths, to identify specific causes of death with a view to preventing future deaths. SIDS has worked very hard. I know that it is very pleased with the work the Attorney-General, his staff and other interest groups have put into this Coroners Bill. I know that it is very pleased with the outcomes. There is probably no pain or loss as severe as the death of a child from the broad and in many ways ill-defined sudden infant death syndrome. The families I know who have endured the loss say that they can never fully overcome this grief. They remain unsure of exactly how their children died. It has been very important to the staff and families involved in SIDS to have a system that can, to the best of its capacity, investigate these deaths and come up with some answers for these families who are struggling with the grief they have endured. I am pleased to see that an additional budget allocation of $13.7 million has been made in the 2002-03 state budget primarily to modernise the coronial system. I know that the John Tonge Centre, close to my electorate, on the south side of Brisbane, has been doing some tremendous work. These additional resources will allow it to further its work and particularly increase its capacity to conduct post-mortems. These resources will also enable more thorough support to grieving families. They are all very important goals of this bill. I certainly commend the minister for the work he has been doing. While I am on my feet, I want to put in a plug for Red Nose Day, the big fundraising day for SIDS. I will not bring in red noses for all members on 27 June, unless they really want me to. It is a very important day. SIDS performs a very important function in our community. I commend its 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1059 work as well. I commend the work it has done in pursuing some of these changes we are now seeing in the Coroners Bill. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (4.52 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Coroners Bill and the Cremations Bill, brought to the House by the Attorney-General. A number of speakers have focused on specific issues that relate to the Coroners Bill. That is what I want to do also. I will focus on the aspects of the Coroners Bill that bear a relationship to the ongoing monitoring of one of Australia's great national shames—Aboriginal deaths in custody. Aboriginal deaths in custody became a widely debated public issue with the release of the report of the royal commission in 1991. The royal commission examined 99 deaths which had occurred between 1980 and 1989. Of those, 27 were in Queensland. The royal commission was to some degree a response to widely held suspicions among Aboriginal people and others that 'at the very least a number of the deaths were caused by foul play in the sense of the deliberate infliction of harm by custodians'. Importantly, the royal commission did not, in any of the cases that it examined, substantiate this view that deaths were caused by police or prison officers' foul play. It did, however, make the point that Aboriginal people's suspicions were not at all unreasonable for three reasons. Firstly, the commission found the suspicion was reasonable given that the deaths had occurred in custody, away from the public gaze. Secondly, it found the suspicion was reasonable given 'the deep animosity and often hatred that had developed between Aboriginal people and police'. Thirdly, and most importantly for this debate, the royal commission found that it was reasonable for Aboriginal people to suspect foul play given that 'the post-death investigations and the treatment of families were in not a few cases so as to raise suspicion rather than to allay it'. While the royal commission did not substantiate the suspicion that Aboriginal people had been the victims of police or prison officers' foul play, it did identify a number of historical and institutional factors which contributed to the deaths. It identified as a significant public issue Aboriginal people's over-representation in the criminal justice system. It brought to wide public attention for the first time the extent of Aboriginal people's repression and the degree to which most Aboriginal people, particularly those in the criminal justice system, had had their lives controlled from outside. It stated unequivocally that the criminal justice system had not exercised properly its duty of care. The royal commission attained substantial credibility in both the Aboriginal and the broader Australian communities. It made more than 300 significant recommendations for change at two basic levels. First, there were recommendations concerning self-determination as an antidote to the extent to which ordinary Aboriginal people's lives had been controlled from outside. These recommendations were so wide ranging as to include methods to improve Aboriginal health and education, measures to ensure local governments with significant Aboriginal populations equitably distribute their funds between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities on threat of having funding withheld—one can imagine how local governments felt about that—and even recommendations to develop Aboriginal media organisations to ensure balance in coverage of Aboriginal issues. Secondly, there were a whole raft of recommendations relating to duty of care in the criminal justice system. These included a recommendation that the nature and extent of the justice system's duty of care be codified in legislation, recommendations for cross-cultural training of police, a provision that the use of racist language by police, either in dealing with prisoners or in admissions to log books, should be considered a serious breach of discipline, recommendations concerning suicide proofing police and prison cells and recommendations regarding the regularity with which prisoners should be checked when in custody. Importantly for this debate, 40 of the recommendations related to the role of the coroner in investigating deaths. These included empowering the State Coroner to make recommendations with respect to the prevention of deaths in custody. This is one of the matters we are addressing today. While my comments on this matter are broad ranging, it is these matters to which I will return. So 12 years after the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, the burning question is: has anything changed? Up until the royal commission, record keeping about deaths in custody was extremely poor, and it is very difficult now for departments such as Police and Corrective Services to go back and measure outcomes post royal commission as compared to the number of deaths in custody that happened before. 1060 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

Since 1992, 15 Aboriginal people have committed suicide while in custody in Queensland. The Department of Corrective Services claims—this would appear to be supported by the general view in the Aboriginal community—that the rate of Aboriginal deaths in custody has dropped significantly since the royal commission. The evidence the department has provided me with does support this view, but there is not enough information for it to be statistically significant. In 1998- 99 there were 0.24 Aboriginal deaths in custody per average daily population of 100 prisoners. In 1989 there were 0.72. In both of those years prior to the royal commission, more indigenous than non-indigenous people died. Since the royal commission, the rate of indigenous deaths in custody has declined and there is now a smaller chance of dying in custody if you are indigenous than if you are non-indigenous. Importantly, no Aboriginal person has committed suicide in Queensland custody since 2001. In response to the issues identified concerning the impact of imprisoning people for drunkenness, diversionary centres have been established in Brisbane, Townsville, Cairns, Mount Isa and Rockhampton. These are places to which people who are picked up by police on night patrol can be taken to rest, eat and sober up as an alternative to the watch-house. The state Corrective Services Department has fully implemented 89 recommendations, and another four are under way. The measures that have been taken include the removal of hanging points in police and jail cells—the Ipswich watch-house, for instance, was upgraded in 2001—and cultural education for staff. Prisons are now far more culturally sensitive than they once were. There are indigenous chaplains and prison visitors, prisons host significant celebrations of NAIDOC Week, there is an elders visitation program and more effort is made to allow prisoners to meet family obligations, such as attending funerals. We know that those things are tremendously important to Aboriginal people. Before the royal commission there was really very little capacity within the prison system for those important obligations to be met. On 19 December 2000 the Queensland government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board co-signed the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice agreement. The agreement responded to both the royal commission and the 1997 national ministerial summit on Aboriginal deaths in custody. Its central aim is, by 2011, to reduce by 50 per cent the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people incarcerated in the Queensland justice system. This is a very big ask. The agreement establishes a statewide and local policy structure and a formal policy for cooperation between government and the Aboriginal community. While I will not go into all the details of the plan and its established mechanisms, it did establish mechanisms to ensure Aboriginal people had legal representation and to ensure that they are aware of their rights and responsibilities. The Murri court, which has been established in Brisbane and for which planning is under way in Ipswich, is an example of what the justice agreement was getting at. The agreement was clearly signed in a spirit of goodwill and at its centre recognises that, while policy will have to change over the 10-year period, that process should be cooperative. I hope that now the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board has dissolved itself the process of achieving the aims of the agreement can still be pursued. The aim of reducing the rate of indigenous overrepresentation in prisons is a tremendous one and one which I am sure almost the whole House would support. While there will now be changes in the process, I think it is important that we retain our commitment to those goals. While policy has changed since the royal commission, are things in fact better on the ground? One of the three reasons identified for the royal commission was 'the animosity and even hatred which had developed between Aboriginal people and police'. The commission found that the view of Aboriginal people was basically that police were racist, while the view of police was frequently that there would not be a problem if Aboriginal people did not commit so much crime. The royal commission explored the historical and social reasons for Aboriginal people's disproportionate contact with the criminal justice system and it recommended cross-cultural training for police. How unfortunate it is, then, that in the last couple of weeks we have spent time in this House talking about quite clearly racist cartoons that have appeared in the Queensland Police Journal. I think it is important to acknowledge the tremendous leadership that has been shown within the Queensland Police Service, particularly under the current commissioner, Bob Atkinson. I was pleased to see that he was very quick to reject the sentiments expressed in the Queensland Police Journal as not those formally of the Police Service, and I am sure not the sentiments of most members of the Police Service. 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1061

There has also been, thankfully, a great deal of cultural change in the police force. This cultural change has occurred largely because there have been significant steps taken to improve relationships between Aboriginal people and police. Police in Ipswich, for instance, celebrate NAIDOC day with the Aboriginal community. There is a good relationship between police and elders, and across the state Aboriginal police liaison officers do a very difficult job well. I want to turn now to talk about a specific instance of an Aboriginal death in custody. On 16 October 1998, a 22-year-old Aboriginal man named Robert Reginald Parker died as a result of inhaling toxic fumes and suffering second degree burns in a watch-house fire the night before. The observations that I will make from this point on come directly from the coroner's report into his death. The coroner was told that Parker was picked up on warrants for outstanding fines following police being called to a pub in Cloncurry on 15 October. He had had a couple of drinks but was not drunk and had not been involved in any pub brawl. Parker ended up at the police station after he voluntarily accompanied a friend who was being taken in. When Parker got to the police station, the police did a search on his record and found that he owed $3,500 in fines. They went to arrest him and he ran away. His family later testified that Parker had been imprisoned in the past and was terrified of going back to jail. The coroner was told that Parker did not get away. He was arrested, padded down and placed handcuffed in a flammable padded cell with no capacity for observation. He was quite clearly distressed. One of the primary recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was that prisoners who are distressed should be closely monitored in custody. At the coronial inquest a police constable from Cloncurry testified that the normal procedure for monitoring at-risk prisoners would be to remove their shoelaces and to check on them every 15 minutes. The coroner was told that that is not what happened in Robert Parker's case. The coroner was told that he was not checked. The laces of his sandshoes were not removed, and after 30 minutes or so police smelt smoke coming from the cell. The coroner found that Parker had lit the fire himself. The cigarette lighter had probably been in his shoe. He found there was nothing to suggest that Parker had been suicidal. When the fire was noticed, one of the two officers on duty called the ambulance and the fire brigade. Fire officers told the coronial inquest that, when they arrived on the scene, police did not tell them that there was anyone in the cell. Fire officers therefore took their time to put on their breathing apparatus and get in there, and when they did they testified they were surprised to find someone inside. When fire officers found Mr Parker in his cell, he was coughing and spluttering, clearly breathing. But, when they dragged him out, the police who were on the scene told them to drop Parker because in their view he was already dead. One of the fire officers told the coronial inquest that he yelled at the police, 'This bloke is still alive.' He said, 'I lost the plot a bit. I thought: what the hell is going on here?' The situation was eventually resolved and Parker was taken to hospital, but he died the next day as a result of burns and inhaling toxic fumes. He left two 6-year-old sons. The police involved exercised their right to silence at the inquest. In addition to the coronial inquest, there was a CMC investigation and an internal police inquiry, and the police involved received guidance—a relatively minor form of disciplinary action. It is quite possible that at those two other inquests for which I do not have records the evidence that was given was different, but certainly at the coronial inquest the view was that Parker was not properly checked and the fact that fire officers were not told he was in the cell was not disputed. This incident does cause concern. Seven years after the royal commission a clearly at-risk Aboriginal person died in custody and the coronial inquest at least was told that insufficient measures were taken to prevent his death. The police then at the inquest refused to answer questions. Since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, significant changes to the Queensland criminal justice system have been made and the Australian community broadly, despite the efforts of the One Nation Party and the Howard government, have taken huge steps towards reconciliation. The death of Robert Parker in Cloncurry reminds us, however, just how easily deaths in custody can happen. It reminds us, I think quite deeply, of the need to remain vigilant about these issues. Because while there have been significant cultural changes within the police and corrective service systems, there are still many Aboriginal people in prison and these people are still at significant risk. It is important to note, though, that the police have shown tremendous leadership and discipline and that there has been tremendous cultural change. 1062 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

