PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 7 February 2007

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 113 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner ...... 113 PETITIONS ...... 113 TABLED PAPERS ...... 113 MINISTERIAL PAPERS ...... 114 Forestry Act 1959 ...... 114 Tabled paper: Proposal for the revocation of the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act 1959 of certain state forest areas and an explanation of the proposal...... 114 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 114 Police Resources ...... 114 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 6 February 2007, by Premier titled ‘State Government to provide Extra Resources for Policing in Indigenous Communities’...... 115 Mooloolaba Spit Master Plan ...... 115 Tabled paper: Sketch plans relating to redevelopment plans for Mooloolaba Spit...... 115 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Mooloolaba Spit Futures Study Master Plan, by Natural Resources and Water, dated 7 February 2007’...... 115 Smart State Council ...... 116 Tabled paper: Report by Smart State Council dated November 2006 titled ‘Education and Skills for the Smart State’...... 116 Tabled paper: Report by Smart State Council dated November 2006 titled ‘Smarter Services Future Jobs and Growth for the Smart State’...... 116 Tabled paper: Report by Smart State Council dated November 2006 titled ‘Engaging with the Community in the Smart State’...... 116 Surf Life Saving Queensland ...... 116 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 4 January 2007, from Xuezheng Wang, Consul, Consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Brisbane regarding surf rescue of a member of a Chinese government delegation...... 116 Killen, Sir James ...... 117 Ethanol ...... 117 Queensland Achievements ...... 118 Tabled paper: Two copies of report titled ‘Beattie Government’s 2006 Achievements February 2007’...... 118

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Exports ...... 118 South Carolina ...... 119 Brisbane, Australia’s Music Hot Spot ...... 119 Queensland Economy ...... 119 Police Resources ...... 120 Role of Attorney-General ...... 121 Douglas Shire Council ...... 121 Tabled paper: Report to the Director-General, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation on Douglas Shire Council matters dated 19 January 2007...... 121 Tabled paper: Supplementary Report to the Director-General on Douglas Shire Council matters dated 19 January 2007...... 121 Tabled paper: Report on Investigation Commissioned by Minister for Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation regarding Johnstone Shire Council, dated 25 July 2006...... 122 Tabled paper: Report on the Review of the response from Johnstone Shire Council to the show cause notice issued by the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning, and Women dated 28 August 2006...... 122 Capital Works Building Projects ...... 122 North Queensland, Road Network; Maritime Safety Queensland ...... 123 Child Safety ...... 124 Doctor Fatigue ...... 124 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships ...... 124 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 125 Revocation of State Forest Area ...... 125 STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS ...... 125 Dissent from Speaker’s Rulings ...... 125 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 125 Resolved in the affirmative...... 125 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 125 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 126 Attorney-General, Motion of No Confidence ...... 126 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 126 Leaking of Sensitive Documents ...... 126 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 126 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 127 Leaking of Sensitive Documents ...... 127 Water Reform, Murray-Darling Basin ...... 127 Tabled paper: Letter dated 6 February 2007 from Premier to the Prime Minister regarding the proposed National Plan for Water Security...... 128 Police Resources ...... 128 Purified Recycled Water ...... 129 MOTION ...... 130 Extension of Time ...... 130 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 130 Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Withdrawal of Disorderly Member ...... 130 Government Documents ...... 132 Western Corridor Recycled Water Project ...... 132 Leaking of Sensitive Documents ...... 133 Santoro, Senator S ...... 133 Horse Riding, National Parks ...... 134 Tabled paper: Document dated 19 August 2006 titled ‘Living the Queensland Lifestyle and attached documents’...... 134 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 21 May 1999, by Hon Rod Welford MP titled ‘Government recognises value of forest recreation’...... 134 Ipswich Motorway ...... 134 Tabled paper: Report dated January 2007 titled ‘Ipswich Motorway Upgrade Dinmore to Gailes Updated Project Cost Estimate Report—Final’...... 134 Tabled paper: Email, dated 29 January 2007, from Dr Bruce Flegg MP to Minister regarding Ipswich Motorway...... 135 Patel, Dr J ...... 135 Lunar New Year, Fireworks ...... 136 Hood Family ...... 136 Tabled paper: Media release dated 25 September 1998 by Hon Anna Bligh MP titled ‘Statement prepared for Michael Ware, Courier Mail’...... 136 Tabled paper: Letter dated 21 August 1998 from Ken Smith, Director-General, Department of Family Services, to Mr B Herd, Carne & Herd Solicitors regarding Mr and Mrs Hood...... 136 Doomben and Eagle Farm Racecourses ...... 137 Water Levels ...... 137 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 7 February 2007

CRIMINAL CODE AND CIVIL LIABILITY AMENDMENT BILL ...... 138 First Reading ...... 138 Second Reading ...... 138 SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 139 Second Reading ...... 139 Tabled paper: Letter, undated, from Hon Spence, Minister for Police and Corrective Services to Mrs C Sullivan, Chair Scrutiny of Legislation Committee re matters raised in Alert Digest 10 of 2006...... 145 Consideration in Detail ...... 146 Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to...... 146 Clause 6—...... 146 Division: Question put—That the clause, as read, be agreed to...... 148 Resolved in the affirmative...... 148 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 148 Clauses 7 to 15, as read, agreed to...... 148 Clause 16—...... 148 Division: Question put—That the clause, as read, stand part of the bill...... 150 Resolved in the affirmative...... 150 Clause 16, as read, agreed to...... 150 Clauses 17 to 32, as read, agreed to...... 150 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 150 Third Reading ...... 150 Long Title ...... 150 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 150 Second Reading ...... 150 PROCEDURE ...... 155 Deputy Speaker’s Statement—Sub Judice ...... 155 MOTIONS ...... 155 Dissents from Speaker’s Rulings (Cognate Debate) ...... 155 Tabled paper: List of Speakers’ precedents on sub-judice...... 163 Tabled paper: List of speakers in the debate of the dissent motions...... 165 Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 1 be agreed to...... 165 Resolved in the negative...... 165 Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 2 be agreed to...... 165 Resolved in the negative...... 165 Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 3 be agreed to...... 165 Resolved in the negative...... 165 Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 4 be agreed to...... 165 Resolved in the negative...... 165 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 166 Second Reading ...... 166 MOTION ...... 178 Attorney-General, Motion of No Confidence ...... 178 Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Sub Judice Matters ...... 179 Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Tabling of Document ...... 179 Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Sub Judice ...... 182 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 188 Resolved in the negative...... 188 PARLIAMENT OF QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL ...... 188 First Reading ...... 188 Second Reading ...... 188 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 189 Douglas Shire Council ...... 189 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 189 WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 189 Second Reading ...... 189 Procedure—Deputy Speaker’s Ruling—Debate of Bill ...... 192 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 202 Resolved in the negative...... 202 ADJOURNMENT ...... 202 Education, Nicklin Electorate ...... 202 Aged Care ...... 203 National Livestock Identification System ...... 203 Helensvale Town Centre ...... 204 Police Resources ...... 205 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Tingalpa Cemetery Heritage Group ...... 205 Butterfly Kids ...... 206 Prep Year ...... 206 Brigalow State Forest, Gold Fossicking ...... 207 Accommodation for Homeless People ...... 207 ATTENDANCE ...... 208 07 Feb 2007 Legislative Assembly 113 WEDNESDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2007

Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that Mr Alan MacSporran SC has been reappointed as the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner for a further term of 12 months commencing on 13 December 2006.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Springfield Public Transport Corridor Ms Nolan from 1,029 petitioners requesting the House to reject the current proposals regarding the Ipswich to Springfield Public Transport Corridor and determine an alternate solution.

Brigalow State Forest Mr Knuth from 569 petitioners requesting the House to allow access to the Brigalow state forest for fossickers to pursue their hobby and continue to benefit the community of Clermont.

Maryborough Base Hospital, CT Scanner Mr Foley from 263 petitioners requesting the House to supply a CT Scanner to be based at the Maryborough Base Hospital.

Palm Beach, Public Housing Mrs Stuckey from 142 petitioners requesting the House to stop plans for the proposed public housing development for homeless on the former Retravision store site, Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach.

Elanora, On-Off Ramp Mrs Stuckey from 44 petitioners requesting the House to build an on/off ramp at 19th Avenue, Elanora.

Lip, Dr P Mrs Pratt from 693 petitioners requesting the House to allow Dr Patrick Lip continue practicing until such time as a final decision is reached concerning this matter and a replacement doctor be put on notice now to take his place in the event the Queensland Medical Board’s findings go against Dr Lip.

Port Douglas and District Combined Clubs Mr O’Brien from 2,283 petitioners requesting the House to intervene to protect the Port Douglas and District Combined Clubs and thus preserve its historical value for future generations. The following honourable member has lodged an e-petition which is now closed and presented—

Water Taxes Mr Lingard from 443 petitioners requesting the House to pass laws banning Councils from imposing ‘vacant’ or other water taxes on residents who choose to make the investment to capture and recycle their own water; pass laws requiring Councils to be part of the solution and reward residents who contribute to solving the problem.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie)— • Report and supplementary material from Heather Beattie in relation to a Trade Mission (overseas travel) to the Middle East and Europe undertaken from 6 to 19 November 2006. 114 Ministerial Statements 07 Feb 2007

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

Forestry Act 1959 Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (9.34 am): I lay upon the table of the House a proposal to revoke the setting apart and declaration of certain land as State Forest under section 26 of the Forestry Act 1959 and a brief explanation of the proposal.

Description of area to be revoked Beerwah State Area described as Lot 300 on SP195863 and containing Forest (SF561) 35.039 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked “B”

Tabled paper: Proposal for the revocation of the setting apart and declaration as State Forest under the Forestry Act 1959 of certain state forest areas and an explanation of the proposal.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Police Resources Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 am): Late yesterday afternoon I met with the minister for police, Judy Spence, the Police Commissioner, Bob Atkinson, and representatives of the Queensland Police Union and the Queensland Police Commissioned Officers’ Union. Can I say at the outset that it was a very productive meeting. Representatives of both unions were very positive in advancing the interests of their members and working with us on ways to improve the resources of police in Indigenous communities. As a result, we agreed on some specific initiatives that we hope will help address a number of immediate concerns. Firstly, we have given a commitment to fund the installation of closed-circuit digital recording equipment in all custodial areas in police stations in Aboriginal deed of grant in trust communities within 12 months. Work will commence immediately in facilities at Woorabinda, Palm Island and Aurukun. This will complement the CCTV already available in watch-houses in DOGIT communities. In relation to the installation of surveillance facilities in all watch-houses, the police commissioner has undertaken to conduct an audit with union representation of all existing surveillance facilities in watch-houses. The audit will compare the functionality of current electronic surveillance systems and the extent to which they could be improved. In addition, the audit will identify overall priorities for upgrading facilities across Queensland watch-houses. Secondly, the police commissioner has agreed to increase staffing levels at three police stations in Indigenous communities. The number of officers will be increased to nine from the existing levels of six at Bamaga, eight at Kowanyama and eight at Aurukun. In addition, the status of the officer-in-charge at each station will be upgraded from sergeant to senior sergeant. Appropriate funds will also be provided for staff accommodation and resources to support the staff increases. In relation to the broader question of staffing levels in Aboriginal communities, the commissioner offered to set up a working party in conjunction with the unions to look at staffing numbers in Aboriginal communities and discuss union priorities for the deployment of any additional resources. In fact, the police minister, Judy Spence, the commissioner and hopefully the union will next week be visiting north Queensland accompanied by the minister for housing to look at Indigenous issues and I believe that that will improve the cooperation in relation to staffing matters. No doubt we will hear more from the police minister on another occasion in relation to that. As members would be aware, the Attorney-General has already asked the Crime and Misconduct Commission to conduct a review into policing issues. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Please don’t be rude. As members would be aware, I have already asked the Crime and Misconduct Commission to conduct a review into policing issues in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The CMC will report back to the Attorney-General by the end of August. I expect the initiatives agreed yesterday will be of invaluable assistance in the CMC process and I will be writing to Mr Robert Needham to convey the details of these commitments. Our government has provided more funding to the Queensland Police Service than any other government in the history of this state. Since we were elected in 1998 we have increased police numbers from 6,800 to more than 9,300. It means that Queensland now has a better police to population ratio than the Australian average. In fact, for the first time in Queensland’s history we have a higher police ratio per population than the national average. The National Party talks tough about police numbers but it has never delivered. 07 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 115

Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Burnett to desist from making repetitive interjections. Mr BEATTIE: I say again, Queensland now has a better police to population ratio than the Australian average. Nationally there is one officer to every 440 people. In Queensland there is one officer for every 438 people. In Queensland’s Indigenous community the ratio is even lower. For example, it is one to 131 in Palm Island and one to 124 in Doomadgee. Mr Messenger: Tell us the real figures! Mr BEATTIE: Please don’t be rude. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, the Premier is on his feet. If you wish to continually interject I will remedy that under the standing orders. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, thank you. I would have thought the safety of our police officers in these communities would have been a matter supported by all sides of parliament. Unfortunately, the National Party member for Burnett clearly does not support that. I can see the member for Bundaberg is embarrassed, and I understand his embarrassment. As I was saying, Kowanyama is one to 112. Mr DEMPSEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. There is no way I would ever be embarrassed by the comments of my colleague. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Take your seat. Mr DEMPSEY: Considering— Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I have said to you that there is no point of order. After that, would you mind taking your seat. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, let me tell you: you will see that remark again. We are proud of our record and we will continue to work closely with the Queensland Police Service to ensure that they can continue the terrific job they do in helping serve and protect our communities. I table a joint release from the police minister and I arising out of yesterday’s meeting. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 6 February 2007, by Premier titled ‘State Government to provide Extra Resources for Policing in Indigenous Communities’. It is unfortunate that we have had these silly interjections this morning because yesterday’s meeting was a very important one. It will provide to our police officers in these communities the security and the support that they need. I am pleased with yesterday’s meeting. It was constructive, it was positive and it is a way forward. In many senses, it was a circuit-breaker from some of the issues that have occurred. I say to the Police Service: we will continue to work to ensure that your members are safe when protecting Queenslanders. I thank them for yesterday’s meeting. Mooloolaba Spit Master Plan Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 am): I am happy to report to the House this morning information in relation to the Mooloolaba Spit Master Plan. As with many areas within south-east Queensland, Mooloolaba has experienced significant growth and development in recent years. The Mooloolaba Spit surf beach, regarded as one of the safest in south- east Queensland, attracts more than 700,000 visitors annually. Its foreshore also accommodates parklands, cafes, entertainment facilities, residential buildings, a boat harbour and a range of government facilities. Without a more effective management approach to the Spit, the pressures on this area are not sustainable. As a result, the government worked with the Maroochy Shire Council to undertake the Mooloolaba Spit Futures Study, and I thank Mayor Joe Natoli for his council’s assistance in completing this master planning study. The study has developed a future vision for this iconic precinct, within a draft master plan to guide development of the area over the next 20 years. There have been extensive opportunities for all stakeholders to get involved in the study through a series of community consultations involving residents, lessees, interest groups, state government agencies, council and local businesses. I commend local residents, businesses and interest groups for their keen interest in the master planning process to date. Their input and ideas have proved essential for providing for the most appropriate mix of uses on the Spit. Today I would like to announce the release of the draft master plan for community display and feedback. I table a copy of the plan for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Sketch plans relating to redevelopment plans for Mooloolaba Spit. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Mooloolaba Spit Futures Study Master Plan, by Natural Resources and Water, dated 7 February 2007’. I wish to highlight to everybody here, because I know this will be of interest to all members, that the existing caravan park will be retained and will continue to provide an affordable accommodation option for budget travellers—as I promised with the member for Rockhampton and the member for 116 Ministerial Statements 07 Feb 2007

Keppel during the election campaign. However, to facilitate beach access, a small component of the existing park will be excised. My government has been discussing options to redress this loss with the Maroochy Shire Council. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard. Leave granted. The draft Master Plan protects the environment and lifestyle of the local community and the viability of local businesses. It meets the community’s desire for more foreshore and river boardwalks, parklands, car parking and ease of access to the beach. The Plan also allows for revitalisation of the wharf precinct with a residential, commercial and tourism focus to preserve Mooloolaba’s role as a pre-eminent tourist destination. The draft Master Plan also demonstrates my Government’s continued commitment to preserving coastal caravan parks. Mr Speaker, I encourage the community to continue to put their views forward as part of this consultation process to ensure we maintain Mooloolaba Spit as one of Queensland’s great tourist attractions. Smart State Council Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): I want to report today on the Smart State Council. The Smart State Council is an important partnership with the Queensland government, and I gratefully acknowledge the time and effort these respected members of the business and research communities give. The council’s working groups have prepared three new reports to stimulate discussion on education and export policies and how we can take more Queenslanders on the important Smart State journey. The message reinforced by council members is clear: maintaining a quality education system is the most important factor underpinning the Smart State of the future. The new Education and Skills for the Smart State report raises issues like the need to continually innovate, map new and emerging skills, and recognise excellence in the profession. It also identifies the qualities and skills of students and the complex issue of motivating them in a highly mobile, technologically advanced and information-rich age. The second report is Smarter Services: Future Jobs and Growth for the Smart State. It looks at the increasingly important knowledge-intensive services sector. Exports in this area have grown 60 per cent from $919 million in 1998-99 to $1,479 million in 2004-05. So the Smart State Strategy is working. But knowledge-intensive industries are not just about exports; they are about innovation. These reports highlight the need to build global recognition of our talent, and expanding the export awards may be one way forward. The third report, Engaging with the Community in the Smart State, looks squarely at the role of the community in delivering on our long-term Smart State vision. To follow up on these three new reports, a review committee has been appointed, including independent advisor Dr Doug McTaggart, and it will report back to cabinet. I table those three reports. I highlight to the House that copies will be provided to all members. I urge all members to read them and make a contribution because this is about the future of the Queensland economy and the future of Queensland. Tabled paper: Report by Smart State Council dated November 2006 titled ‘Education and Skills for the Smart State’. Tabled paper: Report by Smart State Council dated November 2006 titled ‘Smarter Services Future Jobs and Growth for the Smart State’. Tabled paper: Report by Smart State Council dated November 2006 titled ‘Engaging with the Community in the Smart State’. Surf Life Saving Queensland Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): Today I want to pay a special tribute to Surf Life Saving Queensland. Queensland’s volunteer surf-lifesavers give their time and energy to keep our world-class surf beaches safe. The statistics tell a fantastic story. In the three and a half months to the end of December 2006, Queensland surf-lifesavers brought four people back to life from near drowning, performed 1,098 rescues and took more than 108,000 preventative actions. They provided 4,200 first aid treatments and a further 6,213 treatments for marine stings. It is a marvellous record that builds on a century of service, so it is fitting that in honour of the centenary celebrations for lifesaving in Australia, 2007 has been declared the Year of the Surf Lifesaver. One of those rescued this summer was Mr Hou Quanzhang, a visiting Chinese national. His experience is outlined in a letter from the Chinese Consulate in Brisbane, which I table for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 4 January 2007, from Xuezheng Wang, Consul, Consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Brisbane regarding surf rescue of a member of a Chinese government delegation. On 11 December, Mr Hou was rescued by lifesavers from the Kurrawa Surf Club. Mr Hou had stopped breathing. He was resuscitated by lifesavers and rushed to the Gold Coast Hospital where he spent six days in intensive care before recovering and returning to China on 27 December. The Chinese consul described it as a miracle—the type of miracle that is performed on a routine basis by our volunteer lifesavers. 07 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 117

My government has provided more than $31 million in financial assistance to Surf Life Saving Queensland over the past eight years. We have also provided $50,000 to both the 2005 and 2006 annual Channel 9 Surf Safe appeals. Today I am pleased to announce that the Queensland government will provide a further $55,000 towards the Year of the Surf Lifesaver and will hold a state reception in March to promote the Year of the Surf Lifesaver and the valuable service they provide to the community. I have also written to all ministers asking them to consider ways in which their portfolio may promote the year and acknowledge the important role of the movement. Today I thank and publicly recognise the outstanding service provided by Surf Life Saving Queensland and all of its members and volunteers. Killen, Sir James Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): I want to pay tribute to the late Sir James Killen, and I think all members would want me to do so. In January we lost a great Queenslander—Sir James Killen—a man who crossed the political divide. Sir James was a remarkable man. A Dalby boy and a former jackeroo, he joined the RAAF upon turning 18 in 1943 and attained the rank of Flight Sergeant Air Gunner. He went on to a successful career as a barrister and a federal politician. As the federal member for Moreton, he represented Queenslanders from 1955 to 1983. He was a distinguished minister for the Navy and for Defence but he was loved for his wit and for his engagement with his political foes—chief among them the legendary Fred Daly. Jim was knighted in 1982, and in 2004 he was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia, in part for his advocacy for the rights of the underprivileged. The speakers at his State Funeral—held here at St John’s Anglican Cathedral on 19 January, which the Deputy Premier, as Acting Premier, and I attended—are a testament to his ability to transcend the political divide. Among those who eulogised him were Prime Minister John Howard and his great friend, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Jim Killen was a great Queenslander and we are all the poorer for his loss. I regarded Jim as a friend of mine, and I know that many members in this House, particularly those in the Liberal Party, would have regarded him in exactly the same way. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr BEATTIE: As the Leader of the House indicated, we did appoint him to a number of positions. He was non-political. He was a very decent man who gave us great advice in relation to the Constitution here as well. On behalf of the Queensland government and all members of the Queensland parliament, I want to reiterate my condolences to Lady Killen and the Killen family. Ethanol Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.48 am): There are a number of things I would like to report to the House on, but I would like to first seek leave to incorporate the full details in Hansard and then talk to them quickly. Leave granted. Mr BEATTIE: I want to report in relation to ethanol. Our government’s continued strong support for the use of ethanol has just received a huge vote of confidence from the US in comments made by the president. Since May 2005 the number of service stations selling E10 has grown from 47 to over 180 today, and 300 are expected by the end of the year. At a recent community cabinet meeting in Toowoomba I had the pleasure of announcing that eight out of nine local stations would be replacing regular unleaded altogether with the E10 blend. This makes Toowoomba the second of BP’s E10 cities in Queensland, following on from the BP-Reliance partnership in Mackay which changed over in August. We as a nation have to do more about using ethanol. It is renewable. It is good for the environment and it means we will not be held to ransom by the Middle East oils. It is about time the federal government followed our lead. Our Government’s continued strong support for the use of ethanol has just received a huge vote of confidence in the United States of America. President Bush used his recent State of the Union address to call for the mandatory use of ethanol to be increased from 7.5 billion gallons per year by 2012, to 35 billion gallons per year by 2017, nearly a five fold increase. My Government has always understood the importance of ethanol in our fuel mix, not only for the benefits flowing from a renewable energy resource but also for the benefits to our sugar and grain producers. That is why we have put in place a $7.3 million Queensland Ethanol Industry Action Plan. Since May 2005 the number of service stations selling E10 has grown from 47 to over 180 today and 300 are expected by the end of the year. At a recent Community Cabinet meeting in Toowoomba I had the pleasure of announcing 8 of 9 local stations would be replacing regular unleaded altogether with the e10 blend. This makes Toowoomba the second of BP’s e10 cities in Queensland, following on from the BP/Reliance partnership in Mackay which changed over in August. At the meeting we also got a sneak preview of two new Saab’s for its first Australian trial of BioPower—running on 85% ethanol— and I announced that Queensland is partnering Shell in the initial phase of their new unleaded e10 fuel roll out. Mr Speaker, we welcome the international expansion and development of the ethanol industry. 118 Ministerial Statements 07 Feb 2007

Queensland recently joined the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition in the United States of America seeking ways to cooperate with like minded states in the US, on expanding the use of ethanol. We are also seeking to become more involved in discussions relating to the development of international markets in ethanol. This international expansion will increase demand for ethanol in the world and create opportunities for potential exports from Queensland. That means jobs, jobs, jobs. Mr Speaker, Queensland is already the leading Australian State in its pursuit of alternative and renewable fuels and we intend to maintain that position while continuing to grow our supply and use of this fantastic resource. Queensland Achievements Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.50 am): On achievements, the Queensland government continues to build tomorrow’s Queensland today. Our strong economic record was reinforced throughout 2006, with the state’s net worth reaching over $100 billion, the highest per capita net worth in the country. In every month in 2006-07, our unemployment rate has been below the rest of the country and has continuously fallen to the 4.1 per cent recorded in December. This is the lowest rate on record and around half the rate we inherited from the coalition in 1998. For the information of members I table my government’s 2006 achievements. All members will receive a copy. Tabled paper: Two copies of report titled ‘Beattie Government’s 2006 Achievements February 2007’. We have maintained state taxes at 15% lower than the national average, improved the efficiency of government services, and invested heavily in the infrastructure needed to accommodate Queensland’s impressive economic and population growth. In every month in 2006-07, our unemployment rate has been below the rest of the country, and has continuously fallen to the 4.1% recorded in December. This is the lowest rate on record and around half the rate we inherited from the Coalition in 1998. My Government is working to secure future water supplies for the State. We have begun planning for a state-wide water grid to expand and improve connection between water facilities across the state. Many of the projects that will eventually become the water grid are already well underway. We have introduced state-wide water-saving incentives through the Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme, and are focused on securing water supplies for the South-East, where the drought is at its worst. We have advanced our Smart State vision. Our children will have the best ever chance of reaching their full potential with the introduction of the full-time, non-compulsory Preparatory Year. And the Government will spend $1B billion over the next 5 years (2006-2010) to modernise and build new school facilities across the state in the most comprehensive school renewal program ever undertaken in Queensland. We have invested in world-class research facilities to attract top-quality scientists to Queensland and stimulate cutting-edge research projects. The Government continues to renew Queensland’s health system through the $9.7B Health Action Plan. Vigorous international and interstate recruitment campaign have ensured we have more clinical staff working in our public hospitals today than ever before. And significantly, we have delivered Queensland’s most exciting arts infrastructure development in 20 years—the $322.5M Millennium Arts Project, featuring the largest modern art gallery in Australia and a world-class State Library. This addition to South Bank will allow future generations of Queenslanders to embrace and celebrate a dynamic cultural precinct right here in our State. This is a Government of action. 2007 will be a year of delivery as we roll-out the largest infrastructure program Queensland has ever seen. Exports Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 am): On other matters, I wish to report that in 2005-06 the state government helped Queensland companies achieve exports in excess of $100 million in the Middle East. This included $94.2 million in construction and infrastructure, $5.8 million in the marine sector and $4.7 million in education and vocational training. I want to thank former National Party Premier Mike Ahern, whom I appointed as a trade representative. He has done an absolutely magnificent job in developing trade opportunities. I want to publicly thank him for the contribution he has made. On his advice and that of others while in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates late last year, I announced the establishment of a local trade and investment representative to maximise our efforts on the ground. I am pleased today to inform the House of my government’s appointment of Glen Nunn as trade and investment commissioner in Abu Dhabi. Mr Nunn has an extensive track record assisting Queensland exporters. For more than 12 of the past 16 years, he has worked for Queensland’s Trade and International Operations in Japan and Brisbane. He was also with the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra, and the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. Mr Nunn has hit the ground running, and we are already seeing results. Here is just one example. With help from State Government, Brisbane Taxi company Black and White Cabs has landed a preliminary contract with the Abu Dhabi Government to improve regulation of the local taxi industry. Mr Nunn’s appointment reaffirms my Government’s unwavering commitment to provide the necessary expertise to help more Queensland businesses derive the maximum benefits from exports. Such successes not only take Queensland exports to the world’s door, but they continue to build on our very sound economic foundations. 07 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 119

South Carolina Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 am): On other trade matters, I want to advise the House that since signing a sister state agreement with South Carolina in 1999, our two states have continued to strengthen our educational, economic, research and cultural ties. This week I am delighted to welcome to Queensland a delegation from the University of South Carolina. Led by the Vice President for Research and Health Sciences Dr Harris Pastides, the delegation includes the Director of Research and Economic Development and Dean of the Engineering and Information Technology College. President of The Export Consortium of South Carolina, Fred Monk, is also accompanying the delegation ahead of a proposed trade mission here later this year. Of special interest is our growing international reputation and expertise in medical research and hydrogen fuel technology. And we have much to offer, Mr Speaker, with our Smart State leaders now in so many disciplines, including the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, and the Queensland Institute for Medical Research. The University of South Carolina’s commitment in visiting Queensland is significant, and there will continue to be rewards. Among developments already to flow-on from the Sister City agreement are funding from South Carolina’s Riverbanks Zoo and Garden for koala disease research, the ongoing success of Queensland’s Ballandean Estate Wines in South Carolina, university exchanges, and sister-school relationships. This week’s visit and the proposed trade mission later this year will no doubt bring on more innovative outcomes that fulfil our shared Smart State goals. Brisbane, Australia’s Music Hot Spot Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.52 am): Finally, I want to report on Brisbane’s nomination by Billboard magazine as one of five global hot spots for music in 2007. It is an international acknowledgement of something we have always known: Brisbane cultivates exceptional talent. From The Veronicas to Powderfinger, Katie Noonan to Pete Murray, Butterfingers and nine of the Ten Tenors, Brisbane has the goods when it comes to producing international music acts. Along with dedicated and enthusiastic local artists, venues, managers and support organisations, the Queensland government has been proud to play a significant role in Brisbane’s international music success. It is part of taking Queensland to the world and I wish them well. Support from State Development’s Creative Industries Unit and assistance programs through Arts Qld have directly supported our musicians to take the next step in their career—whether it be recording a debut album, touring or showcasing internationally. Brisbane’s music industry conference, Big Sound is now in its fifth year and is providing an increasingly influential opportunity for industry exchange and for showcasing our talent. The telling point for the music industry in Brisbane is sustainable industry development. Our growth in population, infrastructure and support make this a possibility. We are able to challenge the traditional Australian industry centres of Sydney and Melbourne because our artists and industry are now choosing to stay in Brisbane while they conquer the world. The world spotlight is now on Brisbane and our musicians will not disappoint. Queensland Economy Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.52 am): The Queensland economy remains in excellent shape according to the latest Queensland state accounts and the recently released midyear economic and fiscal review. Queensland continues to outperform the rest of the nation. We are recording stronger economic growth, stronger investment and lower unemployment while the state’s balance sheet and fiscal position remain the envy of all other states and the Commonwealth. The latest September quarter and 2006 state accounts revise Queensland’s economic growth upward to 4.4 per cent for 2005-06 compared with a much more modest rate of only 2.5 per cent for the rest of the country. This result was no flash in the pan. The year 2005-06 marked the 10th consecutive financial year that our economic growth has outstripped the rest of the nation. The same accounts show that in trend annual terms economic growth in Queensland strengthened to 5.2 per cent in the September quarter 2006, more than three times the 1.4 per cent economic growth being experienced in the rest of Australia. Faster growth in the business sector, housing investment and consumer spending have all contributed to Queensland’s stronger economic growth. Business investment in Queensland surged by 20.5 per cent over the year to September 2006. That compares with business investment growth of 0.4 per cent in the rest of the country. That means that Queensland’s rate of business investment is 50 times that of the rest of Australia. Significant capital investment by both the private and public sectors continues to place Queensland as the engine room of jobs growth in Australia. Over the year to December 2006 trend employment increased by a total of 97,100 people with 92,100 of those being full-time jobs. Despite containing less than 20 per cent of the nation’s population, Queensland accounted for more than one- third of national employment growth in 2006 and over 43 per cent of full-time jobs growth. Queensland’s trend unemployment rate reached a generational low of 4.1 per cent in December 2006, substantially 120 Ministerial Statements 07 Feb 2007 lower than the 4.7 per cent recorded in the rest of Australia. This means that since the Beattie government was first elected to power in June 1998 with a commitment to reduce unemployment to five per cent we have more than halved the rate of unemployment in Queensland from 8.4 per cent to 4.1 per cent. Mr Johnson: Thanks to the federal government. Ms BLIGH: I note the objections— Mr Johnson: You’re looking very cream today like the south-east Queensland water supply. Ms BLIGH: It is little wonder that we hear interjections from the other side when we talk about unemployment, because the legacy that they left to Queenslanders when they last had the chance in government in 1998 was an unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: They are calling out the words ‘Paul Keating’. Paul Keating had been out of government for 2½ years by 1998. The members opposite were running the show. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Burnett under the provisions of standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: In 1998 there was a coalition government in Queensland running the economy, and what was the legacy to Queenslanders? Not only an unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent, but 147,400 Queenslanders out of work. Shame! Looking ahead, I am happy to advise the House that the outlook for the Queensland economy remains very buoyant. The recently released midyear fiscal and economic review shows that overall economic activity in Queensland is anticipated to increase 4¾ per cent in 2006-07 compared with the budgeted 4¼ per cent. The midyear review again won Standard and Poor’s AAA rating support. It noted that on Queensland’s fiscal position, ‘It is hard to imagine a scenario where things could be much better.’ The midyear review also indicates that Queensland will maintain a healthy budget position with general government operating surpluses and growing net worth expected in 2006-07 and the forward outyears. I am also pleased to advise the House that Queensland’s capital works budget, which is already at record levels, has been revised upwards in the midyear review with a further $9 billion incorporated over the 2006-07 to 2009-10 years. This is a lot of money. It is additional spending that will incorporate the government’s election commitments, particularly in respect of water infrastructure and a range of new and upgraded hospital infrastructure under the more beds for Queensland strategy. It is a big investment and it is reasonable to ask: how can we commit these funds? We can commit these funds because for the last 8½ years we have managed this economy. It did not happen by itself. We have relentlessly focused on job creation programs. We have had an aggressive industry attraction strategy bringing business here. We have had a competitive tax regime that makes it a good place to do business. We are unashamedly pro Queensland and pro business in our approach. Last night members may have seen the Prime Minister on television boasting about the performance of the Australian economy. What does he have to boast about? I will tell honourable members what he was boasting about. He was boasting about a national rate of growth that was less than a third of Queensland’s rate of economic growth. He and his friend Mr Costello, the good friend of the member for Gregory, were boasting about a national business investment rate one-fiftieth the rate of that being experienced in Queensland and a national unemployment figure 0.6 per cent higher than here in Queensland. He forgot to add that whatever he does have to boast about he only has because of what is happening here in Queensland under the management of our government. What is more, it is time he started to reward Queensland for our efforts in sustaining and holding up the country’s economic performance. He could begin by paying a fair share for water infrastructure and he could begin by paying a fair share for Queensland roads. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next minister I point out that there is too much audible noise in the House. I ask members to tone it down. Police Resources Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (9.59 am): The Premier has outlined to the parliament this morning the extra resources that this government will provide to help policing in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland. I am pleased with the progress made in yesterday’s talks with both police unions and police. This government is committed to providing a safe environment for Queensland’s police officers, no matter where they are based. The unacceptably high levels of violence in Aboriginal communities makes the job of policing these communities harder than policing in the rest of Queensland. It is a sad indictment of these Aboriginal communities that, despite the police to population ratios being higher than almost any other community in Australia, the levels of violence are such that the Police Union still wants to reduce these ratios further with more police to deal with rampant violence. 07 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 121

As the Premier said this morning, the statewide police to population ratio is one to 438 but it as high as one to 112 in Kowanyama, one to 124 in Doomadgee and one to 130 in Aurukun. The commissioner has decided to put extra police in Kowanyama, Bamaga and Aurukun. The Police Union yesterday called for more police in two-officer stations such as Hope Vale, Pormpuraaw, Lockhart River and Wujal Wujal to deal with communities, some of which only have a few hundred people. We will look at this further because, as the baseline indicator report demonstrated yesterday, the levels of violence within these communities is far too great. I will continue to discuss this with the police commissioner but, at the end of the day, it is the commissioner who allocates staff. On Monday I will be joining a meeting with the DOGIT community mayors that the Premier has convened. I will be travelling to the cape and visiting Lockhart River, Bamaga, Aurukun, Kowanyama, Pormpuraaw and Thursday Island next week. The Premier and I have invited both police unions to attend. The level of violence in these areas is far too great. While police are not scared to work in these communities, police contend that they can be in fear of their lives when riots break out and that is why they are asking for more officers. We have decided to establish a working party to review staffing numbers in Aboriginal communities. Both police unions are being invited to be part of this working party. I see this as a critical move forward in determining what additional police resources may be required in these communities. These decisions taken yesterday are about improving conditions in police stations and areas of custody for both police officers, and the people they take into custody. It is about achieving greater safety for police officers who may find themselves in situations in the future where their actions are questioned. Role of Attorney-General Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.02 am): I would like to make some general remarks about the independent role and powers of the Attorney-General. The role of the Attorney- General— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Can I just say again: can we hear the speakers without too much audible interjection or noise. Mr SHINE: The role of the Attorney-General dates back to medieval England when the Attorney had the power to appear in the court on behalf of the monarch. The powers of the Attorney are well established in common law. In Queensland these powers are enshrined in the Attorney-General Act 1999. The report of the Fitzgerald inquiry almost two decades ago stated— As chief law officer, the Attorney-General has extensive powers and discretion with respect to the initiation, prosecution and discontinuance of criminal proceedings. The all-party parliamentary EARC committee reported in 1993— The Attorney-General is able to pursue any matter through the courts by the exercise of the Attorney’s own independent powers. The decision to exercise these powers is a legal decision made independently by the Attorney often after receipt of legal advice the Attorney may obtain. The Attorney’s discretion to exercise these independent powers is not at odds with the doctrine of the separation of powers. Indeed, it is an exercise of the separation of powers for a matter to be commenced in the courts and then left for the judgement of the court free of any interference. As I said to the parliament yesterday, the government supports the doctrine of the separation of powers—it has always done so, it is doing so and it will continue to do so. The Attorney’s power to bring an indictment is a power at law and does not infringe on the independence of the DPP. The parliamentary EARC committee’s report also included comments by the then DPP. The then DPP said— Since the Attorney-General could not direct a Director of Prosecutions in a particular case, if ever divergent views were held between the two of them, the Attorney-General must be permitted to exercise his statutory powers. How then could this power be exercised without the independence of the Director being compromised? The answer was in the Attorney-General taking his or her own independent course of action by engaging his or her own counsel to pursue the contrary course proposed by the Director. Douglas Shire Council Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (10.05 am): In October last year I advised the House that under section 167 of the Local Government Act an independent advisor would be appointed to monitor the Douglas Shire Council. That appointment stemmed from findings contained in the Kellar report, commissioned by the former minister for local government and tabled in this parliament, which recommended a new performance management framework. I table today the reports of the independent advisor provided to the director-general. Tabled paper: Report to the Director-General, Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation on Douglas Shire Council matters dated 19 January 2007. Tabled paper: Supplementary Report to the Director-General on Douglas Shire Council matters dated 19 January 2007. 122 Ministerial Statements 07 Feb 2007

Last Friday I travelled to Mossman to meet with the Douglas Shire Council in formal, open session and also in a closed session. I wanted to impress upon them my concerns about their functioning and gauge firsthand the issues that currently beset them. The Douglas Shire is a shire of contrasts. It represents the sugar based town of Mossman, the tourist mecca of Port Douglas and contains within it the world famous Daintree. Its performance as a council is also one of utter contrasts. On the one hand, it maintains a very sound financial base and last year won national recognition for its planning initiatives, through the Planning Institute of Australia. On the other hand, the ability of its elected representatives to work together is so compromised by enmity that it has placed at risk the council’s continuing efficacy. The schisms in the council do not merely represent the commonplace spirited debates that are usually a hallmark of democracy in action. They represent, in my view, divisions so deep that they have reached down and infected the proper functioning of the council itself. Indeed, the interaction between council as a whole and its CEO is one of great concern. The independent advisor reported on low staff morale and deeply held differences of opinion in council meetings which, because they are often disorderly, greatly compromise effective decision making. Accordingly, I advise the House that the director-general has this morning served upon the Douglas Shire Council a show cause notice, providing council with 14 days to demonstrate why it should not be dissolved. This is never a course of action embarked upon with any enthusiasm by any local government minister. It is my judgement, and indeed my hope, that given the circumstances of the Douglas Shire Council, if the councillors are ultimately interested in serving their whole shire in the public interest then the show cause notice can be easily answered. They need not overcome institutional dry rot, but rather resolve as a group of individuals to honour their decisions to stand for public office in the first place. They are not obliged to always agree, but they are obliged to ensure that their disagreements and personal hostilities do not overwhelm the proper functioning of the council. That they continue to attempt to transfer their own responsibility for the conduct of their meetings and their management of staff and performance of the council to external parties is of primary concern. It demonstrates a lack of recognition by the councillors that the issues in the council are their responsibility alone. The elected representatives of the Douglas Shire Council now have 14 days to make their choice. Members would also recall that the former local government minister issued a show cause notice to the Johnstone Shire Council in north Queensland. Yesterday the Supreme Court dismissed the application by two councillors who challenged the issuance of the notice. Having considered the judgement overnight, this matter can now shortly be concluded. In the interests of transparency, it is now appropriate that I table for all members the two reports into the Johnstone Shire Council relevant to the show cause notice. Tabled paper: Report on Investigation Commissioned by Minister for Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation regarding Johnstone Shire Council, dated 25 July 2006. Tabled paper: Report on the Review of the response from Johnstone Shire Council to the show cause notice issued by the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning, and Women dated 28 August 2006. Capital Works Building Projects Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.08 am): The Department of Public Works continues to play a vital role in building tomorrow’s Queensland. As part of the Smart State’s record infrastructure spending, the department is managing capital works building projects worth $3.5 billion on behalf of the Queensland government over the next five years. Late last year the Department of Public Works delivered the $291 million Millennium Arts project at the Cultural Centre, home to Queensland’s flagship arts and cultural institutions. And just last month I announced Laing O’Rourke as the successful tenderer for the $52 million Queensland State Archives expansion project. When completed and operational in mid-2008, the project will double the storage capacity of the Queensland State Archives. Among other landmark infrastructure projects currently managed by the Department of Public Works are the $160 million Skilled Stadium at Robina, major expansions worth a total of $265 million at the men’s and women’s prisons at Townsville, and the $350 million Preparatory Year of Schooling program. The department is also responsible for delivering the school asbestos roof replacement program throughout the state. As at 22 January 2007, 685 roofs had been replaced at 233 schools. We are on track to have 85 per cent of that program completed by 30 June 2007. In Brisbane the Department of Public Works is project managing the $45.5 million Boggo Road Urban Village infrastructure development project, where demolition and site remediation works have been completed, and overseeing the $77 million State Tennis Centre project at Tennyson. The design phase of a tender process is underway for both the proposed Supreme and District Court project in Brisbane and the $63.3 million Tank Street bridge project. The Tank Street bridge project will provide a pedestrian and cycle link between the city and the new Queensland Gallery of Modern Art at South Brisbane. 07 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 123

Together, the projects I have mentioned today are generating thousands of jobs for Queenslanders. Since the Queensland government has been in office, more than 950 new apprentice and trainee positions have been created with Q-Build. Last year more than 2,500 Queenslanders applied for the 100 apprentice and trainee positions available in Q-Build’s 2007 intake. That is an increase of 61 per cent on the previous year’s applications. It is all part of making the Smart State an even better place to live.