The new position of state coroner which we are finally establishing today will have the capacity to more fully investigate these matters and to make better recommendations concerning policy for the future. Right now the role of coroner is filled by the local magistrate in between his or her other duties. A state coroner will be a specialist in the field. In accordance with one of the recommendations of the royal commission, clause 14(2) of the act provides that the coroner will develop protocols for the investigation into deaths in custody. I note that is important because the royal commission found that in the cases that it investigated—that is, deaths between 1980 and 1989—in some cases the investigation had been so shoddy as to cause people to be suspicious, not to allay any suspicions that they might have had. So the new state coroner establishing clear protocols for investigations into deaths in custody should really have the capacity to prevent that from ever happening again. The State Coroner will have a new emphasis on preventing deaths by coordinating data and identifying emerging patterns and will have a significant role in making recommendations aimed at preventing future deaths. Since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, significant changes have been made and all the evidence suggests that things have gotten better. It is clear, however, that we must all be vigilant and that this work must continue. I would hope that the new State Coroner will keep a very close eye on Aboriginal deaths in custody so that incidents like the one I have just talked about may be prevented in the future. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (5.09 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Coroners Bill and the Cremations Bill. In doing so, I am very pleased to indicate that these bills are as a result of a lot of lobbying by many people over the years, including myself. I have written to the current Attorney-General and to his predecessor about this issue because this is a topic that has indeed been important to many people in the Greenslopes electorate who have made representations to me over the years. As I tell my constituents, taking these matters up eventually gets us somewhere and I am very pleased to see that this is the end of a long road of representations and pleas by a number of people. It is indeed a responsive approach by this government and the Premier to these circumstances and is a proper reaction to the review undertaken in 1997 into the system of the coroners courts in Queensland to examine better practices for this state—that is, the 1997 review of Queensland's coronial laws. This is also very important reform because it represents another step in the general array of necessary institutions to provide the foundation and framework for a proper running state. Since 1989 Queensland has seen a progression of Labor governments establish all of the necessary institutions that make a modern state what it is. We have seen those institutions put in place post the Fitzgerald process with the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission and its various organs which have gone on to establish all of the appropriate committees of this parliament, the checks and balances necessary in the state and the various relevant law reform matters that bring us into line with the rest of the world in terms of providing protection for citizens and accountability for governments and the institutions of government. This is another very important step in that process of establishing those institutions for one very good reason: it is about the most sacred and important thing to all of us, and that is human life. Indeed, it is about the prevention of death and it is about dealing with preventable deaths. Nothing could be more important nor sad in our society than the death of a person that could have been avoided in some way, especially those that occur in the case of young people and babies. This is an important measure to ensure that everything that can be done in this state to prevent death is done in the future. It remedies a situation which I think was best described by the Wellington coroner, who summarised the situation in terms of the creation of a chief coroner in New Zealand when he said— The establishment of an Office of the Chief Coroner for New Zealand is urgently needed if the dignity, usefulness and effectiveness of the Office of Coroner is to be preserved, developed and enhanced. Until such time, coroners will continue to act in a fragmented and uncoordinated way. Indeed, that is exactly the circumstances we are addressing in Queensland where individual coroners have done very fine work over the years. We must recognise that fact in the course of this debate, because coroners have been working individually all over this state since the inception of this state within the framework and institution of the coroner that goes back further into British legal history. Those people have done a fantastic job and they will do an even better job under this framework. This is a framework which not only provides a statewide apparatus for deaths to be examined intelligently and with great scrutiny but also extends to a national perspective with connection to a national database throughout the Commonwealth structure. That is a very fine move because it will give us a far 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1063 greater capacity to examine the causes of death and to look at national trends and to pick up these causalities right across this nation. Why is this necessary? I think it is particularly necessary today and increasingly necessary today because of the sheer complexity of our society. The amount of technology we deal with and the range of toxic substances within our environments domestically and in the wider environment are increasing. The range of contingencies in terms of industrial accidents, et cetera, simply continues to increase in terms of diversity and complexity. These are matters that we need to have a clear handle on as a society to understand exactly what is going on. If there are trends developing in relation to deaths and injury, then we certainly need to establish the chain of causality and start to address the fundamental roots of the problems we are confronting in terms of public health. The many deaths that occur across society beyond direct homicides in Australia accounted for 7,000. When we start to break these down into the various other categories of suicides and other deaths that were in one way or another preventable, there is a lot of work to be done. If the result of this bill means that one life is saved out of that process, then we have certainly done a good job here today and I congratulate the minister and the Premier on their foresightedness in doing so. The other very important aspect of the coroner under this structure is that the coroner will be able to bring in whatever professional expertise is necessary to attest to the cases in question to provide appropriate advice to the coroner. I believe that this bill provides wide-ranging powers for the coroner to be well informed about the causality of deaths and, beyond that, to also then have an adequate ambit of power to comment and report in relation to specific findings about a death or a range of deaths to the relevant institutions. That is a fundamental feature that will be of great assistance in our society. I wish the future State Coroner well in his or her endeavours. I am sure that, in the great tradition that has already been established in this state through the individual coroners, this institution will now move into a new and great phase and the outcomes will be immeasurable in years to come. The Cremations Bill 2002 complements the coroners laws in terms of ensuring that cremations do not occur until appropriate authorities have been advised and all necessary measures are undertaken to ensure that investigations into the causes of death have been carried out. I commend these bills to the House and wish those involved in their implementation well. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (5.19 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Coroners Bill 2002 and the Cremations Bill 2002. I wish to address the Coroners Bill only. All I can say is that it is about time. A lot of Queenslanders would share my view. I congratulate the Attorney on this bill. As the member for Algester said earlier, this bill and the many other bills that the Attorney has brought into the House have been very good. From time to time, a number of constituents have contacted me about the release of the body of a loved one—sometimes husbands, wives and, in the most traumatic cases, children. I am aware of the difficulty of getting bodies processed and released to families in a timely manner. I hope this bill will assist the coroner in processing and releasing bodies so they can be buried and have their lives celebrated by loved ones, who can then get on with their lives. I thank the minister's office for its help in having bodies released in a timely manner. I usually only hear about these situations after there has been a problem or a hold-up for a couple of weeks. When people die, their families like to hold the funeral within a short period following their death. The member for Greenslopes mentioned the collation of facts on how and why people die. It is important that that be done. Kids could be dying because of chroming or sniffing petrol. We need to know how many, why and in what areas these deaths are occurring. With one person overseeing that, the figures can be collated and made available to the government. Also, a lot of people in this state and other places in Australia have died of asbestos related diseases and this has never been recognised as the cause. In my electorate asbestos related deaths are climbing. It is a very important issue in my electorate, a working class electorate with many constituents who have worked with their hands and their backs. When these people reach retirement age, they develop breathing problems, with tests revealing asbestos on their lungs. They either have shadows or cancer attacking the lining of their lungs, which produces a very painful and sometimes very swift death. We have been able to assist those people by centralising workers compensation offices, just as the coroners processes will be. That assists to expedite claims processing. People with asbestos diseases can have a very short time to live. The week 1064 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003 before last, two people I knew of had claims in, but they died within a week. Therefore, no compensation went to their families or their children to assist them following the loss of a breadwinner. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Gordon Nuttall, is looking at changes to expedite the process or even so that claims can be processed after a person's death. This bill is important in terms of its provision for the collation of information that the government and its departments can act on. Hopefully, as a result of this bill we will not have as many deaths and we can save lives. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (5.24 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate on these two bills, the Coroners Bill and the Cremations Bill. These bills together significantly clarify the law in relation to coronial inquiries and cremations, and separate out the law relating to cremations so that it is properly dealt with in that way. I will take this opportunity to address a number of the issues raised by various members in the second reading debate just held. I will start with the issues raised by the member for Southern Downs, the Leader of the Opposition. He and a number of other members raised some issues that had been previously alerted to members on both sides of the House by the Australian Medical Association of Queensland. These relate to the remuneration of doctors in relation to issuing death certificates or permissions to cremate. Currently, doctors can charge any fees they like. There is no regulation under the current arrangements. Amendments to the Cremations Act in 1996 removed the prescribed fee in relation to permissions to cremate, as I understand it partly because the AMA at that time did not want fees for those activities regulated by government. There is provision in the regulations to prescribe fees for permissions to cremate, but there is no plan at this time to set a specific fee. In relation to death certificates, cabinet has previously resolved that the issuing of a death certificate should not be the subject of a charge, and that will be reflected in the proposed bill regulating the registration of births, deaths and marriages, which I will bring here in due course. Part of the reason for this is that from time to time the Registrar General for Births, Deaths and Marriages receives complaints about some extraordinarily high fees charged by doctors in relation to the issue of a death certificate. Doctors are not frequently required to issue death certificates. It is the last service performed by a doctor for a patient. As I say, although in relation to permissions to cremate we do not intend to regulate or restrain doctors in the fees set for undertaking the assessment required for that permission to issue, we do not at this stage think it is appropriate for doctors to charge simply for the issue of a death certificate. The Leader of the Opposition raised the question of whether there are any difficulties that might arise from the Cremations Bill in relation to the availability of medical practitioners in remote communities or in rural areas. The current legislation does not impose any greater regulations in relation to the dual certification required than is the case in the current bill. I think for reasons of accountability it is desirable that we retain the requirement for dual certification. Currently, the bodies of deceased persons are transported to a larger centre where there is a crematorium. We do not believe there will be any significant problems arising from the requirement for a second doctor to sign off the permission to cremate in addition to the death certificate. In all other respects there are no significantly different administrative requirements in this bill compared with the current arrangements. I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the AMAQ has now been consulted on the administrative requirements of the bill and I am not aware of any outstanding concerns. Both the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Lingard raised concerns that had been— Mr Shine interjected. Mr WELFORD: I do not think that Mr Lingard is in the running to be the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Shine: You never know. Mr WELFORD: But then, they change so often these days. Concerns were raised by the Far- North Queensland Alliance that the bill should give greater definition and require reportability in relation to the deaths of persons in care who have intellectual disabilities. We received submissions from the Far-North Queensland Alliance in relation to that. In effect, they requested that every death in care be subject to a coronial inquest by including in the definition of 'deaths in care' all deaths of persons in aged care facilities and private dwellings. I have not taken this on board, because I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. There has been extensive consultation on the categories of reportable deaths. If the deaths in these facilities are in any way violent, unnatural or suspicious, then they are reportable under 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1065 the bill anyhow, and unnatural deaths would clearly cover any death of a person in care that might arise from neglect. To require every death to be reported, even when there is not the slightest suspicion that anything untoward is attached to the cause of death, seems to me to be unnecessary and could have a crippling effect on the coronial system. Nevertheless, under this bill the Attorney-General will be allowed to make directions to the State Coroner and apply to the District Court to ensure that an inquest is held. I believe that this provides sufficient safeguards in these circumstances. From time to time, families of a deceased person who hold suspicions about the cause of death raise these issues with me. On the basis of the concerns that they raise, an assessment is made as to whether an inquest should be held even where an initial assessment made by a local coroner has suggested that there are no suspicious circumstances. So I think that there are sufficient safeguards in this bill to ensure that whether the person is a person in care or, indeed, in any other circumstances there is sufficient opportunity for the circumstances of the death to be inquired into even though it is not automatically one that would fall within the category of deaths that are automatically reportable under the bill. The State Coroner's annual report will also contain a summary of any other investigations that the State Coroner considers should be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. The author of the alliance's submissions, Mr Bowles, has been consulted by the member for Cairns. She informed us in her contribution to the second reading debate that, while not all the elements of the alliance's submission have been adopted, Mr Bowles accepts the strength of the arguments that I have just outlined to the House. The Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the member for Gladstone also made reference to the submission made by the Christian Science Committee. They proposed a new provision to in effect exclude deaths from being reportable if the person had, with their consent, been under treatment by means other than medical treatment such as treatment by prayer or other spiritual means. The current law and this bill both require a cause of death certificate before someone can be buried or cremated. A doctor cannot issue a cause of death certificate if the death has to be reported to a coroner. Under the existing Coroners Act, the three-month rule effectively makes the death reportable if someone has not consulted a doctor in the past three months. Although the three-month period is somewhat arbitrary—and I acknowledge that—I have decided to retain it for the time being pending our review of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962. However, I should point out that clause 12 of the bill, which is similar to what is contained in the old act, nevertheless allows a coroner to consent to the issue of a cause of death certificate for certain reportable deaths even where the person has not consulted a doctor in the past three months. So coroners will retain the flexibility to make a decision, having regard to the circumstances of the case, about the extent of an investigation required. The mere fact that the death is reportable does not mean that there will be an inquest. Indeed, in most cases there will not. So I do not believe that the concerns raised by the Christian Scientists will impose any obligations or give rise to any liability on the part of any person merely by reason of the fact that they choose to reject medical treatment in favour of no treatment or, indeed, some other form of religious or spiritual course. The Leader of the Opposition also raised the need for consistency in the conduct of autopsies. I agree with him in that regard. That, of course, is part of the rationale for reforming the coroner's legislation and establishing the Office of the State Coroner. The bill specifically sets out the State Coroner's primary and general coordination roles and empowers the State Coroner to establish guidelines as to the conduct of autopsies. In that regard I refer the Leader of the Opposition to clause 19. The Bar Association's concerns, also referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, basically centre around the issue of the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. I think that the issues raised by the Bar Association are appropriate to be raised in these circumstances. Effectively, we have converted the character of the coronial system from one that investigates criminal charges, in which case the privilege against self-incrimination would clearly still be justified to apply, to one that does not result in the coroner committing people for trial at all. That will be the subject of a separate police investigation in relation to the actions of any other person that might have given rise to the death. The coroner is concerned to establish the cause of the death, not necessarily who specifically was responsible. 1066 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

For the purpose of establishing the cause of death and identifying any trends in the nature of the death of the particular kind concerned, it is appropriate that the coroner have the capacity to get to the truth of the matter, even where that may require a person to acknowledge their behaviour in certain ways. Of course, it should be remembered that where a person gives evidence in a coronial inquest in a way that would otherwise tend to incriminate them the evidence that they give cannot be used against them in any proceedings. So in that regard their privilege against criminal liability is protected. Of course, there may be other persons who do not exercise the privilege and who may otherwise be criminally culpable for the death of a person, and they will still be exposed to separate police investigation for those circumstances. Most of the criticisms that the Bar Association raised were directed at an earlier version of the bill which was provided to them for consultation. The safeguards that we put in place where the person is required to answer questions, I believe, now address substantially those certain concerns. The member for Toowoomba North raised the issue of where the decisions of a coroner would be subject to judicial review. The bill provides for a review by the State Coroner in relation to the decision of another coroner and review by the District Court in relation to decisions about whether an inquest should be held or the reopening of inquests, but all decisions of coroners are still administrative decisions and therefore subject to judicial review. The member for Toowoomba North also queried the removal of the coroner's power to commit for trial. I say no more in relation to that in addition to what I have just mentioned, that the philosophy of the new coronial system that we are establishing by this bill is to separate out investigations into criminal liability from the coronial system of inquiry, the coronial system of inquiry being to get to the truth that underpins the cause of death and prevent future similar deaths rather than to identify particular individuals for their criminal behaviour. This is consistent with the approach taken in other states in coronial systems these days, and that is why we separate out for separate police investigation the criminal behaviour of any individual concerned. That investigation by police of criminal behaviour will, of course, to some extent be circumscribed by the protections inherent in the provisions relating to the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination—that is, where a person is obligated to assist a coroner by answering questions which would otherwise incriminate them—that will impose some restraint on the capacity for police then to use that evidence to mount criminal charges against a person. Of course, if police are able to gather evidence independent of that given to the coronial inquiry for the purpose of proving or substantiating criminal charges, then that remains open to them. The member for Tablelands raised a couple of issues in relation to the power to issue search warrants. Coroners, who are of course magistrates, will only be able to issue search warrants if they are satisfied that there is evidence at the place they want to search and that such evidence would be relevant to an investigation. This is consistent with provisions provided in relation in other states, and I will be moving some amendments in committee which will further refine this provision to further clarify the circumstances in which it is appropriate for it to be used. The member for Beaudesert raised issues about the budget to ensure the new coronial system will be effective. Some $13.7 million has been allocated by the government over four years for the system to be implemented. Some $6 million of that is provided to Queensland Health for the John Tonge Centre, and those funds are available for use from this current financial year. The member for Beaudesert pointed out that the annual report in this bill is provided to the Attorney-General. That is appropriate, because the Attorney-General is the supervising minister in relation to the coronial system. I am prepared to take on board the suggestion that at some future time the annual report might appropriately be tabled in the parliament and, indeed, I may do so in any event myself. But the first priority is to ensure that the State Coroner reports to the Attorney on the annual conduct of the State Coroner's office so that any action that needs to be taken can be taken by me in that role. The member for Kurwongbah raised issues surrounding the adequacy of counselling services which, I have no doubt, the Department of Health will note in relation to the assistance it provides to the coronial system. The issue of the definition of 'tissue' in the environmental protection waste management regulation being somewhat inconsistent is a matter that I am happy to take up with relevant ministers to see whether there are any significant issues that arise out of that inconsistency. Finally, the member for Gladstone raised issues in relation to the exemption sought by the Christian Science organisation. I have already addressed those in relation to similar comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. Some effect of it really is that the mere fact that a person 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1067 has not seen a doctor in the last three months does not give rise to any liability on the part of any person, and no coronial inquiry would give rise to any liability since the coroner is only concerned to address the causes of death, not the liability of any person for that death. The issues of responsibility being sheeted home, criminally or otherwise, to a particular person are not going to arise simply by coronial inquiry. It needs to be remembered, also, that when the coroner first looks at those matters the coroner will take into account issues such as whether the person consciously chose not to take medical treatment. Although the death is reportable, technically, the mere fact that it is reportable does not mean that an inquest will be held. So, the coroner can exercise a discretion to take the inquiry no further once that relevant information is to hand. I do not believe there is required any more formal provision to protect anyone in relation to those deaths. It is consistent with the existing arrangement and, as I say, does not give any rise to any presumption or inference that particular people are liable merely by the fact that there may have been a choice or indeed an accidental failure to consult a doctor in the last three months. I take this opportunity to table the explanatory notes in relation to the amendments which I shall now move in committee. I again thank all members for their contributions to this cognate debate on the Cremations Bill and the Coroners Bill, and along with other members I commend both these bills to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) in charge of the bill.

Coroners Bill Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr WELFORD (5.50 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2— At page 8, line 6— omit, insert— '(1) The amendment of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 in schedule 1 commences on 1 May 2003. (2) The remaining provisions commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation.'. This amendment amends clause 2 of the bill to provide that the amendment to the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 contained in schedule 1 commences on 1 May 2003. The remaining provisions of the Coroners Bill, when enacted, will continue to commence on a day to be fixed by a proclamation. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr WELFORD (5.51 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 7— At page 10, line 1, 'a reportable death is reported'— omit, insert— 'a death is reported under this section'. This amendment amends clause 7 to make it clear that a police officer has to on-report to a coroner every death that is reported to the police officer under the section, not just deaths that the police officer might determine are reportable. It is for the coroner, not the police, to make a determination as to whether a death is a reportable death. The clause is still subject to clause 7(4), which deals with circumstances where the death is reported to a police officer because a cause of death certificate has not been issued and is not likely to be issued. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. 1068 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

Clause 8— Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (5.52 p.m.): I do not intend to labour the point, but I seek some clarification. The Christian Science Committee on Publication for Queensland wrote requesting an amendment that allows a blanket exemption from necessity to report a death where a person died as a result of following through a person's wishes for spiritual type healing. I appreciate the answer the minister has given. I just wish to clarify one other matter. I do not have the details in front of me, but I will outline to the chamber a scenario that is partly factual and partly not. A person who belonged to a religious institution had a problem. The description anecdotally sounded something like schizophrenia. The person did not receive medical attention but the particular spiritual group they adhered to agreed to give them some attention. This included restraining them and a number of other things, which contributed to the person's death. The people who administered that procedure were subsequently charged with murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. I assume that the request from this committee—I really have had no other contact with it than these letters—stems out of concerns about those sorts of repercussions. I do not believe we should put anything in these bills that represents a loophole that would allow inappropriate behaviour to be exempted from examination. But I give the example of a person with a medical condition—it may be something that many of us have been touched with, and that is cancer—who may choose not to go down the chemotherapy and radiation path or may choose not to have an operation because of their experience, a family experience or whatever. The person may opt to pursue alternative medicine or a spiritual path—prayer and those types of things. I understand what the minister says about the coroner not deciding on criminal matters but on cause of death, but the cause of death finding could lead to criminal charges. Is it possible for a person to put in writing their choice not to undergo ordinary medical procedures or other accepted procedures? Within the reports that a coroner may make as to cause of death or a comment on the death, would that assist in ensuring that people who had been entrusted by the sick patient to carry out the procedure did not get caught up in criminal proceedings unnecessarily? Mr WELFORD: I agree with the member for Gladstone that one should not completely exempt deaths from inquiry merely by reason of the fact that the person may have chosen not to see a medical practitioner. There are two issues we are talking about here. The first is whether there is any criminal responsibility on the part of any person for the death of the individual. That would be the subject of separate police inquiry and investigation to determine whether there is any offence that may have been committed that led to the death of the person. That is a separate criminal investigation. That investigation would stand or fall according to whatever evidence the police uncovered in relation to the conduct of the individuals who may be subject to the investigation. Secondly, in relation to the coroner's inquiry, the first step is that if a medical practitioner has not been consulted within the last three months then, prima facie, that is by definition reportable under the bill, as indeed it was previously. That simply means that the coroner is required to look at the matter to determine whether an inquiry should be held. Again in those circumstances, although the coroner is not interested in determining any criminal liability, as the honourable member points out the coroner may, nevertheless, in any ultimate report, if an inquest is held, reflect adversely upon the carelessness of certain individuals in relation to the care of the person. Again, the coroner's assessment in that regard would be based on all the available evidence about the deceased and indeed any conduct of the other people who may have fingers pointed at them by various others, not necessarily the coroner. If there were, for example, some documented evidence—whether it be the file reports of a doctor previously consulted outside the three-month period or indeed a letter written by the person to their family or some other person that they were choosing a certain course in relation to their health care which did not involve medical treatment—then that evidence would be taken into account by the coroner. Indeed, the coroner could take that evidence into account at the very first stage when the coroner decides even whether further inquiry is necessary. It is not my belief that there needs to be any formal statutory acknowledgment of how that evidence would be treated. I think it should be left to the coroner to determine what the effect of that evidence is in the context of the other things that may have happened surrounding the death. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1069

Clauses 9 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Mr WELFORD (6.00 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 28— At page 29, lines 1 and 2— omit. This amendment amends clause 28 by deleting paragraph (a) of clause 28(2), which provides that in deciding whether it is desirable to hold an inquest the coroner may consider the wish of any family member that an inquest be held. This paragraph is being deleted because it is superfluous, given that clause 30 of the bill already allows any person—which obviously includes family members—to apply to the coroner to hold an inquest. Amendment agreed to. Clause 28, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 37, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr WELFORD (6.01 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 4 After clause 37— At page 33, after line 18— insert— ' 37A Recording evidence '(1) The Coroners Court may decide whether or not proceedings in the court during a conference held under section 341 are to be recorded under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962. '(2) Despite any order made under section 40,2 any other proceedings in the court must be recorded under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962. '(3) Subject to an order made under section 40 and the requirements of the Recording of Evidence Act 1962, anyone is entitled to obtain a copy of the record under that Act.'. 1 Section 34 (Pre-inquest conferences) 2 Section 40 (Prohibited publications relating to inquests) This amendment inserts a new section 37A to provide that the Coroners Court may decide whether or not pre-inquest conferences are to be recorded under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962. Proceedings in the Coroners Court, of course, must be recorded under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 and, subject to an order by the coroner under section 40 and the requirements of the Recording of Evidence Act, anyone is entitled to obtain a copy of the record under that act. This amendment simply clarifies when evidence was recorded and when that record of evidence is available. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 38 and 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr WELFORD (6.02 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 5 Clause 40— At page 35, line 15— omit, insert— '(6) The Coroners Court may make an order prohibiting— (a) the issue of the whole or part of a copy of the record made under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962; or (b) the publication of the whole or part of a copy of the record made under that Act. '(7) A person must comply with the order, unless the person has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—150 penalty units. '(8) In this section—'. 6 Clause 40— At page 35, lines 17 to 19— omit, insert— ' "record" includes make an audio recording.'. 1070 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