North Queensland, Road Network; Maritime Safety Queensland

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.11 am): Mr Speaker, as you are aware, far-north Queensland has been inundated with rain over the past week, with some parts of the region receiving more than 1.2 metres of rain in seven days, and Cyclone Nelson is dumping more rain in the north. The Bruce Highway is still closed south of Tully, though Main Roads advises that some heavy vehicles did get through earlier this morning. The highway has reopened at Ingham but, given the cyclone, that situation could change. Following last year’s category 5 Cyclone Larry, the federal government provided $220 million for flood immunity projects on this vital national highway link. Canberra also provided $148 million for an upgrade of the highway south of Tully, and I thank it for that funding. I should note that the Tully detail and design is currently in progress, with a contract being let for construction in the next month or so.

I thought the Mayor of Cairns, Kevin Byrne, made a very good contribution yesterday on the Sunrise program when he underlined the importance of this major federally funded road to north and far- north Queensland. I think we all agree that more funding is needed, and I note positive sounds from federal local representatives to this effect. The money received from the federal government is a very welcomed good start but we will need more and, as Mayor Byrne points out, it will never be financially possible to totally flood-proof the highway between Cairns and Townsville—we would need it all on piers to do that—but federal funding can make a massive difference.

The federal government granted approval for planning and preliminary design of major flood immunity projects not under construction. We shortly expect to receive permission from the federal government for projects that will have detailed planning conducted on them. This work is about reducing what are currently totally unacceptable closure times. It is very important the community has a say in how this $220 million is best spent, including whether we should have a higher level of flood immunity which might mean shorter closures but on fewer projects and therefore requiring a potential longer time for a fix of the full road. We all know that climate change tells us that severe rainfall events in far-north Queensland will become more frequent, not less frequent. This must also be taken into account in consideration of our response. Main Roads is currently examining these issues so the various project costs can be put in front of the federal government and the community for their input.

The state government has already made progress on a number of projects, including a $53 million federally funded package of safety works. Several projects that got underway in early November, including traffic lights on the Bruce Highway through Innisfail at Lily Street, were completed in December, and two pavement rehabilitation projects north and south of Innisfail are almost complete. On the flood-prone section just south of Ingham from Tokalon Road to McIlwraith Street, Main Roads has completed planning and is currently undertaking detailed design. Construction is set to begin mid- 2007 and will be completed by 2008.

Planning and design work for major flood immunity projects has also begun on a number of other projects including the Mulgrave River at Gordonvale and several crossings in the Herbert River flood plain north and south of Ingham. Planning and design work has been completed for a four-lane upgrade between Woodlands Shopping Centre and Veales Road. Main Roads has sent a separate funding submission to the federal transport department for this project. As both the state and federal governments have acknowledged, this funding will not be enough to do the whole job but it is a good start, and once again I thank the federal government for this funding. I am determined not to play politics with this. I want to work cooperatively with both sides of this parliament and also with both sides of federal politics on what is this very important road.

Also briefly, Maritime Safety Queensland is assisting the federal Rescue Coordination Centre in Canberra with arrangements for the evacuation of a crew of 12 from the vessel Wunma. The ship, owned by Century Mine, was transferring zinc concentrate and lead to larger vessels offshore from Karumba. It was attempting to outrun the cyclone when it became caught in heavy seas. The vessel is in Australian not Queensland territorial waters and is therefore under federal AMSA jurisdiction. Latest reports suggest the Wunma is anchored 50 nautical miles off the coast, but with its engine room and cargo hold flooded the vessel is slowly sinking. A trawler should be on site within about four hours to retrieve the crew and a helicopter is on standby if earlier evacuation is needed. 124 Ministerial Statements 07 Feb 2007

Child Safety Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.15 am): I thank the Minister for Transport and Main Roads for that important statement in relation to the Bruce Highway and flood proofing in far-north Queensland. Over the weekend I announced a $5 million boost that will improve our child safety system and ease the pressure on child safety staff. Some $3 million will fund another major assault on the backlog in cases and another $2 million will continue the important work of dedicated records officers. It is great news, and today I can provide further information on how this money will be put to use. The $3 million in backlog money will fund about 25 extra child safety officers, five team leaders, three senior practitioners and six administration staff. We are talking about specialist backlog teams which will be sent to the areas and offices that need them most. Our urgent cases—category 1s—are investigated within 24 hours and immediate action is taken to protect these children. However, we have many category 2 and 3 cases not finalised. This is our second attack on this backlog. Previous funding of $2 million has helped achieve a 37 per cent drop in the number of outstanding cases in the last eight months. The total has dropped from 12,699 in April 2006 to 7,977 last month. But as minister I will not rest until that number is zero. The backlog has been one of the major stresses for Child Safety staff. It has contributed to case loads that are too big. Staff in centres where the backlog has been conquered tell me it is a huge relief and that it is a very different job working with current cases and not having to worry about the past. One Child Safety officer even referred to no more backlog as ‘nirvana’. The $2 million to continue the work of our 48 dedicated records officers is good news for our staff as well. These officers provide accurate, up-to-date information that eases the pressure on front-line staff and makes sure we are making decisions with the very best information to hand. Our vulnerable children deserve nothing less. Doctor Fatigue Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.17 am): Doctor fatigue is an issue being taken very seriously by the Beattie government. Doctors have historically worked long hours in hospitals right around the world. We recognise, however, that in the 21st century health system this culture is changing for the wellbeing of both doctors and patients alike. That is why we are working with unions and the AMA to develop safe, workable and sustainable solutions to doctor fatigue. Last November I launched the $3.6 million Alert Doctor Strategy to develop a new comprehensive system of safeguards and controls to reduce the incidence of doctor fatigue. As part of this project, we are working with the University of South Australia’s Centre for Sleep Research to develop an evidence based fatigue risk management framework for our hospitals. Next month researchers will begin work with doctors at 13 public hospitals throughout the state to monitor working hours and trial an interim fatigue risk management framework. The findings from these trials will be used to implement new statewide fatigue management throughout Queensland Health within 18 months. In the meantime, Queensland Health already has in place fatigue reporting arrangements which allow doctors to report fatigue instances and require supervisors to assess and manage the risk of current and future fatigue instances. For example, it is now mandatory for all doctors to report immediately to their supervisor if they have worked 13 continuous hours. Medical managers must also review the rostering and work arrangements of junior doctors to ensure work practices that may lead to fatigue risks are managed. We are working with unions on a new continuous hours policy to address fatigue related risks from doctors working long hours, including processes to be followed if a doctor is engaged in 16 hours of continuous work. The systematic reporting of excess overtime hours and fatigue penalty payments for doctors who cannot access an eight-hour break between shifts is also starting to pay dividends. Early results suggest that there has already been a reduction in reportable instances with overtime episodes down from 227 to 176 and fatigue penalty payments down from 207 to 175 in just one month. Doctor fatigue is a complex issue and there are no quick fixes. That is why the Beattie government will continue to work closely with the medical profession and unions to develop multifaceted solutions to the complex issues contributing to doctor fatigue. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services Queensland, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Seniors and Youth) (10.20 am): On 30 January 2007, I had the honour of being sworn in by Her Excellency the Governor of Queensland as the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships. I am delighted that the Premier has decided to give formal recognition to the critical and important role of minister responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues. I am also delighted that the term ‘partnerships’ has been included in my new ministerial title, because this exactly captures what my approach will be to this part of my portfolio. 07 Feb 2007 Order of Business 125

I intend to work in partnership with all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the corporate and community sectors to realise the vision of the Queensland government’s landmark Partnerships Queensland strategy. This vision is for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders to have their cultures affirmed, heritage sustained and the same prospects for health, prosperity and quality of life as other Queenslanders. I am aware that there has been some criticism of the move to transfer the functions of the former department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy into the Department of Communities, but I want to assure everyone that it has been done for the right reasons. It means that policy will now be more closely aligned with service delivery. By being part of a bigger department, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships will have greater stature and clout. This will improve its capacity to negotiate with other departments and its ability to get results on behalf of Indigenous people and communities. I have considerable experience in advocating for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their interests. I want to assure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their communities that I am totally committed to this very important area of responsibility and service delivery.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Revocation of State Forest Area Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (10.21 am): I give notice that after the expiration of at least 14 days as provided in the Forestry Act 1959 I shall move— 1. That this House requests the Governor in Council to revoke by regulation the setting apart and declaration as state forest under the Forestry Act 1959 of those areas as set out in the proposal tabled by me in the House on 7 February 2007;

Description of the area to be revoked

Beerwah State Forest (SF561) Area described as Lot 300 on SP195863 and containing 35.039 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked “B”

2. That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament forward a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism for submission to the Governor in Council.

STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS

Dissent from Speaker’s Rulings Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.22 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, the four notices of motion of dissent from Mr Speaker’s ruling standing on the Notice Paper be debated together as a cognate debate with the question for each motion being put separately at the conclusion of the debate and with the limits for speeches and debates as follows— Total debate time before question put—one hour; Each member—10 minutes. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, English, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 30—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Rickuss, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Wellington, Foley Resolved in the affirmative.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.31 am): I advise that the debate will commence at 3 pm this afternoon. 126 Distinguished Visitors 07 Feb 2007

NOTICE OF MOTION

Attorney-General, Motion of No Confidence Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.31 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House express no confidence in the Attorney-General.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Leaking of Sensitive Documents Mr SEENEY (10.32 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier indicated publicly last night and again this morning that he is prepared to answer any questions the opposition wants to ask him regarding the leaking of sensitive documents. As I cannot ask those questions here in this parliament, will the Premier come with me to a public forum or to a press conference later on today so that I can ask the questions and he can answer the questions that the people of Queensland want answered? Mr BEATTIE: I clearly need extra police protection to be anywhere near the Leader of the Opposition. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members, the question has been asked. Let the Premier answer the question. Mr BEATTIE: Certainly from the way those opposite love one another they need protection from one another. We need to send extra police to protect the Nats and the Libs from one another! Do not talk to me about your nonsense. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do you want me to answer the question or do you just want to carry on as you always do, carrying on and disrupting this place? I am happy to give you a sensible answer if you want to just be quiet for one second. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will tell members of parliament again that I will carry out my intention to warn members under the standing orders. I have given you a fair go. Mr BEATTIE: I stood before the press gallery—and I say with due respect to the Leader of the Opposition that their questions tend to be a little bit more on the mark and a little bit more intelligent— and they asked me about a whole range of issues for about an hour. Within the legal bounds and restraints that apply because the matter was going before the courts, I gave them answers. I do not believe, with due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, that his questions would for one minute be more intelligent than those asked by Patrick Condren, Spencer Jolly, Cathy Border, the ABC’s Steve, the Gold Coast Bulletin’s Sue Lappeman and the Courier-Mail. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks his questions are going to be more scintillating than theirs, I suggest that he take up journalism before it is too late. It is a low benchmark but I spent about an hour or an hour and a half—Stephen Robertson was with me. They asked me all the questions that are relevant— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. The ‘recycled leader of the opposition’ is over there having another go. We will deal with him a little later. I am looking forward to that. The ‘recycled leader of the opposition’ is off scaring people about recycled water. The reality is this: there is a matter before the courts and it is absolutely imperative that everyone in this parliament respect the law and that means— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Just hang on for one minute. Just for one minute have some manners. There is a matter before the courts and that matter before the courts needs to be dealt with without political interference or any silly games from the Leader of the Opposition. Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of a delegation led by Dr Harris Pastides, Vice-President for Research and Health Sciences at the University of South Carolina. 07 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 127

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Leaking of Sensitive Documents Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. Are there any possible circumstances that the Premier can think of that would justify the Premier of Queensland leaking a sensitive document that his deputy had previously refused to release appropriately? Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, as I have indicated, there are matters before the court and I do not intend under any circumstances to say anything here or outside this chamber which could or would be used in a court of law. When we met with the Police Union representatives yesterday, I made it clear— and I am sure that they would agree with this—that it is absolutely imperative that that matter now be dealt with by the courts. I understand that there is a tendency to play political games in these things— Mr Seeney: The CMC should deal with you. If the CMC is worth anything, it should deal with you. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition can keep making up his supplementary questions if he likes, but nothing will be said here or outside this chamber by any member of my government that will in any way disadvantage a man before the courts. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We respect the law. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Premier, would you take your seat please. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, of course. I am very happy to do so. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Callide under the provision of standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: We respect the rule of law. Those opposite are only interested in some grubby little political point they want to make. They are not interested in the law. They are not interested in justice. They are interested in grubby little politics. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There they are, baying as usual. They can assemble like donkeys on a hill, but the reality is that we will not allow them or anyone else to breach the fundamental system of law in this state. We will stand up for law and order. They can play their games. We will stand by the law. The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that there is a matter before the courts and that matter should be dealt with by the courts, not here by him or anyone else in this chamber. Let me make it clear— Miss Simpson: Your fingerprints are all over it. Mr BEATTIE: You’re lucky to still be in your position from what I hear. Let me make it clear: there will be no interference by my government in the rule of law. Mr Johnson: You’ve got a smile on your face, Premier. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to the member for Gregory that I have given you a lot of leeway today. I warn the member for Gregory under the provision of standing order 253. Water Reform, Murray-Darling Basin Mr PEARCE: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise of rural industry concerns in relation to the Howard government’s proposal for water reform in the Murray-Darling system? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Fitzroy for raising this issue because I know that water is an important matter for him in his constituency, and he has made representations to both me and the Minister for Natural Resources and Water, Craig Wallace. Later today the minister and I will be meeting with representatives from a number of rural industry groups. They will include the Queensland Farmers Federation, AgForce, the Queensland Irrigators Council, Cotton Australia and Canegrowers. I have organised this meeting because I am determined that the interests of Queensland farmers will not be lost in this debate over water reform. The Howard government is pushing ahead for a takeover of water, but it has made little mention of the rights of farmers and irrigators who will be most affected by its proposals. There are a number of issues that I intend to raise with the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, at Thursday’s meeting. For example, will there be compulsory acquisition of properties? The constituents of the member for Fitzroy will want to know because there will be a long-term flow-on effect. At the very least, our farmers need to know if the Howard government is going to throw them off their land. If so, how long will it take before our farmers and irrigators have some certainty; what will the water sharing agreements be; is there a plan for environmental flows? We are also concerned about the economic future of many communities such as St George, Goondiwindi, Warwick and Inglewood that rely directly on the Murray-Darling system. These are not the only communities possibly affected; I just mention those three. 128 Questions Without Notice 07 Feb 2007

Yesterday the Deputy Premier and I had a very productive meeting with the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks. He shared many of the same concerns that we have. The Howard government has provided nowhere near enough detail on its proposals for water reform. Thousands of lives will be affected, both directly and indirectly, by these proposals. It certainly warrants a lot more analysis than platitudes and press releases from the Prime Minister. I admit that it is great politics from the Prime Minister, just bad management. At today’s meeting I will discuss the proposals with Queensland’s rural representatives. I want to hear what they think. My government will—in this sense—be the farmers’ friend and I am going to make sure that their voice is heard in Canberra. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I have not heard from the National Party in this place. Where has the National Party been arguing for its farmers? The silence from the National Party is absolutely deafening. When are those opposite ever going to stand up for their own constituents? I table a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister in relation to the Murray-Darling and the licences that are being issued because this will fall into the federal area of responsibility. I table it for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Letter dated 6 February 2007 from Premier to the Prime Minister regarding the proposed National Plan for Water Security. I urge members of the National Party for once in their lives to stand up for Queensland—actually stand up for Queensland. Do not go out there and be such— Opposition members interjected. Mr Gibson: What have I been doing? Mr BEATTIE: Good heavens, the usual rudeness. It is about time that members of the National Party actually remembered they are in Queensland, not on Mars. When are they ever going to stand up for Queensland?

Police Resources Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. I refer the minister to the Premier’s announcement yesterday that the government would now install closed-circuit television cameras in watch-houses in Indigenous communities. Is the minister not ashamed that she failed to act on repeated calls for this measure? The minister was not even spurred on to act by a tragedy in custody but only acted swiftly when there was a threat of adverse publicity from a march to parliament by the state’s police force. Ms SPENCE: I really do thank the member for the question because he has displayed his lack of understanding of the broader picture here and it gives me an opportunity to explain what we are talking about. I have tried to explain it, but obviously it has not gotten through to him. Ms Bligh: Do it again. Ms SPENCE: I will do it again. We have CCTVs in the cells of watch-houses in Queensland. That is not the point of the debate. That is where the member has got it wrong again. Where we do not have closed-circuit television cameras is in the custody areas of police stations. That has never been an item that has been put on the agenda before. It was never discussed as an issue in the royal commission into deaths in custody, it has never been an issue that has been put on the table in coroners’ reports or, indeed, an issue that has been put to me as a minister before. But I think it is a legitimate issue for the Police Union to now argue for and that is what we agreed on yesterday. We will be putting closed-circuit television cameras in all 13 police stations in Aboriginal communities. That means, for example, in Yarrabah there will be an additional 22 cameras installed into that police station. That is the extent of the endeavour that we are talking about. As well, we agreed with the Police Union that we would do an audit of every watch-house in Queensland. We know, for example, that the Brisbane watch-house is very, very good; it is a modern watch-house. The moment you step into that watch-house every action of a police officer or a prisoner is monitored on CCTV. If there is any allegation of impropriety the police will have that on file. Let us face it, every day people are making false allegations about their treatment in watch-houses. Yesterday I signed off on a letter to a woman who is a Japanese university student who made dreadful accusations about her treatment in the Brisbane watch-house. Because it was on closed-circuit television, it could be confirmed that none of her accusations were accurate; they were all false. This is occurring frequently to our police. Members can appreciate why the police want greater protection, more closed-circuit television to protect their members. It is going to be an expensive exercise for the government but we are prepared to do it. We are prepared to undertake this audit and correct any of the deficiencies in any of the watch-houses in Queensland so that in future police officers will be protected when allegations are made against them. 07 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 129

Purified Recycled Water Mr LEE: My question is to the Premier. Could the Premier inform the House about the former leader of the National Party’s attempts to undermine the future of Queensland’s food producers as part of a scare campaign against purified recycled water? Mr BEATTIE: The answer is yes. I was not surprised but I guess disappointed that the former leader of the opposition was out scaremongering about recycled water—scaremongering is what he did. He raised issues about food. Let us talk to the experts; let us not talk to those people who have trouble accessing and understanding the net. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Please, for once, just don’t be rude. Mark Panitz from the peak horticultural group Growcom—those opposite know Growcom—has dismissed the argument and says that the claims are not helpful. He states— Food safety systems are in place so that we can guarantee our consumers and buyers, wherever they are around the world, that our product is really pure and very safe. What do the farmers say? The farmers agree with us; that is the first thing. The second thing is that the former leader of the opposition— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: They are being rude again. Can those opposite actually ever not be rude? Is there anyone decent with any manners over there at all? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is on his feet. Mr BEATTIE: Let me come to the second point. The former leader of the opposition then went on and said that he had got on the net and checked out Thames Water. He says that they basically do not have recycled water. I do not know where he checked that out but the fact is that they do. The former leader of the opposition, who wants to be a recycled leader, says that he got on the net and checked it out. What is the story? Here is a report from Thames Water, which states— The river Thames is used as a disposal route for effluent from 350 waste water treatment plants including some of the largest in Europe. Indirect re-use of treated effluent further downstream contributes about— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: You don’t need to be rude either. Mr STEVENS: I rise to a point of order. The Premier is misleading the House. I have checked this matter out— Mr SPEAKER: Take your seat. There is no point of order. Mr BEATTIE: Just as well that we do not have an IQ test. What those opposite do not want is the truth because what it says is this— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I indicate that the Premier has time to answer this question and I would like to hear him answer it for you. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite want to turn this place into a circus. Let me be frank about something— Mr Seeney: Yeah, we’ve already got a clown! Mr BEATTIE: We know where you fit into the circus. The former leader of the opposition has raised a serious issue about recycled water in London. I am trying to explain exactly what the government’s position is— Mr Hobbs: Not true. Tell the truth about it. Tell the truth. Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. We had a briefing from the Water Commission’s expert panel professor yesterday, Mr Greenfield, who said that they do not recycle one zack of their own water back into their own supply—not one zack. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Southern Downs, if you continue to wilfully disregard my authority as Speaker you will be outside. I ask all members to respect and not disregard my authority as Speaker of this House. I will say to all of you, whichever side it is, if you continue to do it you will be outside in a hurry. Interruption. 130 Questions Without Notice 07 Feb 2007

MOTION

Extension of Time Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.49 am): I move— That the Premier be further heard. Mr SPEAKER: It has been moved that the Premier be further heard. Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Mr BEATTIE: I make this point: it is very sad that on an issue of recycled water we cannot have a position where you can come in here and put your case and I can put my response. If you want to wreck this parliament, which is what you are doing— Mr Springborg: Just give us a chance. Mr BEATTIE: If the opposition parties want to wreck this parliament, you will destroy its credibility in the eyes of the community. It is about time you actually started to behave appropriately. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Premier is deliberately distorting the privileges of this place. He knows we do not have the same opportunity that he does. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Southern Downs will take his seat. Mr BEATTIE: There is a 5.30 pm debate. You could have moved this as a motion for tonight. If you were still the Leader of the Opposition, you could have put this on tonight or you could have spoken to your successor. Ms Bligh: He spoke yesterday in the address-in-reply! Mr BEATTIE: Not only that, you spoke in the address-in-reply debate yesterday. You were in the parliament yesterday. I am simply trying to clarify the record so that your scaremongering goes nowhere, but you want to wreck the parliament. There used to be a time when the National and Liberal parties actually stood for the institution of parliament. People like Sir James Killen actually stood for something. All you do is stand for wrecking. Honourable members interjected. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr BEATTIE: Here it is again, Mr Speaker. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister for Transport and Main Roads to desist. Is this a point of order? Mr SEENEY: Absolutely. Mr SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SEENEY: I think the Premier should look up the dictionary and find out what ‘plagiarism’ means. He is copying my speech from yesterday. Mr SPEAKER: Can I say— Mr SEENEY: I find his assertions— Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Withdrawal of Disorderly Member Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sit down, please. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I have already warned you. Under the provisions of standing order 253, having previously been warned, I now ask the member for Callide to withdraw from the chamber. Mr LINGARD: On a point of order— Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me! I am on my feet. I asked the member for Callide to withdraw from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 253. Mr Seeney: Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect— Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet and you will sit down. The wilful disregard for my authority as chair is about to finish. I have asked you to remove yourself from the chamber. If you do not remove yourself from the chamber, you will find yourself under standing order 254. Whereupon the honourable member for Callide withdrew from the chamber. 07 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 131

Mr LINGARD: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I remind you that on the first occasion you warned the member for Callide for interjecting. The second time you warned him for taking a point of order. That is completely wrong. You might warn him twice for interjecting— Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr LINGARD:—but the first time was for interjecting and the second time was for a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Take your seat, please. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, all I have tried to do this morning is explain what happens in London. Mr Hobbs: Tell the truth! Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. Wait a minute. I have the right to put a point of view and you have the right to disagree, but surely you should not wreck this place— Mr LINGARD: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, when are you going to make the Premier speak to you directly rather than address all of us as ‘you’, ‘you’, ‘you’? Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I always speak through you and, if I have not, I offer my apologies to the chair. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Premier to ensure he constantly speaks through the chair. Mr BEATTIE: I will. Mr Speaker, let me try to explain what happens in London without the scaremongering we have been having. Let me come— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are continuing to have these constant interjections in the House. You are all parliamentarians from different parties, and I am asking for order. I do not want to go down the same track that I have with one member this morning, but if you continue to absolutely disrupt the business of this House that is what will happen. It is my absolute last resort. I have actually given a ruling today in that regard before. I call the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: As I was saying, the Thames Water report states that the River Thames is used as a disposable route for effluent from 350 waste water treatment plants, including some of the— Opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I think you should just keep going, Premier. I will warn the person who is interjecting. I do not know who it is at the moment. Mr BEATTIE: That includes some of the largest in Europe. This is the important point: indirect reuse of treated effluent further downstream contributes about 12 per cent of the available resources for public water supply in an average year. This is what it does to London water. In other words, if you are in London and you are drinking water, in an average year you will drink 12 per cent. That is what happens in London. It goes into the river and it flows down the river and then different places extract the water and you drink it. That is how it works. However, in parts of the lower basin, that figure can rise to nearly 70 per cent during a dry summer. That is what happens in London. What we will be doing here is better than that because our reverse osmosis process will make it cleaner. It will make it better than that. When I ask, ‘Have you been to London and drunk the water?’ and the answer is, yes, then you have drunk recycled water. If you go to Singapore, you will find that ours will be treated better than that in London. If you go to Washington, Berlin or the Orange County, you will find that ours will be treated better than their water. I just say to the former leader of the opposition that it is about time you told the truth about this. The reality is very clear. That is what the report says; it is black and white. As for the reverse osmosis process that will operate under our system, what happens in Singapore—and forget about London, because Singapore and our water will be better— Mr Springborg: One per cent. Mr BEATTIE: The former leader of the opposition says one per cent. Do members know what he is talking about? He is talking about what happens in Singapore, which is about to be increased, by the way. Mr Springborg: To 2½. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, that is right, to 2½ per cent, and thank you for making the point. The reality is this: where there is a reverse osmosis process and the water is treated, it does not matter whether it is one per cent, two per cent, three per cent or four per cent; it does not matter whether it is 95 per cent. If one per cent is good, it is all good. That is the point about reverse osmosis. The member’s point about one per cent does not matter. The member’s point about 2½ per cent does not matter. At the end of it all, you can say what you like about this because it is a democracy. But the truth is, Mr Speaker—and I want to be clear about this—people around the world drink it. Our water quality will be better than London’s. The only relevant point out of what was said by the former leader of the opposition—who wants to be a recycled leader of the opposition by the way he is going—is that in fact what happens in London will not be as good as what will happen here. Our water will be cleaner. 132 Questions Without Notice 07 Feb 2007

I just say to Mr Springborg, the member for Southern Downs, and to all the other members who want to disrupt this: at the end of this, this is in the state’s interests. The water is safe, it is good quality and it will be better than what you are drinking now. Mr DICKSON: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Premier is telling this parliament he is misleading parliament saying it is 100 per cent safe. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Can I just remind some of the new members from both sides who are here that a point of order does not allow you to debate the issue. It is open for debate if a motion is before the parliament. You are trying to debate the issue. There is no point of order. I call the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: The final point I want to make is this. Opposition members interjected. Mr McARDLE: On a point of order, Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Come on! Let’s just get on with the business. Mr BEATTIE: I have two final points. If the opposition had not been disruptive, this would have been finished a long time ago. This is your question time. You are wrecking it. If you had let me finish, this would have been done. I just say two things in conclusion. Fish need not worry because their sex will not be changed by recycled water. I want to make that really clear. We do not need to put up a label saying, ‘Beware fish. Your gender will be changed.’ I want the former leader of the opposition to know that. We do not have to put up signs saying ‘Fish beware’, because their gender will not change. As for the new member representing the Sunshine Coast, your nonsense about AIDS and all the other things is irrelevant; it is just rubbish. Do not go out and scaremonger. It is not in the state’s interests. Government Documents Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, have you or any member of your office or any member of your department at any time provided documents relating to a potential prosecution to the Premier, Deputy Premier, their staff or any member of their departments? Mr SHINE: Whether I choose to supply documents to the Premier or other members of the government is a matter in my province. Western Corridor Recycled Water Project Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. I ask: can the minister update the House on progress with the western corridor recycled water project? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for Bundamba for her interest in this issue generally and her interest specifically in the considerable amount of work that is now occurring in her electorate to make this pipeline a reality. The western corridor recycling pipeline project takes bulk water recycled from Luggage Point on Brisbane’s east to Caboonbah in the north-west. It involves the construction of three advanced water treatment plants—one at Bundamba, one at Luggage Point and one at Gibson Island. These will be state-of-the-art, world-class facilities in terms of the technology that they will be using. The overall length of the pipes is approximately 200 kilometres with a combined capacity to supply the water savings target of some 210 megalitres a day. Completion for the overall project remains on target for December 2008. This is a huge project. Just to give members a sense of the size of the effort, today there are 809 people employed on this pipeline project alone. By July that will peak at 2,650 workers on the project. There will be more than 1,000 workers in the electorate of the member who asked the question—at Bundamba alone—by July this year. The project reports that targets for recruitment are being met despite what everybody knows is a very tight labour market. We are well on track to making recycled water for industry, for drinking purposes and hopefully for agriculture as soon as possible. It is clear from the debate in the public arena and the debate here this morning that the success of this project is not going to be assisted by any intelligent contribution from those on the other side. I want to take the opportunity this morning to thank the member for Moggill for the leadership that he has shown on this issue. I know only too well that this is a tough issue on which the community has very mixed views and it requires a bit of backbone to stand up and talk about how necessary it is. That is what the member for Moggill has done. I know there has been a lot of criticism of his leadership from time to time. However, we have seen him stand up from day one and provide support and some real comfort from a scientific point of view to the community. That, however, does not represent the one team, one plan, one destiny approach that we have heard so much about. Honourable members have seen here this morning the member for Southern Downs—and they will have heard him yesterday— running around scaremongering. I am very sorry that the member for Moggill does not seem to be able to control his own backbench with the member for Kawana also jumping on the bandwagon. 07 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 133

I do think it is important that people understand that there will be scaremongering on this. I draw to the attention of honourable members this document that says, ‘Think before you agree to drink’. This is the document that has been prepared by Councillor ‘Snow’ Manners from Toowoomba. I understand that he is hoping to distribute it across south-east Queensland. This is the document on which the member for Southern Downs presumably bases his wild claims about the sex changes of fish and further claims about endocrine disruption compounds. It is probably the most intellectually dishonest document I have seen. Leaking of Sensitive Documents Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Given the Attorney-General’s previous answer, I ask: has the Attorney-General provided any documentation regarding potential legal proceedings to the Premier or Deputy Premier or their staff which has been leaked? Mr SPEAKER: I just indicate to the member for Maroochydore that was a very general question until the last part of it. I am going to allow the Attorney-General to answer. But I thought today we had seen a revision of the questions being asked yesterday and I would ask the opposition respectfully to continue to do that. Mr SHINE: The position is that as Attorney-General I am called upon often to provide advice, both in writing and verbally. That advice is privileged and I cannot reveal the content of it. Santoro, Senator S Ms CROFT: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology. I ask: as Leader of the House, can he advise us if he is aware of recent activities and comments of former member for Clayfield, Santo Santoro? Mr SCHWARTEN: As a matter of fact, I am very much aware of that. I am aware more particularly through a very prolific letter writer, one Russell Egan, who has a bit to say about public housing. I notice a very obsequious little number where he praises the former member for Chatsworth as the new fresh face in parliament. Who is this Russell Egan? One of the things that he recently wrote on his web site was, ‘I’ve hit the jackpot with my block of land at Merrimac, a massive asset to receive from the taxpayer. I hit the jackpot with my block of land. Keep in mind that these places can be sold on the open market for $40,000 each.’ What is he talking about? He is talking about nothing other than nursing home beds on the Gold Coast. Who is the minister who allocates the nursing beds, I wonder? A former member for Clayfield, the SSS—Senator Santo Santoro. If this had involved someone in the Queensland parliament what do honourable members reckon that lot over there would be saying? What if it was a high-profile person who got a nursing home bed rort at the expense of a very reputable company on the Gold Coast? What do members think would be said over there? Mr Nicholls interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Listen to them scream. They would have plenty to say. Of course we know that the Howard government does not have a CMC. It does not have any accountability. What is Senator Santoro going to do? He is going to have a review. Caesar is going to judge Caesar. An opposition member interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: They do not like it; I know that. I know his great old mate over there and his Liberal Party rorts. The truth of the matter is that if this was happening— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I know that these people think it is a zoo and that that is the chief baboon over there, but this is actually the parliament. The truth is that they are trying to disrupt the parliament, and why? Because they are covering their shame and embarrassment that Senator Santo Santoro, part of the Howard government which they support, is a crook. It is as simple as that. That is the reason. Mr Copeland: Is this one of the trials we can’t talk about? Mr SCHWARTEN: There is no other conclusion to draw. The fact is that he says, ‘I never talked to Russell about these things.’ Russell says, ‘I cannot get information off him about nursing home stuff.’ That means he has tried. He had a bit of a go but Santo says, ‘No, I have never spoken to him.’ Honourable members can imagine if this was involving a Queensland government. If this involved a Labor minister it would be splattered all over the paper week in, week out, month in, month out. But no, because there is no reference to it— Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Nicklin, I want to say to the member for Cunningham that I feel your interjection was a reflection on the chair, although if you have any information to give me about a matter that is on trial at the moment regarding this issue I would be only too happy to rule appropriately. Mr COPELAND: I withdraw any reflection that was taken. There was none intended. 134 Questions Without Notice 07 Feb 2007

Horse Riding, National Parks Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Premier. While my question might not be the most provocative this morning, it is a matter that I certainly believe needs finalisation. In the lead-up to last year’s election the Premier gave a commitment to our horse riders to continued long-term access to a number of existing horse riding trails which were previously going to be no-go areas. I table a copy of his 2006 election policy together with a copy of his government’s invitation for the commencement of consultation with horse riding representatives issued in May 1999. We have been consulting for almost eight years on horse riding access to Mapleton Forest on the Sunshine Coast. I ask: when will his government finalise where horse riders can ride in this forest? Tabled paper: Document dated 19 August 2006 titled ‘Living the Queensland Lifestyle and attached documents’. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 21 May 1999, by Hon Rod Welford MP titled ‘Government recognises value of forest recreation’. Mr BEATTIE: I say to the member for Nicklin that I know he has had a keen interest in this. In fact, he met with me, he may recall, with horse riders. I pulled out the brief that I have in terms of the latest position on this. Obviously, while I am committed to what I said and will honour what I have said, I do not oversee this on a day-to-day basis. We have given a commitment that horse riders will be able to continue using some management roads through proposed national parks that are part of the South- East Queensland Forest Agreement. We have said that. This continued use will occur on management roads that have historically been used for horse riding in five areas. These areas include Noosa, Gold Coast, Beaudesert, Brisbane Forest Park, Caboolture, Bellthorpe, Kenilworth and Mapleton, which is in the area the member is interested in. The Environmental Protection Agency continues to work with horse riders and conservationists to reach agreement on the proposed trails. Presently—and the minister can correct me if this is wrong— I am told that there are a series of meetings occurring with both horse riders and conservation interests. The EPA last met with the Australian Horse Alliance on 22 January this year. Further meetings are scheduled soon. The timetable for implementing these riding trails will be determined by the date of sign-off on the proposed trails by the key stakeholders. So obviously the sooner we get sign-off the sooner we can proceed. We are trying to get agreement. The government recognises the importance of outdoor recreation to both our lifestyle and our economy. South-east Queensland is making significant investments in infrastructure. For example, $8.8 million has been earmarked to develop three regional recreational trails in the south-east over the next five years. The Deputy Premier recently released a discussion paper seeking public input on the proposed south-east Queensland regional outdoor recreation strategy, an initiative aimed at making even greater use of the region’s outdoors. Once completed the strategy will provide an overall framework for coordinating the efforts of state and local government, private industry and community organisations to deliver and manage outdoor recreational activity areas. We want as much community involvement in the strategy as possible. South- east Queensland has marked more than 3,000 kilometres of recreational trails either on national parks and state forests managed by the EPA or in areas controlled by individual local governments. We want enthusiasm for outdoor recreation to continue. I encourage anyone with a strong interest in outdoor recreation to read the discussion paper and give us feedback. Any feedback will be used to inform the development of the outdoor recreation strategy. In a nutshell it means this: what I gave the member in terms of a personal commitment at the meeting we attended with horse riders we will honour. The commitments I made at Wellington Point during the election period we will honour. I ask the minister to please stay in touch with the member for Nicklin as he has a keen interest in this. He has put a strong case on behalf of the people involved. We will honour this and we will deliver it, we just need more consultation. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Ipswich West, I welcome to the gallery the former member for Bundaberg and former minister for local government and planning, Nita Cunningham. Ipswich Motorway Mr WENDT: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Could the minister please inform the House of ongoing developments in the bid to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway including what new information the state government has about improving this vital road link? Mr LUCAS: Last week Main Roads released an independent report from Maunsells into the upgrading of the Dinmore to Goodna stretch of the Ipswich Motorway. I know that the honourable member is particularly interested in this issue, as I know are a number of other members on both sides of the House. This is the state government’s long-favoured approach to addressing horrendous traffic woes on the road. The independent Maunsell’s report found that upgrading the remaining eight-kilometre section of the existing motorway would cost $1.14 billion. I table a copy of that independent report. Tabled paper: Report dated January 2007 titled ‘Ipswich Motorway Upgrade Dinmore to Gailes Updated Project Cost Estimate Report—Final’. 07 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 135

The report outlines some increases in scope and improvements in designs from initial planning, including providing two extra service roads, improved safety standards and filling old mines. The cost has also gone up because the federal government continues to delay making a decision on it. This report tells us two things. Firstly, the more that we wait, the more the federal government waits, the more that inextricably costs go up. Secondly, this solution is far better than the ridiculous discredited Cameron Thompson half-northern bypass at a predicted cost of between $2.1 billion and $2.58 billion, if one reads newspaper reports. Cameron Thompson is the typhoid Mary of Queensland road policy. He has his views but no-one wants to go near him because anything that he touches turns to the proverbial. The problem is that, if the federal government’s preferred alternative were agreed to, that would be $1.4 billion in federal money that could be spent on many other road priorities in Queensland, many federal roads—many of which are in the electorates of honourable members opposite. This is not just the view of the state government; it is the view of the Queensland opposition, as I understand. It is certainly the view of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the RACQ, the Brisbane City Council, including Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, and the Ipswich City Council. In fact, Campbell Newman indicated in the Courier-Mail on 12 November 2005: We are firmly saying to the Federal Government it is time to upgrade the entire motorway and provide the financial backing to the people in the fastest growing region of Australia. I notice the member for Moggill has a sticker on his car saying ‘reject the half-northern bypass’. He has written to me on this issue. I table a copy of that letter. Tabled paper: Email, dated 29 January 2007, from Dr Bruce Flegg MP to Minister regarding Ipswich Motorway. I have no problem with the content of the letter. He makes quite clear his position: he supports the government’s position—that is, to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway. I call on members opposite to get out there and tell the federal government this, if they have not done so privately. We need to put public pressure on it to get this most important section of the Ipswich Motorway upgraded. It is important not just for people in Brisbane and Ipswich but also for those in the great Darling Downs region which is ever growing. The Charlton Wellcamp industrial area is growing. That region is the service centre for Parts West and where heavy vehicles coming from New South Wales go through. It is important to so many parts of Queensland. People down south do not understand the importance of the National Highway to a state such as Queensland. Victoria has hardly any National Highway and it was duplicated years ago. We still have a very long way to go. This is a very important part of it. Both sides of the House should be unrelenting in our pursuit of the federal government to make a decision. Patel, Dr J Mr DEMPSEY: My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Can the minister please explain why the extradition of Dr Patel has yet again been delayed when his government has previously announced in this place that the government was ready to extradite Dr Patel? Mr SHINE: Jayant Patel is entitled to a fair trial and I believe that he can receive a fair trial in Queensland. I remind honourable members that charges were laid last year. The laying of charges is the first formal step in the extradition process. In terms of the extradition process let me provide this update, if I may. On 25 January I requested a meeting with the Acting DPP to seek an update with regard to the Patel matter. I met with the DPP on her return from holiday on Monday, 5 February—this time at her request. The DPP, Ms Leanne Clare, has assured me that everything that can be done has been done in relation to this matter. The matter is an extremely complex one. I have also been assured that the DPP has sufficient resources at its disposal to deal with the Patel proceedings. I am keen to observe the independence of the DPP. I refer to the response from the Office of the DPP on this matter. This response says: Last November, the Queensland Director of Public Prosecution sent a letter to the Commonwealth Minister for Justice formally requesting the extradition of Jayant Patel. A considerable volume of material had already been forwarded prior to that date. Some critical material remains outstanding. This material has been pursued with diligence by both investigators and prosecutors. The receipt of that material however is outside of the control of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Extradition processes are inevitably lengthy and complicated. The prosecutors involved in this case have been in close consultation with the relevant officers of the Commonwealth Department of Justice over the last 12 months. Senator Ellison cannot proceed with the request for extradition until all the material is complete. It is not possible to anticipate how long any extradition process would take. Prior to question time this morning I received a note. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has contacted my office this morning. The advice from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that she has been advised by solicitors acting on behalf of a witness that the critical 136 Questions Without Notice 07 Feb 2007 material I referred to earlier that was outstanding and relevant to the Patel extradition has been received. This material is expected to be with the office of the director today. Once the material has been received, the office can complete compiling the material required so the formal extradition application already sent to the Commonwealth can be actioned by the Commonwealth. I place on record that I appreciate the Commonwealth’s cooperation in this matter. Again I reinforce that people should exercise the upmost restraint in relation to any comments made in this place and any comments made in the media. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Capalaba can I welcome in the public gallery today teachers and students from Mount Maria College in the suburb of Enoggera and in the electorate of Ashgrove represented in this House by Ms Kate Jones.

Lunar New Year, Fireworks Mr CHOI: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mines and Energy. One of the most important dates for the Asian-Australian community is fast approaching—the lunar new year, and this year is the Year of the Pig. Firecrackers are a very popular part of these traditional celebrations, not to mention a wonderful way to wake up your neighbours, drive the dog crazy and set off car alarms. As minister responsible for regulating the use of fireworks, could the minister please outline what steps his department is taking to ensure people at least celebrate with fireworks in a safe manner? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question and wish him and everyone else in the community a happy lunar new year for 18 February. It is reassuring that the honourable member joins me in wanting people to enjoy the new year festivities safely. That is why the explosives inspectors from the Department of Mines and Energy will be attending lunar new year fireworks celebrations throughout the state to make sure that fireworks operators are following safety standards. Chinese strings of crackers are dangerous and must only be used by licensed pryotechnicians in times stipulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. I also remind Queenslanders that it is illegal for the public to buy, possess or use fireworks, including firecrackers. Anyone caught using illegal fireworks or other explosive devices will face the full force of the law, and I remind everyone that bans on unlicensed people buying, selling, using or possessing fireworks in Queensland have been in place since 1972. Despite the ban, however, some people still persist in using illegal fireworks and they are exposing themselves and the people around them to serious injury. There have been fireworks accidents in the past in Queensland where a man has lost his finger and a boy lost his eye and other injuries. Anyone caught using illegal fireworks should be aware that they will be prosecuted, and penalties are severe—up to a $30,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I make no apology for taking tough action. If people complain about being prosecuted, so be it. I would much rather have someone hit with a fine than a potentially lethal explosive. Last year more than 100 people were prosecuted under the Explosives Act for possessing or using fireworks without a licence, and our inspectors this year will be out in force. I hope everyone enjoys the lunar new year celebrations and I hope members opposite take note of the Year of the Pig and do not tell any porkies. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Currumbin, today is the third birthday of the new members of the 51st Parliament. So for those members who came in the 51st Parliament—I know that Minister Wallace, the member for Lockyer and others were a part of that—well done for this three-year period.

Hood Family Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, am one of those members. My question is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. I refer to and table her media release of 25 September 1998 issued after her meeting with the Hood family on 15 July 1998 which stated that she instructed her department— Families, Youth and Community Care—to deal with the concerns as a matter of priority and that negotiations for compensation are underway. I further table a letter dated 21 August 1998 from the minister’s then director-general, Ken Smith, which states that the minister has indicated that she wants this matter rapidly progressed to a conclusion. As Deputy Premier and Treasurer responsible for signing off on ex gratia payments, could the minister please advise when this matter will be resolved by payment of compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s 1997 recommendation so that this matter can be resolved for the family? Tabled paper: Media release dated 25 September 1998 by Hon Anna Bligh MP titled ‘Statement prepared for Michael Ware, Courier Mail’. Tabled paper: Letter dated 21 August 1998 from Ken Smith, Director-General, Department of Family Services, to Mr B Herd, Carne & Herd Solicitors regarding Mr and Mrs Hood. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The documents that she has tabled are some 8½ years old. I can advise her that since I ceased to have responsibility for that portfolio I have had no other matters in relation to that family brought to my attention. If she wants to provide me with the details, I of course will look into them on her behalf. 07 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 137

Doomben and Eagle Farm Racecourses Mr BOMBOLAS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport. Minister, there has been a lot of speculation and discussion about the sale and redevelopment of the Doomben racecourse. Can the minister inform the House of the government’s role in this matter? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Chatsworth for the question and the opportunity to place on the record today the views of the government and some facts about the proposal that does exist in the broader community for the merger of the Doomben and Eagle Farm racecourses. Can I also acknowledge in his asking of the question his strong support for the racing industry in this state. Mr Lucas: He’s put a lot of money into it! Mr FRASER: Support in that regard, which is shared by a good many members of the House I am well advised. The future of the racing industry in this state now more than ever is in the hands of the racing industry. Under the reforms to the racing industry brought in by my predecessors as racing minister, the industry certainly has its own ability to guide its future direction. At present, the industry has before it a proposal to merge the clubs which presently run Doomben and Eagle Farm. That is a proposal that is currently before the members of those clubs. I want to stress to the House today that any decision about what happens in relation to that merger remains a matter for the members of those clubs. They will be the people who vote on this proposal and they will be the ones who determine whether this proposal moves forward. Having said that, can I say that I see strong merit in the proposal that is before the members of those two clubs. At present we have a situation akin to owning houses on both sides of the street. The two racecourses are at present trying to attempt to finance redevelopments—redevelopments that in anyone’s language and in anyone’s view are needed because racing is increasingly becoming a highly competitive and international industry. The clubs are struggling to find the finance for those proposals and there is strong merit in them pooling their resources so that they do not have a situation where they are living in one house for half of the week and the other house for the other half of the week trying to buy two dishwashers, two TVs and maintain two backyards. There is a strong sense of cogency and common sense in the proposal that is before the racing industry, and in my experience to date the racing industry is in fact populated by a good many people who have a lot of experience in business who have stellar careers in other fields. They know that they make many decisions such as this regularly, and I really do call upon them to engage in this process with open eyes and in a genuine way to ensure that they have the opportunity to secure the future of racing in Brisbane city and more broadly in south-east Queensland and across Queensland. In that regard, it is worthwhile placing on the record that since 2000 some $54 million worth of racing assets have been transferred to the racing industry. They are the people who now have stewardship over these assets and the future of the racing industry is very definitely in their hands. In that regard the role for the government is that when there is a proposal for a sale that will only ever come to me after the support of the members of those clubs. That is when I have a role to play as the racing minister. I say to people that this is a proposal that should be considered very carefully indeed. Water Levels Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. Can the minister advise what his department’s advice is as to the percentage of potable water available for domestic use in the dams in south-east Queensland? Will the minister table this advice? Can the minister also advise at what level the water will not be useable by power stations? Mr WALLACE: Power stations are a matter for the Minister for Mines and Energy. With regard to water usage, the Deputy Premier is handling those issues in south-east Queensland. I can say, however, that the wonderful dams in north Queensland are all pretty much full after the rainfall up there. The Burdekin Dam is flowing over. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Darling Downs, you have asked the question. Please let the minister answer the question. Mr WALLACE: With regard to the Ross River Dam, as the Speaker well knows because it services the twin cities of Thuringowa and Townsville, there is a very good run in that dam at the moment. We were very worried a couple of weeks ago when it started to get down to about 12 per cent. The dam is now up to about 70 per cent and flowing well over the spillway. We hope that that rain makes its way down south though, because the water issues in south-east Queensland— Mr HOPPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I ask to you rule on relevance. The minister is definitely not answering the question. It was about water for south-east Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. 138 Criminal Code and Civil Liability Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

Mr WALLACE: We hope that that rain makes its way down south, because we certainly need it in the south-east corner. It is very dry. Yesterday I met with SunWater and received an update on the dam catchments in south-east Queensland. They are very dry at the moment. We hope that that rain makes its way south. With that tropical low crossing the cape today and into the Coral Sea tomorrow we hope that we do not get a big dumping of rain in north Queensland. I had a chat to my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services about that. We are very worried that that low crossing the coast tomorrow morning will mean that we will get more rain in north Queensland. For instance, at my house in Thuringowa, which is very close to Dairy Farmers Stadium, we have had about 33 inches of rain over the past two weeks. So it is very wet up there. We hope that that rain makes its way south as it is very much needed to fill the dams in the south- east corner in order to provide more water. But at least this government has a plan for the people of south-east Queensland, unlike the divided opposition, which does not support recycled water and which does not support the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. We are going to look after the people of south-east Queensland. The opposition does not support the Traveston Dam. The opposition does not have a plan for the future of south-east Queensland. We have a plan and we are working on that plan. Mr SPEAKER: That completes question time.

CRIMINAL CODE AND CIVIL LIABILITY AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (11.30 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Civil Liability Act 2003. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (11.30 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Criminal Code and Civil Liability Amendment Bill 2007 addresses growing community concern about dangerous driving offences, particularly hit-and-run offences that result in death or serious injury and dangerous driving involving excessive speeding. Currently, section 328A of the Criminal Code provides a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment for dangerous driving or five years in the case of repeat or intoxicated offenders. Under the new regime proposed, the five-year penalty will also apply to offenders who are excessively speeding, which is defined as more than 40 kilometres per hour over the prescribed speed limit, or participating in street racing or speed trialling. Currently, dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm carries seven years imprisonment or 10 years if the offender is adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. Mr Speaker, having regard to the constraints of time, I ask that the remainder of my speech be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. If the offender is over the high alcohol limit of 0.15%, the offence carries 14 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm will be increased from seven years to 10 years’ imprisonment. The same offender will be liable to 14 years’ imprisonment if at the time he or she is adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, excessively speeding or involved in an unlawful race or speed trial. The 14-year maximum penalty will also apply to an offender who leaves the scene of the offence before a police officer arrives. The new regime proposes to retain the current maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment on the basis that the most serious examples of dangerous driving causing death are charged as manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. These amendments provide for significantly tougher penalties for hoons, who treat our roads as race tracks and if their dangerous driving results in someone being killed or seriously injured. These amendments will effectively double the maximum jail term, from seven to 14 years. The amendments will also ensure that offenders adversely affected by alcohol or drugs do not avoid the maximum penalty simply because their blood-alcohol level was under 0.15%. Of course, the level of intoxication remains relevant as a circumstance to consider when determining whether the driving was in fact dangerous and because any reading over 0.15% is accepted as conclusive evidence that the offender was adversely affected pursuant to the Transport Operation (Road Use Management) Act 1995. 07 Feb 2007 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 139

There have been a number of cases in recent years involving "hit and runs", where pedestrians and cyclists have been left dead or seriously injured. In addition to showing a lack of remorse or compassion for the victim, a driver’s failure to stop at an incident also prevents blood and breath testing or an assessment of the driver as to whether he or she is adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. The amendments aim to address this issue by providing that a failure to remain at the scene until police arrive—in circumstances where the offender knows, or ought to reasonably know, that a person has been killed or injured—is a circumstance of aggravation resulting in a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. The second amendment to the Criminal Code inserts a new offence of identity fraud. Technological advances in the use of information technology have seen a corresponding growth in the crimes committed through the use of that technology, particularly through the misuse of other people’s personal and financial details. There are a number of existing offences in the Criminal Code that are relevant to the theft or misuse of personal identifying information. However, a potential gap exists where an offender possesses or supplies such information with the intention of those details being used for a criminal purpose, but without then committing a substantive offence. An example could include the obtaining of identity information in Queensland with the intention of using it to commit a fraud outside the jurisdiction. The issue of credit card skimming has been under the consideration of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) since April 2003 and the Model Criminal Code Officers’ Committee (MCCOC) released its final credit card skimming report in April 2006. MCCOC acknowledged that credit card skimming is a specific example of the wider problem of identity theft and fraud. New Section 408D addresses the wider problem of identity theft and fraud. It applies to a person who obtains or deals with another entity’s identification information for the purpose of committing, or facilitating, an indictable offence. The proposed provision is broadly drafted to ensure it does not quickly become obsolete with the development of technology. New Section 408D also empowers a sentencing court to issue a certificate for the benefit of the victim of identity fraud. This will assist a victim of such an offence to begin to repair damage to their reputation for example, their credit rating. The Bill also amends the Civil Liability Act 2003 to exclude the application of the Act to all work injuries, apart from recess and journey claims, regardless of whether the injury is caused by an employer, a host employer or a third party. The Government always intended to exclude work-related injuries from the application of the Act so that claims for work-related injuries would be governed by the common law. It was made clear in the second reading speech, that the exclusion was to apply to all work-related injuries, regardless of whether the defendant to an action was an employer or a third party. However, on 3 March 2006 the Court of Appeal, in Newberry v Suncorp-Metway Insurance Limited, interpreted the Act in a way that restricted the intended scope of this exclusion. The decision has the potential to create a disparity in the way common law damages for work-related injuries are calculated. It potentially reduces the entitlements for workers injured by the actions of a third party where the employer is not at fault, such as the driver of a motor vehicle involved in a collision with a claimant, which was the case in Newberry. The Bill aims to restore workers’ rights by redressing the effect of the Newberry decision and reinstating the government’s intention regarding the exclusion from the Civil Liability Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 6 February (see p. 105). Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (11.32 am): It gives me pleasure to rise to address some of the issues raised in the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill. At the outset I would like to record my thanks to the hardworking police officers of the Hendra division for the great work that they do in Clayfield, both in terms of their regular policing, which they perform exceptionally well, and also with the local Neighbourhood Watch groups. In fact, this Sunday, Ascot-Hendra Neighbourhood Watch Group 5 will be holding a community barbecue at Ascot Park to engage the local community. I invite anyone who wants to come along to come along and join us. I would like to acknowledge the work of Dr John Waller and his team and also Mrs Amanda Butler for organising the barbecue, supported by the Hamilton Rotary Club, which is a great supporter of the local community in Clayfield. I also reiterate my call to the minister for police for a police beat in Nundah to address the concerns of local residents and businesses in that part of my electorate. It has been a longstanding call. Recently, it was highlighted by the tragic death of a young man on the way home from the local hotel. I congratulate the police on the great job that they did in apprehending the alleged offenders and for bringing that investigation to a conclusion. But I reiterate the call for a police beat in that part of the world, which has not been serviced in a practical way by police on the beat for over 10 years. I turn now to the amendments. I would particularly like to the address the provisions in the bill that relate to that vandalism known as graffiti. Let us not beat around the bush: graffiti is not street art, it is not some valid expression of artistic merit; purely and simply it is nothing other than vandalism and the 140 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 destruction of private property or public property owned by governments and public authorities. There is no reasonable excuse for graffiti. It enrages long-suffering property owners who, no matter how quickly and frequently they remove it, are repeatedly attacked for a few cheap thrills by a mindless few. Graffiti enrages the community, which has to put up with it on its public spaces. It also enrages local authorities that have to clean it off parks, playgrounds, equipment and even the odd traffic signal box, of which I have some experience. In my own electorate, graffiti is rampant, particularly along the railway lines around Wooloowin and Eagle Junction, and it has been so for many years. Regretfully, I have to report that for years now the situation has not improved. Recently, at the opening of a new playground commissioned by the Brisbane City Council at Kalinga Park the graffiti was on the new equipment before the construction of it had been completed. In fact, graffiti was removed three times within a week of the completion of that playground equipment. Despite the best efforts of the police, they were unable to address the issue. In 2003—going back four years—the then police minister estimated the cost of graffiti to Queensland at $100 million each year. In 2001, a special committee of this parliament, made up of 34 members across party lines, was set up to investigate the issue of graffiti and ways of dealing with it. That was over six years ago. My former colleague Lord Mayor Campbell Newman estimates the cost of graffiti in Brisbane at $10 million. I know that the Brisbane City Council alone, out of its budget, puts more than $3 million a year into graffiti reduction and it has done so since 2004, given the abject failure of Labor governments for the prior 11 years to address the issue. The amount of $3 million that the current Lord Mayor allocates to graffiti reduction is far more than the amount ever put in by his Labor predecessors who, in kowtowing to the trendy Socialist Left ideals, refused to take action to address this pernicious problem. It is indeed gratifying to see this government finally adopt yet another coalition policy to ban the sale of spray-paint cans to minors. As my colleagues have pointed out, that was coalition policy before the 2004 election. Here we are, in the second month of 2007, finally adopting it. This government should be ashamed that it has taken so long to address the problem of graffiti. It is not a new problem. It has not just emerged out of thin air. It has been an ongoing problem commented on by community members, other commentators, members of this place and members of other elected representative assemblies. The government’s response to graffiti is like all of its responses—whether that be its response to water supply, road infrastructure, video recording in watch-houses, or problems in health departments. This government does not act until the situation becomes a crisis. The government is spurred to action only when the community says, ‘This much and no more will we accept.’ This government does not plan ahead. This government does not deliver outcomes. This government has introduced this legislation at least three years too late after its own police minister estimated the cost of graffiti to the community at $100 million a year. What has that cost people? At least since that time, $400 million, and $10 million each year in Brisbane since 2004—another $30 million. How many people have to have their property defaced before this government finally has the gumption to adopt a good policy that was promulgated by the coalition in this place rather than adopting the trendy, do-nothing attitude of the Socialist Left that we know is so rampant in the ALP? The government adopts a coalition policy and then mendaciously claims to be listening to Queenslanders. The truth is that it is looking after its own political hide by indulging in these sleazy Labor government actions, as it consistently does. The government is mendaciously adopting policies long after they should have been adopted. The adoption of coalition policy and the introduction of these amendments by this legislation is of little value if it is not backed up by sufficient enforcement resources. No indication has been given of what enforcement resources will be available. So will this yet be another case of the government saying that it is taking action, appearing to take action and doing nothing to solve the problem? The minister should give a clear commitment to this House and the people of Queensland of the resources that she intends to put in place to enforce this ban on the sale of spray-paint to minors. We have heard nothing more about it at this stage. Is it going to again be another case of a lot of words, but no action? Reports show that during 2005 20,000 photographs of suspected graffiti offenders were collected for a database but only 400 offenders were found guilty of graffiti offences in 2005—an abject failure and evidence, if any were needed, of this government’s go soft attitude on crime. Despite the often flowery rhetoric of the Premier and his ministers, the evidence gives lie to the claim about cracking down on crime. Turning briefly to the provisions relating to the actions to ban SMS alerts, my colleague the member for Burnett has already raised issues regarding the adequacy of the response given the rapid pace of change in technology and this government’s knee-jerk reaction—or should I say a year down the track knee-jerk reaction—to the problem of the Road Spy organisation. Again, one has to ask: what resources will be put into enforcement and monitoring and how will this legislation cope should an operator choose to move out of the Queensland jurisdiction? 07 Feb 2007 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 141

This government should not be congratulated for bringing this amendment legislation into this House. It ought to be condemned for its tardiness in responding to the graffiti problem and the inadequacy of its response to the speed camera alerts issue. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (11.41 am): I rise to support the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill. In doing so I must take this opportunity to comment on the previous speech by the member for Clayfield. The coalition has lost the last four elections and it is obvious that those opposite have not learnt a thing from that. If they had listened, they would know that people do not expect their members of parliament to get up and talk about who did what to whom or whose policy it was or was not. People expect us to just get on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today. So the member might like to go back and listen to his constituents. Firstly I will speak on the amendment prohibiting persons, including corporations, in trade or commerce from sending SMS, internet or similar messages to other persons for the purpose of enabling the recipient to avoid, or be prepared for, a police check at a police traffic enforcement site. An example of why this amendment has come about is the service provided by Road Spy—a company that sends SMS text message alerts to subscribing motorists. The texts give warnings 24 hours a day on the exact sites of mobile speed cameras and radars. When I heard about this service I was very concerned. I do not feel very safe knowing that when I am driving around other people are also driving around getting SMS alerts on radar locations, and I am pretty sure that many drivers are not pulling over to read the messages. This alone is certainly a major road safety concern. The ban on sending messages via SMS and other designated means to alert persons about the location of police traffic enforcement sites will be covered by a new section 24A ‘Unlawful SMS messages etc.’ to be included in the Summary Offences Act 2005. Subsection 24A very clearly describes what this bill is about and clearly defines ‘traffic enforcement site’. Subsection 24A also clearly defines ‘relevant message’, ‘internet message’ and ‘SMS message’. I am not going to use this time to repeat those definitions because they are very clear in the bill and I am sure we heard a lot about them last night in other speeches. I will return to the definition of a ‘traffic enforcement site’ because I think this is useful. A ‘traffic enforcement site’ is a site of a speed camera, a random breath test site and a vehicle safety check site. So we are not just talking about speed cameras. I have raised the fact that these definitions are clear because a question that was asked of me about this bill was why the bill did not include radio broadcasting of speed camera and radar sites. It is clear that these definitions distinguish between radio broadcasts and services such as Road Spy. I do not have concerns with radio stations broadcasting speed camera sites. They are usually done in the morning or at peak hours when general traffic information is being given to commuters. Radio stations are not giving a 24-hour service with specific details on speed camera sites and are therefore very different from the companies that are giving the instant messages and specific details regarding random breath testing sites, speed cameras and other traffic enforcement sites. In fact, I believe that the general details that the radio stations do give can often be a reminder for road safety, particularly the road safety message of ‘enough is enough—speed kills’. So general details given randomly are very different from the definite paid service of providing specific and exact information to a person which is what this bill is targeting. Acquiring specific information on traffic enforcement sites for a road trip to me is not a road safety reminder. In fact, it definitely shows a lack of respect for road safety. I have always maintained that speed camera fines are a voluntary tax. It is quite simple: if you do not want to pay, do not speed. When we do not have people speeding and that, in turn, means that we do not have speed camera revenue, that will be a good day for the government because it will mean fewer lives will be lost on our roads. I also want to point out that this subsection does not apply to the provider of a telephone service or an internet service provider only because another person uses the provider’s telephone or internet service to inform someone else of the location of a traffic enforcement site. So this bill is targeting the people who need to be targeted. The second area that I wish to comment on is the strengthening of existing antigraffiti laws by banning the sale of spray-paint cans to minors—that is, to persons aged 17 years and under. In my electorate one of the most common targets for graffiti, as in nearly all of our electorates, has been schools. I am pleased to report that in my electorate that is now beginning to be something of the past due to a great partnership between the police, community and the Queensland government’s School Watch Program. I want to congratulate our local police because during the recent school vacation period the police carried out in excess of 1,200 patrols past schools and attended approximately 50 incidents that had occurred in or on school grounds. That is a really big effort by our police and I want to congratulate them. They are putting in a big effort to prevent damage to schools and, with the help of the School Watch Program—and that is the community working in partnership with the police—we are protecting our schools. I want to take this opportunity to pass on my thanks to Superintendent Paul Taylor and to ask him to pass on my sincere thanks to those officers who are working very hard to protect our community. Slacks Creek police station has just had a number of officers promoted to the rank of sergeant. I see the 142 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 professionalism and commitment they have not only to their careers but also to the community. I wish those sergeants well in their new jobs. Of course that left the station fairly short sometimes when we were waiting on replacements. But to me it shows the calibre of officer that we have going through the Slacks Creek police station, and that is something my community can be very proud of. I also want to welcome two new police officers at the Rochedale South police beat, and I look forward to catching up with them soon. I do not need to speak about the cost and inconvenience of cleaning up graffiti in our communities as that is well known. So there is no doubt that this bill will be well received. The other reason I support the ban on sales of spray-paint to minors is that it will contribute to tackling the practice of chroming. I have been with services that travel throughout Logan usually late at night and in the early hours of the morning and I have seen the very clear evidence of some of the chroming that is occurring in our city. I acknowledge that it is not unique to Logan, and it is disturbing that some of our young people feel the need to practise chroming, risking their health and their lives. This bill will contribute to the decrease of graffiti in our communities but, more importantly, it will also contribute to assisting us to help young people and communities tackle the problem of chroming. I know that in Logan there were some retailers who had adopted a voluntary code of practice of not selling spray-paint to minors, and I heard from retailers just how difficult that had been for them—in particular for their front-line staff who often suffered abuse, threats and in some cases witnessed property being damaged or feared for their safety. This bill will now give them the legislative support they really need. I also want to acknowledge the minister’s statement this morning in relation to CCTV cameras being installed in custodial areas. I thank the minister because I believe that this is not just a great win for police, as it is certainly protecting our police officers from false complaints, but also a good win for the community. So I think it is a good win all the way round. I want to acknowledge the role that the minister played in securing that package for our police officers, and I thank her for that. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (11.50 am): I rise to support the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 introduced into this House on 2 November last year by the Hon. Judy Spence, Minister for Police and Corrective Services. I wish to confine my remarks to the amendments on graffiti. One of the objects of the bill is to strengthen existing antigraffiti laws by banning the sale of spray-paint to minors up to the age of 17 years. This bill will ensure that police officers will be able to combat graffiti crimes more effectively. We have to realise that graffiti is a crime, it is not an art; although some people would say that some graffiti is certainly artistic. The introduction of this bill will clearly impact on the ability of minors to obtain spray-paint, spray-paint being defined to include any liquid or other substance in a spray-can that, if applied to any surface, is designed to colour, stain, mark or corrode the surface. However, there are probably very limited times when minors could clearly demonstrate any financial or other material detriment resulting from this predicament. I was very pleased to be part of the Beattie Labor government’s bipartisan graffiti task force set up in the last parliament by the then police minister, the Hon. Tony McGrady, and ably chaired by the member for Kurwongbah, Linda Lavarch. The task force looked at ways to combat graffiti and it saw the benefits of banning the sale of spray-cans to minors. It is pleasing to see outcomes from that task force being taken up by this government. One of the best outcomes of that task force was the provision of a graffiti trailer—which was made by the inmates of Woodford prison—to some of the electorates that were hardest hit with graffiti. This trailer was supported by Bunnings, Wattyl paints and the community and its aim was to cover up graffiti that was offensive as soon as possible. I was able to successfully lobby on behalf of a number of electorates in the far-northern suburbs of Brisbane, including Pumicestone, which I represent, and Glass House, which Carolyn Male represents, to obtain one of the first trailers. Initially it was used to paint over a number of public buildings which had been hit with graffiti, including the Morayfield Girl Guides hut, the Beerburrum Scouts hut and the public toilet block at Melsa Park at Bongaree. I have to say that the member for Glass House has a very good brush technique and she certainly did not mind helping out when we needed it. The trailer was handed to the local Bribie Island Apex Club to continue the good work we had begun. Unfortunately, the Bribie Island Apex Club’s charter was suspended in August 2006 and the Bribie police have been asked by the community to take possession of the trailer so that the local Neighbourhood Watch groups and others can run the service. This state has the harshest graffiti laws and this next step of banning the sale of spray-cans to minors is a worthwhile measure to restrict the availability of such graffiti implements. It certainly deserves bipartisan support. Mr Lee: Well, we got rid of Caltabiano’s car. 07 Feb 2007 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 143

Mrs SULLIVAN: I take that interjection from the member for Indooroopilly. Certainly the car of the former member for Chatsworth, Michael Caltabiano, was, in fact, the biggest road hazard I have ever seen. During the last election campaign it was totally graffitied by pictures of himself. That certainly is a crime. Harsher penalties for graffiti are not the entire solution to the problem. We need to consider why particularly young people commit this crime and what else we can do as a government, what the community can do and what businesses can do to prevent it from recurring. No doubt some get a thrill out of vandalising other people’s property and gangs of graffiti vandals are well organised with their own web sites, but many are talented and we need to harvest that talent in a productive way. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (11.53 am): I am pleased to rise in support of the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendments Bill 2006. The predominant amendments in this bill address a serious community issue and one which goes to the heart of community safety and order—that is, graffiti. Graffiti is not a new problem in our society, nor is it a unique one. It is a worldwide problem and communities and governments at many levels are grappling with how to deal with it. I have seen graffiti in many forms in many places in the world, from names scratched last century in miniature into the tiles of the Taj Mahal to tags and pictures emblazoned all over buildings and trains. In Spain the local authorities resurfaced the interiors of the subway carriages with a new paint to which spray-paint or pen would not stick, only to have the graffiti vandals take to scratching their names and marks into the perspex windows with compass points and pen knives. My point is that we will never be able to completely stamp out graffiti, but as a government we must do what we can to prevent its prevalence, to discourage participants and to divert young people and offenders to other activities. This bill will strengthen the existing antigraffiti laws which are among the harshest in Australia— across the world, in fact—by banning the sale of spray-paint cans to minors aged 17 or under. I have been appalled at the ease with which spray-cans can be bought. There has been a lot of goodwill and common sense shown by some retailers in recent years, particularly major chains and hardware stores which introduced a voluntary code of practice and place spray-cans out of sight or behind counters. But this good work has often been overturned by other retailers who have scant consideration or are very ignorant of the issue. I have seen boxes of spray-paint cans for sale with a sale sign stuck on them at something like $2 each put at the front of a discount store—easy pickings for kids who could just walk past and pinch them easily enough or who could easily scrape together the coins needed to buy them. Even for those retailers who have a voluntary code of practice restricting the sale of spray-cans to minors, the difficulty is that some staff may be reluctant to enforce it if challenged or if they are simply unable to guess the age of the customer they may be afraid of being accused of being discriminatory. To more effectively combat spray-paint graffiti crime five new sections will be inserted into the Summary Offences Act 2005. I welcome these amendments which will require proof of age before selling the spray-paint cans and provides penalties for those who do sell cans to minors. The amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 also give police the power to search cars where they suspect spray-paint cans have been carried by minors or for the purposes of graffiti, to ask persons to show proof of age if they are carrying spray-cans and to confiscate cans from minors. Retailers will also be required to display signs outlining their restrictions. These are important changes and will go a long way to helping police do their job when it comes to apprehending graffiti vandals. It is a job they are already doing very well despite the difficulties they have had. Just last week I met with my local officers in charge of both Nerang and Mudgeeraba stations to talk about the growing incidences of graffiti, vandalism and crimes being undertaken by young people in some areas within my electorate. I was impressed to see that they had 200 spray-cans locked away which they had recently confiscated in an operation and to hear that a prolific graffiti offender had been charged. I have always held the view that graffiti is a social problem and that the whole community owns it. By and large most people in the community agree. There are great examples of community cooperation where working together with government is tackling the problem. Neighbourhood Watch and police community consultative groups, Lions groups, Apex, as we have heard from other members, service clubs, business operators, not only frequently raise the issue of graffiti but are often actively involved in its removal. Police also rely very heavily on community information when it comes to catching or finding graffiti offenders. Unlike some recent media we have seen on the Gold Coast where there are claims that local residents have given up calling police, what I want to do is urge residents to continue to report graffiti to police and to the Gold Coast City Council because police can and do undertake very successful operations to catch graffiti vandals. They will use any means they can to catch the offenders if they know where it is happening and roughly when it is happening—for example, sneaking up on offenders on pushbike and catching them. But they can only do that if they know where it is happening. They do not 144 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 have mental telepathy powers. They are very able in many ways but they do not know where the problem is unless the community tells them. Reporting and recording graffiti for police management is important but it is the rapid removal which brings the best results because all the graffiti vandal really wants is exposure and recognition. So getting rid of the tags as soon as possible is vital. I want to give the Gold Coast City Council a pat on the back because they run a graffiti hotline which provides for 24-hour removal of offensive graffiti on council or private property. They are also working very closely with other agencies, such as Energex, the Department of Main Roads and Queensland Rail, to improve communication so that graffiti on road signs, power boxes, railway lines and the like can be removed. I want to congratulate them on this initiative and continue to encourage residents to use it and to report to their councillors on its effectiveness. A problem arises when the property is owned by an absent or sometimes overseas owner or a big business that will not give permission for the removal of graffiti or is impossible to contact or is completely disinterested in the property—in particular, if it is a commercial property and the retailers are paying the lease. I have a particular problem in the Merrimac area which has been escalating for some months now. A group of local shopkeepers are being terrorised by young people who regularly graffiti and vandalise their shops and threaten and stand over them. As leaseholders the shopkeepers are fighting an uphill battle with an absentee owner who will not assist in cleaning off graffiti, who will not improve security or visibility in the precinct and who continues to raise the cost of their leases so that there are increasing numbers of shopkeepers who are leaving, resulting in a turnover of retailers and empty shops, which just encourages or increases destructive activity in the area. In my view, commercial property owners should be made to take some responsibility in these cases, because experience shows that when a local shopping area is well managed and well kept, has good security and good visibility and is clean the vandals are discouraged, move on or are much easier to catch. I want to congratulate the community members who are involved in starting up the new Neighbourhood Watch group in the Merrimac area. They have been very active and most keen to improve vigilance and amenity in the area to support the local shopkeepers and improve things in their local streets. They have also been speaking with local young people. At one of their meetings, they had a young man who was previously a graffiti offender as a guest speaker. They spoke to him about his behaviour and where it came from. They demonstrated by this a genuine commitment to better supporting young people and diverting them to other activities and also a better understanding of what is going on in their own local area. They are doing the right thing to tackle this problem. They know it is a community problem. It is a fairly new one in this area, but it is getting worse and if it is ignored it will continue to get worse. The only person doing the wrong thing is the failed Liberal candidate who keeps talking up the problem and making it sound worse than it is so the perception of it is also worse. This invites further destructive activity and potentially affects property values in the area by giving the graffiti vandals exactly what they want. Having a photo taken while standing next to walls of graffiti or tags and then posting that photo on the internet or on a web site or putting it in the local papers gives the graffiti vandals exactly the fame and publicity they want. All the experts in this area say that that is not what should be done. That behaviour is irresponsible and self-serving and her time would have been better spent getting the graffiti off her own election signs, which she has only just bothered to take down. Finally, I want to encourage local businesses and, in particular, the chambers of commerce in Nerang and Mudgeeraba who raised this issue with me to work with the local commercial operators— and they know who they are—to get the graffiti removed when it is on commercial property and the council has no jurisdiction without their permission. I also encourage them to support local initiatives like Neighbourhood Watch and youth organisations like YARA, the Youth at Risk Alliance, which is based in Nerang and works with these disaffected young people to divert them to other activities. Local businesspeople have the ability to provide support—whether it is financial support or the support of sitting down and talking with young people and giving them opportunities to work or use their existing talents in other areas. There is no doubt that graffiti costs our community millions of dollars a year and reduces the amenity and perceived safety of our local streets and suburbs, but it is a community problem and one which we can all play a part in tackling. My local police officers are really proactive when it comes to this issue, especially when working with young people and community safety issues in the electorate, so I want to thank them for that. I want to commend the minister for getting these amendments before the House. They may be small steps but they are very important ones because they can make a difference when it comes to fighting graffiti at the local level. The Beattie government is taking many other important steps to improve law and order and community safety by continuing to increase police numbers and resources. In my electorate, we are looking at a new statistical division and a new police station being established in Reedy Creek to the south, which will take pressure off Mudgeeraba. There will be further improvements at Mudgeeraba as well, and these are very welcome moves. 07 Feb 2007 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 145