Amendment 5 amends clause 40 by inserting a new subclause to allow the Coroners Court to prohibit the issue of the whole or part of a copy of the record or the publication of the whole or part of a copy of the record. The Coroners Court may, for example, want to do this in relation to evidence given under clause 38, where that evidence might otherwise incriminate a person. Amendment 6 amends the definition of 'record' in clause 40 to delete the exclusion of a recording under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962. This is because the exclusion is now superfluous given that we have just inserted new clause 37A, making it clear that proceedings in the Coroners Court must be recorded under the Recording of Evidence Act, except where there is a pre-inquest conference. Amendments agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 41 to 49, as read, agreed to. Clause 50— Mr WELFORD (6.04 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 7 Clause 50— At page 41, line 19— omit, insert— '(2) The record of the coroner's findings and comments is not evidence in any court or tribunal of any fact asserted in the record.'. This amendment amends clause 50(2) to clarify the intention of that clause; namely, that the record of the coroner's findings and comments is not evidence in any court or tribunal of the facts asserted in the record. Amendment agreed to. Clause 50, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 51 to 75, as read, agreed to. Clause 76— Mr WELFORD (6.05 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 8 Clause 76— At page 54, after line 30— insert— '(c) a summary of the types of directions that the State Coroner has given to coroners under section 14.3'. 3 Section 14 (Guidelines and directions for investigations) This amendment amends clause 76 to provide that the annual report should also contain a summary of the types of directions that the State Coroner has given to coroners under section 14, which allows the coroner to provide directions and guidelines for investigation. Amendment agreed to. Clause 76, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 77 to 98, as read, agreed to. Clause 99— Mr WELFORD (6.06 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 9 Clause 99— At page 64, line 23— omit, insert— '(3) For a pre-commencement death or pre-commencement fire, the State Coroner has the functions and powers of a coroner under the Coroners Act 1958. '(4) In this section— "investigation document" includes a document obtained under the Coroners Act 1958 that is similar in nature to an investigation document as defined under this Act.'. This amendment makes two amendments to clause 99. The first amendment provides that for a pre-commencement death or pre-commencement fire the State Coroner has the functions and powers of the coroner under the existing Coroners Act 1958. This will allow the State Coroner to continue an inquiry under the existing law which he or she may have started prior to the commencement of the new act. This is because, as a result of the amendment, the functions of 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1071 the State Coroner under clause 70 will now specifically include functions under the Coroners Act 1958. The second amendment to clause 99 provides a unique definition of 'investigation document' for the purpose of clause 99. The definition includes documents under the existing Coroners Act. Obviously the purpose of this is to ensure that under clause 99 the new act will apply to the release for research purposes of documents under the old legislation that are equivalent to what we define as 'investigation documents' under this new bill and also to ensure that fees for the release of equivalent investigation documents for any purpose are equally applicable to documents under the old act. Amendment agreed to. Clause 99, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 100 to 104, as read, agreed to. Clause 105— Mr WELFORD (6.08 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 10 Part 8— At page 66, lines 12 and 13— omit, insert— ' PART 8—MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ' 105 Minor and consequential amendments'. This amendment—and indeed amendment No. 11—amends the titles of part 8, section 105 so that the title reads 'Minor and Consequential Amendments'. This accommodates the amendment to the District Court Act in amendment 12. Amendment agreed to. Clause 105, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 1— Mr WELFORD (6.09 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 11 Schedule 1— At page 67, lines 1 and 2— omit, insert— ' SCHEDULE 1 ' MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS'. 12 Schedule 1— At page 67, after line 7— insert— ' DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND ACT 1967 ' 1 Section 61(2)(b), after '208'— insert— ', 210(3) or (4)'.'. 13 Schedule 1— At page 71, lines 20 to 22— omit, insert— '(b) brief particulars that identify the death that the coroner is investigating; and (c) the evidence that may be seized under the warrant; and (d) if the warrant is to be executed at night, the hours when the place may be entered; and (e) the day and time the search warrant ends, being no more than 7 days after the search warrant is issued.'. 14 Schedule 1— At page 72, lines 11 to 13— omit, insert— '(6) A police officer must not exercise a power under subsection (4)(c) to (f) unless the police officer reasonably suspects that the exercise of the power is necessary for the coroner's investigation.'. 15 Schedule 1— At page 73, line 8, 'If the person fails to comply with the requirement'— omit, insert— 'When making the requirement'. 1072 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

16 Schedule 1— At page 74, after line 14— insert— ' 5A Schedule 4— insert— ' "coroner" means a coroner under the Coroners Act 2002.'.'. Amendment 11 again simply changes the title of schedule 1 to 'Minor and Consequential Amendments' to accommodate the amendment that is made in amendment 12. Amendment No. 12 inserts a change to the District Court Act as a new item in the schedule to the bill. The Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act passed earlier this year by the House increased the penalty in section 210 of the Criminal Code for indecent treatment of children under 16 years to 20 years. Jurisdiction in the District Court only goes to 14 years unless the section is specifically named in section 61 of the District Court Act. This did not happen as part of the above act so this amendment is made to rectify that oversight so that section 210 of the Criminal Code, in particular subsections (3) and (4), are specifically identified for the purposes of section 61 of the District Court Act. I note in passing that the relevant parts of the Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act are scheduled to commence on 1 May, so this amendment will also commence on that date. Amendment No. 13 amends proposed new section 371AD of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act which is being inserted as part of the amendments to that act contained in the schedule. The amendment introduces some extra protections and requirements for a coroner's search warrant—namely, that the warrant must state brief particulars that identify the death that the coroner is investigating and the evidence that may be seized under the warrant. The amendment also provides that the warrant only has to state the hours the place may be entered when the warrant is being executed at night. This is consistent with the general warrant requirements under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Amendment No. 14 also amends new section 371AD of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. The amendment provides that a police officer cannot exercise the powers to inspect, take things for testing and copy documents under the clause unless the police officer reasonably suspects that the exercise of the powers is necessary for the coroner's investigation. The amendment also removes the definition of 'coroner' for the purpose of proposed section 371AD. This is because amendment No. 16 now deals with this. Amendment No. 15 amends proposed new section 371AF of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. That provision is contained in schedule 1 of the bill. Under the new section, police have the power to require persons to give information in certain circumstances. This amendment now requires that police must inform any such person that they do not have to incriminate themselves and that they can get legal advice as part of the requirement to provide information. This is in contrast to doing this after there has been a failure to comply with the requirement, which is the way the bill is currently drafted in that schedule. Amendment No. 16, the last of this batch, again amends the amendments in schedule 1 to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. This inserts a definition of 'coroner' into schedule 4 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. The definition obviously means a coroner under what will be the Coroners Act 2002. Amendments agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 2— Mr WELFORD (6.13 p.m.): I move amendment Nos 17 to 20— 17 Schedule 2— At page 81, line 19, after 'a record'— insert— ', or a copy of a record,'. 18 Schedule 2— At page 82, line 15— omit, insert— '(e) if a spouse, adult child, parent or adult sibling is not reasonably available—the next nearest adult relative of the deceased person; or (f) if the deceased person was an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait'. 1 Apr 2003 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1073

19 Schedule 2— At page 83, after line 20— insert— ' "not reasonably available", in relation to a family member of a deceased person, means— (a) a family member of that particular type does not exist; or (b) the family member can not be reasonably contacted; or (c) the family member is unable or unwilling to act as a family member for this Act.'. 20 Schedule 2— At page 83, after line 26— insert— ' "record" made under the Recording of Evidence Act 1962 includes a transcription of the record made under that Act.'. Amendment No. 17 amends the definition of a coronial document contained in the dictionary for schedule 2 of the bill to make it clear that it does not include either the record under the Recording of Evidence Act or a copy of the record under that act. This includes a copy of the transcript of a record because amendment No. 20 inserts in the dictionary a definition of 'record' to include a transcript. Amendment No. 18 amends the definition of 'family member' in the dictionary in schedule 2 by providing that, if a spouse, adult child, parent or adult sibling is not reasonably available, 'family member' means the next nearest adult relative of the deceased person. Amendment No. 19 inserts a new definition into the dictionary in schedule 2. It defines the words 'not reasonably available', which is a term used in the definition of 'family member' just referred to. 'Not reasonably available' is defined to mean a family member of that particular type does not exist or the family member cannot reasonably be contacted or a family member is unable or unwilling to act as a family member for the purposes of the act. Amendment No. 20 also inserts a new definition in the dictionary of schedule 2. It defines 'record' made under the Recording of Evidence Act to include the transcription of a record, as I previously indicated. Amendments agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Cremations Bill Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr WELFORD (6.15 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1— 1 Clause 5— At page 4, line 18, after 'permission to cremate the remains'— insert— ', in the approved form,'. This amendment amends clause 5 to provide that the permission to cremate has to be in the approved form. If this amendment is not made, it will be possible for doctors and coroners to develop their own form of permission to cremate as an alternative to the approved form permission to cremate. This could lead to confusion obviously in both the funeral and crematoria industry. Accordingly, I propose to prescribe a form to be used which all doctors can sign. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr WELFORD (6.16 p.m.): I move amendment Nos 2 and 3— 2 Clause 6— At page 5, lines 2 to 9— omit, insert— '(1) The following persons may apply for a permission to cremate the human remains of a deceased person— (a) a close relative of the deceased person, either personally or through an agent; Example of an agent— 1074 Coroners Bill; Cremations Bill 1 Apr 2003

A funeral director. (b) a personal representative1 of the deceased person, either personally or through an agent; (c) if no-one mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) applies for a permission to cremate—another adult, either personally or through an agent, who has a satisfactory explanation as to why those persons did not apply and why the adult is applying.'. 3 Clause 6— At page 5, line 30 and page 6, line 11, after 'a permission to cremate'— insert— ', in the approved form,'. 1 Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 36, a “personal representative” of a deceased person is the deceased person’s executor or administrator Amendment No. 2 amends clause 6(1) to make it clear that the permission to cremate is a document for purposes of the act, to provide that an agent can make the application for permission to cremate on behalf of any of the persons referred to in clause 6 and to provide that a funeral director is an example of such an agent. A footnote to clause 6 provides that at general law the persons listed in the clause can act through an agent. This amendment reinforces this and is consistent with the current provisions of the existing Coroners Act 1958, which allows an agent to be appointed. Amendment No. 3 simply amends clause 6(6) and (8) by providing that the permission to cremate has to be in the approved form. Amendments agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr WELFORD (6.18 p.m.): I move amendment Nos 4 and 5— 4 Clause 11— At page 8, lines 18 to 31 and page 9, lines 1 and 2— omit, insert— '(1) The person in charge of a crematorium must not dispose of the ashes remaining after a cremation except in accordance with any reasonable written instructions of the applicant. Maximum penalty—80 penalty units. '(2) However, the person in charge may bury the ashes in a burial ground if, within 1 year after the cremation, the applicant does not give reasonable written instructions for the disposal of the ashes. '(3) Before burying the ashes, the person in charge must give the applicant at least 28 days written notice of intention to bury the ashes.'. 5 Clause 11— At page 9, lines 6 and 7— omit, insert— '(5) This section overrides the common law to the extent that it qualifies the personal representative's right to decide how to dispose of the deceased person's human remains.'. Amendment No. 4 amends clause 11(1) and (3). The amendment firstly provides that a person in charge of the crematorium cannot dispose of the ashes except in accordance with any reasonable written instructions of the applicant. It also provides that a person in charge of the crematorium now has to give the applicant 28 days written notice if the person in charge elects to bury the ashes because no reasonable written instructions have been received from the applicant within one year after the cremation. The removal of the differing procedures governing the disposal of ashes, depending on whether or not the applicant is a personal representative, more accurately reflects what happens in practice in these circumstances and provides adequate protection for the family of a deceased person in exercising some direction over what the crematorium managers do with their relative's ashes. That is broadly consistent, in any event, with the existing provisions of the Coroners Act 1958. The requirement for 28 days written notice before burial of the ashes extends the existing requirement for 14 days notice on the obvious basis that I think it is reasonable that a family have a month to consider what action should be taken. Amendment No. 5 amends clause 11(5) to provide that the clause overrides the common law to the extent that it qualifies the personal representative's right to decide how to dispose of the deceased person's human remains—that is, the ashes. This amendment flows from the previous amendment I have just outlined whereby the 1 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1075 applicant, rather than the personal representative under the will, will be the person who gives directions in relation to the disposal of ashes. Amendments agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 20, as read, agreed to. Schedule— Mr WELFORD (6.21 p.m.): I move amendment Nos 6 and 7— 6 Schedule— At page 15, line 1, after 'a certificate'— insert— 'in the approved form, or a notation on a copy of the cause of death certificate,'. 7 Schedule— At page 15, lines 7 to 11— omit, insert— 'available—another doctor.'. These amendments amend the definition of 'cremation risk certificate' in the schedule to provide that the cremation risk certificate is to be in the approved form or a notation on a copy of the cause of death certificate. It is a relatively straightforward amendment. Amendments agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bills reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bills, on motion of Mr Welford, by leave, read a third time.

CIVIL LIABILITY BILL Second Reading Resumed from 11 March (see p. 369). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.23 p.m.): The National Party opposition will be supporting the Civil Liability Bill 2003. It is the next tranche of the reforms introduced by this government in order to address the public liability crisis, which has been a cause of much community concern and focus over the past 18 months to two years. From the first day when the very first piece of legislation to start to address this matter came into the parliament I have said that much more was needed; that we needed to make sure that it was not going to be too piecemeal and that it went far enough to address all aspects. The National Party has been involved in this debate in a very proactive way since day one. I go back to the six-point plan which I and the member for Toowoomba South launched on 7 January 2002. We called for a number of things, including the capping of damages, the need to ban no win, no fee personal injury advertising and a range of other matters. There was a mixed reaction at that time, including from the Queensland Law Society, and some degree of scepticism from the government. Interestingly, many of those aspects that we have talked about at that time and also subsequent to that have been put into an act of parliament or will be put into an act of parliament by this government. That goes to show that it is possible to have a positive and constructive bipartisan approach to dealing with these sorts of matters. It is also important to point out that all good ideas do not reside with the government; the opposition also has ideas worthy of consideration. We put a lot of time and effort into putting together things that the government needs to consider. Unfortunately—and I will make this point again today; I have made it previously—the government's enthusiasm for adopting principles we have put forward is often checked. It says, 'It is not quite there. We will come back and do something like this ourselves in the future.' There are some aspects of this Civil Liability Bill that are similar to things that we have proposed in the parliament in private members' bills and which have been voted down by the government. Although I am not necessarily convinced that all aspects of this government's legislation will be 1076 Civil Liability Bill 1 Apr 2003 without some problem, I am prepared to support it and basically see how it will work. I encourage the same sort of approach from the government in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that in your seat of Logan this public liability crisis is something which has occupied a lot of your time and that of your staff as we have tried to find ways to ensure that community groups, private businesses and professionals are able to be covered for their essential work. If some community groups and organisations—voluntary groups, including sporting organisations and the likes of local community museums and historical societies—and community events were not to function anymore, we would be a much poorer place. That is what we have seen happen over the past couple of years. It has happened across Queensland. It behoves us in this place to do all we can to reverse that trend. A tarpaulin manufacturer in my electorate who had never had a claim against his public liability insurance cover found himself in a situation where when he tried to renew his insurance he was not able to secure insurance. He persevered and ultimately was able to secure insurance, but at about 300 per cent more than it was last year. Where in that case was there any real relationship between the insurance premium and the risk profile of that industry and his own personal claims record? That is the sort of thing we have seen. We are all aware of the situation private building certifiers found themselves in not too long ago and the work the Minister for Local Government had to undertake in trying to ensure that they were able to gain some form of insurance. We are aware of the difficulties in resolving that and how meetings had to be held at a national level to try to find those people insurance so they could continue their important work. I refer to the Apple and Grape Harvest Festival Committee, which is located in my electorate. Probably a number of members in this chamber have gone to and enjoyed the Apple and Grape Harvest Festival. It is held in Stanthorpe every two years and in all of the time that it has been going—over three decades—there has never been a claim against its personal liability insurance cover. It is interesting to note that, in the 2000 festival, the committee were quoted and were able to secure insurance for about $4,000. In the 2002 year, that premium was $12,000. Next year, the committee will probably not be able to secure insurance cover even at this stage from the government scheme. When the committee rang the AON and asked whether they could be covered, they were told, 'Ring back some time in October or November of this year and we will tell you if you will be covered.' The committee asked, 'If we can be covered, what is the likely insurance premium?' They were told, 'Maybe $30,000, maybe $40,000, but we cannot tell you now. You will have to ring back at the end of this year.' Insurance brokers, insurance companies and even the government's own community insurance scheme fails to see that when a committee is planning a festival that happens every two years, they need to do exactly that: they need to plan over two years. The committee cannot get to the end of this year, with the festival due in March of next year, and say, 'We have insurance now; we can plan this,' because the committee needs to be able to put the crowd control in place; it needs to be able to organise the street entertainment; it needs to be able to advertise the festival and promote it—do all the work that is necessary. The committee starts planning for the next festival the day after the previous one finishes. Up to 80,000 people go to that festival. We have seen a similar trend emerge throughout Queensland. I think that is an indication of how major community cultural events have been affected by this insurance crisis. Earlier legislation and the best efforts of the government—even though I think that there are some problems with its community insurance scheme—have not been able to resolve the insurance problems for the Apple and Grape Harvest Festival. It is also interesting to note that when that committee said to the representative from AON, 'We have never had a claim in that time. We have a pretty good risk profile,' they were told, 'That means that you are closer to your first claim.' I suppose if we look at the situation logically, maybe they are. But it may be in 20 years, it may be in 30 years, it may be in 40 years, or it may be in 50 years time. Who knows? That is not a very sensible response to give to a committee. Mr Horan: They are supposed to look back at the record, rather than forward. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is right. The honourable member for Toowoomba South has said insurers are supposed to look back at the record, not forward at what hypothetically might happen at some future time. Mr Shine: It is logical. 1 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1077

Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Toowoomba North understands the logic of it, and so do most other members of this House because they are nodding in agreement. But not in this case! The logic did not seem to come out. If we ran WorkCover in that way, how would we ever be able to plan the potential exposure and the premium categories for various industries? We would never be able to do it. In relation to WorkCover, we look at the overall trend in regard to a particular industry and then the record of a particular workplace. Surely something similar should happen when we are dealing with community events. We should break it down to the event and to the individual record of a community event. I just do not think that it is good enough to be dealing with hypothetical scenarios. Another example—Mr Deputy Speaker, given your cultural background you would very much appreciate this—is the International Club in Stanthorpe, which is a great venue. It has been around for decades. It is a great gathering place for people of Italian background and others who go there and enjoy partaking in fellowship, camaraderie and playing certain games. That club might not be able to secure insurance this year, which would mean that after so many years of success that club might not be able to continue to provide a gathering point within the community. As far as I am aware, to date the club has not been able to secure insurance—and secure insurance also as part of the government's community insurance scheme. The club rang and inquired and was told, 'No; and if you can, it is going to be quite costly', and those sorts of things. But interestingly—and I ask the Attorney-General to take note of this; I know that the Treasurer is responsible for the community insurance scheme—one of the committee members rang the New South Wales government, which has a community insurance scheme. That person was told and supplied with documentation that indicated that if that club was located in New South Wales it would have been able to receive cover. The club has given me the documentation. That cover could have been supplied for about $1,000. All I am saying is that the New South Wales government has a scheme that has been honed a little bit more and it is a little bit more focused. More underwriters are involved in it. It is a community scheme and it provides assistance and support to non-profit community organisations. That committee said that that club would have been able to have been covered, based on the information that was provided, for about $1,000. All I am saying is that we can look at what has happened in New South Wales and there may be ways in which this scheme in Queensland can be tinkered. The club also said that the New South Wales government has not excluded the idea of potentially providing cover in other states. That is not a direct criticism. I acknowledge that the government has tried to do something and for many organisations and community groups. It has been successful. But there are some that fit into this nebulous higher risk category or are somewhere in never-never land and are not covered. They cannot get insurance cover on the open market and they are falling through the cracks. So I just say to the government to look at that scheme that exists in New South Wales and see if it cannot broaden its own scheme or look at the ways in which it can operate more practically to deal with these other sorts of areas. Mr Purcell: The only thing I'd say is that the ACCC should be looking at some of these insurance companies for the simple reason that they operate nationally. Their premiums are cheaper down there where all the high prices have been paid and the rest of Australia is paying for them. We're getting flogged. Mr SPRINGBORG: I understand the argument that the honourable member is making with regard to the premium exposure for Queenslanders from a business, community and professional perspective. There is a greater proportion of claims coming out of New South Wales for the premium dollar paid than what there is in Queensland. That is true. There is no doubt about that. That is unarguable. It is almost a community rating thing across Australia. We are locked into a situation in Queensland where we have had a more conservative approach—and I do not say that in a political way—from our courts with regard to payouts compared to New South Wales, where there has been more of an activist approach on the part of the courts, particularly in relation to awards given by juries. I think that we are affected very much by the premium increases. That is a problem. There is no doubt about that. I agree with the honourable member. There is a role for the ACCC. I am separating and distilling the other issue. I am just saying that the New South Wales government community insurance scheme seems to have been underwritten in a broader way and appears to be able to offer insurance to other parties that, if they were in Queensland, would have fallen through the cracks. That is all I am saying. I can only go on this particular example 1078 Civil Liability Bill 1 Apr 2003 that was given to me. But what the honourable member says is not untrue with regard to the need for the ACCC to be more proactive and more involved in this issue. I concur with what the Attorney-General said at the end of his second reading speech when he referred to the federal government. But I say that there is a need for the body that is responsible, and that is the ACCC—and the minister mentioned the ACCC—to make sure that the insurance industry now delivers on premium reductions that will be possible as a consequence of putting in place a more restrictive claims regime. The blow torch will now be on the belly of the insurance industry. The ACCC obviously is the appropriate body to do that. If they need additional powers to do that, that is something the Commonwealth government should consider. I note that one of the underpinning principles of the legislation is the need for a greater degree of self-responsibility, something which I have advocated from day one. We can never excuse a deliberate, negligent, callous or criminal act which injures someone and the need for that injured person to seek redress to assist them to rebuild their life in terms of punitive damages against the person or persons who may have been responsible for causing or contributing to their injury. That goes without saying and is something we should support. There is also a very strong need to say to people that there is self-responsibility, that they have to take an element of responsibility for an injury which may occur if nobody else is deliberately or negligently responsible. There are certain things that we do in our life from day to day, be it just going about our business in our own household, playing sport or whatever, where some inherent risk is involved. We have to accept that in life. There is an element of inherent risk in most things that we do. Our legislation should not be about giving people an opportunity just to treasure hunt and say, 'Well, I am injured; somebody should be responsible for it,' when it is not clear that somebody else is responsible and when in some cases it has been our own negligence or an accident which has caused this to happen. It should not be that somebody else is responsible for that. That is a principle which should underpin our legislation. I note from the Attorney's second reading speech that he talked about that and tried to separate that out where there is deliberate negligence and callous disregard. I commend the Attorney for that. We will have to wait and see, once the courts start to interpret it, whether this legislation can effectively achieve that goal and whether it does need to be enhanced by way of amendment at some future time. Self-responsibility is extremely important. It was interesting to note in a newspaper a perspective piece written some time ago by a woman who had had a number of children. The article referred to childbirth and to the fact that now very few obstetricians and gynaecologists graduate from our colleges. In Queensland, the number of such graduates is no more than a handful. The problem they face is that if on the rare occasion something goes wrong and there is a law suit that specialist is really exposed to the potentiality of an enormous payout. We have seen that particularly in New South Wales where circumstances tend to have driven a lot of these sorts of things. Mr Purcell: Jury decisions Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes. I have previously pushed for—and the government also agreed—juries not having a role in these cases, and subsequently the government removed that provision. If we look at the real risk of something happening to a child or a mother in childbirth compared to 50, 100 or 150 years ago, it is minuscule. This lady went on to conclude that when we consider the pressures on a woman's body and the baby it is amazing that any children survive at all. There are very few cases where anything goes wrong. That is the professionalism of the paediatricians, obstetricians and gynaecologists involved. It is also very difficult to separate out what was possibly going to happen compared to some injury which may have been caused as a consequence of negligence on the part of that specialist. Let us say there was some negligence. The issue is: was it deliberate negligence? When somebody is in childbirth and things are going wrong, decisions are made on the run. Is it a situation where the community good that has come as a consequence of technology, professionalism and knowledge really outshines so much any deliberate or malicious negligence on the part of a specialist? There is probably not too much deliberate or malicious negligence on the part of those specialists. The point is that we have seen a number of claims which have led to extraordinary payouts. That has then put pressure on the insurance premiums of those specialists and that has seen them exit that particular specialist field, with very few undertaking such study at college. Who are the losers? We all are the losers—the community, the women out there requiring specialist care, be it from an obstetrician or a gynaecologist, and the child who needs to be born safely. 1 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1079