The bill makes some other important amendments, but I wanted to restrict my comments to the graffiti issues because they are the issues that have been most recently raised by my constituents. I also want to mention that I have been speaking with the minister for police and her office, and I am continuing my discussions with the Attorney-General’s office regarding the sentencing regime around graffiti offences and the penalties that are available. I am prepared to look at anything outside of the box that has been suggested to me by my constituents—things like penalties where parents are also held responsible, if they can be, and are made to pay for the damage or removal. I am prepared to look at those things across this jurisdiction and see if it is being done anywhere else. I am continuing those discussions. I welcome all the useful suggestions from my community and thank them very much for their active work. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (12.03 pm): I would like to thank all members who spoke on the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill. Most members focused on the graffiti part of the legislation, and that is understandable. I think all members have displayed a good understanding of the problem of graffiti in our society and how their constituents are worried by this unhealthy trend. Members have also displayed the fact that they are working closely with community organisations, councils and chambers of commerce. We all have to acknowledge that there are many people in our community who are working hard to try to diminish the problem of graffiti. Members have also acknowledged the work that the police do in tackling this problem. The police have many creative and inventive ways to catch graffiti vandals in our society and they are getting some good prosecutions. One of the most innovative ones that I have learnt about—and I will not say in which area it occurred—is a police station that invites all their local youth, particularly the graffiti artists, to a party once a year and they give them spray-cans to have a bit of a fun time with. In that way, they work out whose tag belongs to whom when they see it in the community. That is just an example of the innovation that the police are using to try to get these culprits. At the end of the day, we are not winning the battle against graffiti. I actually have to agree with the member for Gladstone, who expressed the sentiment that it is a sad and sorry day when the Queensland parliament has to pass legislation to ban the sale of spray-cans to young people. It is a right that young people have always enjoyed—the right to go down to the shop and legitimately buy a can of spray-paint and engage in a hobby. In the future, they will have to get their parents to do that for them. That is sad because we know that it is only a minority of young people who engage in this illegal behaviour and that the majority of young people are good kids who would never contemplate going out and vandalising our public spaces. Obviously, the problem is that large and we are forced to go down this route because we believe it is necessary to tackle this problem yet again. I thank all members for their contributions. I will not comment on every individual member’s contribution but I do want to answer some of the questions and issues that were raised generally during the debate. I acknowledge the member for Burnett is providing general support for this legislation on behalf of the coalition. The member for Burnett has raised a number of issues concerning the bill. The first was the sale of spray-cans to minors and the second was the sending of SMS and other messages for the purpose of trade by individuals or corporations. This legislation means that if a text message is sent for trade or commerce then prosecution can occur even if the sender is based out of Queensland. I can assure the member for Burnett that the removal of the expiry of the volatile substance misuse provisions has occurred because we are committed to making these VSM areas permanent. We are not removing VSM areas, as he contends; rather, we are making them permanent. The current use of police powers to police VSM expires on 1 August this year, so by removing this passage from the bill we will not have to keep renewing them. The government has continually renewed and expanded police powers to enforce the VSM for every 12 months for several years. With these powers giving police the power to take a person affected by drugs to a place of safety, we believe they are so important that we want to continue with them. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee inquired as to whether the Commonwealth Age Discrimination Act affects the operation of the provisions that exempt the spray-paint provisions from the Anti-Discrimination Act Queensland. I can assure members that the Commonwealth act does not affect this exemption. The member for Burnett was concerned that he had not seen a copy of my response to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s concerns with regards to this bill, so I will table that now for all members. Tabled paper: Letter, undated, from Hon Spence, Minister for Police and Corrective Services to Mrs C Sullivan, Chair Scrutiny of Legislation Committee re matters raised in Alert Digest 10 of 2006. In answer to the member for Gregory’s question about penalties, the higher penalties for sellers of spray-paint address the requirement to deter the unlawful sale of spray-paints to minors. While the maximum penalty for possessing a graffiti implement under the Summary Offences Act is $1,500 or one year’s imprisonment, the Criminal Code also includes severe penalties for offenders who commit graffiti damage of up to five years imprisonment. I can also advise the member for Gregory and others that it is illegal to flash high-beam lights to oncoming traffic. To do this to warn people of speed cameras is also illegal. 146 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

In answer to the question asked by the member for Gladstone about an individual being charged, the offence only relates to people who provide a service of informing another person of the location of a traffic enforcement site in trade or commerce. It will not capture individuals sending SMS text messages to another person outside of trade or commerce. To clarify for the member for Nanago the situation about an employer being liable for the actions of an employee, it is highly unlikely an employer would be liable for the actions of their employee—in this case, the selling of spray-paint cans to minors—if they take appropriate preventive measures as outlined in the bill such as educating their employees, giving them a direction not to sell spray-paint to minors, putting up signs to notify potential spray-paint buyers who are minors that this is an offence. If an employer does not do this, then he is liable as the employee has not been properly trained. The member for Clayfield raised the issue of a police station for Nundah. I can tell the member for Clayfield I am advised by police that there has been no significant trend in relation to reported offences against the person in the Nundah area in the past three years. While the recent tragedy is a terrible situation, police advise that overall rates of crime are actually consistent with the rates across the entire North Brisbane Police District. There are no plans to establish a police station or beat in the Nundah Village. Nundah Village, which is in the North Brisbane Police District, is surrounded by three police facilities that are located close by. The Toombul Police Beat shopfront is less than one kilometre away. The Hendra Police Station is four kilometres from Nundah Village. Hendra is a major station within the district which also houses CIB and Child Protection and Investigation Unit officers. In addition, the district headquarters situated at Boondall is approximately six kilometres from the Nundah Village. This station contains additional resources, including the North Brisbane Traffic Branch and the Tactical Crime Squad. I am advised that the Nundah Village area is regularly patrolled by police from the Hendra station and that police will continue this level of policing. I can say to the member for Clayfield that he represents one of the luckiest areas in the state in terms of police resources and many people would be very comforted by having so many police stations in close proximity. I hope I have addressed the major areas of concern for many of the members. One more issue I would like to address is one that has been raised by a number of speakers and that is the issue of how we choose the location of speed cameras. I am disappointed that members of parliament are not better informed about this and that they cannot provide their constituents with good answers when they are asked the question. I know that people in Queensland get cranky when they receive a speeding ticket. They write to me often enough about it. They get crankier when they think that a speed camera is being suspiciously located and should not be in that location. I do ask members to inform themselves so they can explain to their constituents that the speed camera location sites are determined by local area committees which include Department of Transport people, police and others. The sites are determined by these committees using road accident information. So they cannot locate a speed camera in an area where there have been no accidents. It is on that basis. If people have concerns that police are locating their speed cameras in unfair locations they really should contact the local police, find out who this local area committee is that is making the determinations and get themselves briefed about the traffic accident data that is informing this committee when making these decisions. Please come to me and get the explanation. We will put them in touch with the local police so they can be better informed. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr MESSENGER (12.15 pm): It is nice to be able to speak to the legislation. I think this is the first time we have had the opportunity to examine police legislation in the consideration in detail stage. Last time such legislation was before parliament it was actually guillotined through. I do appreciate this time to speak to the legislation and to examine it. Clause 6 relates to the supplying of SMS messages. It was basically a knee-jerk reaction to the service that the company Road Spy had set up in south-east Queensland on the Gold Coast. If this bill passes as it stands, this legislation will already be out of date. This legislation does not pick up GPS services. People will still be able to receive warnings via their GPS system. If this service on the Gold Coast or any other provider of this type of service decides to make that information free, for example, via the Google web site—people are not charged for using Google; it is a free service but they then charge advertisers to run their banners on that web site—then this legislation would be ineffective as they could get around this provision. If this service decides to set up outside Queensland nationally or even internationally, which can be quite easily done these days, then this provision is already out of date. It is superfluous. 07 Feb 2007 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 147

If the minister really wants to stop road users receiving this information, instead of targeting the provider of the service, why has she not decided to target the receivers of this service? I spoke at length in my second reading speech about an IT expert, Mr Wayne Bucklar. When we talked it out it was just common sense that it would be easier, if the minister was fair dinkum about stopping this service, for the minister to draft legislation that targets the people who receive it. Wayne told me that if police suspected that people were in receipt of this information they would love the opportunity to be able to take people’s mobile phones or whatever devices they receive this information on and look at them to confirm they had received this information. In the course of that search they may uncover other information. He likened it to people receiving pornographic images: you target the receiver, the user, rather than the supplier. The supplier is going to create a lot of logistical problems for the police force. Why has the minister not targeted the receivers? Ms SPENCE: There were a number of points raised. Firstly, I cannot say this often enough: this legislation applies anywhere. If someone is operating this service from New South Wales and it is coming to Queensland, police can go into New South Wales, issue a warrant and bring them back to Queensland to face court. I know the member has expressed concerns, as did a couple of other members. Let me make the point that this operates throughout Australia. We can get anyone who is operating this service from another state. Secondly, I think the member is saying that we have not taken into consideration new technology. I say to the member that that is impossible to do. I cannot predict what the technology is going to be and who is going to operate a service like this using some new technology in the next 12 months, let alone the next five years. The wonderful thing we do in this place is change the law when circumstances change. Five or 10 years ago we would not have been in parliament to legislate against a service like this because SMS did not even exist. I cannot predict what new technology is going to throw up and put that into legislation today. All we can do is deal with the problems as they arise. That is what we are doing today. The third point the member raised is why we are not focusing on the users rather than the supplier. He made the point that it would be easier for the police. I do not think so. At this time we only have one company in Queensland providing this information. I believe it is absolutely abhorrent to be profiting out of information such as this. We are introducing this legislation to close down that business and anyone else in this state or elsewhere who seeks to profit from providing this kind of information to road users. It is easier for the police to target the supplier rather than the users of the service. I think that addresses all the issues. Mr MESSENGER: We hear the Premier saying ad nauseam that this is the Smart State and that we have been tagged the Smart State. We are not the Smart State if we already know that the legislation before the parliament is superfluous. We are coming across as Luddites. It does not require much imagination. The minister has the resources of government and a whole department before her. This is really shoddy legislation. It is out of date. It will not work from day 1. From the moment the Governor signs the assent it will not work. It is behind the eight ball. People can download that information right now using their TomToms and GPS services. The minister has not taken that into account. What about digital radio which is just around the corner? Radio stations will be able to supply information on tracks and other information about artists and the information they broadcast verbally now about the location of traffic enforcement sites will be displayed on screen. The minister is betwixt and between. She is having two bob each way. I suggest the reason the government is not targeting the users, which would stop the problem, is that it is too politically difficult. It is not fair dinkum. It is too politically difficult. There is the other point related to the use of resources. We will send detectives out of Queensland to go and chase these people setting up internet sites all around the country. The minister did not address what the government will do if they set up overseas. I worry about this use of valuable police resources. You have a nice smirk on your face right now. She thinks this is funny stuff. I certainly do not think it is funny. It comes back to saving lives on roads and the misery that goes with the loss of life. You have a sexual predator or sexual predators attacking women around Brisbane. Would it not be a better use of police resources to chase those people rather than sending them on wild goose chases to try to shut down an internet site? Those detectives are chasing ghosts. They are not going to get the people. It is a complete waste of police resources and shows an unpreparedness and laziness on the part of the department. Minister, what is the overall philosophy of your government on this issue? Are you going to get fair dinkum? Are you going to be like New South Wales and Victoria— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I would ask the member for Burnett to address his comments through the chair. Mr MESSENGER: Through you to the minister, I would like the minister to explain the government’s philosophy on speed cameras. Are we going to go down the route of New South Wales and Victoria where location information is available to the public on the web sites of those departments? 148 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

We have highly trained police officers sitting out in speed camera vans. Is the government going to do as Victoria has done and put private operators into those vans—that is, train up technicians to sit in speed vans and use those radar or laser devices? Ms SPENCE: Some of us who have been around this place for a long time would remember that when shadow ministers disagreed with a piece of legislation they would actually do some work on the legislation and bring their own amendments to the House. Mr Wellington might remember that. I remember as a shadow minister disagreeing with government legislation. I worked very hard one Christmas holidays on a piece of legislation that I vehemently opposed. I basically rewrote the legislation because I had so many amendments to put to government for the government’s consideration. I say to the shadow minister that he might try that in future. He is very critical of this legislation not being far-sighted enough. I have to tell him that the police and our law writers in government have worked very hard on this ground-breaking piece of new legislation to solve a problem. If the member thinks he can do better then he should write his own amendments and put them to me and to the government and we will consider them. This is the laziest opposition in the world. We have evidence of that today. He talks about all these problems but he has no solutions. He has done no work on this at all. The member goes on about the waste of police resources. The Police Service want this legislation. They want to close down this company. They do not want people profiting out of giving the public information about their speed cameras. They want this legislation. They have put together this legislation. This government is very supportive of it. Finally, the member is encouraging us to go down the path of civilianising traffic camera operation. Talk to the Police Service and see whether they support that. They do not and we do not. Mr MESSENGER: The minister talks about laziness. The finest example of laziness is this bill before the House. She has not addressed the points raised. She has not addressed the allocation of police resources to wild goose chases interstate looking for web sites that may or may not exist. Mr LEE: On a point of order, the member is being outrageously repetitive and is going around in circles. The matters he is raising are not relevant to the clause of the bill that is being debated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! There is no point of order. Mr MESSENGER: I make the comment that I am replying directly to the minister and the issues that she raised. I am trying to get to the bottom of this. She accused me and my staff of being lazy. I take great offence to that. This comes from a police minister who has been asleep at the wheel and has presided over the biggest crisis in policing that we have ever seen in Queensland. Did Road Spy not make its monthly payments to the ALP? Is that why those opposite have brought in the legislation? Did it not come up with the $8,333.33 per month? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burnett, I would ask you to come back to the subject of the bill. The matters you have raised are not part of the bill. Mr MESSENGER: This clause—and I am only talking about this clause—is a bad clause. It is poorly drafted. If we are going to talk about laziness, there is intellectual laziness in thinking it out. We all have the intent. I appreciate the government’s intent in this bill, but just because I go out and buy a second-hand FJ does not mean that I am going to win Bathurst. This clause is the equivalent of a second-hand FJ. It will not stop people receiving this information and it will not stop people supplying this information and it will not save one life on Queensland’s roads. That is why we are opposing it. Division: Question put—That the clause, as read, be agreed to. AYES, 59—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Finn NOES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr MESSENGER (12.39 pm): Clause 16 omits section 608 in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Section 608 in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 deals with the expiry of sections 604 to 606 and relates to the volatile substance misuse program. Section 604 relates to dealings with persons affected by potentially harmful things, section 605 relates to duties in relation to a person detained under 604 and section 606 says that there is no compulsion to stay at a place of safety. It says that any person taken to a place of safety cannot be compelled to stay there unless the act otherwise stipulates. This whole section deals with a very important program that currently operates within Queensland, and that is the ability for a police officer to take someone they 07 Feb 2007 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 149 suspect of suffering from volatile substance misuse—and it is everywhere. This morning I went for a run and even out the front of Parliament House there was a spray-can that had obviously been used in some sort of volatile substance misuse. No community is safe from this scourge. This is a very practical, common-sense program that the police have at their disposal. The minister in her summation of the legislation has said that the government has given a commitment to make this program permanent. The way I read it, there are only eight—and I have a copy of them here somewhere—or so locations throughout the state where this trial can be carried out. I commend the minister for that. But I ask: what is the minister’s commitment to this whole program, because the CMC report says that there is a commitment to the expansion of this service throughout the state? If this service is good and if this program is saving lives in those eight centres throughout Queensland, why is there no program to expand this service to the rest of Queensland so that the rest of Queensland, especially marginalised Indigenous communities, can have the benefit of that program as well as the police, because it is a great program? What is so sneaky about omitting clause 16 is that it means there is no proper review of this program, and the review of the operation is set up in clause 606—that is, part of the omitted clauses. It says that the CMC must keep the operations of sections 604 to 606 under review for nine months after the sections commence. The conduct of the review and the preparation of the report is a function of the CMC under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. In the course of preparing the report, the CMC must consult with the minister and then, finally, the CMC must give a copy of the report to the Speaker for tabling in the Legislative Assembly. So by getting rid of these sections, members are losing the ability to look at that CMC report. Once more, the openness and transparency of this government diminishes, and who is going to suffer? The people in the community are going to suffer, the police are going to suffer—we are all going to suffer. I can see no good reason to omit these sections. I would like the minister to say that she has a genuine commitment to this program and that she will expand this program—subject to the CMC report, of course—throughout the state. Ms SPENCE: I have to say that the shadow minister is making me feel like I am back in the classroom with the 9B4 boys trying to teach them long division. I am becoming frustrated by the member’s inability to grasp what this clause is about. Despite being briefed on this legislation on two occasions by my staff, the member still has not picked up what this clause is about. Clause 16 removes the need for police to write regulations every 12 months to expand our volatile substance misuse trials. So under this clause we will no longer have to do that every 12 months because, today, we are committing ourselves to that legislation into the future. That is all we are doing with this clause—nothing more than that. This is the government’s commitment that those trials are good, they have worked and we want them to continue. That is all we are doing. I do not know if I can say that any clearer for the shadow minister, but that is all we are doing. Mr MESSENGER: I must say that the minister is making me feel like I am doing very bad theatre restaurant and I am getting interjections from the drunkards and the hecklers. This minister is trying to trivialise the omission of these sections. In her reply, she has not given a commitment to expand this service throughout Queensland. The minister has given a commitment to only have it at the place of safety trials at Mount Isa, Cairns, Townsville, inner Brisbane, Logan, Rockhampton, Gracemere and Caboolture. Those are the declared localities for the place of safety trials. If it is a great trial, if it is working, then why will the minister not give a commitment to allocate the resources and expand these trials to throughout the state? The minister has not answered that question and refuses to answer it. The other point that the minister fails to mention—and acknowledge—is that there is public review of this trial. It is not just a policing matter; it is a social welfare and health matter. The police report says that, in advocating a sunset clause, the CMC is not calling into question the capacity of the police to use powers appropriately when responding to VSM; rather, it seeks to highlight the importance of stakeholders understanding that, although the police are a critical contributor to the multiagency response to VSM, they cannot be expected to assume primary responsibility for what is a welfare rather than law enforcement function. The minister is complaining about writing out a report for the CMC. The minister is complaining about tabling that report in parliament so that we can all assess it. The minister is complaining about being open and accountable. Ms SPENCE: I will make two points. This clause is not about the CMC reviewing the legislation. This clause does not make any changes in that regard. In terms of addressing our commitment to expand the volatile substance misuse trials, we started with about three areas in the state and we now have about seven or eight. So over the years we have been expanding it. This expansion means that we have to find an organisation in a town who will take these young people who are inhaling substances and divert them, give them some counselling and give them some support. This clause is about allowing police to divert these young people from custody, which is why we put a lot of money into these trials. We put a lot of money into getting these organisations up and running and we will continue to do that. I give the member my commitment to this process. The police are giving their commitment to this process. That is what we are doing here today by removing their need to make regulations to extend this legislation every 12 months. 150 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

Mr MESSENGER: The minister has not given a commitment to expand this program. The gravity of this program, as the minister correctly stated, is that it diverts young people from jail. It stops them from being placed in jail while they are under the influence of volatile substances. That will invariably save lives in the future. My point is that, if this is a great program for Queensland right now—if it is working—then let us have a greater government commitment to it. Ms Spence: It is our legislation. We thought it up. We introduced it. What are you talking about a government commitment? Mr MESSENGER: The government is only doing it half-heartedly. It is like the CMC recommendations. The government hands down the CMC recommendation and then claims credit for the CMC recommendation and says, ‘It was our idea to refer it to the CMC.’ But when the recommendations are made the government does not follow through. The government puts out a press release and that is it. It governs by press release. If the minister is fair dinkum, she will leave those sections in the legislation and she will allow proper public scrutiny of this trial. The minister should let the Indigenous community and the wider community see how good, or not good, this program is. The minister should leave these sections in the legislation. Division: Question put—That the clause, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 59—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Nolan NOES, 25—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 16, as read, agreed to. Clauses 17 to 32, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to.

Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 12.57 pm to 2.30 pm.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill Resumed from 28 November 2006 (see p. 616) Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (2.30 pm): I rise today to speak to the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 on behalf of the coalition, the official opposition. At the outset I indicate that the coalition will be supporting this legislation. Having said that, there are a number of areas of concern that the coalition does hold that I will be outlining as I go through my contribution as areas of concern that we need to watch once this legislation is implemented. This bill falls under the training section of my shadow portfolio which is a new area of responsibility that I picked up following the last state election. The Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts is now the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts. That is a sensible change in structure for these portfolios because education and training should go hand in hand. Given the changes and reforms that have occurred in recent times, both at a state and federal level, it makes an awful lot of sense for the two portfolios to work together. We need to make sure that they are working closely and are interacting well to get outcomes, policies and delivery of services right across Queensland. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 151

There are a significant number of challenges and workforce issues ahead of us when it comes to training and education. We need to make sure that the delivery of education and training within Queensland is of the best possible standard. The ETRF reforms that passed through this parliament some years ago mean that there was a fundamental change in the way in which we treated education and training in Queensland: the so-called earning and learning reforms I guess they have become known as. Compulsory participation and compulsory learning phases certainly have highlighted more than anything the need for the education and training sectors to work closely together. The changes that were made in portfolio allocations on both sides of the chamber, both by the government and the opposition, in joining together education and training is a recognition of those imperatives. The Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 28 November last year. The bill amends the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000, the Agricultural College Act 2005, and the Education Queensland Studies Authority Act 2002. The main objectives of the bill are to enable the implementation of actions outlined in the Queensland skills plan white paper specifically and address minor technical issues to ensure that the legislation remains current and accurate. The implementation of the Queensland skills plan white paper is obviously fundamental to this legislation. The Queensland skills plan white paper released in March 2006 outlined major reforms to the state’s vocational education and training—reforms that my predecessor, the former member for Hinchinbrook, certainly supported in principle and had supported along the way, but he also highlighted a number of areas of concern that had been raised with him that were held by industry in particular and the training sector. I am sure that some of those concerns will be outlined during the course of this debate. The white paper, which proposes 24 action points, was produced in an effort to address the growing skills shortage in Queensland and to develop a new training system which better serves industry’s changing needs. The bill principally amends the Vocational Education, Training Employment Act 2000 to support the implementation of specific actions outlined in the Queensland skills plan white paper. The main actions to be implemented are removing the legislated role of industry training advisory bodies, better known to most of us as ITABs, to enable a range of new arrangements for industry engagement that aim to improve the alignment between industry skill needs and training delivery; and, secondly, streamlining the completion process to support early completion by apprentices and trainees to better meet industry needs and to address significant trade skill shortages. I guess it is the second of those changes in particular that has raised concerns. It is a significant change to the way that training and apprenticeships have been delivered so it is fair that there will be concerns out there. I am sure that as the implementation of this legislation proceeds there will be some difficulties highlighted and some cases that will need to be addressed. It will be the responsibility of the department and the government to make sure that that transition and those changes are handled as smoothly as possible so that we do get the best possible outcomes from them. There are two main provisions of the bill which do require discussion, in particular clauses 6 and 7. The first of those is clause 6, streamlining completion of apprenticeships and traineeships. This clause of the bill implements a key initiative of the Queensland skills plan white paper, streamlining the process for completion of apprenticeships and traineeships and the implementation of competency based training apprenticeships. This amendment was proposed in order to facilitate the early completion of an apprenticeship or traineeship irrespective of the time served if—and I guess ‘if’ is the highlighted word—the apprentice or the trainee is considered competent. I suspect that that is going to be a major challenge in some cases. The minister in his second reading speech explained— The Skills for jobs and growth green paper recognised the need to develop new options to enable apprentices to complete early. Rewarding apprentices who are competent instead of maintaining a ‘time served’ approach ensures quality tradespersons who can meet the needs of industry. The minister also stated— It is foreseeable that the expedited completion of competent apprentices or trainees will assist in the timely provision of fully qualified tradespeople into the labour market. The bill also establishes a mechanism by which an apprentice or trainee can be deemed as competent by the Training and Employment Recognition Council even though one of the parties to the training contract has not signed the completion agreement. I know that this is an area that has raised an amount of concern. It is one that the council will have to remain vigilant about to see that it is not abused. Other members have raised this as an issue with me. The member for Hinchinbrook raised this particular issue specifically with me and I know that he will go into some detail in relation to the concerns he has with that change. I know from industry groups that I have spoken to that that is certainly a concern that has been raised. 152 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

If the apprentice or trainee has achieved all the practical and theoretical competencies and their completion agreement is not signed, the council can make a determination about the apprentice or trainee’s competency, ensuring that all parties are afforded the opportunity to submit their case. This amendment was proposed to negate the potential for apprentices and trainees to be held back from completing their apprenticeship or traineeship when they have achieved competency in their occupation. The bill also establishes a dispute resolution process in the event that parties to a training contract cannot agree on whether the competency has been achieved. Although we are supportive of this clause on the whole, the Queensland coalition does have some concerns regarding the quality assurance of training and maintaining the standards that those trainees and apprentices are achieving before their competency has been achieved. It is critical to ensure that the expedited completion of apprenticeships does not compromise the quality of training in the Smart State, as we have come so used to hearing it called by the government. Training quality standards should not be lowered in an effort to address the growing shortage of skilled workers. We cannot say that strongly enough: training quality standards should not be lowered at all in an effort to address the growing shortage of skilled workers. While it is recognised that some apprentices may achieve a level of competency earlier than their peers and that they should not be stalled for the sake of bureaucratic time lines, procedures must be implemented to ensure that the early completion mechanism is not abused by apprentices and/or their employers. There is the potential for employers to push apprentices through the system without having completed the required training for commercial gain—that is, employers are able to then charge more for having a qualified tradesperson complete the job, rather than an apprentice or trainee. The corollary of this scenario is acknowledged: that employers will then have to pay more in wages to those qualified tradespeople than they did when they were undertaking their training. Nonetheless, there is potential for conflict and potential for abuse of that system. The potential for apprentice and trainee abuse also exists, however. During the 2006 election campaign, the Premier announced policy on the run that the government would pay a bonus of $1,000 to all apprentices and trainees who completed their required training early. While industries have reported that there are considerable departmental concerns about how this bonus payment scheme will be administered, there is also the foreseeable concern that payment could entice some to quickstep or cut corners in their training to take advantage of the scheme. Industry has also expressed concerns regarding the breadth and width of the consultation undertaken in relation to the amendment. One of the other issues that has been raised with me as a practical concern by industry regarding the early completion of apprentices is the starting time of the intake of a trainee or apprentice. When someone comes in after the start-up of this scheme and works alongside an apprentice or trainee who started just before them and is not eligible to complete early, there may be considerable conflict between those two trainees or apprentices in a practical sense in the work environment. While that may not be an issue for the government or the department, it will certainly be an issue for employers, and employers have raised that as a potential concern. Obviously, that will not apply to a large number of people, because once this scheme is up and running all new apprentices and trainees will be covered by it. Although industry has generally supported this amendment, there are some genuine concerns regarding the following: access to the full range of TAFE subjects that apprentices and trainees are required to undertake to complete their theoretical training; the critical need for the increased funding to TAFE, not simply for infrastructure but to increase the number and quality of teachers and instructors; flexibility in the delivery of TAFE subjects; greater support for the small business employer in providing the required theoretical and practical training to their apprentices and trainees; and the capacity of the Training and Employment Recognition Council to implement and efficiently handle the dispute resolution processes proposed in clause 6. Since I have become shadow minister, I have noticed a growing number of complaints coming through to me regarding the ability of TAFE to deliver training and courses. In a lot of cases, people have started courses at TAFE only to have their courses cancelled. Once the increased flexibility for early completion of traineeships or apprenticeships has started, the demands and the flexibility required of TAFE will increase as well. Based on some of the problems that I have seen in the delivery of current courses at TAFE, I do not know that TAFE will be able to handle that, particularly in the short term. It will take a lot of work to make sure that the TAFE system itself has the staff, the resources and, importantly, the flexibility to be able to deliver that training to those apprentices. I would like to move on to clause 7—that is, the removal of the ITABs. Funding for ITABs ceased on 1 January 2007. Clause 7 of this bill effectively removes their legislative role. This amendment was proposed in light of feedback received by the department during the consultation process for the Queensland Skills Plan. It is acknowledged that significant feedback was received that the existing industry advisory arrangements did not meet the needs of many Queensland employers. Revitalisation of those arrangements was needed, particularly to ensure greater representation of regional and remote location employers. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 153

In place of the ITAB structure, the bill introduces new strategies, such as industry skills alliances, centres of excellence, industry-government skilling partnerships and skills formation strategies which aim to better serve the needs of industry at local, regional and state levels. The bill anticipates that these new strategies will allow industry training priorities to be established, as well as allowing suitable training products and delivery methods to be developed and implemented to meet the needs of industries. While the coalition’s consultation has confirmed that industries generally support this amendment, there are some concerns as to whether the new arrangements will be able to build bridges with industry. It is clear that work needs to be done from a policy point of view to ensure that these relationships are formed. The new arrangements also need to ensure that they comply with the national agenda. I have to say that it seems that industries are adopting a bit of a wait and see approach to these new arrangements as to how they operate. It is very important that we have a close working relationship with industry bodies to ensure that the training that apprentices and trainees receive is what industry needs. Because there are shortages in a whole range of areas, we need to make sure that the people who are being trained are being trained in the right areas and are being given the skills they need to address those shortages. The bill also addresses a number of minor technical issues—for example, removing references to the Australian National Training Authority—which reflects federal changes. This reflects the new Commonwealth legislation, and those arrangements certainly are noncontroversial. As I said, we will be supporting this bill. Before I finish, I would like to touch on a number of broader issues regarding training within Queensland. As I said earlier in relation to the resourcing of TAFE, there are very real concerns about the effectiveness of TAFE. I know we all stand up from time to time and say what a great job an individual TAFE is doing in our own area, but I think there is a growing concern—and I have certainly picked up on this from the correspondence that I have received—that TAFE is not delivering as well as it possibly should and that there are a number of things that have to be addressed. One area is the cancellation of courses and insufficient funding, but there are a whole range of issues. I want to read one email that the opposition has received. I will not make any of the information public that would identify this person because I just want to use it as a general portrayal of some of the issues confronting TAFE. This is not an isolated case. This is simply one example that I picked from the file that I could have used, and I picked it for no particular reason. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr COPELAND: No, it is not from the electoral office actually. It was simply the one on top. That is how it was done. The email states— I would like to find out about my Advanced Diploma. I am currently enrolled in the advanced diploma of engineering through the open learning institute of tafe and due to the restructuring of the tafe system my course will no longer be offered online. And unless I finish it by the end of October I could lose all the hard work I have out in trying to obtain it, I am more than halfway through. I work fulltime and live— I will not identify the location— so attending a college in person is a great hardship, if not impossible. Also if I do manage to get through the allotted hours before the end of October the open learning institute of tafe is one module short of me actually completing the Diploma, how were they able to offer a qualification I had no way of obtaining. PLEASE help me out, as I thought this was supposed to be the smart state. Not only has the course been cancelled so that they may lose all of that hard work and credit, but the final module they have to do to complete the course is not available. That to me is really indicative of some of the problems involving the TAFE system. My wife had an interesting experience with TAFE. I will not go through all of the details, but she was doing a course here in Brisbane that took an awful lot of effort on her behalf. This was prior to me being shadow minister for the training portfolio. We made no issue, no formal approach, nothing regarding that. At the completion of her course, she found that she was not even enrolled in it. They had forgotten to enrol her, so she got no qualification at the end of it. All of the course work had been assessed, she had been travelling from Toowoomba to Brisbane to attend that course, but at the end of it she had nothing to show for it. She was then asked by the lecturer to not pursue it any further and not enrol and just accept that she had done the work. She said, ‘No, I’ve done the work. I want the qualification.’ Mr Lawlor: Who would believe you without the qualification? Mr COPELAND: That is exactly right. The qualification that she had enrolled in was different to the qualification she ended up being given. As I said, I made nothing of that. Mr Lucas: Like being enrolled as a hairdresser to become an electrician. 154 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

Mr COPELAND: It is exactly like that. That to me just typifies that there are very real problems in the TAFE sector that we need to address. As I said, that email I read out is indicative of the problems. It certainly represents numerous emails of a similar vein that the opposition has received. Given the changes that we are now putting through regarding trainees and apprentices, those demands on TAFE are going to increase, and I think we will see more and more problems for those people trying to obtain those qualifications. The next point I want to touch on is the Australian agricultural colleges. The legislation was changed last year or the year before and the agricultural colleges are now under the banner of the Australian agricultural colleges. There are some very real challenges for those colleges as well. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have spoken at length about those colleges given that they are all located in electorates that the coalition hold. So we have a very keen interest in the operation of those colleges. I think there is potential for those colleges to really develop in partnership, for example, with the DPI and DNR in terms of having a research focus. There are a lot of challenges ahead for the Australian agricultural colleges. I want to put on record that I have a lot of time for the CEO, Malcolm McKay. I have known him for a long time as he lived in Toowoomba and worked at USQ, which is in my electorate. A government member: Malcolm is a good guy. Mr COPELAND: He is a very good guy and I certainly respect him and his ability. I know that he will be doing everything he can. Having said that, he needs the support of the government to be able to ensure that those colleges remain viable and continue to provide vital training in a sector that is a huge contributor to the economy of Queensland. We need to remember how many people have gone through those colleges and have gone on to make a huge contribution to the agricultural sector. One of the reasons for the change in this bill is to try to address to some extent the skills shortage. It has become very popular to talk about the skills shortage—that we do have some problems. A number of people were talking about the skills shortage for many years before it was trendy to do so. One of those was the member for Toowoomba South. I remember many years ago Mike was bemoaning the fact that we have virtually become a community that puts all of its weight on tertiary education—university training—almost to the complete exclusion of training in apprenticeships and practical skills. He was exactly right. Now a lot of other people are saying the same thing. We have missed the boat in a lot of cases and we are having to live with the skills shortage. The mining boom that has been experienced particularly in Queensland and Western Australia has driven in large part the demand for the skilled workers in the trades. It is going to take a lot of time and effort before that is addressed. I do not think there is any sign in the short to medium term of the resources boom slowing down for Queensland and WA. Obviously, a number of factors could influence that, but in the short to medium term there will not be any change to the way it is affecting our economies. That is going to continue to take its toll on the skills base and the trades base within Queensland. As I said, the coalition will be supporting this bill. We do have some concerns. I think it is going to take some ongoing monitoring to ensure that standards are maintained, there is no abuse of the system and that the people we are producing do have the set of skills and the training that we expect them to have as tradespeople. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (2.53 pm): I rise briefly to support the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. I am very pleased that the opposition will be supporting this bill despite the fact that it had to place on record a number of its whingers, which is typical of the fact that they whinge while we work. We recognise that there is a skills shortage and those on our side of the House talk about skills solutions as well. Skilling Solutions Queensland is a client focused business unit of the Department of Education, Training and the Arts and the preferred supplier for the recognition of prior learning assessment. As a training and career information service, it provides specialist job services to job seekers on the availability of jobs regionally and generally. It provides a referral skills assessment service, including the recognition of prior learning, to people seeking employment or other qualifications. It refers clients to public and private training providers. SSQ has locations at various metropolitan and regional locations throughout the state. However, a remote service has been conducted once a month for the past six months at the Bremer Institute of TAFE in the Bundamba electorate, which is servicing the Ipswich community. The Bremer has a contractual agreement with Skilling Solutions Queensland and the Bremer Institute of TAFE currently has 60 students enrolled under the Skilling Solutions Queensland program. The central contact point at the institute for any referrals is Bev Williams. The benefits of the arrangement between Skilling Solutions Queensland and the Bremer are that it helps to identify gaps in training provision and it promotes access to the recognition of prior learning, helping students to reduce the time studied to achieve a qualification. The arrangement also assists specific target groups, for example, the mature age and skills shortage areas. It also taps into further businesses through employers. Finally, its clients are mentored through the process to give them every chance of success, and this is so important, particularly for our mature-age students. 07 Feb 2007 Motions 155

Since the start of the Skilling Solutions Queensland arrangement to September 2005, some 125 students have benefited from the SSQ partnership with the Bremer Institute of TAFE. In fact, 65 students achieved successful outcomes in the 2005-06 year and 60 students are currently enrolled, and that is fantastic. Under the Skilling Solutions Queensland arrangements, students have undertaken training in a range of vocational areas, including event management, warehousing, fitting and machining, food processing, business and finance, information technology, automotive, engineering and a range of community services programs. They have studied at both the certificate and the diploma level. The other day I was up at the Redbank Plaza shopping centre, which is a major shopping centre within my area. They have advised me that they are very pleased to be involved in the Skilling Solutions Queensland shopfront, which will be located on the top floor—level 3—within Redbank Plaza. I understand that the space has already been handed over to Skilling Solutions Queensland and that the fit-out will be undertaken soon. I would like to place on record my personal thanks to the centre manager, Glenn Hinchey, and also to Angela Green for expediting the lease. I pass on my thanks for their wonderful support in having a training and career information service located at the Redbank Plaza shopping centre. The plaza is a great supporter of all government initiatives. Within the shopping centre we also have a Queensland Transport office on level 2 and soon we will be starting off a JP volunteer centre also on level 2 of the plaza. In conclusion, this bill contains excellent training initiatives for Queensland. It is really good that students will be able to have competency based apprenticeships and traineeships. It is very important that apprentices who are competent should be allowed to finish early and be able to get into jobs, particularly where there are skills shortages. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the officers of the department who put together the Queensland skills plan white paper. They did an excellent job in our local community. They conducted a number of consultations. I think one of them was up at one of our clubs, which was very good. They had record numbers of people in attendance at the consultations. They gave wonderful feedback on behalf of our community. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (2.58 pm): I also rise to speak in support of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. I thank the Minister for Education and Training for introducing this bill. Debate, on motion of Mr Choi, adjourned.

PROCEDURE

Deputy Speaker’s Statement—Sub Judice Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Prior to starting this debate I would like to make a statement. All members are aware of the Speaker’s statement yesterday in relation to sub judice. The substance of the debate this afternoon is dissent from the Speaker ruling out of order a private member’s statement and three questions without notice. This debate is not an opportunity for members to debate matters pending in the courts. Standing order 233 lays down clear principles and rules in respect of matters pending in courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction. These matters should not be referred to in motion, debate or question from when the charge is laid to the determination of an appeal, if any. It is vital that no privileged and prejudicial debate occurs in this House. I will therefore not allow any debate which, if said outside, may constitute a contempt of court or which could, in any way, jeopardise a fair trial. To avoid further adverse rulings I suggest members attempt to debate this matter by reference to the exact rulings and general principles involved without reference to any particular current case, names involved in particular current cases and scenarios connected to current cases.

MOTIONS

Dissents from Speaker’s Rulings (Cognate Debate) Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (2.59 pm): I move— (1) That this House dissent from the ruling of Mr Speaker on 6 February 2007 in relation to his ruling out of order the private Member’s statement of the Member for Callide on the basis that it infringed the Speaker’s ruling of 6 February 2007 under Standing Order 233; (2) That this House dissent from the ruling of Mr Speaker on 6 February 2007 in relation to his ruling out of order my question to the Premier on the basis that it infringed the Speaker’s ruling of 6 February 2007 under Standing Order 233; and 156 Motions 07 Feb 2007

(3) That this House dissent from the ruling of Mr Speaker on 6 February 2007 in relation to his ruling out of order my question to the Attorney-General on the basis that it infringed the Speaker’s ruling of 6 February 2007 under Standing Order 233; and (4) That this House dissent from the ruling of Mr Speaker on 6 February 2007 in relation to his ruling out of order my question to the Attorney-General on the basis that it infringed the Speaker’s ruling of 6 February 2007 under Standing Order 233. Dr FLEGG: We are debating the four motions cognately. Yesterday, 6 February, the Speaker of the House ruled a statement and three questions out of order under standing order 250. Four speakers moved dissent from those rulings. They are being debated cognately so my remarks will apply to the four unless I otherwise state. The rulings were apparently based on a general ruling made by the Speaker in relation to standing order 233, the sub judice rule, as recorded on page 2 of Hansard dated 6 February 2007. The general ruling that he made was in terms of ‘a number of high-profile matters pending criminal proceedings’. Mr Speaker did not specify the exact cases although it would appear reasonable to assume he was referring to Gordon Nuttall, Merri Rose, Ken Talbot, Senior Sergeant Hurley and the alleged Palm Island rioters. Should there be other cases Mr Speaker intended to include in his general ruling, then I would request that they be clarified to the House. The absence of specificity potentially created a problem for members of this House in immediately recognising which cases he was referring to. This debate requires a closer look at standing order 233, which should be read and interpreted as a whole. The relevant and applicable subsections appear to be subsections 1 and 2. Subsection 1 sets the standard that a member must not say in the House that which could be contempt of court outside the House. Contempt of court in a criminal sense involves acts or words which interfere with or tend to interfere with the administration of justice and which amount to a public wrong. The reference for that is Halsbury’s Laws of Australia at 105-5. That same legal text at 105-60 defines that to constitute contempt of a court a matter must have ‘a real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass particular proceedings’. It goes on to say at 105- 60 that the test is the effect upon an ordinary, reasonable member of the community. Further at 105-5 contempt of court is directed at ‘protection of effective administration of justice’. In no way did any comment or question yesterday in the parliament constitute a lack of protection of the effective administration of justice. To be so according to Halsbury’s at 105-10 it would have had to have been a contempt in the face of a court, a contempt by publication and interference with persons having duties to discharge in respect of court proceedings or a breach of duty by persons officially connected with court proceedings or abuse of process. The question that I asked, which is the third of the four matters that we are debating, was ruled out of order and the minister was not permitted to answer. It was a question to the Attorney-General that I prefaced by saying that it did not refer to any particular matter before the courts. I asked the minister— I refer to a media report on 15 January 2007 when Acting Premier Bligh said legal opinions could not be released publicly before such legal opinions were tabled in the parliament. Does the minister support the government’s disgraceful decision to selectively leak the Street report to the media? I have requested and received some informal legal advice that clearly this question was of a general nature and about matters that had already been canvassed in the media. I was attempting to ask the Attorney-General to reconcile statements by the then Acting Premier in relation to the release of the information by Justice Street which the Acting Premier had ruled out releasing in an appropriate and public way to the parliament of Queensland. This was followed by the sleazy act that that opinion, which was not allowed to be tabled in the parliament of Queensland, appeared as a leaked document selectively leaked to a single journalist as an exclusive on the eve of the Attorney laying charges against a person who was covered in that report. The legal opinion is that in no way would this question come under the auspices of standing order 233. What we saw here in this House yesterday is unacceptable in a democracy where this parliament is the people’s House and the government should be held accountable for its action. The statement and questions did not relate to guilt or innocence; they would not prejudice court hearings; they would not have constituted a breach or a contempt of court if they were repeated outside. We had the prevention of statements being made in the House that were quite freely answerable outside and had in fact been quite widely canvassed by the media. What an absurdity when a matter can be on the front page of the paper, on every radio station in the state, on television the night before but cannot be discussed in the parliament of Queensland. This rule is here to protect legal process. It is not here to shut down debate in this House. That is how it was used yesterday. It is clear and apparent that the very matters in relation to selective government leaks that we sought to raise in this House were raised extensively outside the House in the media and yet there was no suggestion that any of those references constituted any sort of contempt whatsoever. The conclusion that we on this side of the House would draw, and in fact the conclusion I would expect any reasonable person to come to, is that these rules were applied to shut down debate in the parliament of Queensland. 07 Feb 2007 Motions 157

We saw the absolutely absurd notion of the Premier offering to answer questions. He said he was happy to answer questions. He said that he got up at a press conference and answered the questions for something like an hour. Mr Beattie: Could have been even longer. Dr FLEGG: I will take that interjection. He answered questions on all sorts of topics but he was not allowed to be questioned in the parliament of Queensland. That is a disgrace. That is a misuse of the rules of this place. I found it absolutely ridiculous to hear those comments from the Premier because one of our primary roles—and I think it is clear that the questions and the resulting answers did not constitute a contempt of court—in this place is to keep the government honest when it manipulates the processes and the institutions of this state by selectively leaking high-level government documents—not internal departmental stuff but high-level government documents. It will not tell us who had the documents, but from the Attorney-General’s answer this morning I presume the Premier did. We know the Attorney- General did. These are a very select group of very senior government officials handling a sensitive legal document in relation to possible charges against a Queenslander and this government selectively leaks that as an exclusive—as a favour—on the front page of the Courier-Mail and then when we walk in here hours later to question that abuse of the process in this place we are not allowed to canvass the issues that were on the front page of the Courier-Mail that morning. With regard to the second question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he in fact was not even allowed to complete the question. When I asked for some casual legal advice on whether that second question could possibly have breached sub judice, the answer was, ‘How can you tell? We didn’t hear the question.’ Time expired. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (3.10 pm): I agree with the rulings of the Speaker and the comments he made yesterday in relation to this issue. Standing order 233(2) relating to the sub judice rule states— Members should not refer to in the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction (including in motions, debate or questions) from the moment the charge is made against the relevant person. It says ‘from the moment the charge is made’. Standing order 233(2) continues— This Standing Order shall cease to have effect when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgement given, but shall again have effect should a Court of Criminal Appeal order a new trial. I have had a look at the arguments prepared by the opposition, which I happen to have a copy of, dealing with dissent from the Speaker’s rulings. The opposition’s prepared case, which we will hear more of and which the Leader of the Liberal Party referred to, says this in attacking the Speaker— The effect of this ruling is that this parliament is prevented from debating issues that can lawfully and properly be debated in the media and in the community. As a result we have a result where the Premier can discuss these matters in a media conference but not be questioned in this place. The reality of all of this is simple. The comments that I made—and the Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the answering of questions—were all made prior to the charges being laid against the police officer involved. This analysis—your analysis, which I have read; your analysis that was sent from Kevin Martin to the Beaudesert electorate office—is flawed and misses the vital point I just made. The member for Moggill repeated it in his contribution. The facts of life are that once a person is charged the rules change. The hour or hour and a half that I spent in front of the media was prior to the charges—prior to the charges, and I made that clear. I indicated to the media and I warned, if you like, the media gallery that some of their reports—some of them but not all of them; radio certainly would have—may appear after the charges had been laid. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, absolutely. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, and I said to them that I had been advised by the Attorney a little time before the news conference that the charges were going to be laid. I in fact dealt with their questions but warned them that some of their media reports would appear after the charges because— Dr Flegg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There is no joke about it, Bruce. It is because this standing order— Dr Flegg interjected. 158 Motions 07 Feb 2007

Mr BEATTIE: What this confirms to me is—and this is why we do not take you seriously—that those opposite are not interested in the law. They are not interested in how these circumstances apply, because this standing order and the law is very clear. I say to the Leader of the Liberal Party: I know you are not a lawyer, but the facts of this are clear. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Leader of the Liberal Party! Member for Darling Downs! Mr BEATTIE: I have to tell you— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs! Mr BEATTIE: None of this is a surprise. I told everybody at the news conference. This is hardly a revelation. The importance and relevance here is that once a person is charged the rules change. What you could say beforehand cannot then be said after a charge has been laid. Even in terms of the release of any documents, I have already indicated to the House that I warned the media that even any of their reporting would be subject then to the sub judice rule once a charge is laid. That is the relevant time. It is the point I am trying to make. This document that was produced in terms of dissenting from the Speaker’s ruling does not show an understanding of the law. Those opposite really have to get some reasonable advice. The rationale for this rule can be found in standing order 233(1), which states— In general, members should exercise care to avoid saying inside the House that which would be regarded as contempt of court outside the House and could jeopardise court proceedings. That is because the court proceedings would have started. Because of the separation of powers—separation between the courts, the parliament and the executive—it is not a matter once the charges have been laid for the executive or this parliament to interfere in the role of the judiciary. That is what the separation of powers is all about. I would have thought after the Fitzgerald inquiry that those on the other side would have some idea of how the separation of powers works. The sub judice rule is about ensuring that a person who is charged with a criminal offence and who is before the court gets a fair trial. Neither the government nor any member of this House should do anything under the protection of privilege to jeopardise the fair trial of a person before the court. That is the purpose of standing order 233. As the Speaker said yesterday, any breach of this rule would indeed amount to privilege contempt. As members well know, court proceedings are currently underway in relation to several high- profile cases. Any reference to these matters in this House or any statement that could lead to such a reference in debate should rightly be ruled out of order by the Speaker under standing order 233. Much was made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that the Speaker’s ruling gagged debate in this House and undermined parliamentary scrutiny. What a lot of rubbish! Let me make it clear that my government has not sought and will never seek parliamentary protection to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but we will ensure that we protect the separation of powers and the courts in their role. It should also be remembered that the government, too, was severely constrained in its ability to put the facts of this matter on the record. Do not for one minute think that we would not have liked to. There are a whole lot of things I would have loved to put on the record yesterday and today and tomorrow. When certain matters are dealt with, then we will have that chance. But in the meantime we will not try to destroy our institutions by abusing the separation of powers. The Speaker has been entirely impartial and objective in disallowing any petition, ruling, debate or question which may constitute a contempt of court or could in any way jeopardise a fair trial. It is therefore a ludicrous suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the sub judice rule is being used to avoid scrutiny. It is a great 6 o’clock news stunt, but is there any basis in law or fact or in standing orders? No. I therefore support the Speaker’s ruling in this matter. Until matters which are before the court have been fully and finally determined, this House has an obligation to respect the separation of powers. A matter which is before the courts is for the courts to determine and this House should do nothing which may prejudice this process. I just remind those opposite that what happens in dictatorships and, if you like, jungle dictatorships is that the first group of people who go are journalists. The second group that go are the courts, because in those sorts of dictatorships people do not like the courts handing down decisions that disagree with the government of the day. Those opposite should go and see The Last King of Scotland which involves Idi Amin. It is a great story if you like movies, and most of those opposite are in that sort of land most of the time. One of the things that happens in that movie is that a judge disappears. Why? Because he made a ruling that Idi Amin did not like. At the end of it, if we as politicians in parliament want the integrity of it to survive, we have to respect the law. As the Speaker said yesterday, members have a right to question the government in this House, but it— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs, I have warned you. If you wish to continue interjecting, how about you resume your seat please. 07 Feb 2007 Motions 159

Mr BEATTIE: As the Speaker said yesterday, members have a right in this House to question the government, but that does not mean that members can ride roughshod over the standing orders of this parliament to which this parliament has agreed. I have to be frank: I personally believe that yesterday the opposition came in here with a strategy to disrupt the parliament simply to get on the six o’clock news. The opposition was going to try to disrupt the Speaker. In my time in this parliament there have been three Labor Speakers. At the commencement of their term the opposition members always says great things about them. But within a short period, because they do not get their way, they seek to denigrate each one of those Labor Speakers. These dissent motions have no respect for this institution. This morning, I made a mistake that I want to correct. I said that previous National and Liberal Party governments have had some respect for this place. That is not true. The National Party has never had respect for this place, but the Liberal Party has. I say to the Leader of the Liberal Party that when members such as Gordon Chalk were in this chamber, there was some respect for this institution. But not anymore. The Liberal Party no longer stands for the traditions that it used to stand for. The members of the Liberal Party and the National Party came in here to disrupt this parliament for a cheap political gain and nothing more. If they think that last night’s news did them any favours, then they are dead wrong. People are sick to death of politicians wrecking the parliament and behaving like school boys and girls. What a collection of schoolchildren! If the members opposite think that the minority of people who elected them are proud of them, then they are dead wrong. The members opposite should not forget that they are accountable for every single thing they say in this House now and in the future. I will make of sure of that. Time expired. Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (3.21 pm): I second the motion moved by the member for Moggill. The Speaker’s initial ruling, which appears on page 2 of Hansard of 6 February, is very general. It received more specific clarification as the day continued. I believe that caused the concern and the moving of the motions of dissent. Firstly, the Speaker referred to a number of high-profile matters currently pending criminal proceedings. Then the Speaker said that none of the matters should be referred to in either motions, debate or questions. There is no doubt that this House believed that the Speaker did not intend to allow any reference to Gordon Nuttall, Merri Rose, Sergeant Hurley and the Palm Island rioters to be discussed. So when the member for Callide, in a private member’s statement, said ‘But I think we all know the events that surrounded delaying of the charges against Sergeant Chris Hurley’ the Speaker said immediately that, under standing order 233, he was ruling the member for Callide out of order. The member for Callide continued and said— The charges themselves are a matter for the court. The politics are a matter for this parliament. The Speaker again asked the member to take his seat. It was at this stage that I rose on a point of order and moved dissent from the ruling. Many further statements were made during the day. Later, the Speaker said that questions could be drafted so that they do not offend standing orders. Later, the Speaker allowed more specific questions to be asked of the Attorney-General. Since then, the Speaker has allowed questions to be asked of the Premier. However, at the time of moving my motion of dissent, the Speaker had made only a general ruling which indicated clearly that no comments about the matters before the court were going to be allowed. The question of sub judice does not and should not stop members from mentioning court cases during debates in the House and at question time. But members are not allowed to make comments that might prejudice the outcome of any trial. If that is allowed, then parliament could be used as a forum in which members could make statements that might be guarded by parliamentary privilege. We accept that, and we have always accepted that. That would create a kangaroo court situation. But to try to enforce a general statement that no mention be made of the cases before the court was doomed to discontent and challenge, as we have seen. It would have meant that any actions of the government could not be challenged. It would have meant that parliament’s role in the separation of powers—and I refer to the specific role of parliament in the separation of powers—could not be enforced or challenged by the opposition. If we ever get to that stage, then clearly we have trouble. It would have meant that anything the government had done, supported by a unicameral parliament and a massive majority, could not be questioned or discussed in this House. Since I moved that motion of dissent, many points of clarification have been given. Questions about procedure have been allowed. But at that time the mere mention of the name ‘Hurley’ was bringing rebuke under standing order 233. During the past 24 hours that situation has changed. However, at the time I moved my motion of dissent, it was correct and, I believe, necessary. 160 Motions 07 Feb 2007

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (3.24 pm): The dissent motions that are before the House this afternoon are the latest in a long line of dissent motions. In my view, each and every one of them today and those before them are nothing more than mischievous attempts to undermine the authority of the Speaker. Before I comment on the dissent motion, I want to say something about the Speaker of the House. The member for Townsville has been a member of this House for more than eight and a half years. Before joining this parliament, he was a member of the Townsville City Council from 1973 until 1989. He was deputy mayor from 1976 to 1980 and the mayor of Townsville from 1980 to 1989. The member for Townsville was previously the Minister for Child Safety from February until September last year and before that the Minister for Emergency Services and Minister assisting the Premier in North Queensland. Why do I refer to the Speaker’s background? Simply to make the point that I believe he not only is a very well-respected member of this parliament and a well-respected member of his own community in north Queensland but also that in his public life he has had endless experience in chairing meetings and endless political experience with the requirements of this parliament and of a local government chamber. During the many positions that the Speaker has occupied in public life, he has rightly earned a reputation of being a person of integrity and of displaying both fairness and dedication to his duties. In his relatively short time as Speaker, I believe that that reputation has been enhanced. In my view, the Speaker has been nothing but fair. At the same time, as we would expect from someone in his position, the Speaker has been tough when necessary. From the earliest time the Speaker took up the position, he made his intentions clear in relation to his responsibilities. I have to say that he has exercised those intentions in an even-handed way in relation not only to the government members of the House but also to the non-government side of the House. I want to say a few words about a dissent motion. In my view and in the view of many commentators on the operation of the Westminster system, a dissent motion should only ever arise as a matter of very grave significance. In most Westminster chambers, a dissent motion is a rarity. In the time that I have been in this chamber—and increasingly so in the past few years—dissent motions have become a dime a dozen for those opposite. Dissent motions are considered a rarity for a very good reason. Members would be aware that, essentially, dissent motions question the authority of the Speaker. In questioning that authority, a dissent motion undermines the authority of the Speaker and, in doing so, undermines the integrity of the Speaker and, consequently, of the parliament itself. Dissent should not be used lightly as an expression of mere dissatisfaction or mere disagreement. It should be reserved for the most serious of matters. It amounts to an allegation that the Speaker of the chamber has breached the rules of the parliament. If some of what I am saying this afternoon has a familiar ring to it, it is because I have said it before in debates on other dissent motions and I hold it to be true. I am alarmed by the number of dissent motions that have been moved by the opposition and I am alarmed by the frivolous basis of those dissent motions. This afternoon we have not one dissent motion but four dissent motions, which were raised quickly in succession in a relatively short period—I think over half an hour—yesterday morning. I have to say that those members here who support these dissent motions bring themselves into some disrepute for doing so. The rules of this place are such that when the Speaker makes a ruling, we accept it. That is the way the place works. That process cannot and should not be abused. The dissent motion exists as a measure of democracy, but it must be used with the greatest of care and respect. In fact, as an indication of the high regard in which the office of Speaker is held, there are some Westminster parliaments where, under their standing orders, a dissent motion is not possible. If we do accept that a dissent motion should be used in only the most extreme of circumstances, what are the circumstances that occurred here yesterday morning that could amount to such an extremity? What we saw yesterday morning was a Speaker rule on the sub judice rule of the House— that is, standing order 233. Does anybody in this House seriously question the fact that standing order 233 was the applicable standing order? Does anybody question the fact that the questions that the opposition sought to ask were the subject of a matter that is now before the courts? No. I have not heard anybody say that a charge had not been laid. The facts are indisputable. There is a matter before the courts in which a person has been charged with a very serious offence and that comes absolutely within the ambit of standing order 233. The opposition asserts that it has a right to question the government. There is no doubt about that. It has a right to question the government but that right is not an unfettered right. That right is constrained by the standing orders of the parliament. There are a number of standing orders that outline the circumstances in which questions may be asked and the nature of the questions that may be asked, and there is a very specific provision in standing order 233 that pertains to questions on matters that may be before the courts. 07 Feb 2007 Motions 161

There have been, I understand, some propositions that go to a matter set out in the Procedural Digest: Issue 1—Autumn 2005 of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. This, I understand, has been used to support the argument of the opposition. But in fact it states— Members may make comments on court cases during debates in the House and at question time. Such comments are subject to— ‘subject to’— the discretion of the Speaker who can make rulings on the basis of the sub judice convention. That is precisely what happened here yesterday. Yes, there are some circumstances in which members may make comments on matters before the courts in debates and at question time but that right to do so is always subject to a ruling by the Speaker, and that is what happened here yesterday: the Speaker made a ruling. The parliament simply cannot run effectively unless everybody agrees to accept the rulings and the authority of the Speaker. There have been times when previous Speakers have issued rulings that have not been in my favour and I have had to accept them. Indeed, previous Speakers of the chamber have made rulings against points of order that I raised in relation to the standing orders when I was Leader of the House. I can assert without any fear of contradiction that I did not enjoy it and I did not agree with them at times, but I accepted those rulings because that is the way this place runs. I accepted them without question, as does the current Leader of the House on the rare occasions that that happens. But it is a very important part of our responsibilities and obligations as members of this chamber that we accept the authority of the Speaker. It may be that you could argue in certain circumstances, in extreme circumstances, that a Speaker has in some way abused the authority that rests in their office, but there can be no serious proposition to that effect in relation to the events here yesterday morning. Is the Speaker entitled to rule on the sub judice rule? Of course he is. Is that what he did? It is absolutely what he did. So any question that he was acting outside of his authority or capriciously using that authority in my view just simply does not stack up. My advice to those opposite is to think a little longer and a little more carefully before they so wilfully disregard the institutions of the parliament, to be a little more respectful of the rulings of the Speaker and, if they seriously want us to consider matters of dissent, they should bring them forward only when they have circumstances that are of such gravity as to warrant it. I say finally to members of the opposition that, as long as they concern themselves with this sort of petty nonsense, as long as they are mired down in this kind of nonsense that is taking up the time of the parliament, the longer they will languish in obscurity and irrelevance. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.33 pm): We have just heard the Deputy Premier try to trivialise what is not a trivial issue, try to patronise members of the opposition but, more importantly, try to patronise the intelligence of the broader community of Queensland by suggesting that we should not have the right to move these dissent motions to the Speaker’s rulings on an issue that is not about the guilt or innocence of individuals who are facing judicial proceedings but is about the action of executive government. This state opposition, on behalf of the people, has tried to bring into this parliament an issue about the action of executive government and to make the government accountable for it. We as a state opposition are not seeking to try individuals who are facing judicial proceedings. What we are trying to do is to make this government accountable for what has been a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers—a breach of a doctrine that we hear this sleazy government often talk about as being a hallmark of accountability in our Westminster democracy. Yet when the government is asked to account for its actions in this parliament, the people’s parliament, it hides behind rules and procedures. The government should be held accountable and we should have the ability to ask those questions. We have a farce here in Queensland when the Premier can go out into the general public and answer the questions of journalists that we as a state opposition are not allowed to ask in this parliament. We have a Speaker who says that he does not want this to be a kangaroo court. Clearly, from the rulings that this Speaker has made—an extreme view of the sub judice rule—he does not want this to be a kangaroo court. But, unfortunately, in the way the rulings have been interpreted, this parliament is being turned into a firewall for the government. This is the place where we should be able to ask questions about why certain events have occurred which are extremely serious in undermining the very fabric of the judicial processes in Queensland. If the Premier wants to hide behind a sub judice ruling, an extreme ruling of interpretation, and then try to act as though the parliament is under threat by us moving a dissent motion, I think that is truly the ultimate in arrogance. We have heard the Premier talk about the separation of powers, yet in the lead-up to the events of this week we saw a government clearly intervening and messing around with judicial proceedings in a way that has brought to the fore major concerns about the way the justice system is run in this state. We have also just heard the Deputy Premier talking as though the state opposition did not have a right to 162 Motions 07 Feb 2007 bring this matter before the House. I would like to draw her attention to the fact that the sub judice rulings in other jurisdictions—and certainly in the way the media are held to account on sub judice—are interpreted far more broadly. There is a lot of case history that shows that the sub judice rule is interpreted far more broadly. But here in this parliament we are told that we are not allowed to mention the names of people who may be before the courts. As the Leader of Opposition Business, the member for Beaudesert, has outlined, some of the interpretations that we have been faced with here in this parliament—vague interpretations about not even being able to mention the names of people before the courts—mean that we have not been able to ask the questions in this public forum. There are a number of very contentious matters before the courts, but it is in regard to the actions of this state government in undermining such proceedings that we should not be hamstrung in talking about or should not have the right to speak about removed. With regard to interpretations about contempt of court or the protection of the effective administration of justice, there can be no question that the opposition has not sought to undermine any external judicial proceedings. There is no question about that. There is also no question that the Speaker of this parliament has the ability to make rulings that do allow for far broader interpretations of comment on matters that are already being debated in the public arena. Unfortunately, we have seen a heavy-handed approach taken. We take no delight in moving motions of dissent from the Speaker’s rulings. They are not trivial matters. They are serious issues and, despite the protests of the government—protesting its innocence in upholding the standards of this parliament—and despite the government’s numbers that will vote these dissent motions down, the questions about how this public parliament has been gagged will not be removed from the public arena. This is not a kangaroo court. This is a parliament where the representatives of the people are being gagged from asking the very questions in relation to how this government in its sleazy actions is now behaving. If we are to refer to the history of parliament, we know that the House of Commons—the very history of which is reflected in the colour of the carpet in this chamber—is where the people sought to take democracy and be fairly represented. They went into the House of Commons in order to start that process of the people’s democratic role. I think it is a great shame when we in the evolved chamber of the House of Commons, where today we have the Westminster system of representative democracy, can no longer have the freedom to ask the questions that are, in fact, being asked outside of this chamber. That is a detrimental step with regard to where this Queensland parliament has gone. I strongly support these dissent motions which have been moved by the state opposition with much gravity and concern. I would request that members opposite who have taken this to be an issue that does not deserve attention seriously think about this: if those members seriously believe it is not right to have government interfering with judicial processes the way that we have seen recently, if those members seriously believe it is unacceptable for the doctrine of separation of powers to be breached the way that their executive government has done, then they should vote with the state opposition. Those members should vote with those voices on this side who are saying that there has been a severe injustice not only to others who are facing judicial proceedings but also to the very fabric of democracy in this state. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (3.41 pm): I rise to support the dissent motions that are being debated in a cognate form today. I start by making this very clear statement: it is the function and obligation of this House to allow debate on behalf of the public on issues that are of concern to them and that right needs to be jealously guarded. We must never forget that that is the right and obligation of members of this House and that the public expect that to be upheld. In many cases this is, in fact, the only place where these matters can be determined and the government’s involvement scrutinised. No-one denies the decision of the guilt or innocence of an individual charged with a crime is the province of the judicial system. This place cannot and must not interfere with that process. At the same time, this House is the people’s House. If we ever lose sight of that principle, the basic tenet of this House’s existence is shattered. The opposition is charged and obligated to pursue the government and scrutinise its actions and inactions and every leeway within the confines of the standing orders needs to be given by the Speaker in his role to permit that obligation to be pursued. Without that it is the people’s rights that are trampled, it is the people’s rights that are being denied, and that is contrary to the basic principles under which this House operates and stands. It is also the right of the members in this House to dissent from the Speaker’s rulings and to have that dissent motion debated in the House. The Deputy Premier’s comments that the opposition is being mischievous and questioning the authority of the Speaker is absolutely ridiculous. If the day ever arises that an opposition in this state, irrespective of which party it is, does not have the right of appeal then we have torn up the fabric of society and the democracy in which we live. The real question is: where else can the people and the opposition go to bring the government to account? The questions posed yesterday were said to offend standing order 233. As explained by the member for Moggill, to constitute a contempt of court a matter must have ‘a real and definite tendency to prejudice or embarrass particular proceedings’, the test being ‘the effect upon an ordinary, reasonable member of the community’. No-one denies that contempt of court in its many facets threatens our judicial system, but there is no way any comment or question raised in this House yesterday can be constituted as a contempt within the definition of the ordinary, reasonable man test that I have outlined. 07 Feb 2007 Motions 163

The situation here in Queensland permits an Attorney-General to bring a prosecution of his own in relation to criminal matters that he or she so determines. It is not right for this parliament then to use its sub judice rules to block scrutiny of an Attorney-General or government’s action in relation to the bringing of those charges, unless that action itself touches upon the matters before the court. To do so is to deny this House a fundamental right and to deny the opposition and the people of Queensland its entitlement to question and scrutinise the government. When one considers the questions that were posed yesterday, not one touches upon the issues before the court. There is not one question that would interfere with or tend to interfere with the administration of justice. There is no way an ordinary, reasonable member of the community would consider the fact of leaking a report would have an impact upon the guilt or innocence of an individual. If the debate was the content of the report that would be a different matter entirely. That would put this House into debating the guilt or innocence of an individual. That was not the case yesterday. Similarly, there is no way questions as to why a report was leaked would constitute an interference with the court process, unless it is alleged that the leaking itself is part of a legal proceedings or in some manner itself touches upon the guilt or innocence of an accused. The fact of the leak has never been alleged as being part of a legal process. This House must use sub judice rules in a manner in which they protect the legal process. There is no doubt about that. But equally this House must use sub judice rules in a manner that protects and enhances the role of this House. The questions yesterday did nothing more than probe the government. They did not transgress either in word or spirit the intent of standing order 233. One has to question why the government is so concerned about scrutiny. Why is the government so concerned about the process that it put in train that it has shut down debate? The final point is this: never forget that the Attorney-General has the right to prosecute in this state. That means that the government selects the timing for the laying of the charges. Consider this: the Courier-Mail in Monday or Tuesday’s paper lays out reasons why the charges should be laid. Suddenly, on that same day, the gentleman is charged with serious criminal offences. Can anyone possibly believe that that was not a manoeuvred, manipulated situation by a cynical— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! I have just received advice that you are transgressing onto a specific matter. Were you here for my initial ruling? Mr McARDLE: I was and I withdraw that comment. I apologise for any comment I may have made. The comment that I would conclude with is this: this House has a right, as every opposition has a right, to question the government. No-one within the rules of decency and sub judice should inhibit or in any way detract from that right. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (3.49 pm): I rise in support of the Speaker of this parliament and his ruling yesterday. If members want any evidence of why the Speaker did what he did yesterday they only had to see the actions of the previous speaker who, having been warned, had to go into the whole business of the matters that are before the court and had to be pulled up by the Deputy Speaker as a result of following the advice of the Clerk. It is little wonder that yesterday we saw the Speaker of this parliament do as Speakers have done for decades and that is rule on sub judice in this parliament. I table that document for the benefit of members and I hope the opposition reads it. Tabled paper: List of Speakers’ precedents on sub-judice. The facts of the matter are as follows: the Speaker occupied the chair yesterday morning and made it very clear what he expected in the debate. He said— I will not allow any petition, motion, debate, or question which, if said outside, may constitute a contempt of court or which could in any way jeopardise a fair trial. It was from that point on that he was required to judge and rule on these matters. His judgement was obviously based on the advice that he had received elsewhere. He advised the House that he had not acted alone but had taken advice on the matter and was acting on that advice. So he was not acting alone on this. His advice told him that the types of questions that were being asked were likely to interfere with the court’s deliberations. That was his judgement and the opposition did not like that. So they did as all badly behaved people do, whether it be on the football field or anywhere else where an umpire is required: they spat the dummy and attacked the Speaker’s integrity. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Speaker’s integrity and impartiality. Yet here today they would have us believe that this is all some sort of a coincidence and that they really are standing up for the people’s house. The shadow Attorney-General, who has a very shady past in his own personal dealings, stood up in this parliament and said that they are here defending the people. Standing order 233 exists for a very good reason—that is, to protect people who are before the courts. Contrary to what the member for Caloundra may think, members cannot come in here and do as they damned well please. 164 Motions 07 Feb 2007

Dr Flegg interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is not what the people of this state expect. The people who go before the court— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Again we hear interjections from the other side. I did not interject on anybody, but notice their bad behaviour now. There is consistent interruption and rudeness. I did not interject on any opposition speakers because they have nothing worth interjecting on. The reality is that the opposition has set out on an agenda to wreck this parliament, to disrupt this parliament, to interrupt ministers who are on their feet, to bring the whole place into disrepute. This is part and parcel of their modus operandi. The facts are very simple. Members either agree with the Speaker’s ruling and his right to make it or they do not, and I agree with his ruling. I do not always agree with his rulings. He has disagreed with my points of order or whatever the case may be, but I accept the umpire’s decision. To do otherwise— unless it is a very serious and blatant matter—is to call this place into question, and that is what the opposition is doing. We know that. There is not a sincere bone in any of their bodies when it comes to this sort of stuff. The reality is that this is a serious matter. A man’s freedom is at stake and it behoves the Speaker of this parliament to set a very high standard in that regard and to err on the side of caution. To err on the side of caution is a very prudent and responsible attitude to take. I know that members of the opposition do not want to do that because they want to politicise this whole thing. They want to get out there and make as much political mileage out of this as they can, having no regard whatsoever for the rights of the individual who is before the court. We know that. That is the tory way. But we on this side of the parliament have some understanding and some decency when it comes to the law and to not trampling over people’s rights, unlike the shadow Attorney-General. The other point I would like to make is that the member for Maroochydore said that the Premier was happy to answer questions. I think the member for Beaudesert said the same thing. Doesn’t that say it all? If the Premier is prepared to answer questions and suddenly the Speaker allows him to do that, what sort of a charge would the Speaker leave himself open to? Mr Johnson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory! Mr SCHWARTEN: What sort of a charge would the Speaker leave himself open to? If members wanted evidence of the Speaker’s impartiality, there it is in black and white. I know that people on this side of the parliament respect the Speaker’s rulings, his right to make rulings, his right to make judgements on those things and his need to be cautious in the exercise of what happens in this parliament. We will be voting to support the Speaker’s rulings and the independence and highly esteemed position that he holds. I also point out that I have another five minutes left to speak, but out of decency to the two Independents who are on the speaking list—decency that was not extended to them by those on that side of the House—I will allow the— Dr Flegg interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Liberal Party! Order! Mr SCHWARTEN: What I am saying is the truth, and we know that the truth hurts. I have got the speaking list here which allows 2½ minutes for each of those Independents. I am entitled to another five minutes, but in the spirit of goodwill and democracy I will forgo that five minutes. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.55 pm): I thank the minister for his even-handedness. The community on both sides of this issue now feels frustrated and angry. People need to know that their individual rights and freedoms are protected by both the court process and the democratic process—that is, the parliament—separately and independently. The Premier in his contribution talked about the timing of his media conference. On Monday last the Premier refused to answer questions relating to the leaking of information to the media because the person in question would be charged in the next couple of hours. That was on the radio. The Premier continued to refuse to answer questions, even when pressed by those electronic media outlets who could get a story to air before the two-hour threshold. The Premier then stated charges could be laid at any moment from that point in the conversation— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Member for Gladstone, in my ruling at the start of this debate I asked members to talk about principles and generalities; no specific matters please. 07 Feb 2007 Motions 165

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My apologies. I missed that. So there has been some frustration in the community. While the Speaker’s role is to ensure the observance of parliamentary standards in addition to rules and necessary protections for debate and law, a number of the rulings yesterday I believe exacerbated the perception by reasonable people that this House was protecting the government from reasonable and necessary examination in matters not directly related to those matters currently before the courts—matters of process which should feel the glare of scrutiny in this place. The community deserves to know how information previously deemed protected by the Premier as prejudicial to a pending case can a short time later be selectively released, at a time when proper and necessary examination of the process of release can occur. The people who have entrusted this role of governance and accountability expect no more than that—accountability and transparency—and deserve no less. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (3.56 pm): I thank the minister for allowing the Independents to participate in this debate. I table the speaking list so actions can speak louder than words. Tabled paper: List of speakers in the debate of the dissent motions. I note yesterday that on two occasions deputy speakers relied on the Speaker’s earlier ruling to comment on my speeches. After review of the Speaker’s and the Deputy Speakers’ rulings, I believe there is a need for greater training of our deputy speakers. I look to the issue of consistency. I believe it is paramount that we ensure there is consistency in the Speaker’s and deputy speakers’ rulings. For the record, the first speech I delivered yesterday was in relation to the separation of powers and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was no relevance whatsoever to the matters before the court. The second speech related to the Governor’s address and, in particular, her words, ‘My government will continue to ensure every worker gets a fair go.’ I will be supporting the opposition on this motion. Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 1 be agreed to. AYES, 30—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wish to advise all honourable members that any future divisions on these dissent motions will be of two minutes duration. Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 2 be agreed to. AYES, 30—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 3 be agreed to. AYES, 30—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Division: Question put—That dissent motion No. 4 be agreed to. AYES, 30—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. 166 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill Resumed from p. 155. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.17 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Vocational Education and Training and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. Once again I thank the Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts for proposing this bill to the House. This bill in its simplest form will make real changes and real improvements to the training system for our young people. Apprenticeships are the only way to obtain on-the-job practical knowledge. These are things that people cannot just read in a book—they have to be on the job and learn how to perform the job. As an engineer I am very much aware of how important skilling programs are. If a person is working on a multimillion-dollar project they want to have confidence in their team. They want to know that they have employed the best skilled tradesmen and professionals available. There is simply no room for error. Errors mean more time needs to be taken to go back and fix the mistakes that other people have made. Apprentices who undergo competency based training and assessments are being judged by their peers and by qualified accredited professionals who know what is needed to perform the job well. As stated in the white paper, the state government is committed to moving from a supply driven training model to a system capable of responding to rapid changes in the marketplace. Rapid changes in the state’s economy are something that we have been embracing for some time. A new 28-year low in Queensland’s unemployment rate in December 2006 and the corresponding strong growth in jobs, particularly full-time jobs, confirms that this state is clearly the fastest growing state in this nation. The state government is achieving its goal of maintaining the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. How do we do that? We do that by opening new industries in the state and exploring new possibilities such as those in the aviation industry, the bioindustry and the creative industries. The list goes on. In order to supply skilled workers to those industries we have to improve the training system for our young people and our labour force in this state. The skilled apprentices will be able to complete their competency training sooner if they prove their merit and thus be able to enter the workforce sooner ensuring that the Smart State is once again setting the pace and keeping the standard high for the rest of the nation. This bill will allow the government’s landmark skills program to become part of the bold and daring landscaping of improving and moving forward. We are all becoming used to living in this Smart State. There are 24 steps to be implemented and there are targets of an extra 30,000-plus training places in trade and higher levels to be available each year by 2010. This bill will enable the training providers, the assessment teams, the employers and the industry stakeholders to not only do their jobs but do them better. This bill ratifies a breakthrough in the skills training of our young people and applicant apprentices. It is a further confirmation of how the state government stands by its promises to keep the strongest economy in Australia growing with a historical high of 67.1 per cent in the workforce in December 2006. The state’s workforce could not support such continued strong growth if there was not the base of skilled workers to support and develop industry. This bill improves current arrangements by providing alternatives in situations where confirmation of completion or certification has not been received by the organisation responsible for issuing a statement of attainment or completion. If an apprentice has completed his or her training and is eligible to apply for his or her certificate, this bill now provides that on application the council has the discretionary power to issue the statement. Similarly, where a young trainee has finished his or her training ahead of the expected period, this bill now provides that on application the council or organisation responsible has the same power to issue that qualification. It is all about getting skilled people into the workforce and addressing the significant trade skills shortages in industries across Queensland. This bill affirms the Queensland Skills Plan of encouraging both employer and industry participation to work together to improve the quality and number of skilled workers available. This bill also provides an opportunity for business and industry to embrace the new marketplace and to work with the government and other third parties where required to support new ways of sourcing and supporting their particular skills needs. In closing, I have to also congratulate the government on the wonderful initiative of Skilling Solutions Queensland. Launched by the Premier in 2005, for the last two years this has assisted almost 3,500 Queenslanders in reaching their training and career goals. To date, five service centres have been opened as part of the three-year pilot initiative in Shailer Park, Logan Central, Middlebrook, South Brisbane and Rockhampton. In the not-too-distant future there will be one in my electorate of Capalaba. I am certainly looking forward to having a Skilling Solutions centre not only in the electorate of Capalaba but in fact in the very same shopping centre as my electorate office. I commend this bill to the House. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 167

Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (4.24 pm): The Queensland Skills Plan is one of the two pillars of this government’s reforms to education and training provision in this state. Before making a few specific comments about the bill, I want to talk generally about the Education and Training Reforms for the Future policy, which in many respects outlines some of the most far-reaching initiatives implemented by this state Labor government. Earlier this year we witnessed the historic rollout of the universal prep year across all schools in Queensland after an absence of about 50 years. That follows on from reforms which saw the leaving age raised to 16 and the introduction of a requirement that young people undertake at least two years further education or equivalent after they have completed year 10. Alongside these initiatives we have also had major reviews of curriculum, teaching methodologies and also one of the biggest building programs in Education Queensland’s history. This government does have a proud record of education and training reform, and this bill is just one more step in putting our ideas into practice. We all know that education and training is the key to a sustainable future, not just for the individual but also for the economy of Queensland and for the nation. Our Smart State agenda is based on the development and application of new and improved ways of working and doing business, of an increased focus on research and development, and of encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit that will drive the innovation and change which will deliver the jobs and the standard of living which Queenslanders expect. Underpinning this new world is an increased effort to improve education and training outcomes for our students and our workforce. The ETRF policy, which I have mentioned, is just one key pillar of that agenda to achieve those objectives. The other one is the very impressive Queensland Skills Plan, which is a groundbreaking, billion-dollar investment to ensure Queensland’s vocational education and training sector meets the skills challenges of the 21st century. Key elements of the plan include the full implementation of competency based training, which is one of the key planks of this bill; the establishment of a statewide trade and technicians institute; funding to provide an additional 17,000 trade training places and 14,000 post-trade training places by 2010; improved partnerships with industry; a major reorganisation of TAFE Queensland; and the continuing rollout of Skilling Solutions Queensland, which has been mentioned by a number of members. This bill is mainly about implementing two of the key actions in the Skills Plan—specifically, the new industry engagement arrangements and also processes to fully implement competency based training for apprentices and trainees. In the minister’s second reading speech he outlines in some detail the range of reforms that the bill will introduce. I want to make some general comments about the apprenticeship system, particularly as it was the starting point for my own working life. One of the key aims of this bill is to streamline the process for completing apprenticeships and traineeships specifically through the implementation of competency based training. Competency based training essentially means that a person completes their training when they can demonstrate that they have acquired all of the competencies associated with the qualification they are training for. Under the traditional apprenticeship system, which I undertook, completion could not be attained unless a minimum time period had been served. Under the new arrangements it is expected that four out of every five apprentices could potentially have the expected time of their apprenticeships reduced by up to six months while some may have them reduced by up to 12 months. One of the critical issues in a system of this nature is the quality of the competency assessment process, and in many respects this is the foundation of successful implementation of competency based training. Without proper assessment of competencies, the integrity of the entire system is compromised. Employees lose out because they are not having their skills raised to the required standard which will affect their future employment prospects and employers lose out because they will be paying for people whose competencies are not of the standard for the pay that they are receiving. I know that the minister is acutely aware of the importance of ensuring the integrity of the competency based assessment process and as a consequence has ensured that the government will continue to collaborate with stakeholders to address any concerns about quality and training assessment. Additionally, a new skills assessment service will work with industry and training providers to improve the consistency, validity and employer confidence in the assessment practices. Competency based training can and will deliver well-qualified tradespeople and trainees into the workforce faster than under the old system. It is important, however, that we remain vigilant to ensure that the integrity of the competency based assessment system is maintained. This bill is an important step in implementing the key reforms of the government’s Queensland Skills Plan. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (4.29 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2007. Queensland can proudly boast a world-class vocational education and training system and things can only get better. The billion- dollar Queensland Skills Plan has been the envy of other states and territories. Unlike the Howard federal government, which has done little to advance the skills development of Australians, the Queensland government has led Australia in funding and support for skills development. It can proudly boast record numbers of apprenticeships and traineeships and record numbers of vocational education training students in schools. For us, that means kids going to school for part of the week and then 168 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 donning their electrical gear, their carpentry tools, or their chef’s apron and heading out to the workforce and picking up a certificate, or a traineeship in a work area, particularly in those areas of skills shortages, which is what we need them to be doing. In that regard, Queensland has been leading the way. This bill provides further mechanisms and support for that sort of training to get better and better. In Queensland we know that the key to the ongoing success of our economy and productivity is skilling up our workforce. Again, I want to put it on the record very clearly how disturbing are the Howard government’s WorkChoices policy and industrial relations laws. Its approach to Australian productivity is to line the pockets of big business and to make it really tough for workers—to short-change workers as a way of increasing productivity. It is not rational and it does not make sense. In fact, it is downright very tough for a lot of working families to survive in this environment. The reality is that we have to focus on skills. The sooner the Howard government gets that and starts to fund more skills development, the better this country will be. Research is also very important, but the Howard government is misguided in its WorkChoices industrial laws. The success of the Queensland policy framework that is extended through this bill with the rollout of the new industry alliances and other mechanisms that will follow is really the way to go. We have had a system of training advisory councils and their success has been variable. Some have worked well. I have been involved in the Community Services and Health Industries Training Council and their activities. Prior to being elected I was also an active member of the community services sector. A lot of good training and advice to government comes through that type of council. Other councils have not necessarily been as ready, willing and able to provide good support to their own members and to government in terms of advice. That has occurred for a range of reasons. But the mechanisms that we are putting in place now will not be a one size fits all; there will be skills formation strategies and a whole lot of mechanisms that will allow industry to provide support to its own members, to know what the skills needs are and to provide good advice to government. I am very clear in my support of this bill. I am very keen to support the minister in his efforts to advance the skills development of Queenslanders. I am really thrilled to see new initiatives such as the Trade and Technician Skills Institute at Acacia Ridge, with centres at Eagle Farm and also in regional TAFEs. It is a great initiative. I commend Steve Ghost and the staff of the institute at Acacia Ridge for the wonderful work that they have done in such a short period. It is quite incredible. I visited the site when it was a steel mill. Workers were concerned because they were going to be displaced from that mill when it closed down. Thankfully, this good Queensland Labor government had a worker assistance program in place by which to help those workers relocate and retrain, if that is what they wanted to do. Now, the site is a vibrant new space—a very Smart State initiative. The Trade and Technician Skills Institute at Acacia Ridge is certainly something of which we can very proud. I support this bill and wish the minister well in advancing the skills of Queenslanders. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (4.33 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. The bill amends the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000, the Agricultural College Act 2005 and the Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002. The main objectives of the bill are to enable the implementation of actions outlined in the Queensland skills plan white paper. The government developed the Queensland skills plan white paper, which discussed major changes to the state’s vocational education and training system in response to the serious skill shortage in the workforce that Queensland faces. The Queensland Skills Plan includes addressing the fact that the needs of Queensland industry are now more diverse. In addition to the requirement of traditional trade skills, new types of professionals are required to ensure that our industries remain efficient into the future. The main outcomes as a result of the implementation of this legislation will be the removal of the legislated role of industry training advisory bodies to enable a range of new arrangements for industry engagement that aim to improve the alignment between industry’s skills needs and training delivery and streamlining the completion process to support the early completion of training by apprentices and trainees to better meet industry needs and to address significant trade skill shortages in Queensland. In place of ITAB structures, the bill creates a framework to be based on industry skills alliances, centres of excellence, industry-government skilling partnerships and skills formation strategies that aim to better serve the needs of industry at local, regional and state levels. I understand that the intention is for industry to have a leading role in setting training priorities, including the manner in which the training is delivered. I think that is a particularly positive step forward. One of the major changes to the way in which Queensland trains people as a result of this legislation will be the changes to the way in which people will complete apprenticeships and traineeships—moving to a competency based completion of these programs. Last year I placed a question on notice to the Minister for Education and Training regarding the move away from apprentices and trainees being required to undertake a set period of training—generally taking four years to complete their certification—to accelerated competency based programs, which generally takes three years to complete. The minister advised that, at that time, up to 23 trades would move to this format. So the changes will be widespread and significant in a large number of trades. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 169

The justification for moving to this program was based on a formal review undertaken by the Queensland Training and Employment Recognition Council. As part of that review, the council— importantly, in my view—considered feedback from registered training organisations. The minister advised that industry had been approached to verify that apprentices will be able to achieve competence in the field by undertaking an accelerated program. The minister’s advice was that the achievement of the required levels of competency will depend on the individual concerned, their dedication to their trade and that there was no intention of compromising the competence levels of apprentices by reducing the period in which they spend in their apprenticeship or traineeship. But a number of tradesmen have expressed their reservations to me about the acceleration of apprenticeships. There is no getting around the fact that a large number of long-serving, experienced tradesmen remain of the view that the best way for an apprentice to gain the necessary skills and experience to pursue a career in that field independently is to spend a significant and extended period under their direct supervision. Certainly, an issue about which I have some concerns is the suggestion that the bill will establish a mechanism by which an apprentice or trainee can be deemed as competent by the Training and Employment Recognition Council even though one of the parties to the training contract does not sign the completion agreement. I certainly think that this provision of the bill needs to be considered very carefully, especially in regard to a situation in which the supervising tradesman is the party that does not sign the training contract. I understand that, if the apprentice or trainee has achieved all practical and theoretical competencies and for some reason the completion agreement is not signed, the council can make a determination about the competency of the apprentice or trainee while ensuring that all parties involved in the completion agreement will have an opportunity to submit their case. Although I appreciate that the minister has said that this arrangement aims to ensure that those apprentices and trainees are not held back from completing their apprenticeship or traineeship if they have achieved competency, I hope that the dispute resolution process that will be established by the bill to resolve situations where there is not an agreement will give sufficient, due and appropriate recognition to the considered opinion of the experienced tradesman providing supervision to the apprentice or trainee in question. There is a very good reason for that. Vocational education is a critical component for the successful development of young people. Although I think we all agree that the assessment of competency must be completed to workplace standards, employers are certainly looking for something a little bit more than that in an employee. Employers are not only looking for industry-specific skills; they are also looking for a strong work ethic and more generic skills that are a good indication of the capacity of that person to be a valuable employee into the future. These attitudes are best acquired by apprentices and trainees by spending periods of time with an experienced tradesman who passes on those qualities. It is for that reason that we should be mindful of giving apprentices and trainees adequate time with their instructors. There is a small part of this bill which refers to minor changes to the Agricultural College Act 2005. I would like to speak about the Australian Agricultural College Corporation, as it provides an enormously important service to regional and rural communities. In 2005, the government took the step of amalgamating the administrative arrangements of the then four independent agricultural colleges that were operating in Queensland through the Agricultural College Act 2005, which established the Australian Agricultural College Corporation. Each of the four agricultural colleges had developed an excellent reputation for delivering quality training to their students and maintained strong relationships with rural industry organisations. The former Dalby Agricultural College is located in the heart of the highly diversified agricultural and grazing area known as the Darling Downs. Dalby is a major centre in Australia for grain handling, cotton production, rural merchandising and agricultural manufacturing and engineering. This tied in closely with the core business focus of the Darling Downs, and the college provided training to meet the needs of the farming and intensive livestock industries in the region. The strength of the Dalby Agricultural College was always the strong links it had with, and the support that it received from, agricultural industry bodies and research institutes. This support kept the courses reflective of contemporary issues relevant to the rural industries that students would eventually move into. The former Emerald Agricultural College offered courses in very practical skill areas for rural industries, including cattle pregnancy testing, engine maintenance, horseshoeing, agricultural chemical application and chainsaw operation. These very practical courses were complemented by subjects in business management, computer skills, commodity marketing, communication skills and time management, which ensured graduates had the skills to participate in the rural sector into the 21st century. The former Australian College of Tropical Agriculture operated two campuses, one in the Burdekin and one at Mareeba, and together they delivered excellent training to the students who attended those campuses. The Burdekin college offered a range of agricultural and farm engineering courses. The Mareeba campus catered more for students pursuing environmental and conservation orientated careers, such as land management and tourism, although it also offered courses relating to the demand for skills in the local agricultural and horticultural industries. 170 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

The former Longreach Pastoral College offered courses specifically designed to provide students with training for the pastoral industry, in contrast to the other former colleges which were principally focused on agricultural as distinct to pastoral industries, and did so to a very high standard. It also enjoyed a strong relationship with pastoral industry organisations that ensured that courses remained relevant to the needs of industry operators. The important theme of each of the four formerly independent colleges was that they had strong relationships with relevant industry organisations and the content of courses offered at the colleges was driven by the involvement of those industry groups. It is critically important that the quality training continue under the current model where the Australian Agricultural College Corporation has assumed responsibility for the delivery of this training. The move to amalgamate the four agricultural colleges did create a degree of concern. This concern pertained mainly to the absence of separate boards for each of the campuses that would have enabled a degree of autonomy with respect to the course material delivered at these colleges. It was clear at the time that there were certain issues that meant that there was a case for centralising the financial arrangements of the colleges. However, there were concerns put forward about the appropriateness of centralising control over the curriculum delivered to students, and these concerns were legitimate in my view. Nevertheless, on 1 July 2005 the Australian Agricultural College Corporation was established. The task of amalgamating the four former colleges posed a significant challenge. The 2005-06 annual report of the Australian Agricultural College Corporation lists several initiatives that are being undertaken by the corporation. The corporation, in its first 12 months of operation, installed a $2 million information technology upgrade and centralisation of core business support systems; achieved an actual deficit of only a quarter of a million against a predicted budget deficit of $1 million; streamlined its financial management framework and progressed towards finalising its risk management framework; instituted a corporation- wide organisational restructure and streamlined vacancy, recruitment and selection processes. The corporation also improved the relevance, quality and efficiency of all training, with particular emphasis on on-campus training and responding to industry and training needs for entry level students and existing rural industry employees. The corporation planned for lower level courses to be common to all campuses, supporting greater efficiencies in course materials, assessments and compliance. It also developed objectives and enabling strategies to facilitate an increase in the level of off-campus delivery and assessment with these initiatives to increase the availability of staff to deliver training off campus, increase staff capacity to deliver training off campus, increase community and regional training opportunities and increase the profile of the vocational education and training sector to meet industry needs. I think it is fair to say that these initiatives have demonstrated strong outcomes for the Australian Agricultural College Corporation in its first year, particularly as far as its financial situation is concerned, and I congratulate the CEO, the director of the college and the board of the corporation to that end. I note that there has been a certain degree of standardisation as far as the course material between campuses is concerned. I hope this does not result in the concerns that I described earlier becoming a reality. The reason I wanted to note the important contribution that the Australian Agricultural College makes to the training of large numbers of people in Queensland as far as skills and knowledge of rural industries is concerned is that rural industries make a very significant contribution to the Queensland economy. Of particular importance is that a large percentage of Queensland products are exported. As a result, it is particularly important that the employees working in our rural industries are appropriately skilled, and the Australian Agricultural College is a vital resource to ensure that the workforce can obtain those skills. While large amounts of the work undertaken in our rural industries are nowadays performed by machines, the people operating those machines need to be highly skilled. The Australian Agricultural College is also making a strong contribution by providing training in this area. Nevertheless, in my electorate of Hinchinbrook there are still some industries that are labour intensive. The banana industry comes immediately to mind. There is still a very large number of people in my electorate who are directly employed in farm labouring positions. For a long time, the banana industry has been trying to explain to governments at all levels that these farm labourers have particular skills which ought to be recognised. You cannot send inexperienced people into the field on a banana farm. They need to spend time with more experienced farm hands. That is similar to the circumstances of apprentices and trainees. There was recently a program delivered by the government as part of its Cyclone Larry Recovery Plan, which will provide training through the Australian Agricultural College in programs like quarantine, chemical application and plant protection to farm workers. I welcomed this program. I note the minister who provided that program is here, and I welcomed it at the time. It was due recognition that these farm workers required skills training and that they were skilled workers. Banana industry workers work very hard and they are valued by their employers. I pay tribute to them as the backbone of a very important industry in my electorate. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 171

With those remarks on the record, I conclude my contribution by saying that I support the bill, although I hope the minister will be vigilant in ensuring that relationships between training authorities and industry organisations remain close to ensure that our apprentices and trainees are getting the best possible instruction. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.47 pm): I rise to speak to the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. In so doing I would like to put on the record my congratulations to groups in the electorate of Gladstone that provide training to young people and mature apprentices as well—in particular, the Gladstone Area Group Apprentices Ltd. Kerry Whitaker is now in charge of that training organisation. She filled the shoes of Dave Burns, who for a lot of years exercised a great deal of initiative and vision in terms of providing training for young men and women in the Gladstone region. Whilst Dave is retired now, the community is benefiting from the legacy that he has left. I would also like to commend the school based apprentices and the schools that have been so actively involved in providing a diversified educational base for students who wish to follow a skills based future. Not only does that provide an opportunity to prepare young students for an early start to their apprenticeship; it also gives them an opportunity to decide whether what they believe they want to do in terms of apprentice based training actually matches the reality. They get an opportunity to effectively have training in that workplace. Sometimes the illusion of what a particular apprenticeship is going to be about does not match the reality. They have the opportunity then to make an early decision to change to something more suited to their interests and skills. We cannot talk about apprenticeships without also acknowledging the tremendous contribution of employers in our community. In the electorate of Gladstone we have a very homogeneous mix of large, medium and small industry, including single-person businesses—the building industry, in particular— which all contribute to the future of the community and the strength of the economy by being prepared to invest in apprentices. It is an investment. We have seen the legacy of a few years ago where businesses rolled down the number of apprentices that they took on. That happened in the larger industries in my region. The skills base was clearly drying up. That reawakened the imperative in the larger businesses in particular to reinvest in apprenticeships. That then flows over to the responsibility of training providers—and in particular TAFE, which has been a major supplier of training for apprentices and others in the community—to provide flexible training opportunities. The Central Queensland Institute of TAFE has a close liaison with the mines and the larger industries in the Gladstone area. Thankfully the previous minister for education as well as the minister who looked after the TAFE facility took some steps to save the hospitality training area at the Gladstone TAFE. There were early indications that it was going to be closed. It provides a broad range of hospitality based training packages. Horizons is the name of the restaurant and it would have been a tragedy to see that lost. It has not maintained its past status but it is still operating and I am looking forward to the time when it operates fully as a community based restaurant with front-of-house and back-of-house training for those who wish to take that into their employment future. The problem that we have had in the electorate of Gladstone in terms of apprenticeships has been that for the number of apprenticeships available there is 20 to 30 more people who are wanting to apply for those apprenticeships. It was disappointing a number of months ago to see that in the south- east corner apprenticeships were remaining unfilled whereas in other parts of the state the demand for apprenticeship positions was quite significant. If the proposals having carriage with this piece of legislation fulfil what is expected then the early completion of apprenticeships based on competency, not necessarily on a rigid set of years, will be welcome in that it will free up appropriate employers and training organisations to have a greater number of apprentices go through. Not so that the apprentices are a sausage machine type apprentice but that they are fully competent irrespective of the time that they serve. That would allow for additional apprenticeships over a protracted period of time. It may come in under the Queensland Skills Plan and this legislation, but I believe there needs to be a review of the way qualifications are structured. There has been quite a number of regroupings of qualifications. This is not necessarily only under the auspices of the Queensland government, but other regulatory bodies like the Plumbers and Drainers Board and a few others. To give an example, a person used to be able to be a gasfitter. There was a more mature man I know of who had been a very well respected and competent gasfitter for 30 years. There was an incident that required him to go back and review his qualifications and he was advised that he had to be a fully licensed plumber to carry out this gasfitting. I understand that that may be an issue that will be dealt with by a meeting of governments later this year. I do hope that a more practical look is taken at some of these fields where a good living can be made by being a gasfitter without needing a full plumbing licence. Certainly this particular gentleman found it very frustrating that he was more than competent but was being told that he could not operate. The other issue that this legislation raises is the need for flexible training opportunities. The training that apprentices and others are required to do needs to be tailored to the type of employer that they have. I acknowledge that the minister has a very difficult job when dealing with the various 172 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 structured employers even across a general locality. I will use as an example builders, because I have had meetings with some builders where they have talked about the difficulties of releasing their apprentices for training. Rather than block training, they wanted it to be one day a week. In that same meeting others would say that one day a week does not suit; they would rather get it over and done with in a period of time. It highlighted to me the need for flexibility in the training packages. In discussions with Rob Cam there was mention made of an opportunity for that flexibility to be built in under this new legislation so that the type of employer, the number of employees they have, the number of apprentices and their workplace demands would be able to be recognised in the way that their training packages are structured and the way that those packages are delivered. I do not have any knowledge of this firm, but I have heard of a firm in south-east Queensland called Blue Dog Training that comes on site and provides training for an apprentice so there is less dislocation for the apprentice and the employer. That is the only mob that I have heard of that does it, but if it is as successful as I have heard then it is certainly a model that is worth replicating. The only other thing that this legislation brings to my mind that I wish to raise is the need to ensure that all of these young people and mature apprentices undertaking vocational education or training in other structures are adequately protected in terms of their wages and conditions at work. In my community there is still a significant level of concern in relation to the impact of WorkChoices. I believe that young people in particular, but also those in a position of disproportionate power, need to be confident that their conditions, their safety and their earnings are protected, that they are of a reasonable level and that their safety is of ultimate concern. I commend the minister for the flexibility that this bill promises to introduce and I trust that in the future it will provide a lot of positive results for our young men and women and our more mature people who take up new ventures in life. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (4.57pm): I rise to speak to the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. I have read the Queensland Skills Plan and I support the shadow minister’s contribution given earlier in the day where he went through the details of this bill. The workforce has changed over the years. Once upon a time young people went out as 15- year-olds and did their apprenticeship. I have two older brothers who are tradies. Virtually all tradesmen started their apprenticeship at 15. The world has moved on since then. I have a 26-year-old son who is doing a trade at the moment. Competency based training is an important part of the program. I encourage all employers to keep training their employees. It does not matter how old they are. There are always good training courses that should be undertaken to improve the skill levels of employees. What we have to do is encourage a continual upgrading of skills. I was quite amused to hear the member for Bundamba talk about the skills shortage. If the government wants to take some of the credit for the Howard government improving the unemployment rate in Queensland, surely it has to take some of the credit for the lack of skills training here as well. I cannot believe that the government is not training people and that the training has not been updated at all. That is a problem. Quality assurance of the training programs is important. That is something we have to do—that is, make sure the training programs are kept up to speed. I am sure most of the people doing the training realise that they need to be trained appropriately too. They do not want to be trained substandardly, and nor do the trainers want to train people substandardly. So I am sure this will be a much improved system. I have been starting to receive a few complaints in my electorate from people who cannot get the TAFE training for their apprentices. There are delays. They have been calling to say that they are 12 months behind with their TAFE training. That is a concern, and I hope this bill will improve that standard of training so some of that is sped up. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr RICKUSS: That is right. Early completion is really dragging them down. Like I said, I have a 26-year-old doing a trade and he is frustrated by the fact that he is virtually equivalent to a second year yet he has done two weeks of TAFE; that is about all he has done. It is very frustrating for them. That really will discourage people from going into the trades, because they do want to finish early. All I can do is encourage the minister to make sure he gets some of this legislation in place to improve some of the TAFE places so there are enough places there to put the appropriate training in place. With that, I support the bill. Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (5.01 pm): I want to add my voice to the support given to this Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill. In particular, I wish to acknowledge the opening of the new Skilling Solutions Queensland centre at Westfield Chermside in the electorate of Stafford. This centre is designed to provide advice to Queenslanders about obtaining skills and job qualifications. For many, it will take the complication and guesswork out of looking for a 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 173 new career or choosing training. As my honourable colleagues have mentioned already, these new centres are part of this Labor government’s commitment under the $1 billion Queensland Skills Plan, which this bill will facilitate. I support this initiative. The centres, of which Chermside was the first to open in 2007, will have consultants on hand to provide face-to-face advice on how Queenslanders of all ages can obtain skills and qualifications to help them improve their job prospects. It is particularly important that these centres open in places like the Westfields of the world; it is important that they are located in the new town centres and city centres in our growing communities, particularly in south-east Queensland. These centres will open the door to trades to many people who have not necessarily considered them before. This will be a new place for people to see the opportunities offered in the trades. This includes people of all ages—as a number of colleagues who have spoken to the bill so far have mentioned—and people from different cultural backgrounds to whom the traditional avenues into apprenticeships and so on have been alienating in the past. That is particularly important when we consider that this new centre has opened at Chermside in the centre of the north side. It is also important that these skilling centres will play a big part in addressing the needs in our economy for skilled workers, as has been mentioned by all the speakers preceding me. While there will be centres up and down Queensland’s coast, it is important that there is one in Chermside. As Chermside is a key regional centre for Brisbane’s north side, it was a sound decision by the minister and his predecessor to establish a Skilling Solutions Queensland centre at Chermside. As the minister would know, business is humming on the north side and we need every avenue to assist workers to improve their skills and meet the needs of our economy. The north side has plenty of workers willing to play a role in this dynamic city and its strong economy. Skilling Solutions Queensland and the Queensland Skills Plan provide support and a service to both employers and employees, and they will be very important in addressing concerns about the skills shortage in our community. They will play a dynamic role, as I said, in building the economy and the nature of the booming areas of south-east Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (5.04 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill. This bill gives effect to a visionary reform in the Queensland Skills Plan—a plan that will ensure that apprenticeships and traineeships are modern and efficient while ensuring the integrity of trade qualifications is maintained. Apprenticeship training is something about which I am passionate. Apprenticeships provide our workforce with valuable technical skills that contribute to productivity and economic growth. Apprenticeships importantly provide career opportunities for young people to get lifelong skills while at the same time being paid. However, apprenticeships are also now providing mature workers who already have industry experience with the opportunity to turn years of industry experience into trade qualifications. The apprenticeship relationship is a unique one, steeped in tradition going back over 500 years. The combination of an employment contract and a training contract has been the cornerstone of this relationship, as well as the commitment by both employers and employees to contribute to their trade and industry. Queensland’s economic growth has been a marvel over the last eight years, providing prosperity and opportunity. Economic growth in Queensland was higher than for the rest of Australia for the 10th consecutive year in 2005-06, at 3.8 per cent in Queensland compared with 2.4 per cent for the rest of Australia. The budget forecast for economic growth for 2006-07 is 4.25 per cent—again, higher than the rest of Australia. The story continues with unemployment. Trend unemployment in Queensland was 4.3 per cent in October 2006. This is the lowest level since the current series of statistics commenced in 1978. This is despite a record number and proportion of Queenslanders being in the labour force. In addition, long- term unemployment in Queensland has halved as a proportion of total unemployment over the last five years. Over a third of all full-time jobs created in Australia have been created in Queensland. Queensland’s employment growth across the year to October 2006 was 4.2 per cent, compared with 2.6 per cent for Australia as a whole, with 72,300 full-time jobs created in Queensland in the year to October 2006. Much of this growth has been driven by our resources sector and construction sector, which includes resource related construction as well as associated manufacturing operations. This has continued at the same time as this government has been building infrastructure—schools, hospitals and roads. In the south-east corner alone, the state government will be spending $66 billion on infrastructure through the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. Of course, this involves the all-important water infrastructure to deal with the current drought facing south-east Queensland. What this economic growth and the planned infrastructure have in common is their demand for skilled workers, particularly in traditional trades. The need for skilled workers for this important infrastructure poses a potential restraint to economic growth. Not only is this a constraint on economic growth in mining and construction, but as workers move into these industries, the local manufacturing sector must work hard to ensure that a strong skill base is maintained in their workforce. This bill is a key 174 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 measure in ensuring that Queensland can promote a strong manufacturing industry. A strong manufacturing industry is a key driver of full-time employment growth, research and development funding, and skills development. The evidence is clear that Australia as a whole is now facing a skills shortage. With an ageing population and low unemployment, the skills for economic growth are limited. But this shortage has been the result of years of neglect from the Howard government. The New Apprenticeships promoted by the federal government did not come with support or investment and tried to promote flexibility over making sure that the training provided is of high quality and is what is needed by industry as a whole or by apprentices individually. In the area in which I have experience—the metal and engineering trades—the Department of Employment and Training green paper estimates that in order to meet the demand for engineering tradespeople a further 2,200 apprentices need to be trained each year. This is despite the Beattie government’s strong record on training numbers. In 2005, when these figures were raised, the numbers of apprentices and trainees in Queensland increased by 6.5 per cent. At the same time, national figures showed a 0.4 per cent decrease in training rates. From 2001 to 2005 the number of Queenslanders in apprenticeships and traineeships had risen by more than 51 per cent—from 49,200 at the end of December 2000 to 74,600 as at the end of December 2005. The NCVER figures also show that 43.7 per cent of all apprenticeships and traineeships in Queensland are being undertaken in the traditional trades compared to the Australian average of only 38.1 per cent. As well, Queensland has strongly promoted innovation in apprenticeships and traineeships. In this regard, Queensland accounts for 36 per cent of all school based apprenticeship and traineeship commencements nationally. In his 2003 report Dr Phillip Toner of the Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies at the University of Western Sydney examines apprentice training rates in Australia. In 1974 the metal trades had one apprentice in training for every five tradespeople in the industry. In 2001 the metal trades had one apprentice in training for every 12 tradespersons employed. At page 13 of his report, Dr Toner provides that, while industry restructuring has seen some metal trades positions removed, this is not of such significance to justify the reduction in training rates. Louise Brooks’s 2004 research paper Australian vocational education and training statistics: trends in traditional apprenticeships’ with the National Centre for Vocational Education Research shows that for the period from 1996—when the federal government came to power—to 2002 apprentices as a proportion of employed tradespersons had decreased in mechanical and fabrication trades, and where apprentice intakes have increased they have been met with increases in cancellation rates. NCVER figures show that cancellation rates for apprenticeships sat at around 26 per cent for the period between 1995 and 1999, with these cancellations occurring predominantly in the early stages of the apprenticeship. Any strategy to deal with the skills shortage must address both the demand and supply side of the issue. While the provision of training through apprenticeships must improve business, apprenticeships must also provide apprentices with a strong career path, interesting work and fair conditions. The key reform, from my point of view, is the introduction of competency based training and competency based progression for apprentices. This will see apprentices progress through wage rates and complete their apprenticeship in accordance with their accumulation of competency rather than being based on the time they have served. It will also allow workers with industry experience to move quickly through their training by recognising their existing competency. This is a sensible system for providing more apprentices more quickly for industry while still guaranteeing the integrity of the trade qualifications they receive. I cannot stress to the House how important it is that the integrity of trade qualifications are protected. The value of trade qualifications not only affects the recipients of qualifications but also generations before and many generations to come. Trade qualifications are an important means of providing careers but also providing industry with certainty about the quality of skills held by the tradespeople they employ. The ability of people to trust a trade qualification at face value is one of the underpinning principles on which our training system is based. This competency progression will also address the high rate of cancellations of training contracts. The initial years of an apprenticeship, where over 80 per cent of cancellations occur, are difficult times for both the apprentice and the employer. For the first two years of an apprenticeship, an apprentice receives lower wages than they could earn working as a labourer. The apprentice is asked to make a sacrifice for the good of their long-term career. On the other hand, a 1997 study of apprenticeships by the then federal Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs found that, while overall apprentices make a contribution to a business, during the first two years employers have to make a sacrifice in terms of the productivity they receive from the apprentice. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 175

Competency based progression will mean that apprentices and employers will be able to move quickly through these initial stages of the apprenticeship. A quicker progression to higher wages, along with more training at the front end of the apprenticeship, will mean that the apprenticeship relationship will be more productive for both the employer and the apprentice. Competency based progression is not a new concept. It has been in place for tradespeople in the metal industry since 1996 and for apprentices in the metal industry since 1999. Some other industries have not been prepared to head down this path. Competency based progression is the nexus of two important principles—speedy progression and training—along with the integrity of qualifications being guaranteed. The implementation of these reforms will be important. The former system of time based progression is often easier for business to understand. The department of training and the council will need to be vigilant while businesses transfer to this new system of progression. This implementation will be assisted by a greater involvement by apprentices, registered training organisations, the employer and the Training and Employment Recognition Council. Apprentices will be able to seek the RTO to have the Training and Employment Recognition Council make a determination if they believe that they have the competency to progress to the next wage level or to be awarded their qualification. The industry-wide rollout of competency based progression for apprentices will, I think, provide great benefits to apprentices, employers and industry more broadly. I congratulate the minister for the Queensland Skills Plan’s visionary reform in this regard. I must also thank the minister for the opening of the Skilling Solutions Queensland centre in Meadowbrook in my electorate. I think that the inclusion of the Skilling Solutions Queensland centre, in partnership with the Meadowbrook campus of Metropolitan South Institute of TAFE, is an important partnership. While there are many important reforms in this bill, there is one further element of the bill that I would like to address before concluding—that is, the reform of industry engagement strategies to replace the former Industry Training Advisory Bodies or ITABs. ITABs have had their position undermined by the federal government with the abolition of ANTA and associated funding. Some of the stronger ITABs continued to function well after ANTA was abolished. In my experience, the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Industry Training Advisory Body, or MERSITAB, was a forum for participation of unions, employers and employer unions. All parties worked together to ensure a robust but flexible training package that is the envy of other industries. While this worked well, this bill recognises that different engagement strategies are required for different industries and different sections within industries. It is important that engagement strategies are suited to particular industries, but at the same time when consulting an industry it is essential that employees who are a key part of that industry are part of the engagement strategy. Continuing union involvement in these bodies is very important to ensure that training is tailored to support employees and employers as well as making sure industry-wide considerations are part of the debate. I congratulate the minister and the government on this bill. This bill has been the subject of extensive consultation through the green paper and white paper processes. I believe that this has meant a stronger set of reforms. I am sure this bill will see more job and training opportunities as well as the skills needed for economic growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (5.16 pm): It is a real pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill. It is a real pleasure to follow the member for Waterford’s contribution. I know that he has an incredibly vast understanding and knowledge of the vocational industry. I am looking forward to learning from him during his time in this place. The major goals of the bill include the further implementation of the Queensland Skills Plan by removing the legislated role of the ITABs—that is, the Industry Training Advisory Bodies—and allowing for a range of new strategies to better meet the needs of industry. As the minister outlined in his second reading speech, these measures include the centres of excellence, skills formation strategies, skills alliances and industry skilling-government skilling partnerships. All these measures are designed to be industry, locality and excellence driven and focused. Another major feature of the bill is to undertake a number of changes to the apprenticeship arrangements that are designed to ensure that competent apprentices are able to enter the workforce at a time when they are ready to commence work as competent tradespeople. This is done by enabling arrangements for RTOs to assist apprentices with the negotiations that they have with the Training and Employment Recognition Council to complete the apprentices’ paperwork. In March 2006 the Queensland Skills Plan was announced. That plan made clear to everybody that Queensland was serious about ensuring that Queensland has the necessary skilled workforce to meet the challenges of our state. An additional 17,000 training places were announced, as were the 10 new Skilling Solutions Queensland centres. A number of our members have expressed their pleasure at those centres being located in their electorates. For all of us the centres are a great resource. 176 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

As has been discussed, there is the shortened duration of tenure for certain trade apprentices, a statewide apprenticeship info line and a $300 million capital commitment that included the Trade and Technician Skills Institute, of which stage 1 was opened last year. The member for Algester mentioned the metamorphosis of that centre. It was my great pleasure to join the minister, the Premier and the local members at that opening. Industry engagement strategies, the streamlining of TAFE and developing lead institutes are some of the strategies included in the Queensland Skills Plan. But there is only so much that we as a government can do. It is clear that if we are going to be successful, as we need to be, in building an ongoing skilled workforce we need the attitudes of all parties to shift—that includes employers, trainers, potential trainees, the community and, in particular, parents. Unfortunately, all too often it is we as parents, as caregivers and as a community who put in place, sometimes quite unintentionally, a set of prejudices against vocational education and training in our young people. This is most acute when our young people are in high school and we start to talk to them about years 11 and 12. It is not easy for many of us as parents to encourage our children to look at vocational education as opposed to the Holy Grail of an OP and university because we worry about whether we are denying our children opportunities. Of course we are not. I have just gone through this process myself with my youngest child who is going to pursue a trade. As a society we have quite vigorously promoted stereotyping across gender lines. This is having a real impact on strategies to encourage, in particular, girls into the growth industries such as IT, engineering, mining and construction, to name a few. It is clear to me that if we do not turn our attention to recruitment and retention across genders, ages and backgrounds we are not going to be able to meet our needs despite our greatest efforts. I recently opened, on behalf of the minister, a forum on women in construction. The forum was organised by the National Association for Women in Construction, Construction Training Queensland and the Building and Construction Industry Fund. It was a long planning day to talk about the construction industry and what needs to be done to recruit and retain women in the industry. It is quite clear that we have to do a lot of hard work in terms of changing social perceptions about working in construction and highlighting the opportunities that this presents to women. I will give a few statistics. In those male dominated trades and related jobs women make up less than 10 per cent of the workforce. There are also fewer girls than boys studying technology, science and maths in year 12. In 2005 girls made up only 18 per cent of years 11 and 12 information processing and technology students and 30 per cent of students studying information technology systems. The situation is similar in science and engineering with fewer than one-tenth of engineering and one-third of science professionals being women. When we consider that some of these professions are the higher paid ones in Australia, there is the issue of economic security for women and women having an equal position in society. Girls continue to enter low paid, casual and gender specific roles predominantly in the services sector not because they are less capable but because their choices are generally less informed or informed by gender stereotypes. Apparently the evidence suggests that girls’ narrowing of career choices starts as early as eight years of age. For example, they start ruling out occupations that they consider to belong to the opposite sex by the age of eight and occupations they believe to be of low status by the time they are 13. While young girls today perceive that they have more control than ever they are still influenced by gender roles when making occupational choices. Their perception of non-traditional subjects is generally negative. Construction is just heavy boots and things. Engineering sounds like something one has to be too smart to do. Parents play an important part in influencing these decisions. According to Australian National Training Authority research, parents continue to see vocational education and training at school as a second-class option for their children. They say that TAFE is great but not for their kids. However, focus groups with organisations revealed that participants believed that issues that the vocational education and training sector needed to address are not gender specific. They were reluctant to acknowledge that gender perceptions might still be significant barriers for women. Clearly there is a lot of work to be done not only in providing better information about choices for women from a very young age but also in changing the perception of parents. Some organisations in the industry also need to acknowledge that they have some work to do on their own structures and cultures before women will take a step into their industry and want to stay in it. That having been said, the government is very committed to attracting women to industries like construction, science, engineering, mining and technology. The Smart Women-Smart State Awards are an initiative of the Office of Women. They were developed in recognition of the powerful influence that positive role models can have on the study and career choices of girls. Last year we also ran an event called Bright Future-Shining Stars, in conjunction with those awards, for school girls in years 10 to 12 based squarely on that role-modelling concept. We have also established the Smart Women-Smart State task force to advise on ways to increase women and girls’ participation in the same fields. 07 Feb 2007 Vocational Education, Training & Employment & Other Acts Amendment Bill 177

A 12-point action plan was approved which aims to address the barriers women and girls experience at stages in their lives in relation to work and study in science, engineering and technology. One of the recent strategies is the Women in Hard Hats Program, which involves working with the mining and construction industries to recruit and train more women. It will also include the science, engineering and technology industries. We have committed $1.6 million in funding to work with industry bodies that are on the path to increasing the numbers of women. It is important not to duplicate the efforts of industry but rather work in conjunction with them. We are incredibly supportive of any work that aims to provide women and girls with more opportunities to expand their horizons, give them more opportunities for their working lives and increase their financial security. I want to comment on the concerns about the apprenticeship scheme. Having been a nurse for a very long time I have listened to the opinions about the changes in nurse training. We went from four years to three years in hospital training and everybody threw up their arms and said, ‘This is going to be the worst thing that ever happened.’ We used to be trained for four years in the hospitals and we went to three years. A few decades ago we went to university training. There still remains a minor but vocal group of people who believe that the panacea for all problems in nursing is to return to the bedside. For many years nurses have been trained successfully in universities. We always try to understand how we learn and things change. I say to those people who are concerned and have the right to express their concerns about the changes to apprenticeships that there are new ways of learning. They need to work very closely with their apprentices and their organisations because there are opportunities to shorten these time frames. Nursing is a particular profession that has been able to demonstrate that. I will say as an old charge sister that university trained nurses were very much maligned when they first started. Yes, they are much slower at integrating into institutional cultures, but let me tell members that they are without doubt, in my view, outstanding nurses and responsive nurses in what is an incredibly high-tech field. They are just as caring as nurses were in my time. I say to those employers who are concerned that they should continue to work closely with their apprentices and their organisations, that the experience in nursing has been that we can make changes to the time lines quite successfully to the benefit of everybody. I commend the minister and the department for their hard work. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (5.27 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006. I say at the outset that I certainly agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the member for Aspley about the expectations of kids, what we encourage them to do and the employment and education opportunities they think they should be following up. She has bipartisan support for that. I am pleased to offer my support for these much-needed changes to the current legislation which for too long have been seen as a significant impediment to the advancement of vocational education and training in this state. Vocational education and technical training prepares students for careers in practical trades which have suffered from a shortage of workers. Many factors have contributed to the undersupply of skilled workers that Queensland is currently experiencing, and certainly inadequate funding and support for training centres and apprentices is a major issue. This is partly because vocational education and training has not had the same focus as tertiary education. As I have previously stated, I am concerned that there is too much and has been too much focus and importance placed on tertiary education which has had and continues to have an indirect but nonetheless damaging effect on vocational education and training. Part of the solution to resolving Queensland’s massive skills shortage is not only supporting these legislative changes, which I am optimistic will improve vocational education and training in this state, but also encouraging initiatives like the Queensland Training Awards, which will bring about a shift in the perception of technical training and skilled workers. The Queensland coalition supports any move by the Minister for Education and Training that will open up vocational education and training to school leavers and indeed encourage them to take on apprenticeships. Skilled workers are the motor that keeps society running. I am pleased these amendments are being initiated by the government. I know of the good work the federal government is doing to help boost vocational education and training nationally through Australian technical colleges, with two more colleges opening in Queensland later this year. The Queensland coalition will also do whatever we can to support vocational education and training in this state to ensure the skills shortage is addressed. One point I want to make on this bill is that I am hopeful the new legislation does not compromise the quality of apprenticeships and traineeships in Queensland. Whilst expedited completion should be available to students who achieve a high level of competency earlier than their peers, early completion measures should not adversely affect vocational education and training for students and employers who do not wish to fast-track their apprenticeships. Training and quality standards should not be lowered in an effort to address the growing shortage of skilled workers. I would also hope that the Minister for 178 Motion 07 Feb 2007

Education and Training will ensure that TAFE and other training colleges are prioritised when it comes to funding and resources so that Queensland’s apprentices are given the best possible training. I have had concerns expressed to me about cancellation of courses, students being encouraged to take courses that do not give them the qualifications they want and increases in course costs. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned.