Mr Mickel: Physiotherapists. Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, there are a whole range of specialist fields. There was a need to address that. There are elements of this bill that will go some way to addressing those issues. With regard to duty of care, I welcome the fact that a person will not breach a duty of care to another unless the risk of personal injury was foreseeable. That is commonsense. People need to assume some degree of self-responsibility. Once again, that is something we all support. The bill abolishes joint and several liability for property damage or economic loss in actions involving more than one defendant. That has particular issues with regard to marketeers, et cetera. I know that some issues were raised with regard to this, Attorney, but I really think it is a matter of wait and see. We have to look at this and see how it works out in the long run. Will anybody be worse off as a consequence of this? That is part of the process of proportionate liability which some people have raised some concerns about. Proportionate liability will only apply in the future when dealing with damages that may exceed $500,000. We need to wait and see how this comes through the system. It is probably the only issue about which I have a little bit of concern, but it is heading in the right direction and we will see how it works out in the long run. With regard to support for and indemnification of volunteers, this is something we have been pushing for for a long time. I note that it is a matter which has been raised with me by individual volunteers in the community and with most members, because our 500,000 or so volunteers in the community do not set about to deliberately, negligently, maliciously or callously injure anyone. They do good things. They work with Meals on Wheels, Red Cross, the Leukaemia Foundation and our sporting organisations. What they do enhances our community enormously. Those people should be generally protected and know that they are generally protected. This bill, as I understand it, seeks to do that. As long as the action of a volunteer was in good faith and providing that the volunteer is not acting outside the activities of the body, that volunteer will be protected in the event that some action arises. That makes sense. It says that if they are out there in good faith doing the right thing they will be okay. Of course, if somebody does something stupid, callous or deliberately negligent, it becomes a different story. The bill also removes the right of people to claim damages if they are injured whilst committing an indictable offence. I ask the Attorney-General to address this matter in his reply to the second reading debate. I understand that there is already a restriction on the right of a person found guilty of committing an indictable offence to seek damages. I thought that general right was taken away in 1997. I note that the honourable member for Southport is also interested in this matter. I can take the minister to the debate in this parliament where certain amendments were put forward that sought to achieve that. I ask the minister to outline whether this is a general extension of that or whether what existed previously as a consequence of that amendment was unclear. I think it is a reasonable question. The bill creates the presumption that if a person was intoxicated at the time of an accident the person has contributed to their injury, unless that person can prove that that is not the case. Intoxication relates to alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs. If the person can prove that this is not the case, any damages they would be entitled to would be reduced by a minimum of 25 per cent. The figure increases to 50 per cent if the incident involves a motor vehicle accident. I think that is sensible. It is something I have supported for a long time. If a person is intoxicated as a consequence of alcohol or drug intake, why should they have a right to sue? I note that the Plaintiff Lawyers Association says that this may reduce the obligation on a licensed establishment to ensure that a person is not intoxicated. I am not so sure that it does. Establishments still have an obligation to look after the welfare of their patrons. We have to understand that people also have some degree of responsibility for themselves. If someone is going to get themselves intoxicated and set out deliberately to do it, then they should not be turning around and suing somebody and blaming somebody else for the consequences which may arise from any injury. So that makes sense to me. The bill requires people to take care of themselves by reducing their damages by a minimum of 25 per cent if they rely upon the care of another person who they know is intoxicated. Once again, this is a commonsense and reasonable reform. With regard to the assessment of damages, a court will be required to assess an injury and allocate a value on a scale between zero and 100. I hope that provides some significant and real guidance to our courts in assessing the amount of general damages they are to award. 1080 Civil Liability Bill 1 Apr 2003

With regard to structured settlements, which are set out in the Personal Injuries Act 2002, this bill ensures that all parties are advised of the ability of a court to make awards or orders for damages in matters worth more than $100,000 that allow a defendant to provide the damages other than by way of a lump sum payment. That tries to steer the awards process towards structured settlements. I would say that is a good thing. The government should consider, in certain circumstances at least, looking at the matter of mandatory structured settlements. The bill includes provision for the early notification of claims by children injured through medical negligence. The bill states that the parents or guardians of that child must give notice of the intended claim within six years of knowing that the injury has occurred. Once again, that is sensible. I have raised this issue in parliament previously. I have asked the Attorney-General to consider the matter. He did say that there are some problems with doing it but that he would look at it further as a consequence of the national review. That national review has now taken place. We know that sometimes it may take a while for injuries in children to become apparent, but it cannot be on the never-never. Surely six years is long enough for a parent or a guardian to become aware of whether an injury has occurred to their child and whether that injury may be as a consequence of some form of medical negligence. The situation as it exists at the moment is that a person may sue up to the time they are 21. So they attain the age of adulthood at 18 and then have three years in which to have this finalised. That is far too long. The insurers of our medical professionals need to know that they will not be exposed, in the case of a particular specialist practitioner or a general practitioner, for an extraordinary period of time. How can they possibly plan and ensure a sound actuarial situation if they know that somebody may sue 21 years hence? Six years is far more sensible. I do acknowledge the government for putting this particular amendment in place, ceding to the arguments of both the opposition and the AMAQ, which has been pushing this particular matter for a long time. The Law Society has raised a range of issues which are worthy of consideration. It has concerns about the operation of this bill when it becomes an act and starts to affect the way it does business. I will not read into Hansard all of the issues which have caused it concern. I table the document and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Queensland Law Society Law Society House, 179 Ann Street, Brisbane Qld 4000, Australia 20 March 2003 Honourable Rod Welford MP Attorney-General and Minister for Justice GPO Box 149 BRISBANE Q 4001 Dear Attorney CIVIL LIABILITY BILL 2003 I refer to the Civil Liability Bill 2003 which you introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 11 March 2003 and to our previous submissions in relation to earlier drafts of that legislation. The Queensland Law Society has ongoing concerns with certain principles in the Bill as introduced. In raising these matters, no attention has been given to issues of primarily drafting import, for example, the use of the expression, "injury ... of the gravest conceivable kind", as used in cl. 62, which issues have been canvassed previously. The concerns of the Society may be set out as follows: Clause 52 of the Bill requires collateral benefits to be offset against an award of damages on the "like-against-like principle". It is our view that such a provision unnecessarily and unfairly disadvantages the prudent person who, for example, takes out income protection insurance, and potentially may provide what is, in effect, a windfall for undeserving entities such as insurance companies which stand in the place of defendants. Because the Bill does not apply to WorkCover claims, it will not apply to claims against employers but it will apply to all other claims for injury by workers outside the workplace. The palpable injustice this provision creates may be further illustrated by the fact that injured plaintiffs with income protection insurance have no recourse under the Bill to recoup the considerable premiums in these circumstances which they have paid and for which, in effect, they do not receive the benefits that are rightfully theirs. Particular difficulties arise when considering the phraseology in cl. 52(1), in particular, the words, "or to be received". Do these words cover situations such as where a successful plaintiff, for whatever reason, at that time does not claim against his or her income protection policy, or where there is a dispute as to whether a claim 1 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1081 against that policy may or may not be successful? Would those words require the plaintiff to engage in further litigation to resolve the question? We note that the corresponding legislation in New South Wales does not contain such a provision. Clause 62 introduces the concept of the "injury scale". As you know, this is a provision which the Society has consistently opposed both on practical and conceptual grounds. The adoption of this mechanism will inexorably lead to "bracket creep" as plaintiffs attempt to lift their claims to a higher level, thereby reducing the certainty that the scheme is designed to bring about. The experience in all jurisdictions in which scales of this nature have been introduced demonstrates that their impact on statutory insurance schemes has been detrimental and that they have the potential to ultimately destroy them. The insurance industry admits that the introduction of scales will not result in any reduction in premium and this clearly demolishes any "public benefit" argument. The conversion of previous awards to nominal scale values could conceivably result in unjust, unintended and imprecise outcomes. In this context, it is noted that the 4-member panel which you proposed to set up to develop the transitional provisions in relation to the assessment of damages, as referred to in your letter to the Society of 24 January 2003, has not yet been convened. Given that the passage of the legislation is imminent, this means that there is a very limited time in which to complete what appears to be a complicated and arduous task. The Society wishes to express its strong opposition to the insertion of s.20C(3) in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, pursuant to cl. 92 of the Bill, which sub-section provides that a failure by a plaintiff lawyer acting on behalf of a parent or guardian of a child to comply with the requirement in the preceding sub-section to notify potential defendants constitutes unprofessional conduct or practice. It is contended that this represents an imposition which is more than what is necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance. A lawyer who fails to comply with s.20C(3), in any event, would be potentially liable in negligence. This would constitute a sufficient compliance mechanism. This potential liability places an unfair burden on solicitors. In many cases, they would need to obtain medical advice on questions of liability before they could proceed further with the matter, possibly placing themselves in jeopardy of being caught by s.20C(3). Further, the format of part 1 of a notice, as referred to in s.20C(2), is not yet available and this may well impact on aspects of lawyers' liability in this regard. There is a range of other issues in relation to liability of lawyers under this sub-section to which appropriate regard may not have been had, for example, there is the problem of identifying all tortfeasors in a particular case. It may well be that a lawyer may have to consider notifying persons such as theatre nursing staff for this purpose. This sub-section may result in a decrease in the number of lawyers willing to take instructions in these matters, thereby disadvantaging plaintiffs further. It is noted that the commencement of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the Bill, which introduces the concept of proportionate liability, is to be on a day to be fixed by proclamation. The delay in commencing this provision is strongly supported because it will allow time to further explore aspects of the proposed provisions in this area, for example, whether plaintiffs may be unfairly disadvantaged, whether proportionate liability requires mandatory professional indemnity insurance to be held by all professionals etc. Situations where there are "mixed" claims, that is, where one or more of the tortfeasors might be liable in negligence while others are liable because of the application of strict liability, might pose significant complications for the operation of these provisions. Given that commencement of the proportionate liability provisions is to be deferred, we submit that it would be appropriate for the commencement of those provisions in the Bill which are discussed above to be likewise deferred to enable further reflection on these matters. Kind regards (signed) Tom Sullivan President Cc: Mr Lawrence Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Queensland Nationals Mr SPRINGBORG: The Civil Liability Bill is an important third tranche of reform in this area. It is still to be seen how effective it will be with regard to addressing the public and professional liability crisis we have. That crisis has meant that many organisations, individuals and professionals and their bodies have not been able to secure the necessary insurance cover on a cost-effective enough basis to enable them to continue to operate. I believe it does go a significant way to ensuring that will be the case. It is up to the insurance industry in Queensland and Australia, and also their underwriters, to take notice of what is in this bill. No longer will it be suitable, satisfactory or excusable for the plaintiff lawyers to blame the insurance industry and for the insurance industry to continue to blame the plaintiff lawyers. If we in this parliament set the legislative framework for a much clearer process for our courts in considering and deliberating on payments for claims made for personal injuries, then that reduces the magnitude and number of payments and puts in place a greater degree of self-responsibility. That will set the scene for the insurance industry to come to the party in Australia and also reduce its premiums. The pressure has shifted significantly. It will be interesting to see how the insurance companies react. One other point which needs some consideration is the principle of nonfeasance. I have raised the matter of nonfeasance with the Attorney-General—particularly the way the principle was 1082 Adjournment 1 Apr 2003 overturned by the High Court and potentially impacts upon the liability of local governments and government departments that would not have been able to be sued in the past for injuries which occurred not as a consequence of deliberate negligence but as a consequence of traversing a footpath, crossing a road or gaining some other form of service from government. It has been held in the past that as long as there is not demonstrable, notified and deliberate negligence or an ignoring on the part of that public authority, which would have been malfeasance, then that particular authority was not responsible. The government has moved to address that High Court ruling to some extent, but it is saying that this nonfeasance provision, which has been reinstated, will expire in 2005. I say to the Attorney-General that that should go beyond 2005. He is saying that it will give public utilities an opportunity to undertake the necessary investigations and take action. He should be very aware about not continuing to recognise nonfeasance, because beyond 2005 he will open a can of worms which will potentially expose this state in the case of negligence which is not deliberate. Debate, on motion of Mr Lawlor, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.01 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Drought Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (7.01 p.m.): Over 1,700 Queensland farm families have already received $33 million in Commonwealth drought assistance and many will continue to receive this vital support for up to two years. Farmers across the Darling Downs, Peak Downs, south-west Queensland, Maranoa and the Sunshine Coast are now accessing Commonwealth drought income support and up to $100,000 per year in interest rate subsidies. Small businesses dependent on drought affected farmers are also eligible for interest subsidies on new and existing loans up to $100,000. Since the August 2001 Darling Downs exceptional circumstances declaration, the Commonwealth has provided over $28 million to local producers in the region. This figure includes payments to 1,040 farmers in the form of exceptional circumstances relief payments and interest subsidy payments to approximately 800 producers. In the same period the Queensland government has made payments to farmers totalling less than $1 million—I repeat, less than $1 million. Australiawide about 75 per cent of our agricultural land is now covered by the Commonwealth drought declaration, and the farmers in these areas are able to access either the 9 December interim drought relief package, prima facie exceptional circumstances aid or full exceptional circumstances assistance. As at 21 March 2003 more than 7,000 farm families were in receipt of Commonwealth drought assistance, with over $70 million already paid to farmers. The total Commonwealth commitment to drought assistance for Australian farmers is now over $2.2 billion. In contrast, at the end of 2002 the Queensland state Labor government has provided little more than $2 million to drought affected farmers over the last two years. The shadow minister for primary industries this morning asked the Minister for Primary Industries why he would not answer a question in relation to updating the amount of money that has been paid by the Queensland government for drought assistance measures here in Queensland. The minister refused to answer that question simply because he did not want to tell Queenslanders how little the government is in fact paying in the form of drought assistance. I think that is pretty miserable, quite frankly. Another very important issue is that many farmers these days rely on agistment to survive. Farmers may, for various reasons, have sold their stock and rely on agistment cattle or sheep, or whatever stock they have on their place. Once they have agistment stock, they are not eligible for drought assistance, and that is quite unfair. I have had numerous cases where people have come to me with those examples. There are other instances where they have just bought the property, they are just getting going and they take on agistment to help pay their way. Time expired. 1 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1083

Festival of Noe-Rooz Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (7.04 p.m.): On Saturday, 22 March I was delighted to represent the Premier, Peter Beattie, at the celebration of the Iranian new year, the Festival of Noe-Rooz, organised by the Iranian Society of Queensland. I was welcomed by Dr Reza Ghanavi and his lovely wife. Also among the 500 in attendance was Miss Karen Stanley, from the Department of Immigration, Mr Stephen Maguire, from the Multicultural Affairs Unit, Premier's Department, and Councillor Les Bryant and his wife representing the Lord Mayor. Noe-Rooz translates as 'new day' and it celebrates the beginnings of spring in the Northern Hemisphere. The festival is ancient, far older than Islam or Christianity, and probably dates back to ancient Babylon, where civilisation flourished 4,000 years ago. Indeed, we all owe a great debt to ancient Babylon for it was here that the first written legal code in history was compiled in about 1750 BC. Noe-Rooz is a time of beginnings and refurbishment, for spring cleaning, for purchasing new clothes, for giving gifts and for reconciling those who have had their differences during the year just past. This festival reminds us once again of the diversity and richness which we as a society have here in Queensland. The Queensland government is proud of the diversity and of the many strands that make up the multicultural society that has evolved here. We live in a society which respects the history, religions and culture of the lands our people come from, and the state government encourages the maintenance of links in organisations that sustain old traditions in a new environment. The Iranian Society of Queensland is one such group, formed in 1989 to help newcomers from Iran to settle into our new way of life while at the same time promoting their culture and language. Iranian migration to Queensland is relatively recent and follows the upheavals that took place in the country in the second half of the last century. The society has achieved a great deal in the relatively short time since its establishment. For example, there are Persian language schools both in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast. There is a Persian radio program and a bimonthly publication. The Queensland government actively encourages projects and festivals that promote multiculturalism because they promote understanding, reduce prejudice and foster community participation. Achieving those objectives is very important in a world that faces the challenge of international terrorism and racial and religious intolerance. The state government provides financial support for events such as the festival and also presents annual awards to people who have helped break down barriers and strengthen community ties. The new year festival concludes with an open air carnival at Kurilpa Point Park on the Brisbane River on Sunday, 6 April from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. I wish the Iranian Society of Queensland well in this excellent work. The government is delighted to work with organisations like this society to foster the further growth of the tolerant, law-abiding society in which we live.

Hyablah Dairy, Gladstone Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.07 p.m.): I rise to pay tribute to a dairy farming family in my electorate who probably face one of the saddest weeks of their lives. They intend to have a clearance sale on Saturday and close Hyablah dairy—a dairy which has been in the Boyne Valley since 1913 and which has been handed down through the family. Rodney and Jill Hopson, the current owners, came into my office last Friday with the news, and I could see how disturbed they were at the time. But it was a decision that Rodney made after a lot of soul searching among him, Jill and his family. Deregulation and the recent drought have forced Rodney and Jill to sell their herd and the dairy equipment. Rodney said that the sale would end the family tradition which he had hoped to pass on to his children. The couple said that they could not sustain the losses the farm had endured as the price of milk dropped after deregulation. Rodney says— Milk has gone down from 59 cents a litre to 39 cents. Our January milk check averaged 37 cents a litre—it probably costs us 42 cents a litre in inputs and overheads to produce the milk. It's very sad that we have to leave. I know Jill, his wife, is very upset. But Rodney is angry rather than sad. He said— I am angry that the politicians— and that includes me— and our dairy leaders have taken us along this path. Dairy farmers could do things to manage for occasions of drought and the other adversities faced by people on the land. 1084 Adjournment 1 Apr 2003

But he said that they cannot do anything if influences outside their reach, such as other people, including politicians, keep doing things to make all their efforts useless. Rodney said that deregulation should never have been introduced. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resources warned that deregulation would be a disaster but the governments—and that is not just Queensland but New South Wales and particularly Victoria—and the dairy industry leaders, particularly the QDO, chose to ignore it. The farmers are paying the consequences and hundreds of farmers in Queensland have walked off their properties. It is a sad time for Queenslanders. I understand that the Warwick Cheese Factory imports powdered milk from New Zealand to make Warwick cheese. This is just such a contradiction in terms—that is, we have a wonderful home-grown product and that enterprise is importing milk. I wish Jill and Rodney every happiness. They are a hardworking family. They call a spade a shovel—at least, Rodney does. They deserve better. They have worked to create a business for their family and for their family's future. I look forward to working with Rodney and Jillian in their new enterprise. They have a few ideas in their heads, but the sad thing is that they have been put out of this business not by choice but by demand.

Aussiewhipmaker.com Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (7.10 p.m.): I rise this evening to inform the House of a great Australian successful story. Who can forget the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games? I, like many Australians, watched spellbound at this magnificent celebration of Australia and our unique way of life. Who here remembers when the stockmen rode into the arena, whips cracking just like the Man from Snowy River? Ms Male: There's nothing more impressive than a display of whip cracking. Mr ENGLISH: I could not agree more. I am sure many other members of this House remember that event as well. I am here to inform all honourable members that the whips used in that ceremony were made on Macleay Island in the electorate of Redlands. Aussiewhipmaker.com is a business based on Macleay Island run by Gayle Nemeth. Gayle Nemeth and Aussiewhipmakers have a long and distinguished history in the whip making industry. Aussiewhipmakers have supplied whips since 1845. The whips manufactured by Gayle and her team have a worldwide reputation for their performance and quality. Last year Gayle approached me as she wanted some assistance to expand her business. Gayle presented me with an outline of her business and the growth potential. I then put Gayle in contact with Peter Wadley and Karen Wiik from the Southside State Development Centre. Peter and Karen quickly identified a number of key features of Gayle's proposal. They identified a significant competitive advantage that Gayle had based on the quality, design, production and reputation of the product; the high level of commitment and vision from the owner, Gayle; opportunities to improve the business's profitability and expand into new markets; further export potential, because it is currently exporting in small quantities but there is certainly large growth potential; and significantly for my local community, the opportunities for increased jobs growth in a local area that is currently experiencing high levels of unemployment on Macleay Island and the southern bay islands generally. As a result of these factors, Peter Wadley and Karen Wiik have provided significant assistance to Gayle and Aussiewhipmakers. Karen Wiik and Gayle have had a number of consultations to achieve further business success and the Department of State Development has also facilitated ongoing negotiations with the Redland Shire Council and other government agencies in relation to business development assistance and regulatory issues. At this time I want to make mention of the enthusiasm and support offered to Gayle and Aussiewhipmakers by Mayor Don Secombe and the Redland Shire Council. Gayle's staff includes Angela Mooney, the current Australian ladies whip cracking champion, and Julie Amos, the current Queensland ladies whip cracking champion. Angela is also the holder of a Bachelor of Applied Science from the University of Canberra and Julie Amos holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Queensland University of Technology Conservatorium of Music. With the skills offered by these two employees, with their whip cracking skills and their intellectual knowledge, they intend to grow the business and expand into the theatrical area as well.

Clifton Shire Council Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (7.13 p.m.): On 30 March, like many local councils around Queensland, the Clifton Shire Council celebrated its centenary. The Clifton shire was 1 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1085 created following the abolition of the Clifton Divisional Board by the Governor in Council in 1903. The shire of Clifton was originally constituted a divisional board by proclamation dated 11 November 1879 under the Divisional Boards Act of that year. The Clifton Shire Council celebrated its centenary on Saturday night with a shire ball which I was lucky enough to attend and which proved to be a fantastic night. There were three past mayors and shire chairmen present—Emmett Lyons, Ian Jones, Reg Murphy—and of course current Mayor Ann Collins, as well as local councillors and a number of past councillors. The Clifton shire has experienced some fairly difficult economic times of late. It was one of the first areas declared exceptional circumstances in Queensland and it was certainly a great chance for the community to come together and celebrate, particularly in light of recent rains which have gone some way to providing some hope for the summer and winter crops of this year. The first council meeting held in Clifton shire was held on 30 March 1903. If one looks through the list of names of those present, there are surnames like Gillam, Logan, Clare, O'Sullivan, Keleher, Black, McGovern and Clark. They are a list of names that are still well known in the area. If one looks through the list of past shire chairmen and mayors of the Clifton shire, there are very many names that are still well recognised around the area. Of course there a lot of new families that have come and taken their places as leaders within that community. The first woman councillor was elected in Clifton in May 1964. Mrs Phyllis Linnett served two terms on the Clifton Shire Council and did not seek re-election. The year 1964 was actually a very early time for a woman to be elected to a shire council. In 1997 Ann Collins was elected as the first mayor and in 2002 Councillor Anne Glasheen was elected as deputy mayor. So it has the distinction of having a full executive of women on that council. In the minutes of that first meeting was a Department of Agriculture tender for the destruction of noxious weeds for Pratten portion 18. That just goes to prove that even 100 years later many of the issues do remain the same. In 1896 Mr Denham, the then Minister for Lands, introduced into parliament a bill later known as the Closer Lands Settlement Act. After it became law, the government immediately proceeded to resume the Headington Hill estate, a major holding of 45,000 acres in the Clifton area. The land was then thrown open to ballot in January 1898 and attracted applicants from every state in Australia and New Zealand. The opening of this estate brought a great increase in the population to the district and great prosperity. I am certainly confident that the prosperity will continue to be enjoyed in Clifton. I also want to congratulate the Taroom Shire Council which also celebrated its centenary on the weekend. Time expired.