MOTION

Attorney-General, Motion of No Confidence Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House express no confidence in the Attorney-General. We heard from the Attorney-General’s own lips this morning that he is the first law officer of the state. He has extraordinary powers. He has powers to institute or discontinue prosecutions. It is vitally important that the office is the subject of confidence. This motion, of course, is to demonstrate the lack of confidence in the present holder of the office, not the office itself. This week we saw a very sensitive report—the detail of which I am unable to address—which is a matter of public record in the possession of the Attorney-General leaked for political purposes. The Attorney-General picks up the Courier-Mail. There is no public explanation—not a word. He has nothing at all to say to the people of Queensland about that shameful act. He does not want to tell them who had that report. The Attorney-General was the custodian of the report and the question has to be asked: if he is not going to have anything to say about it, was it in fact the Attorney-General who leaked that report? The Director of Public Prosecutions has an important role in this state. The first law officer has what you could probably describe as a reserve power—a call-in power—which should be used rarely where he can override the DPP and order an ex-officio indictment. The DPP, in arriving at its conclusions, can consult advice from the coroner and can study police investigations and scientific evidence. And yet what we saw was an ex-officio indictment used to relieve political pressure. An ex- officio indictment used in this is nothing more than an abuse of office. To compound the crime, to do this without a full public explanation as to why this extraordinary reserve power was used is a further abuse of this office. The Attorney-General must rely on his own judgement—must speak from his own judgement—not simply the advice of others. In just three months in this job he has breached the basic principles and interfered with the DPP for base political purposes on no less than three occasions. The Attorney-General should be—in fact, must be—independent and impartial. He must not shop around for convenient legal advice. That is exactly what appears to have happened in recent days. His duty in fact is to the law, not to his political mates. Mr Speaker, in the light of rulings that you have made earlier, I do not wish to make any comment about any individual matter which has now achieved such notoriety in this state. That particular case is now before the courts. I have faith in our judicial system to arrive at decisions and to do justice, both to an individual and to our society, without regard to the political influences that have so obviously played on the Attorney-General. Mr SPEAKER: Can I just say, member for Moggill, that you indicated yesterday that you would not go down a track, and you did that exactly. You are very close to the wind in this regard. I would ask you to come back to the heart of the matter. There should not be any association or links with a particular case before the court. Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order to seek your guidance. One of the issues that concerns me—and I will raise this because the Attorney will not be able to as the first law officer—is that the Leader of the Liberal Party has made reference to the ex-officio indictment and criticised, quite wrongly, the Attorney for the process— Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, Premier? Mr BEATTIE: Yes, it is. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I make the decisions here, not you, member for Burnett. Mr BEATTIE: In that case the member might be quiet in question time in the morning instead of being the village idiot if that is his worry. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Let us hear the Premier. 07 Feb 2007 Motion 179

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, what I am going to do is seek your guidance, because at some point I am going to have to respond to the point the Leader of the Liberal Party made. With regard to dealing with the ex-officio indictment, that is clearly how the matter got to the court. I would just ask you to reflect before my contribution on how I can do that, because I cannot let the record stand with that, I guess, defamatory slur on the Attorney. I ask for your guidance. Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Sub Judice Matters Mr SPEAKER: With regard to the point of order in relation to the limited area which the member for Moggill put tonight to the parliament, I would expect that it is the right of the Premier to be able to put that reply. But can I indicate again to both sides of the parliament that we cannot mention this—and I will ask the member for Moggill again, because you did this yesterday when you said that you were not going to talk about it but then you talked about it. You do the contrary of what you say. I would ask you again to very carefully examine your notes because we will not once again see you referring to a particular case that is before the court. Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The fact that politics, however, has impacted upon the role of the Attorney-General in this state is a sorry saga. Talk at any barbecue recognises what has happened in Queensland in recent days. Because of political pressure on the government, the Attorney-General has acted to reject the clear advice of the DPP. The media has been backgrounded on matters that are properly the prerogative of the courts to determine. This can only occur with the knowledge and complicity of the Attorney-General, whose personal responsibility it was to receive the advice, consider it and determine how to act. Anybody who has watched proceedings in this House and in the media knows how and why the backgrounding of the media occurred, the political reasons why this took place and the circumstance surrounding the matter. One can only look at the timing of individual actions that have occurred and draw their own conclusions. In fact, these conclusions were detailed very insightfully this morning by the Gold Coast Bulletin. Mr Speaker, I will table the relevant articles from the Gold Coast Bulletin. Mr SPEAKER: Does the Gold Coast Bulletin go to the heart of the matter that we should not be talking about tonight? I think we will look at that first before you table it. Dr FLEGG: It is this morning’s Gold Coast Bulletin. Mr SPEAKER: I am asking you this: with regard to what you are tabling, in terms of what is in it, is it in any way, shape or form going against the ruling that I have given in the House? Dr FLEGG: I have certainly read it, Mr Speaker. Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Tabling of Document Mr SPEAKER: I am asking you the question. Can I indicate once again that you either understand the ruling that I have given or you are deliberately and flagrantly abusing the chair. I will not tolerate that from you or any member of this parliament. You are abusing this parliament. What you are trying to table is an abuse of the ruling that I have made, and that you so flagrantly do it is very demeaning of the role that you play in this place. I would ask you to abide by the ruling that I made here on Tuesday morning. It is out of order in terms of it being tabled. Dr FLEGG: There was certainly no intention to reflect upon the chair. Today, we are aware of the continued failure of the Attorney-General to take action to expedite the process for the extradition of Dr Patel. It was only when his failure to act was publicly exposed that the Attorney-General deigned to take action. Why has he been so slow to act? The obvious answer lies in the political embarrassment to this government if Dr Patel is returned to face justice in Queensland and the willingness of this Attorney- General to give greater weight to the political protection of the government than to his duties of office. I would say that, in fact, the Attorney-General may well have had the opportunity to see if the return deal for Dr Patel could be resurrected. Even this morning, in response to a question from the member for Maroochydore about the provision of documents, the Attorney-General gave a lame answer about privileged advice and then he hid behind that privilege. The Attorney-General has failed to exercise his office impartially from politics. He has failed to ensure that the highest standards of legal ethics are upheld in this high office. For those reasons, this House should have no confidence in him. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (5.40 pm): I second the motion moved by the member for Moggill. It is critical to understand that the Attorney-General in this state has two very critical roles: firstly, he is the first law officer; secondly, he is clearly a member of cabinet. The Attorney-General must at all times put aside political allegiances and be required to act in the interest of the institutions he has sworn to uphold, in particular the judicial system. On 31 October 2006 in this House, I made a number of statements in relation to the office of the DPP. At the end of that address, I quoted a 1994 New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in which it referred to the DPP in these terms— What is the object of having a Director of Public Prosecutions? Obviously it is to ensure a high degree of independence in the vital task of making prosecution decisions and exercising prosecution discretions. 180 Motion 07 Feb 2007

Critically, the office of the DPP is an independent body constituted by an officer appointed to deal with the most serious criminal matters in this state. In comparison with the DPP, the role of the Attorney- General is anything but that of a prosecutor except in the rarest of circumstances, and certainly the Attorney-General should not act in a manner that is at odds with the Director of Public Prosecutions where that person has made a determination and fault cannot be established in the process of that person reaching their decision. In fact, the director’s position is so fiercely guarded as being independent that section 7 of the Attorney-General Act 1999 states clearly that the Attorney-General may not direct or instruct the director to present an indictment. It cannot get plainer than that. However, it is clear that matters in this state have progressed far beyond that to the point at which the director’s position has been seriously compromised. What has been enshrined in legal precedent for years, that is the separation of powers, has been gutted as a consequence of recent actions. We need to think very carefully about what the phrase ‘separation of powers’ means. The pure doctrine of the separation of powers classifies what I call governmental power into three traditional powers, or three traditional bodies in Queensland: this House—the Assembly—the executive and the state courts. At the Commonwealth level, grey areas that surround the three branches have been resolved by the High Court, but there are still issues with regard to the overlap of those three levels in the states. That position has still not been resolved. It is that difficulty that places an even greater need for scrutiny in regard to actions undertaken by an Attorney-General. In my opinion, it is even more important that actions taken by him protect the principle of the separation of powers, given the existence of the grey areas that exist at state level. As I said, under legislation there is no question that it is the right of the Attorney-General to take legal proceedings against a person. But that only further enhances the necessity for such action to be taken only in the most exceptional and unusual circumstances. In particular, section 7 of the Attorney- General Act grants the Attorney-General the right to present an indictment which in the normal course of events would be an ex officio indictment. To present an ex officio indictment in general is a critical step for the reason that it removes the right in the normal circumstances of an accused to what is traditionally a committal or preliminary hearing. The committal is the opportunity provided to the defence to test the evidence of the Crown and, on occasions, have matters discharged. The High Court has been very careful when considering the determination by the Attorney- General to present an ex officio indictment. The High Court in the decision of Barton v. The Queen made it very clear that it will uphold the right of any Attorney-General to present such an indictment. But it stated— The courts exercise no control over the Attorney-General’s decision to commence criminal proceedings, but once he does so, the courts will control those proceedings so as to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial. I accept— Mr Beattie: That’s exactly what’s going on. Mr McARDLE: I ask for the courtesy that the Premier asked of this side of the House. Mr Beattie: Okay. Fair enough. Fair point. Mr McARDLE: I thank the Premier. As I said before, there is no doubt that the Attorney-General has the legal capacity to take this step, but in doing so he removes the serious right that rests with every defendant to test the evidence before going to the ultimate trial. This power— Time expired. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.46 pm): The Queensland government supports the doctrine of the separation of powers and has always done so. Clearly, the opposition has no understanding of the meaning, nor the practical application, of the doctrine. Let us be clear: this is an argument over the powers of the Attorney-General and how they are exercised. The roles and powers of the Attorney-General date back to medieval England. Here in Queensland, the role of the Attorney-General is well established in common law. It is enshrined in the Attorney-General Act 1999. The question of the Attorney-General’s powers has been examined comprehensively in this state. In 1991, the Fitzgerald report said the following of the Attorney-General’s powers— As chief law officer, the Attorney-General has extensive powers and discretion with respect to the initiation, prosecution and discontinuation of criminal proceedings. The people who have been critical of this Attorney-General and of this government need to understand that that is the law. That has been the position at law for a long time. Subsequently, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission undertook a review of the independence of the Attorney-General. The all-party parliamentary EARC committee reported in 1993 and stated— The Attorney-General is able to pursue any matter through the courts by the exercise of the Attorney’s own independent powers. 07 Feb 2007 Motion 181

As the Attorney-General, all Kerry Shine has done is just that. The decision to exercise these powers is a legal decision made independently by the Attorney-General after legal advice and counsel that he may seek. That is exactly what the Attorney-General did without any political interference from anyone, including me. The Attorney-General’s discretion to exercise these independent powers is not at odds with the doctrine of the separation of powers. The Attorney-General is the only minister in my cabinet—or any cabinet—who can exercise discretion outside the cabinet process. That is the discretion Kerry Shine has exercised as Attorney-General. While I have been Premier, any Attorney-General in my government has had the ability to exercise that independence and discretion—as the Attorney-General does on appeals and as he does in these sorts of matters. As the former Attorney-General, Linda Lavarch—who is nodding—will know, I have never interfered, and nor has cabinet. As the first law officer, the Attorney-General has followed the precedents. I have not made any direction to the Attorney-General in the exercise of his powers, including whether and when he should initiate matters in the court. I respect the role of the Attorney- General. Today, I am not going to deal with former Attorney-General Denver Beanland and others, although I am happy to do so. I want to deal with three central issues, one of which was raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party, who has left the chamber, about the ex officio indictment. What the Leader of the Liberal Party said is grossly untrue. It is absolutely untrue. What happened in this case—and the Attorney-General explained this publicly well before the charges were laid—was that the DPP offered the file to the Attorney-General to seek his view and to satisfy himself. In order to do so, he sought the judgement of an independent person, and subsequently appointed Sir Laurence Street. In other words, the DPP offered the file to the Attorney to satisfy himself. To do that he sought the view of Sir Laurence Street. Sir Laurence Street then came down with a view. The Attorney then had to make a decision which he made alone without any interference from anyone, including me, as to whether he would accept the advice of the DPP or Sir Laurence Street about the initiation of the ex officio indictment process. Mr SPEAKER: I think we will come back now, Premier, if you could. Mr BEATTIE: I will, Mr Speaker. I am replying to what the Leader of the Liberal Party, Bruce Flegg, said—and I took the point of order before. He made that decision independently based on that advice. That principle in relation to how the Attorney behaved is absolutely consistent with what I have said and what I dare say the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said. What he read out about the independence of the Attorney agreed with what I said and what the Attorney-General did. That is exactly what happened. Mr Speaker, I understand politics. I understand that what we have had this week is an attempt to vilify you as Speaker and to vilify the Attorney personally. I want to make it very clear on the public record—because frankly Queenslanders will not believe what the conservative side of politics say about this—that Kerry Shine is a decent, honest man who has acted with integrity every single step of the way. Let me make it clear: I accept full responsibility for any politics affected with any of these matters. I accept full responsibility because I know that the Attorney-General has acted as a decent, honest man would. If anyone wants to point a finger about the politics, point it at me because I have been responsible for every bit of it. Time expired. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (5.51 pm): In our first week back after the Christmas break, what an absolute cracker of a day the opposition has had today! We have dealt this afternoon with an absolute nonsense dissent motion and here we are with an equally groundless and baseless assault on the integrity of the Attorney- General. Instead of objective debate and contribution on some of the matters of deep and real concern to Queenslanders, we have heard the usual slurs and negativity that we are becoming used to. A no confidence motion in a minister of the Crown, like a dissent motion, is a serious matter. It should be based on a serious and demonstrable failure by a minister to meet their obligations and responsibility. I have listened to those opposite for what might be the basis of this no confidence motion. I have heard nothing about the minister misleading the parliament, nothing about any improper behaviour on behalf of the minister, no misuse of his powers. All I have heard is vague, ill-informed innuendo. Kerry Shine, the member who is the subject of this motion, is a good and decent man. He is a very good member of this parliament and he is an outstanding and exceptional minister. Kerry’s background equips him to hold the office that he does. He has worked as a solicitor. He holds a Bachelor of Law from the University of Queensland. Prior to entering parliament he practised as a solicitor for more than 30 years—more than 30 years—in areas of litigation, criminal law, conveyancing, commercial law and specialising in workers compensation and personal injuries. He was also a founding partner in one of the state’s most prominent law firms. What better grounding could there be for our first law officer? 182 Motion 07 Feb 2007

We have heard a lot of what I call claptrap from our learned legal friends opposite this evening. I prefer to rely on a much better source. The Queensland Law Society made some reference to the matters before us this evening. The Queensland Law Society on 2 February this week had this to say. The QLS has ‘the highest respect for the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice’ and notes that the Attorney-General has the power in law to initiate a prosecution of the police officer concerned. It goes on further to note that the Attorney-General can seek whatever advice he needs, as he did in this matter, prior to making a decision. The QLS applauds the Attorney-General for doing so. It applauds him for seeking the advice he sought. It is the view of the Queensland Law Society that the Attorney-General has acted in all circumstances of this matter ‘carefully, properly and legally’—carefully, properly and legally. That is what we should expect. Regardless of whatever side of the House we sit on, that is what we should expect of anybody who occupies the office of Attorney-General, and that is exactly what this Attorney has done. So, frankly, if I have to make a judgement between the legal views of the member for Moggill—let alone the legal views of ‘His Honour Justice McArdle’—and the QLS, I know where I would be putting my confidence, and that is in the views of the Queensland Law Society. What we see here this evening is nothing more than an unbridled hypocrisy from the coalition in Queensland. There is absolutely no basis for the motion that we are considering. It is a groundless attack on a decent person of substantial integrity. Even if there were any grounds to it and even if the motion were passed, we know what the Queensland coalition thinks should happen when attorneys- general are the subject of no confidence motions of this parliament. What does the coalition think should happen when the Attorney-General is the subject of a successful motion of no confidence? Government members: Nothing! Ms BLIGH: Nothing. That is right. Absolutely nothing. In fact, when it happened in this parliament not that long ago, how long did the then Attorney-General sit in this parliament in contempt of the no confidence motion that was passed against him? Mrs Lavarch: Ask Matt Foley. Matt Foley would know. Ms BLIGH: Members can ring the former member for Yeerongpilly but I am happy to advise members that for 311 days the former Liberal Attorney-General sat in this parliament after he had been the subject of a successful no confidence motion. So those opposite should not come in here with their breathtaking hypocrisy and dare to question the integrity of this Attorney-General. It is an absolute disgrace that any of those members opposite would waste one minute of this parliament’s time standing up and using words like ‘no confidence’ in relation to the Attorney-General of Queensland, Kerry Shine. They diminish the offices that they hold. They are nothing but a disgrace. Time expired. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (5.56 pm): British politician David Lloyd George said, ‘If you want to succeed in politics you have to learn to keep your conscience well under control.’ The Attorney- General, according to that definition, is a very, very successful politician, and why wouldn’t he be? He has such wonderful masters to learn from. The member for Toowoomba North’s decisions and actions since he has been appointed to the high office of Attorney-General have clearly demonstrated that he has no conscience. Mr SHINE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the honourable member’s remarks in relation to my having no conscience offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett. Mr MESSENGER: I withdraw. Indeed, he has also demonstrated that he has no compassion for the victims of Australia’s worst health crisis. Mr SHINE: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the honourable gentleman’s remarks in relation to my having no compassion equally offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett. Mr MESSENGER: I withdraw. I wholeheartedly support my conservative colleagues in their motion of no confidence in the Attorney-General. There are new members in this place who might not appreciate the history of this government in relation to the health crisis. There are also members who are living in denial and think that those deaths did not happen and would prefer that I shut up.

Procedure—Speaker’s Ruling—Sub Judice Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Burnett, I would indicate that in relation to the matter you are referring to a charge has been laid. Can I also indicate that today, based on my own opinion but also a federal precedent, I allowed a question in regard to extradition. In terms of standing order 233, you are not allowed to allude to the case that is currently the matter of a charge. 07 Feb 2007 Motion 183

Mr MESSENGER: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, are you suggesting that I cannot talk about the Queensland health crisis and the events that happened at Bundaberg Hospital? Mr SPEAKER: No, you cannot in terms of the charge that has been laid. You need to do that with some sensitivity to the fact that there is a charge that has been laid. I allowed the question in regard to the extradition as it did not in any way, shape or form, I believe, affect the impact of the charges there. But you need to respect the principle of sub judice. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Speaker. I will do my best and I will rely on your directions. The Attorney-General belongs to a government that ran down Queensland’s health system, hired doctors and covered up for doctors, threatened to throw whistleblower Toni Hoffman into jail, paid to fly doctors out of the country and refused an offer to bring doctors back, and has taken about two years to start laying charges. In the aftermath of the Queensland Health crisis, victims have been revictimised and ripped off by this government, and I have personally spoken to many of them. Anyone who says differently is not listening, is misinformed or is just plain lying for personal or political reasons. In early December last year, I asked a question on notice of the Attorney-General regarding compensation payouts to victims of Queensland Health. I asked the Attorney-General to supply me with details and figures relating to the amount of compensation paid out. I expected this simple request to be complied with because seven months earlier the Premier himself had supplied the same details to an estimates committee in reply to a question asked by a government member. From the Premier’s reply it can be easily worked out that the average compensation payout was under $21,000. This figure is of great concern to me and the victims. The Attorney-General refuses to divulge details of the special compensation process. Although he has indicated that 48 victims have been refused compensation, today I express no confidence in the Attorney-General because he refuses to release those details. Have those 48 people—that is, one in eight—been rejected on the basis of Queensland Health records? If they have then we would know that Queensland Health records are false and misleading. Are any of those 48 people widows? What right of appeal is the Attorney-General going to grant those 48 people? These questions still have not been answered and the Attorney-General refuses to answer them. He continues the lies and cover-ups that this government has perpetrated. Mr SHINE: I rise to a point of order. I was accused of lying and I find that offensive. I ask for a withdrawal. Mr MESSENGER: I withdraw. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (6.01 pm): Yet again we see the kangaroo court mentality at work on the opposite side of the chamber. There is no evidence and there is no peg on which to hang the hat of lack of confidence; there is just smear and innuendo. This is an attack on a very decent Queenslander. At all times the Attorney-General has displayed integrity and a respect for the law, and he is very well respected in legal circles today. Not only is this an attack on a very decent human being who has done nothing wrong, but it is also an attack on the Queensland Law Society that rightfully ran the ruler over the conduct of the Attorney-General and found him to be a person beyond reproach in that regard. Who is this attack coming from? Who are the people making these accusations? First of all we have the member for Moggill who received a vote of no confidence from the people of Queensland. Why was that? One of the reasons was that he was exposed on television telling untruths in a shopping centre. Everyone saw that. Therefore, I say to Mr Shine that he should take any motion of no confidence from those opposite as a badge of honour. I turn to the member for Caloundra. I can tell members what people say about him. Seventy-year- old Joyce Baker said that she was stunned to learn Mr McArdle had been elected to a leadership position by his colleagues. She said— We’re still trying to find out what happened to all that money, and now he’s deputy leader. It’s a terrible joke. What’s the matter with the rest of those Liberals in state parliament? That was said about the person who is levelling this charge. He lacks integrity himself. Members can just ask Joyce what she thinks of him and whether she has any confidence whatsoever in him. The attack also comes from the Liberal Party, which had a person sit in that seat next to the education minister, and that person sat there mute and absurd for over 300 days in absolute contempt of this parliament, after a motion of no confidence— Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. I ask you to rule on the relevance of this personal attack— this rave—from the other side. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Dr FLEGG: I ask for a ruling on the relevance. Mr SPEAKER: I make the decision and I have indicated that there is no point of order. 184 Motion 07 Feb 2007

Mr SCHWARTEN: It goes to the very point of the credibility of the claimant. I would have thought that people who claim that they know something about the law would understand that fact. This attack is made by people who endorsed a Liberal Attorney-General sitting in contempt of this parliament, which made history in this state—and by God a lot of history has been made in this place. That Attorney- General sat here, despite a motion of no confidence being upheld by the Independent and the then Labor opposition in this parliament. What was the result of that? He continued to occupy the first law office of this state. Now, Liberal members have the hide to come in here and attack this gentleman who has done absolutely nothing wrong, even though they have not been able to produce one skerrick of evidence to suggest otherwise. We also have the National Party, whose leader was yet again chucked out of the parliament today for misbehaviour and contempt of the parliament. What about them? Those members who are old enough might remember when their cabinet carried a decision to force the police commissioner not to charge or investigate a police officer who had struck a student over the head under the William Jolly Bridge. A National Party cabinet did that, with the support of the Liberals. What about the implications in the case of the rorted jury and how that involved Joh? It is this group of people who want to sit in judgement and talk about Labor people. Do members remember what Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen said when asked about the separation of powers? He had no idea. A joke went around that he thought it was a statement involving Powers brewery. The truth of the matter is that this gentleman has absolutely nothing to apologise for, especially not to the likes of those opposite. They are beneath contempt for the way they have carried out this most shameless, underhand, gutless and spineless attack upon the integrity of a very decent human being with whom they are not even fit to sit. Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. The minister’s remarks are offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am happy to withdraw, because I have a lot more to say. The reality is that the member opposite was exposed. He tried to deny something. He appeared on television telling untruths about being kicked out of a shopping centre. I ask him: is that true or false? He cannot even answer it, yet he comes in here to attack this man’s credibility. He was on TV. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.07 pm): I support the motion moved by the Liberal Leader and deputy coalition leader. The government protests its innocence and that of its Attorney-General and asks for evidence of the Attorney-General’s innocence in regard to matters that we have raised concerns about. Mr Speaker, I ask you: how can we present all of the evidence in light of rulings that prevent us from going to the heart of some of the very matters that we are not allowed to discuss? How can we present all of the evidence when there are rulings preventing us from going into all of that detail? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Maroochydore, if you are referring to the chair in that regard, I would ask you to withdraw that statement. Miss SIMPSON: It is not a reflection upon the chair, but it is— Mr SPEAKER: I believe that it is a reflection on the chair and I would like you to withdraw that reflection. Miss SIMPSON: I withdraw. I rephrase: the government asks for evidence that we are not allowed to present in this place, but I present to this parliament a very concerning matter that was raised as a result of question time. This morning I asked the Attorney-General whether he had provided any documentation regarding potential legal proceedings to the Premier, Deputy Premier or their staff which had been leaked. The Attorney-General told this House, and I quote— The position is that as Attorney-General I am called upon often to provide advice, both in writing and verbally. That advice is privileged and I cannot reveal the content of it. As we know, the Attorney-General has been accused of being involved in a collusion to leak information to the media. Government members: He has not. Miss Simpson: The Attorney-General has been accused of being in a collusion to leak information to the media in relation to judicial proceedings outside of this place. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to the member that you are again skating on very thin ice here. I made a ruling on Tuesday morning and I would ask you to adhere to that ruling. Miss SIMPSON: In the Attorney-General’s answer, he said— The position is that as Attorney-General I am called upon often to provide advice, both in writing and verbally. That advice is privileged and I cannot reveal the content of it. I put it to this House that not only is that advice that the Attorney-General refers to privileged but there are also privileges obtaining to those who receive that advice. Yet this Attorney-General has presented nothing to this House about whether he is going to take actions in regard to people who have received that privileged advice and abused that privilege. That is one reason why we have moved this no confidence motion in this parliament. People who have received that privileged advice and who have leaked that privileged advice are also bound in law, yet the Attorney-General has made no provision to 07 Feb 2007 Motion 185 address those issues. The smoking gun is in his hands. Unless he is in collusion with those who deliberately leaked information that is related to judicial proceedings, that smoking gun points to the fact that he has been a party to inappropriate actions. I know that there are a lot of Labor lawyers in this place and that the nature of the sleazy Beattie government is to find loopholes to get their way around the spirit of the law, but our concern is that the very important office of Attorney-General has been compromised. We have seen no actions from this Attorney-General to rectify wrongs which are in the public arena but which we are not allowed to talk about here. This Attorney-General has failed to uphold his duties and his responsibilities to ensure that there are fair and equitable approaches to the judicial processes. He has compromised what has been a leaking of information. That alone is a concern to this House and the reason why this parliament should vote for this motion of no confidence in the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General wants to truly protest his innocence, perhaps he would like to reveal to this parliament those he has handed information to and who have illegally leaked it to others—all of which has brought other cases into disrepute. We certainly await his advice. Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (6.12 pm): There is one fundamental flaw in the arguments put by the opposition members in support of their motion. Government members: Only one! Mr WELFORD: I said ‘fundamental’; wake up and listen. There is one fundamental flaw but thousands of other non-fundamental flaws. The fundamental flaw is that they simply do not comprehend the distinction between innuendo and evidence. Contrary to the assertions made by the member for Maroochydore, you do not need to escape the rulings of the Speaker in order to present evidence that the Attorney-General has done anything wrong. I would like to ask the opposition to provide one example of what the Attorney-General has done wrong. Is the Attorney-General allowed to mount a prosecution independent of a decision of the DPP? Government members: Yes! Mr WELFORD: Yes, by virtue of the Attorney-General Act. Is the Attorney-General entitled to get advice from credible legal advisers in relation to that? Government members: Yes! Mr WELFORD: Is the Attorney-General entitled to act upon that advice and bring a prosecution independently of the DPP? Government members: Yes! Mr WELFORD: Is there any evidence that the Attorney-General was in any way implicated in the leaking of any opinion? Government members: No! Mr WELFORD: I think the opposition’s argument has just collapsed. The argument is over. It is very difficult for me to add much to the extraordinarily powerful arguments of other government members in this debate. The failure of the motion is apparent for all to see, but let me make one point clear that perhaps has not been made clearly enough. The DPP has the role of making a decision whether, on evidence provided to the DPP, the DPP mounts a prosecution. The DPP does indeed exercise that prosecutorial discretion independently of interference from anyone—politicians, the Attorney-General or anyone else. Commentators, including opposition commentators, who purport in the course of a pending prosecution to comment on the particular case, as indeed the Leader of the Opposition did the other day on morning radio, are in contempt of court. By attempting to canvass those matters in the parliament, as the Speaker has properly pointed out, they would be in contempt of the parliament. The point is that while it is not appropriate for the Attorney-General or anyone else to direct the DPP in deciding whether the DPP mounts a prosecution or does not mount one—in other words, in particular the Attorney-General cannot direct the DPP not to mount a prosecution if the DPP in the DPP’s independent discretion believes the evidence justifies it and there are reasonable prospects of the case being mounted—the converse is not the case. That is, if the DPP decides on the evidence available to the DPP in any particular case that it will not mount a prosecution, that does not disqualify the Attorney-General from exercising an independent discretion under the Attorney-General Act to bring a prosecution on evidence and advice available to the Attorney-General. That advice does not need to come from the DPP. Indeed, the DPP in this matter never advised the Attorney-General on anything. The DPP simply provided to the Attorney-General information on which the DPP drew its own conclusions. That did not disqualify or preclude the Attorney-General from forming an independent legal opinion, as is the proper role of the Attorney-General. 186 Motion 07 Feb 2007

The member for Caloundra made the point that the first law officer should not make a decision contrary to the DPP except in the rarest circumstances. As I have just indicated, that principle applies where the DPP makes a decision not to mount a prosecution. The rarer circumstances do apply where the Attorney-General has independent, well-grounded and high-level legal opinion that justifies the Attorney-General making the Attorney’s own independent decision—as indeed he did in this case. It is a sad fact that not only has the opposition failed to raise a shred of credible evidence of impropriety in the Attorney-General’s conduct of his responsibilities under his act, but the opposition leader who foreshadowed this motion after question time this morning was not even sensible enough to behave himself so that he could be here to argue the case. He has left it to a bunch of stragglers who have failed miserably to argue this motion. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (6.17 pm): I hope that was not a personal attack; I find that offensive! Nobody in this place argues that the Attorney-General does not have the power to initiate a prosecution or even in some circumstances to actually nullify a prosecution. No-one actually argues against that. What we are arguing against here today is the proposition that the Attorney-General may have done it inappropriately in recent circumstances. That is the thing: it is the conduct which surrounds the decision of the Attorney-General which is extremely important in acting upon those particular and very special reserve and traditional powers which have been bestowed upon the Attorney-General over many years in the formation of our Westminster system—something which has gone back probably 500 years or more. It was interesting sitting here tonight hearing the protestations from those opposite. We heard the Deputy Premier waxing lyrical about the credibility of the Attorney-General. The last time I heard the Deputy Premier offering such protestations and waxing lyrical like that was in the case of Gordon Nuttall at the end of 2005 when she was vowing and declaring his chastity and everything else and would have been happy for him to be godfather to the kids and all of those things. In no way am I saying that the honourable member for Toowoomba North is in any way of the character of the former member for Sandgate, but what I will say— Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me, you are mentioning a particular case that is before the court and I would ask you to take that into consideration. Mr SPRINGBORG: I accept your advice. All I am referring to is the debate in this parliament. I was not going into other matters. Mr SPEAKER: No, you were referring to a particular case and making— Mr SPRINGBORG: No— Mr SPEAKER: No, I am saying that that is my ruling. There are certain implications from that case. I ask you to deter from that. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, whilst I in no way imply the same sort of lack of credibility from the Attorney-General—as far as his personal character is concerned I think he is a good bloke—there is a difference between being a good bloke and actually being up to the job and conducting yourself appropriately in that job. If we go to the web site of the honourable gentleman we refer to, it basically says that the Attorney-General has full authority over legal matters pertaining to the state and acts on its behalf in litigation. I do not have a problem with that. The web site continues and says that the Attorney-General acts as the guardian of the public interest and thus must balance conflicting private and collective interests. To me, that is the fundamental point. Has the Attorney-General appropriately balanced conflicting interests in high-profile cases that have arisen in recent times not only in this place but also outside? Mr Speaker, we also know that we are constrained by your rulings and, because of the traditions of this place, what we can discuss. We understand that. However, one of the great difficulties for this place, which is the highest court in the land, as it seeks to prosecute this matter— Mr Welford: This is not a court. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member opposite has referred to it. The members opposite have referred to the parliament as the highest court in the land because it has extraordinary powers. Sometimes we are actually constrained in debating matters in this place that can be freely, openly and frankly debated on the outside, even if they are within a court. That is one of the problems that we have. What concerns me is the actions of the Attorney regarding the exercise of his extraordinary reserve powers to be able to initiate a prosecution. It appears to me that in recent times in Queensland, and maybe even further back, decisions of the DPP are reviewed selectively and in accordance with the political pressure that has been applied to the government and the way that the government looks. There have been other cases in the past such as the Volkers case. Did we have the same sort of eminent gentleman as has been referred to in here look at that? No. 07 Feb 2007 Motion 187

There are a whole range of reasons why we should be concerned. We should be fundamentally concerned about the leaking of sensitive information that could prejudice a case. The Attorney refused to answer questions yesterday. He was asked, yes or no, did he actually believe it was appropriate for such prosecution files to be leaked. He could not even manage either of the possible answers of one syllable—yes or no. He could not answer that. This is the accountability that this place should seek to exact upon the government and its first law officer, and parliament is not able to do so. Other questions were asked today that were not appropriately and properly addressed by the Attorney-General. I think that that is fundamental to the appropriateness of the gentleman opposite being able to conduct himself in the role as Attorney-General. The issue is not his fundamental character—whether he is a good bloke and fit to be the member for Toowoomba North—but whether his conduct has been appropriate regarding the matter that we cannot mention here. That is the fundamental point. Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (6.22 pm): First of all, I thank those who have been so generous in their favourable remarks about me. The motion today is a political one. The opposition has sought to make a political statement about the Attorney-General, the powers he exercises and the decisions he makes. The member for Callide confirmed this by his statement yesterday in this place. When referring to a ruling by the Speaker he said— It raises a whole series of questions about the relevance and purpose of the parliament if we have a situation where clear political issues cannot be raised and considered. However, Mr Seeney clearly does not understand the role of the Attorney-General. If he were here, I would refer him to the 1993 all-party parliamentary EARC committee report that stated— The Attorney-General is able to pursue any matter through the courts by the exercise of the Attorney’s own independent powers. The decision to exercise these powers is a legal decision made independently by the Attorney- General after any legal advice that may be sought. However, it is an important point that the Attorney is required to make these legal decisions independently. I can assure the House that I exercise these important powers independently. I have never received an instruction from cabinet or a purported instruction from any member of cabinet as to how I should exercise my independent discretion. I am also extremely careful to observe the independence of statutory office holders in my portfolio. For example, within my portfolio are the Electoral Commission of Queensland, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. These offices act on their authority and within their own powers. My department provides support and resources, but the exercise of their statutory discretions is a matter for them. From time to time I receive advice on matters these offices are dealing with. However, the management of elections, investigations and prosecutions is not subject to any political interference. The administration of the independent judiciary is also within my portfolio. As I stated earlier today and yesterday, this government observes the separation of powers. The courts are completely independent. Whilst the Attorney has certain powers to initiate a matter in the court, once this has been done it is a matter for the court. In this regard, I would like to speak briefly about the principle of sub judice. Whilst I have great respect for many of the members opposite, I am a little concerned that there is a certain failure to understand the concept and how it operates in relation to comments in parliament. This is illustrated by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I am happy to be responsible to parliament for my actions but, as first law officer, I have, above all perhaps, a responsibility to respect the doctrine of the separation of powers. Therefore, I must be careful to do nothing and say nothing that will impact adversely on proceedings currently before a court. That is why the rule about sub judice exists. This rule is not there to protect me from scrutiny in our system of responsible government; rather, it ensures that there is no interference or prejudice of the judicial process. The Attorney also has a role as defender of the courts. Given the need for independence of the members of the judiciary, it is not appropriate for judges to enter the fray of public debate in relation to their decisions. However, if there were no response from the point of view of judicial officers, there would be a risk that the courts would fall into disrepute. It is therefore left to the Attorney to stand as defender of the courts as judges are not able to do this themselves. Under the Attorney-General Act 1999, the Attorney has a specific power to start an action for contempt of court in the public interest. I would like to explain something of the dual role of the Attorney-General. I am, of course, a politician elected by the people of Toowoomba North. I am elected by them, and I make representations on their behalf. However, in my role as Attorney-General I am required to put political consideration aside when I make a decision exercising the powers I have referred to. The Attorney has a range of unique functions by virtue of the office. As the state’s first law officer, the Attorney-General, first of all, has full authority over legal matters pertaining to the state and acts on its behalf in litigation and acts as the guardian of the public interest and thus must balance conflicting private and collective interests. The Attorney provides legal advice to cabinet and the Executive Council and advises them on judicial 188 Parliament of Queensland Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 appointments, may terminate or initiate criminal proceedings, advises on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, grants immunities from prosecution and appears in case as amicus curiae or a friend of the court. These functions have evolved over the centuries, and they have been codified in statute and developed through the common law. Time expired. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 28—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Gibson, Rickuss NOES, 54—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, McNamara, Mickel, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Sitting suspended from 6.34 pm to 7.35 pm.