Boer War Commemoration Service Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (7.16 p.m.): On 4 February this year I was invited to join the Sherwood-Indooroopilly sub-branch of the RSL in its Boer War commemoration service. The memorial service is held by the Sherwood RSL each year to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the battle on the Onverwacht Hills in South Africa during the Anglo Boer War on 4 January 1902. During this battle 11 Queenslanders of the 5th Queensland Imperial Bushmen were killed. At the service Corinda State High School students read a Boer War commemorative message penned by students at its sister school, Ermelo High School, in South Africa. The story of Onverwacht Hills commences on New Year's Day 1902 when 110 officers and men of the 5th Queensland Imperial Bushmen move out from Ermelo in south-east Transvaal in an easterly direction to trap General Botha and his commando of some 750 burghers against the Swaziland border. The Queenslanders were part of Major Vallentin's column which led the advance. Some 11 men of the 5th Queensland Imperial Bushmen were killed in this action and were buried in the area of the battle. Two officers and 17 men were wounded; five officers, the RSM and 38 men were taken prisoner but subsequently released. Two men died of their wounds in the week following. Several of the Queenslanders were mentioned for gallantry. Sergeant R. E. Berry and Acting Corporal J. Macfarlane were among the 11 killed and their names are on the Boer War memorial in the Anglican Cemetery on Sherwood Road at Sherwood and also on the memorial in the war section of the cemetery at Ermelo, where the bodies from the battlefield site were relocated in 1962. The Sherwood memorial was erected by friends soon after learning of their deaths. Commemoration of the fallen of the Boer War has been revived by the local RSL in recent years, first by a centennial thanksgiving service on 10 June 2001 at Sherwood and now regularly on 4 February each year when the school year starts. On this day local students can be involved 1086 Adjournment 1 Apr 2003 in the commemoration just as students are in South Africa. Following visits to the Onverwacht Hills battle site by former members of the QMI, students from the Ermelo High School in South Africa, with support from local farmers, built a beautiful memorial on the site of the original graves on the hills. As a result of renewed interest in both places, Corinda High and Ermelo High have linked up as sister schools. It is great to see the interest shown by local residents and students in these commemoration ceremonies. The RSL continually seeks ways in which the younger generation can become involved in services so that they are able to appreciate that the price of liberty is the sacrifices made by Australian heroes.

Innovation Centre, Sunshine Coast Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (7.19 p.m.): In a submission to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee tabled this morning as a leak from the government by the Leader of the Opposition I was very concerned to see that the Innovation Centre on the Sunshine Coast was mentioned. The submission was about nominated service priorities and infrastructure proposals for a statewide technology incubator, or SWTI, and it goes to the funding needed, which is approximately $1.24 million in 2003-04, up to $2.2 million in 2006-07. Its submission states— ... it is envisaged that Government contributions to operating costs will fall to approximately 35 per cent by 2006- 07. ... The SWTI will build on the experience gained from two pilot technology incubation initiatives ... 'iLab' technology incubator the 'Innovation Centre Sunshine Coast'. ... The Innovation Centre Sunshine Coast is a younger facility, however, two of its clients, Tipefi Systems and Flametree Software, are gaining recognition and orders for their innovative software products. They say that the SWTI will integrate Queensland's existing technology incubation capacity by having a hub in Brisbane and nodes, with the hub developed first and then the nodes. They go on to look at options. One of the funding options was— Option 1 Discontinue support for existing (pilot) technology projects (i.e. 'iLab' and 'Innovation Centre Sunshine Coast') at the end of the current funding agreement. Being established as pilots, these projects were designed to 'test the market' for technology incubation facilities. A steady flow of requests for the establishment of technology incubation facilities in various regions throughout Queensland suggests, prima facia, that there is a strong belief in the community that demand for such facilities exists. To discontinue funding after the current commitment would be a waste of the valuable information gained from the pilots and forgo the opportunity to satisfy untapped demand. I could not agree more with that. They do say that that option is not favoured. However, I am asking the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to guarantee, given that funding is decreasing within this department, that the Sunshine Coast University, where the innovation centre is located, will continue to get its funding. It has already had state and federal funding. It is essential that this continues for IT on the Sunshine Coast and the business and jobs that flow from it. The university and many businesses will be saying to the minister: guarantee the funding and include it in the budget papers so that the Innovation Centre on the Sunshine Coast will not only continue but will thrive with extra funding. There were two further options. The third option, the establishment of the SWTI facility in Brisbane, was the favoured option. Time expired.

Mooloolaba TAFE; Coolum Quota Club Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (7.22 p.m.): In recent weeks I have had the honour of attending two special community events. The first was the opening of the Mooloolaba TAFE Built-in Art launch, attended by Minister Foley, Chris Cummins, Ken Hicks, Wayne Bradley, Linda Schlanger and a host of wonderful artists whose work features as part of the built in structure and landscape of this beautiful new building. The TAFE building at this site gives a whole new meaning to studying at TAFE—no longer the poor cousin of our universities. The artistic and spiritually uplifting environment can only enhance the experience of those who visit, work and study there. I congratulate the designers, artists and the minister on what they have done for our students on the Sunshine Coast. After the official opening we were treated to a morning tea prepared by the hospitality students, some six weeks into their course. The new 1 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1087 kitchens are undoubtedly state-of-the-art, and any cook or chef would love to prepare meals there. I turn now to the students, who were magnificent. Their presentation in corporate uniform was excellent; their service delivery was warm, friendly and genuine; and the great treats they prepared were delicious. I both thank and congratulate the TAFE hospitality students for an effort that was exemplary. On another occasion I had the pleasure of attending the Coolum Quota Installation of Office Bearers dinner at Club Coolum. I thank all of the wonderful Quota club members, who give so selflessly and so lovingly. I wish to mention a few of their names: the president, Aida Hulse; the first vice-president, Rae Blackney; the second vice-president, Lorraine Cush; secretary Bev Haines; Treasurer Sandra Mitchell; Directors Susan Carolan, Kaye Forbes and Ann Fox. The 100 per cent attendance awards for 2002-03 were given to Cindy Arbuthnot, Susan Carolan, Ann Fox, Annie McVie, Denise Rowell, Rae Blackney, Lorraine Cush, Aida Hulse, Pam Mowles and Bev Haines. It was also good to see Rotary represented, Coolum Youth and Community Centre, Rod Holt, and Mudjimba Surf Life Savers by Peter and Sylvia Gehlr. These groups received generous donations from the hard work put in by the Quota Club ladies, which will no doubt help in those groups' community work. My husband, Ivan, and I thank you for your warm and friendly company, and I look forward to many more such memorable evenings in your company.

Pioneer Valley Theatrical Players Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (7.25 p.m.): Recently, I had the pleasure of being guest speaker at the 30th anniversary of the Pioneer Valley Theatrical Players. I have also had the great honour of being the patron of that organisation for some time. The inaugural meeting of the organisation was conducted at Pinnacle on 13 March 1973, after the need for a performing arts group in the Pioneer Valley was identified. Over the next 30 years, the reputation of the valley players has continued to grow throughout the district and beyond as a purveyor of quality productions. Over the years many young people of primary school age and upwards have been trained by this organisation and have now become mature members of the players and other performing arts groups throughout the state. To their credit, they have built up a very extensive wardrobe, expensive lighting equipment and, of course, stage props and so on. Each year they stage an old-time music hall pantomime, plays and theatre restaurants. Previously these plays were presented at the Gargett CWA Hall. However, on 26 January 1993 stage 1 of the Pinnacle Playhouse and Cultural Centre was opened by the Rt Hon. Christopher Finch Hatton, Earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham. With the first stage being operational and debt free, they then decided to go ahead with the building of the second stage, which comprised the auditorium and seating for 200, a functional foyer with licensed bar. This was achieved with the help of the state government subsidy, public donations and finance from the valley players. Stage 2 was completed and commissioned on 10 February 1996. Once again, the Rt Hon. Christopher Finch Hatton performed the opening ceremony. The playhouse is very versatile, as all areas are user friendly, with an auditorium being easily converted from a standard theatre to a theatre in the round and other configurations. It is used for all forms of theatre—art shows, meetings, workshops—and with the enhancement of a wonderful grand piano it attracts world-class artists and touring companies. Recently, the valley players purchased the adjoining land of the old Pinnacle Red Cross building, formerly the Methodist Church, and it is to be renovated and leased to Valley Arts Incorporated. I understand the next project is to expand the kitchen and install shower facilities so that the centre can become an accredited evacuation centre. With the growth in the population of the Pioneer Valley, the increased interest in all forms of arts and crafts and the ongoing commitment of these dedicated volunteers, the future of the Pioneer Valley Theatrical Players and the cultural centre is assured. I rarely mention names in my speeches, but I think it is worth noting that without the dedication and sheer hard work of Dorothy and David Blines and Matt and Mary O'Neill, the theatrical players would not exist. Time expired. 1088 Adjournment 1 Apr 2003

Mackay Seniors Club Mocktail Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (7.28 p.m.): I would like to agree with the comments of the member for Mirani about the Pioneer Valley Players, and in particular the Blines and the O'Neill families. Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the Mackay Seniors Club Mocktail 2003. Also in attendance was the Mackay Mayor, Councillor Julie Boyd, the Sarina Shire Mayor, Councillor Kevin Morgan, and his wife, Anna, and my parliamentary colleague the member for Mirani, Ted Malone, and his wife, Mary. The first mocktail was held in 1992 and was initiated by a group of students and teachers who were keen to provide senior students with a party and entertainment evening. The mocktail has steadily gained popularity as a fun, safe, alcohol-free event for students in year 12. Students relish the opportunity to get dressed to the nines, dance, have dinner and interact with others of their own age in a safe and relaxed environment. By remaining exclusive to the senior students and providing entertainment such as skits, fashion parades, bands and DJs, the mocktail offers senior students a great social opportunity. The event is unique and offers students who are too young for nightclubs a more sophisticated experience than ordinary school dances. The occasion is eagerly anticipated as a highlight of the senior students calendar. Nearly 800 students attended from 11 high schools across the region from Bowen to Sarina. The success of the event relies heavily on the voluntary efforts of teachers and members of the Queensland Police Service. Through the support of the local PCYC, the organisers of the mocktail have always had a police presence. In fact, I caught up with Mackay branch manager, Sergeant Marcus Brown, on Friday night. Officers who attend do not wear their uniforms. So while providing an authoritative presence, they are also able to develop links with young people in the community in non-confrontationist surroundings. Each school that has students attending the mocktail is also asked to support the event by having a teacher from the school present. That means that no patron is completely anonymous. It also helps to bring school communities together as well as allowing students to interact with their peers. I am told by one of the organising teachers, Mr Russell French of St Patrick's Catholic College, who has been involved since the inception of the mocktail, that the cost of the ticket to the mocktail has remained at $10 since 1992. Mr French is ably assisted by foundation organising member Mr Alan Zompourutti and other members: Ms Donna Attard from the Mackay State High School; a parent who was on the original committee, Keiran Doyle; and also Marjorie Porter. Due to the increased patronage of the mocktail since that time, the annual function now makes a reasonable profit. All profits are donated to a youth charity. This year the proceeds will go to the Mackay Police Citizens Youth Club. The committee decided to accumulate funds over the past two years, so in fact somewhere between $8,000 and $10,000 will go to the PCYC. The committee hopes that the PCYC will put on an annual event similar to the mocktail. The mocktail is a fantastic event. I congratulate this year's organisers on their hard work. The success of the mocktail is not surprising when we realise that it was initiated by young people for young people. It is great to see a community embrace this wonderful event and I am sure that it will continue to get bigger and better in the years to come. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.