PARLIAMENT OF QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (7.35 pm), by leave: I present a bill for an act to amend the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (7.35 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I thank members. I would normally have done this tomorrow afternoon but as members understand I have to go to Canberra for the meeting on the Murray-Darling. During the election campaign and since the general election I have made it clear that I am prepared to introduce legislation to ensure that parliamentary allowances advanced to former members prior to the election are repaid. Tonight I introduce a bill which does just that. As members are aware, parliamentary allowances as specified in the Members’ Entitlements Handbook are paid to cover expenses associated with being a member of parliament. The last payment was from 1 July 2006 up to and including December 2006. It is my government’s view that former members who ceased to hold office from September, be they retiring or defeated, are not entitled to keep the parliamentary allowances given to them. There is a reasonable expectation by the community that when a person ceases to be a member they are no longer entitled to these allowances and in these circumstances pro rata amounts of the allowances be repaid. So for the period members had the allowances they are clearly able to keep them because members would have used them. They are entitled to keep those on a pro rata basis. This is consistent with the high standards of accountability and transparency required in the expenditure of public moneys. As members would be aware, prior to the recent state election, parliamentary allowances were paid in advance to a number of members who had chosen not to contest or were not returned at the election. At that time, the Members’ Entitlements Handbook did not require repayment of the allowances by those members. It was an oversight to be honest. I do not think anyone intended the handbook to operate in the way that it was written. I think it was an oversight and indeed what was intended is in this legislation. On 5 October 2006, the Governor in Council approved amendments to the handbook which require the repayment of the allowances by former members if they cease to be a member in the future. This covers any member who resigns during their term of office, who retires at the end of their term or who is not returned at an election. I also wrote to the former members in receipt of the allowances and requested that they make arrangements for repayment. In December I asked the Clerk of the Parliament to write to former members yet to repay the allowances seeking confirmation of their preferred payment options. The former members were advised that they should either repay the outstanding amount owing by no later than 30 June 2007 and no interest would be charged or commit, in a legally binding form, to a charge for the amount owed against accrued superannuation to be repaid when accessed by the member. 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 189

There are currently six former members who have not repaid the amount in full, of whom one former member had repaid part of the allowances and has been making arrangements for full repayment and another former member had indicated an intention for full future repayment. In other words, we have four former members who have made no arrangements. The bill proposes that it will be a requirement that the remaining former members repay the outstanding amounts by 30 June 2007. The bill makes the former members liable to repay the overpaid amount with interest charged and it becomes a debt owing to the state. The interest will be calculated on the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate plus 50 basis points calculated daily. The cash rate is published on the Reserve Bank of Australia web site at www.rba.gov.au. These rates are used by all of the banks and are easily calculated. The Clerk will be responsible for issuing a certificate identifying the person, the amount owing and the amount not paid by a particular date. The Clerk, with my approval—because I am the designated responsible officer under the act—will have the authority to recover the debt on behalf of the state in a court of competent jurisdiction. There will be some discretion. I put on record that clearly we do not want to have a bureaucratic administrative cost for small amounts owing from a few days which is worth more than the amount of money that would be outstanding. If we are talking about a few days of overpayment clearly we are not going to pursue that. We are talking about reasonable periods of time. Obviously that will be fairly tightly and strictly enforced. To ensure that there is no doubt about the accountability of members there are additional provisions in the bill to ensure that in the future former members of parliament are liable to refund any pro rata amount of parliamentary allowances paid in advance from the date the person ceases to be a member of parliament and that any such amount would be a debt owing to the state which is recoverable. Former members will have a period of six months from the date the person ceases to be a member to pay back the pro rata amount. If, however, a former member has not paid the amount owing back then it will be considered a debt attracting annual interest. I regret the need to introduce this legislation. If everyone had repaid the money this would not have been necessary. It was an election commitment. I honour the commitment I gave. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Douglas Shire Council Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (7.40 pm), by leave: Earlier today I advised the House that the Douglas Shire Council had 14 days to answer a show-cause notice delivered to it this morning by the Director-General of the Department of Local Government, Planning and Sport. Under the terms of the show-cause notice, the council in fact has until 28 February to provide its response.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (7.41 pm), by leave, I move: That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders general business order of the day No. 2, the Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Bill, be postponed until a further resolution of the House. The reason is that I am currently having discussions with the Attorney-General about the bill. Motion agreed to.

WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 31 October 2006 (see p. 248). Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (7.42 pm): I rise to speak to the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006. My government remains firmly committed to the principles that underpin whistleblower protection in Queensland. In 2004, in response to recommendations made by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee in its report on the three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, my government endorsed a review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. 190 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

This review was near completion when events at Bundaberg Hospital gave rise to the inquiries into Queensland Health. Finalisation of the review was rightly delayed to ensure any recommendations from those inquiries could be incorporated into the final report. The two inquiries—the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry, known as the Davies review, and the Queensland Health Systems Review, the Forster review—identified the need for improvements in whistleblower protection. It must be said that the two inquiries came to very different conclusions in some important areas. However, the culmination of the review of the Whistleblowers Protection Act is the government bill I introduced in October last year—the Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006. This government’s commitment to the protection and support of whistleblowers is not in question. The private member’s bill now before the House does not further the rights of whistleblowers and it offers them very little by way of further protection. Firstly, the bill proposes that the Queensland Ombudsman has responsibility for overseeing all public interest disclosures except those involving official misconduct. The vast majority, some 90 per cent of disclosures, are already subject to the oversight of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The very small number of disclosures that the Ombudsman would have oversight for under this bill would not justify the extra layer of bureaucracy and potential delay this would cause. The Whistleblowers Protection Act is an important component of the integrity framework that the Queensland public sector operates within. The Office of the Public Service Commissioner administers this act in collaboration with the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Integrity Commissioner. The Public Service Commissioner supports the valuable work of the Ombudsman and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in helping agencies improve their complaints handling and investigative procedures. The private member’s bill proposes that if a public interest disclosure is not finalised to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction within 30 days it can be referred to a member of the Legislative Assembly and that if after another 30 days it has still not been finalised to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction it can be referred to the media. It is unacceptable to impose time limits as to when a matter can be raised with an MP. The government’s bill ensures that rather than set rigid and potentially inappropriate time frames disclosures can be made to an MP at any time. We will not support the restriction of access of information to an MP. Disclosures should be able to be provided at any time and not have some time limit. Public interest disclosures are often sensitive and complex, requiring a comprehensive investigation. The experience of public sector agencies that investigate public interest disclosures is that a time limit of 30 days for resolution, in some cases, quite frankly is unrealistic. The Ombudsman has adopted a benchmark of three months for the resolution of complaints. New South Wales, which has similar whistleblower legislation, sets six months as the time limit after which a complaint can be escalated to a member of parliament. The government bill, which implements a recommendation from the Forster report, provides a further option for whistleblowers to raise public interest disclosures without any restrictive time frames. Allowing public interest disclosure to the media can allow untested allegations to be made public and unjustly damage the reputation of those against whom allegations have been made. An overriding principle of the Whistleblowers Protection Act is to ensure that the confidentiality of the person making the disclosure is preserved to help create an environment where whistleblowers will come forward. Equally importantly, people against whom allegations are made must not have their reputations unjustly harmed by the airing of unsubstantiated claims. This is a careful balancing act that the bill does not get right. We all know that this area is a balance. Whistleblowers have a number of options open to them when making public interest disclosures, including making complaints to oversight bodies such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Ombudsman and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, which was created as a direct result of the Forster report. The private member’s bill expands the categories of people who can make a public interest disclosure. The Leader of the Opposition says that this is to enable disclosures about dangers to public health and safety and negligent or improper management of public funds. But there already exists a number of options for anyone who raises issues of this kind. Anyone can make a complaint about public health and the wellbeing of users of health services to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. Anyone can report suspected official misconduct to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Anyone can complain to the Ombudsman about the actions of public sector agencies. Under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, anyone can make a public interest disclosure about danger to the health or safety of a person with a disability or in relation to offences endangering the environment. The expansion sought under this bill is not warranted considering the option is already available. My government has carefully considered those areas where expanding coverage of the act is needed. Employees in positions where they may become aware of wrongdoing and where they may have a concern that they might be the subject of reprisal if they were to make an unprotected disclosure need to be covered under the act. This includes staff who are engaged through individual contracting arrangements such as contract nurses. The government’s bill extends protection under the act to employees on a common law contract of service with a public sector agency, and I said this, if I recall correctly, when the government bill was introduced. 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 191

Finally, the bill seeks to give retrospective whistleblower status to people who made disclosures about matters raised at the Bundaberg Hospital commission of inquiry and the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry held in 2005. There is already significant protection to anyone who gave evidence at the two inquiries under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950. A commission of inquiry is also an appropriate entity under the Whistleblowers Protection Act and the giving of information to an inquiry is protected under that act. It is for these reasons that the private member’s bill should not be supported, and I indicate my position. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (7.49 pm): This bill that is before us today to amend the Whistleblowers Protection Act is one of two bills on the subject on the Notice Paper. The other one is the government bill. The government bill and this private member’s bill in their main objectives are actually very similar, proving the old adage that great minds think alike—though of course the churlish among us might reflect that so do foolish ones. It is even possible for great minds to think the same as foolish ones. I will not be so base as to identify which of those situations is the existing one in these circumstances. Nevertheless, what we do have is a choice between which amending bill we are going to support. I am going to urge that we should support the government’s amending bill. Without wishing to do anything other than to praise the opposition for coming up with the idea of an amending bill of this kind, nevertheless there are details in respect of its bill which we need to take on board and see as less preferable than the amendments proposed by the government and which will be considered by this House a little later down the track. The best way of doing this is to look at the structure and the scheme of the existing piece of legislation. The objective of the existing piece of legislation—the Whistleblowers Protection Act as it now stands—is to encourage and safeguard people who come forward with information that discloses official misconduct or maladministration, waste or risk to public or environmental health or safety. The scheme of the act is to get such information quickly into the hands of someone who can do something to fix it— namely, the appropriate Public Service entity—and afterwards to protect the person who made the disclosure. The protections available to the whistleblower are very significant. Firstly, there is freedom from civil and criminal liability in respect of the disclosure. For example, if the disclosure would otherwise be defamatory—for example, a junior public servant alleges that a senior officer was taking a bribe—then the disclosure is covered by absolute privilege and they have a defence against defamation even if it turns out to be false provided they honestly believed that it was true. Thus, there is no civil liability for whistleblowers. Likewise, there is no criminal liability. If, for example, a police officer was obliged by a rule of law not to reveal details of a particular operation, a disclosure under the act would be protected and that particular rule of law would be set aside—overruled—by the provisions of the Whistleblowers Protection Act in order that the whistleblower could be protected from criminal liability. The situation is that the act which this bill proposes to amend has the following scheme: a person disclosing information they honestly believe reveals misconduct or other public detriments can put it in the hands of someone who can fix it and be protected from civil and criminal liability and any other kind of reprisal when they do it. So the question we need to ask is: how well does this amending bill fit with the scheme of the act? I put it to the House that it does not fit as well as the government’s amending bill, which is already on the Notice Paper. Under this bill that is before us today the Ombudsman becomes the gatekeeper for members of parliament. If a person makes a public interest disclosure and it is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman within 30 days, then the whistleblower can go to their MP or to the media and have the protection of the act. Under the government’s bill, the whistleblower can go to their member of parliament straightaway and be protected. There is no 30-day rule and no artificial barrier erected between the people and their elected representatives. The bill before us erects such an artificial barrier and thus fits badly both with the scheme of the original act and with the very idea of representative democracy itself. It also creates the need for a massive new bureaucracy in the Ombudsman’s office, which, by the way, should not be limited to 30 days to get its sometimes quite complex tasks done. But bureaucracy and red tape aside, it really is inimical to the spirit of representative democracy to make public servants, even ombudsmen, gatekeepers for members of parliament. The relationship between the people and their elected servants should be immediate and direct. Unlike this bill, the government’s bill preserves that ideal—an ideal that is essential to our democracy. Another difficulty with this bill is that it purports to confer freedom from defamation actions on disclosures made to the media 30 days after the Ombudsman has received them if the Ombudsman is not able to satisfactorily resolve them. That might not be a power that is capable of being conferred by the Queensland parliament. The High Court has deduced certain principles relating to defamation from the Australian Constitution. According to the High Court, there are certain implied terms in the Constitution relating to free speech. These findings of the High Court can be seen in the Stephens case, the Theophanus case and others. The Constitution overrides all legislation, both state and federal. The High Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution says. The opposition’s bill purports to confer absolute privilege to untested disclosures made to the media, whether they be true or false, provided only after 30 days the Ombudsman has decided that he cannot fix it. This might very well be a gift to the media that is ultra vires of this parliament. That is 192 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007 beyond the power of this parliament to bestow. In addition, the scheme of the original act, to which this legislation is an amendment, is about getting the problem fixed. It is based on the idea that the disclosure be made to somebody who can fix it. The scheme of the act does not involve the idea of simply publicising the problem, although that may be an intermediate step towards getting the problem fixed. But publicity does not by itself get the problem fixed. It is not part of the scheme of this act; rather, it is part of the scheme of other acts and also part of the scheme of other areas of law, including determinations of the High Court to which I have referred previously. Media law is one area, but whistleblower protection is another area. Whistleblower protection is about getting abuses within the public sector fixed up, and the legislation that is proposed by the government will do that much more effectively than this legislation. I make no criticism of the honourable members opposite who are sponsoring this amending legislation. They do it with the very best of intentions. Nevertheless, the government’s legislation is better. We ought not to introduce these amendments. We ought to reject this bill. For all the reasons that I have given, I recommend that honourable members reject the bill and instead support the forthcoming government amendment. Procedure—Deputy Speaker’s Ruling—Debate of Bill Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Before calling the member for Southern Downs I ask members to focus on this opposition bill. Members can refer to the government bill as the government bill but cannot compare this bill specifically with aspects of that government bill. Members are not allowed to refer to a bill on the Notice Paper. So, when members refer to the government bill, I ask them to do so generally and to not specifically compare and contrast the two bills. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (7.58 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill, because in a previous manifestation I had the opportunity to be part of drafting what is, in large part, the bill that we are debating in this parliament tonight. Certainly, whistleblowers are extremely important to the accountability process of government. We have seen some rather shoddy treatment of whistleblowers in Queensland, particularly in recent times. I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Murrumba, who, in his previous manifestations, probably had quite a serious commitment to whistleblowers. During his term as Attorney-General he oversaw the introduction of whistleblower legislation. But a government should always be judged on what it has done to date with regard to protecting whistleblowers, not its idealistic spruiking about what it would like to do, what it believes should be done, or what might be done in the future. That is what we have seen from the government with regard to the treatment of whistleblowers in this state. The opposition’s bill addresses some of the fundamental deficiencies in the existing legislation. Much of the deficiency in the current laws in Queensland that are designed to protect whistleblowers came about as a consequence of the events occurring at Bundaberg Base Hospital following the very courageous raising of them in this parliament by the honourable member for Burnett, Rob Messenger. We saw certain matters arise from the Forster inquiry, from the Davies report and also latterly from the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee in terms of what needed to be done to protect the rights of whistleblowers who form such an important part of the accountability process in Queensland. The old adage is that evil flourishes when good men do nothing. In many cases, that is what happens with regard to whistleblowers. I heard the rhetoric from the Premier before he left this place a little while ago. Certainly, it sounds very idealistic. We could not disagree with anything that the Premier said. But we have to contrast the actions of this government in terms of the way in which it has dealt with whistleblowers with what it is saying it wants to do with whistleblowers. I ask members to consider the way the government treated Wendy Erglis. I ask members to consider the way the now Minister for Police and Corrective Services treated whistleblowers when matters were raised in this parliament. The minister went as far as naming those people. Quite frankly, the retribution against those whistleblowers was nothing short of appalling. As I said, the circumstances that led to the development of this private member’s bill came out of the events occurring at Bundaberg Base Hospital. I refer to the appalling treatment of the courageous nurse, Toni Hoffman, who was almost driven to the point of mental breakdown because of the way she had been treated by the agencies that should have protected her as she sought to expose the fundamental wrong of people being disastrously physically affected, and possibly even killed, because of the actions of a rogue doctor and the failure of the institutions to protect those people at Bundaberg. What else occurred? We saw Nurse Hoffman and a range of other people being threatened by the then minister at a meeting at the Bundaberg Base Hospital that, if they continued to raise issues, jail sentences could be given to them. That is hardly a meeting of the rhetoric and the reality that we have heard from the Premier in this place tonight. In my previous role as shadow Attorney-General, I introduced two private member’s bills that spurred the government into taking action. Subsequently, I saw the government subvert the private member’s bills that I introduced. One of them related to getting fine defaulters out of jail. The other one 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 193 related to the confiscation of the proceeds arising out of criminal activity. The government had promised to do all sorts of things but did absolutely nothing. It was not until the opposition did something that the government sought, in some way, to play catch-up politics. The other issue that needs to be considered is the way this government abuses the processes of section 84 of the Public Service Act. In recent times, people have sought to blow the whistle, but what is the first thing they are hit with? A section 84 psychological analysis. If the government wants to close in in an offensive fashion around the whistleblower to protect what is unjustifiable, that whistleblower is assessed for psychological stability. Some whistleblowers have been destroyed by this misuse and abuse of section 84 of the Public Service Act. There has been no justification for that. I again say to members to consider the government’s actions in terms of its nonprotection of whistleblowers and not what it says in this parliament. As you said quite correctly, Mr Deputy Speaker English, we cannot judge the merits or otherwise of the government’s bill. That is for another debate in this place, but I would argue that there are aspects of this bill which are superior and which are very much deserved of the support of this parliament. What it does is ensure that there is an independent arbiter—somebody who has the capacity to stand in the public interest to ensure that matters are being appropriately resolved. I do not think anyone in this place lacks confidence in the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman does a good job. The position of Ombudsman in this place is something which has been built on over many hundreds of years of fine parliamentary practice. I think everyone appreciates the fact that the Ombudsman is capable of ensuring that the public interest is protected. What we are saying with respect to the 30-day time limit that was mentioned by the Premier and the honourable member for Murrumba is that there should be an appropriate time for the person to raise their issue and for the Ombudsman to instruct an appropriate response from that government agency. There does need to be due process and if that due process does not properly go ahead then the person has a right to raise their particular issues of concern with a member of parliament or, in fact, with the media. I think that is important because in this parliament individual MPs, regardless of whether they are members of the opposition or members of the government, are supposed to take on the role of keeping the government accountable. If we look at the separation of powers in general, we see that there is a range of layers. Right up the top is the judiciary, then the executive and then the parliament itself. It is extremely important that we do have a process whereby members of parliament are prepared to keep the executive government and all of its instruments and departments accountable for their conduct. That should not just be the role of the opposition. It should be the role of any member of parliament who does not hold an executive position in this place. The media are also a part of that accountability process. They have to properly use the authority that is given to them in their privileged position, because we do have freedom of the press. But if a whistleblower has the opportunity to go to a member of parliament or the media and they are protected in doing so, then that in itself provides a mechanism whereby the government agency should be spurred into action to ensure the legitimate complaints of that whistleblower are properly investigated and properly responded to. That is what this legislation will ensure. It also expands the definition of ‘whistleblowers’ to include non-public officials. I think that is very important because there are other members of the public who need protection as they seek to raise a matter that they feel should be addressed by those in authority. We have had situations in the past where individuals who may have been outside of the role of public official have been vilified and retribution taken against them because they have sought to raise a matter. Just because someone is a public official does not mean that that person is the only one who could be subject to retribution. General members of the public can be as well and so they also need to have appropriate protection as they would seek to raise particular matters. This is an appropriate balancing act. This is the first opportunity this parliament has had to address the deficiencies in the current whistleblower protection legislation, particularly after the very sad and sorry events at the Bundaberg Hospital. I urge all members of parliament to provide this bill with their fulsome support. It has the right amount of protection. It provides an opportunity for people to blow the whistle when it needs to be blown and it also ensures that we balance that with the public interest when it comes to vexatious and frivolous complaints. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (8.08 pm): I rise to make a short and, I regret, rather clinical contribution to debate on the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006—although, in light of the debate here tonight, it is important that this material is put on the record. In contrast to the government’s Whistleblowers (Disclosure to Member of Parliament) Amendment Bill 2006, this bill gives effect to the relevant recommendations of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry through the fifth Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee Report No. 71 as they related to issues concerning the protection of whistleblowers in Queensland and the need for legislative change to address those issues to ensure that whistleblowers are afforded adequate protection. 194 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

In particular, the development of this bill has been guided by the submission of the Queensland Ombudsman to the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry. I would like to remind the House of the five recommendations made by the fifth PCMC, which supported the views of the Queensland Ombudsman and Commissioner Davies and submitted to the Queensland parliament report No. 71 on 9 October 2006, and then demonstrate how the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006 gives effect to those recommendations. The recommendations from the fifth PCMC report No. 71 are as follows. Recommendation 22 states— The Committee recommends that Government public interest disclosures received by an agency, other than those involving official misconduct, should be referred to the Ombudsman in the first instance with the Ombudsman either investigating the disclosure or referring it back to the agency to conduct the investigation. The Ombudsman would retain the power to monitor, take over or review the investigation. This recommendation would be implemented by clause 13 of this bill, which would amend section 27A of the legislation, ensuring that a public interest disclosure would be referred to the Ombudsman. Recommendation 23 states— The Committee recommends that the categories of persons who may make a public interest disclosure protected by the Whistleblowers Protection Act be expanded in cases involving danger to public health and safety, and negligent or improper management of public funds, to include any person or body. This recommendation would be implemented by clause 8, clause 5 and clause 9 of this bill. Recommendation 24 states— The Committee recommends that: (1) Whistleblowers should be able to escalate their complaint in the event that there is no satisfactory action taken by the relevant department within 30 days. If the matter is not resolved in that time to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman, the whistleblower should be able to make a public interest disclosure to a Member of Parliament; and (2) If disclosure to a Member of Parliament does not result in resolution, to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman, within a further 30 days, the whistleblower should be entitled to make a further public interest disclosure to the media. This recommendation would be implemented by the inclusion of clause 12 of this bill, which amends section 26A of the legislation to establish a member of the Legislative Assembly or media representative as an appropriate entity in particular circumstances. Recommendation 25 states— The Committee recommends that the Ombudsman takes the lead role (supported by the CMC) for ensuring that agencies are appropriately administering their responsibilities under the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994. This recommendation would also be implemented by the inclusion of clause 13 of this bill, which, again, would ensure that a public interest disclosure would be referred to the Ombudsman. Recommendation 26 states— The Committee recommends that the CMC (in conjunction with the Ombudsman and the Office of the Public Service Commissioner) work together to develop guidelines to assist agencies to properly handle and record details of public interest disclosures. This recommendation would be implemented by the inclusion of clause 3 of this bill, which amends section 7 of the legislation, giving the Ombudsman oversight of the process of public interest disclosures. This bill faithfully implements the recommendations of the fifth PCMC report, which supported the views of the Queensland Ombudsman and Commissioner Davies with respect to their observations regarding the need for changes to Queensland’s whistleblower protection legislation. It is remarkable that, in the face of the findings of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry and the very serious matters that were exposed during that inquiry and given the observations of the Queensland Ombudsman, the government has not moved to implement those recommendations that were presented to the Queensland parliament by the fifth PCMC on 9 October 2006 to afford whistleblowers in Queensland appropriate protection. Given that this private member’s bill introduced by the opposition does this, I suggest to members that the legislation deserves their support. Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (8.15 pm): I rise to speak on the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006. This private member’s bill should not be supported, and I will run through the reasons for that. Particularly, I will focus on the issue of to whom a public interest disclosure can be made. The bill proposes that, if a public interest disclosure is not finalised to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction within 30 days, it can be referred to a member of the Legislative Assembly and that, if after another 30 days it has not been finalised to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction, it can be referred to the media. The Beattie government believes that it is unacceptable to impose time limits on when a matter can be raised with a member of parliament. That is absolutely unacceptable. Indeed, I acknowledge the comments of an earlier occupant of the chair who drew our attention to alternatives that the House may be considering and that may be exercising the minds of members at some stage in the near future. One of those alternatives is aimed at ensuring that, rather than setting rigid and potentially inappropriate time frames, disclosures can be made to a member of parliament at any time. 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 195

Today members have often discussed the traditions of the House. We have heard a lot of talk about the important traditions of Westminster parliaments and, indeed, this House. One of those traditions dates back to the 17th century when Lord Coke referred to the House of Commons as the grand inquest of the nation. That underlines the importance of this chamber not only as a legislative body and a body concerned with the accountability of government directly but also as the grand inquest of the nation. It affords members the privileges that allow them to raise any matters brought to them by the constituents of the state, that is, Queenslanders. The concept that the Ombudsman plays a gatekeeper role is entirely inappropriate and that in itself makes the bill before the House unacceptable. The Ombudsman does have a role in our system, although I do not think that it is as ancient a role as the member for Southern Downs suggested. It is a Scandinavian graft on, rather than anything more fundamental. While it is an important role and has a respected place in our system in Australia, we cannot allow it to trammel over the rights of this House and its members by making us merely some form of backup. I suggest that that matter alone should lead members to the conclusion that they could not support the bill before the House. Public interest disclosures are often sensitive and complex, and require comprehensive investigation. The experience of public sector agencies that investigate public interest disclosures is that a time limit of 30 days for resolution is pretty well unrealistic. Indeed, the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act sets a time frame of 60 days with the possibility of an extension of 30 days for the resolution of complaints. That is a standard that we should look at. It makes more sense than the one contained within the bill before us. The Ombudsman has adopted a benchmark of three months for the resolution of complaints. New South Wales, which has a system similar to that being proposed by the opposition, sets a time limit of six months, after which a complaint can be escalated to a member of parliament. Again, I will not refer directly to an alternative that members might be considering in the near future, other than to say that that alternative implements a recommendation from the Forster report that provides a further option for whistleblowers to raise public interest disclosures without any restrictive time frames. We cannot allow public interest disclosures of untested allegations to the media, because of the danger that making public such allegations could unjustly damage the reputation of those against whom the allegations have been made. An overriding principle of the Whistleblowers Protection Act that we enjoy in this state is to ensure that the confidentiality of the person making the disclosure is preserved to help create an environment where whistleblowers will come forward. However, it is equally important that people against whom allegations are made do not have their reputations unjustly harmed by the airing of unsubstantiated claims. This is a careful balancing act that the bill before us does not get right. Whistleblowers have a number of options open to them when making public interest disclosures, including making complaints to oversight bodies such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Ombudsman and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, which was created as a direct result of the Forster report. I draw the attention of members to the damage that the bill would do to the privileges of this House and its right to play the important role as the grand inquest of the nation. Anything that trammels the ability of this House to deal with issues brought before it by our constituents should not be supported. For those reasons I call on members not to support this private member’s bill. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (8.20 pm): Tonight I am very pleased to make a brief contribution in relation to the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill that is before the House. This is not a bill where one would expect the House to engage in a slanging match or any name calling across the chamber. I think men and women of good heart can honestly disagree about the nuances of whistleblower protection and that this chamber can genuinely seek the best and most appropriate balance in what is and always has been a very difficult area of law. While these days it is accepted that whistleblower protection is part of the standard machinery of open and accountable governance, it is not the case that we should abandon all the other areas of law such as the laws of defamation and the obligations of employers to respect confidential information that they might gain. The reality is that, as a society, we have moved to a point where we respect and protect the rights of those who wish to disclose information about something that is occurring in business or government that they believe to be harmful and or against the public interest. That is a broad cover-all definition for the issue of whistleblower protection. However, it is not a free-for-all and it never has been. Perhaps it is worthwhile noting that not all whistleblowers are telling the absolute truth or even a variation of the truth. It is a sad fact of human nature that many people tell the truth all the time but, regretfully, tilt it their way. A brief examination of some of the statistics about whistleblowing shows that society is generous in its treatment of whistleblowers. Each year there are some 200 disclosures recorded in government departments. Over the three years from 2002-03 to 2004-05, approximately 30 per cent of the disclosures received by departments were actually found to be substantially verified. In other words, 70 per cent of disclosures were not found to be substantially verified. In addition to disclosures received by departments, each year the Crime and Misconduct Commission receives some 300 to 400 whistleblower disclosures and only a very small percentage of those are found to be substantiated. 196 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

Not for one second am I arguing against whistleblower protection, but it is important to realise that a balance has to be made. Employees’ fidelity and the necessity to protect people’s reputations from unfair criticism must be balanced in the law we have before the House. Regretfully, I cannot support the opposition’s legislation, although I make no criticism of the members opposite for bringing this bill to the House tonight. Queensland and Australia can be very proud of our place in the world as being among the very first jurisdictions to bring in whistleblower protection. It is fair to say that our current legislation—and tonight we are debating how it might be improved—is still the best in the world. Currently, Canada and the UK are examining their laws to see if they can bring them up to the standard of Queensland’s current legislation. We should be proud of what we have and we should welcome this debate. Regretfully, tonight I will not support the opposition bill for a couple of reasons. My friend the member for Stafford made a very good point about maintaining the rights of members of parliament who, after all, provided the original whistleblower protection. Long before there was an Ombudsman and Crime and Misconduct Commission there was the member of parliament. Our right to speak in this place is the oldest and best protection for the citizen who needs to have information disclosed. While I respect the work that the Ombudsman does—and he does very good work—I would not willingly vote for a bill which sets up a filter between me and a constituent who has a serious issue. The judgement which I hope I bring to this place in any matter that I might want to speak about on the floor of this House is still an essential ingredient which I would not want to have watered away by allowing a barrier to be put between my view and the constituent’s complaint. I will not mention in any detail at all the government bill which is also on the Notice Paper. On balance, I would prefer a bill that did recommend all of the Office of Public Service Commissioner’s recommendations. There are certainly recommendations in the Forster review into the health system and the Davies report which do need to be picked up. Without in any way demeaning the opposition bill, I will not support it tonight. I would prefer to wait for the government’s bill to be brought forward. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (8.25 pm): I rise to speak on the Whistleblowers Protection Bill 2006—its objective being to give effect to the recommendations of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry report and the report of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee on its three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I doubt there are too many people who have the knowledge to become a whistleblower who would actually be willing to become a whistleblower, especially after witnessing the drama that Toni Hoffman endured when she took her courage in her hands and became the whistleblower in the Dr Patel and Bundaberg Hospital issue. To become a whistleblower, the chances are you face the possibility of being ostracised by just about everybody you know—your friends and your colleagues. In fact, you might find yourself without a single friend in your workplace, not because you are wrong but because you will have possibly jeopardised coworkers’ jobs or you may have directly challenged your bosses through your criticism. The chances are that even politicians will be difficult to deal with because both sides would have at some time or another presided over the very system you are whistleblowing about and more than likely hand-picked the administrators or departmental heads. Unfortunately, it occurs too often that politicians in government are not always told the whole truth by those who should be telling them the whole truth. Being time poor, it is no wonder ministers accept half-truths and embroidered truths given to them by those who feel the need to justify the current situation. Once the truth of the situation is revealed, however, it seems those people responsible cannot just come out and tell the truth. Figures seem to get juggled around, people’s needs are reclassified to different priority levels and whatever it takes to discredit the whistleblower is often done. Too often, it is shoot the messenger rather than address the message. We saw this in this House when the Bundaberg Hospital issue first arose. I believe that is why the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill came into being. A whistleblower, as members could see, would have to be extremely careful to whom they chose to divulge all they knew. I can understand exactly why people turn to the media; at least they love a good story. If there is an opportunity to get to the bottom of a bad situation, they can be relied upon to dig and dig and dig until they get to the truth. They alone have often in the past been the only avenue left to the general public to bring governments to account. We sometimes hear journalists being threatened with imprisonment if they do not divulge who gave them certain information. Their source is in a very dicey position, and I doubt there are many journalists willing to serve time to protect the identity of a whistleblower. Perhaps it is time consideration was given to changing that particular law to ensure anonymity to the whistleblower, because I believe it would be a pretty safe bet that the majority of potential whistleblowers will never come forward without some form of protection. It is a terrible position that the whistleblower has to endure—and the journalist by association—when endeavouring to obtain a justice while dealing with government entities. So, without legislation such as this to protect them in the task of whistleblowing, I can understand why many people turn a blind eye. 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 197

I believe legislation such as this is needed and I support it wholeheartedly, but I also note the government’s intention to address the issue in its own bill which will be debated at a later date. Therefore, I realise that because this is an opposition bill it will be defeated tonight, but that should not take away from the value of this bill. As the member for Southern Downs stated earlier, this is not the first opposition or Independent bill that has been put forward which has spurred the government to address certain issues. The member for Nicklin, as members would have heard, has withdrawn one of his bills and is now working with the government on a bill on the same issue. This bill is a good bill. It deserves to be fully supported and I commend it to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.29 pm): I rise to support the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006. As the member for Nanango has already acknowledged, the government has indicated that it will not support this piece of legislation but has introduced its own legislation to cover significantly the same sorts of areas. It will be interesting to compare at a later time what the government includes and does not include. This legislation proposes to provide the Queensland Ombudsman with responsibility for overseeing the protection of whistleblowers. Certainly, as an independent umpire it would be important for him or her to be able to have carriage of that responsibility. The legislation also proposes to extend those areas that are covered by whistleblower protection. One of the important ares is one of the early amendments—that is, a public interest disclosure can be made by anyone. I believe the majority of people working in organisations that have a chain of command—and I stress that I am talking about the majority, not everybody—wish to adhere to those chain of command responsibilities and accountabilities. However, I can think of few more frustrating and worse situations to be in than the situation nurse Hoffman in Bundaberg found herself in. Her situation has been clearly disclosed since all of the events unfolded. She knew over a protracted period of time that things were not right. These were not just administrative roles that had failed; these were situations that put lives at risk. She had endeavoured to follow the chain of command; she reported her misgivings, concerns and fears to the appropriate people in superior positions to hers but to no avail. Eventually, she took the step of whistleblowing in a public way. Nobody will know how many lives she saved. She went through a period of abject concern and trauma to be able to bring that situation to light, and she should not have had to. People who hold concerns for the community—whether it is concerns about public safety or health safety, or concerns about maladministration, threats, negligence or improper management within a workplace—should be able to make disclosures in good faith and these disclosures should be able to occur at the appropriate time, and that means early, in an appropriate way, and effective steps should then be taken to correct whatever is being done wrong. I reiterate: I believe the majority of people want to do the right thing. They want to get errors, omissions, misconduct, maladministration or malpractice corrected within the confines of the group, the business of the hospital or the government entity in which they work. This is particularly so in the nursing and hospital field where there is a great commitment of compassion towards the community. Nurses and doctors get into that field predominantly because they have a heart for the community. This is also the case in a lot of areas of government service provision which involve people with physical and intellectual disabilities. The people who work in those spheres have a great deal of compassion, concern and support for the community and the people for whom they work. It must traumatise them immensely to have to work in an environment where they know things are not happening appropriately but where they feel unable and powerless to change that circumstance. I believe that the enhancement of the whistleblower protection that was proposed in this legislation was sound. It has been proven over time to be necessary. I believe that there were adequate constraints and controls put in place to ensure an examination and a diagnosis—if that is the right word—of mischievous and vexatious whistleblowing. More importantly, it provided the opportunity for corrections of a more serious nature to be made early and appropriately. I support the legislation. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (8.34 pm): I rise to speak to the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill. This bill should not be supported. As all members know, the Beattie government remains firmly committed to the principles that underpin whistleblower protection in Queensland. We have heard tonight from the Premier, who underscored that point. I would like to focus on two aspects of the bill—the proposed role for the Ombudsman and details of whom can make public disclosures. In connection with the proposed role for the Ombudsman, the bill proposes that the Queensland Ombudsman have responsibility for overseeing all public interest disclosures except those involving official misconduct. That proposal would involve all public interest disclosures other than official misconduct being referred to the Ombudsman, who would either investigate the disclosure or refer it back to the relevant agency for investigation to be monitored by the Ombudsman. Some 85 per cent to 90 per cent of disclosures are already subject to oversight by the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The very small number of disclosures that the Ombudsman would have oversight of under this bill would not justify the extra layer of bureaucracy and the potential delay that this could cause. 198 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

Having said that, I acknowledge the good work, as other honourable members on both sides of the House have, that the Ombudsman performs in this state. I also acknowledge the improvements that have been made by the Ombudsman in the time that it takes to dispose of matters referred to that office for investigation. The expansion of the Ombudsman’s role is potentially problematic for the role of the Ombudsman. We have heard from other honourable members tonight that it is potentially problematic for the role of a member of parliament, but it is certainly problematic for the role of the Ombudsman. People who are dissatisfied with an investigation into a public interest disclosure are often advised by investigating agencies that they can seek an external review by the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman had an oversight role, as is proposed under this bill, the original process, either by monitoring it or by providing advice to the investigating agency on how it should progress and its ability to independently and impartially review that process, could be compromised. The Whistleblowers Protection Act is an important component of the integrity framework that the Queensland public sector operates within. The Office of the Public Service Commissioner administers this act in collaboration with the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Integrity Commissioner. The Public Service Commissioner supports the valuable work of the Ombudsman and the Crime and Misconduct Commission in helping agencies improve their complaints-handling and investigative procedures. The Beattie government seeks to foster a situation where public sector agencies are in a position to deal appropriately with all complaints they receive including being able to carry out high-quality investigations when necessary. The Office of the Public Service Commissioner has introduced the complaints management systems directive, which compels public sector agencies to introduce and maintain an effective complaints management system. This directive is being supported by the work of the Ombudsman through the Complaints Management Project. I turn to who can make public disclosures. We have heard debate about that from both sides of the House tonight. The bill expands the categories of people who can make a public interest disclosure. It has been argued by honourable members in support of the amendment that it is to enable disclosures about dangers to public health and safety and negligent or improper management of public funds. A number of options already exist for anyone to raise issues about public health and safety as well as the improper management of public funds. I want to mention one very important option. The creation of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission was a direct result of the recommendations in the Queensland Health Systems Review, otherwise known as the Forster report. This option extends protection to a person who complains to the commission similarly to those found in the whistleblowers act. The Health Quality and Complaints Commission can consider a complaint from anyone, not just a public official, about public health and the wellbeing of users of health services. The review that has been carried out by the Office of the Public Service Commissioner noted that the bulk of public interest disclosures related to official misconduct. There is no restriction on whom can report suspected official misconduct to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. The Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 provides protection to anyone who makes a complaint involving official misconduct. People other than public officers are already protected from criminal or civil liability if the disclosure relates to official misconduct and is made to or referred to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Complaints about the improper management of public funds can already be raised by anyone to the Ombudsman, who can investigate complaints about public agencies. Unlike public servants, the general public is not constrained because of their public employment from making representations directly to ministers, the Ombudsman, members of parliament and the media or from initiating their own legal actions. Anyone can make a public interest disclosure under the Whistleblowers Protection Act about danger to the health or safety of a person with a disability or in relation to offences endangering the environment. The expansion sought under this bill is not warranted considering the options already available to raise complaints of this type. For those reasons I urge honourable members not to support these amendments. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (8.42 pm): I gladly rise to contribute to the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006. I voice my strong support for the bill. There was almost a surreal feeling in the chamber tonight as I watched the Premier, dressed up in his dinner suit, talk about whistleblowing legislation. It was similar to watching a prostitute dressed in a ballgown talking about celibacy. The Premier and his sleazy Labor government are the reason we have a growth industry in whistleblowers. I listened to members object to and pontificate about the pros and cons of the whistleblowing legislation. I was thinking, why worry about it? They should not worry themselves about it because a whistleblower will never end up in their office. It is the dead mullet defence. It is the same thing that was said to me by people who worked at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. ‘We’re so glad that you’re elected, that there’s a conservative member of parliament representing Burnett right now, because when we take 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 199 our concerns about what is happening at the Bundaberg Base Hospital to the member of parliament’— the Labor member of parliament—’we know that our concerns will lay like a dead mullet on his office floor.’ That is the reality with whistleblowing. On Melbourne Cup day last year Damien Carrick, an ABC Radio National law reporter, said— While the punters are considering the odds and the boom gates are quivering, we’ll be turning our attention to those in the work field, who take the biggest punt of their professional lives; whistleblowers in the workplace. One of the people he interviewed, an unnamed man, said— To be called whistleblower meant that you lost your job, your spouse had divorced you, your children didn’t speak to you, and your home had been repossessed. That culture has changed now. I disagree with that man because that culture—and we are talking about a culture of fear—has not changed. That is the reason we are here tonight. We are here tonight debating legislation that would be the first step in changing that culture of fear. I have seen firsthand the fear that these genuine men and women have when speaking out. It is a shame that there are many people in our communities who want to come forward and share their experiences but are hesitant for fear of retribution especially under this Beattie Labor government which has fostered a culture of secrecy, victimisation, bullying and vilification. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr MESSENGER: I will take all the interjections because I have heard it all. I heard it all in March 2005 when I introduced Toni Hoffman’s concerns here. The members mouthing off now were mouthing off then. They were not supporting whistleblowing then; they were baying for blood. These honest whistleblowers, these men and women throughout Queensland, need guarantees that they will not be victimised or punished if they decide to come forward with damning information. When Toni Hoffman came to my office back in March 2005 to make me aware of the failure of the Queensland health system at the Bundaberg Base Hospital she was extremely brave considering the lack of protection she would have expected to receive. She is a rare breed of whistleblowers as 95 per cent of whistleblowers who speak out are vilified and end up losing their careers. I can remember having a conversation with Toni about the Bundaberg mental health unit and how it was being closed down and run down. We said that if the Google search had not come out in the paper we would have both been sharing a room in the Bundaberg mental health unit. I think she expressed it by saying, ‘There for the grace of Google go I.’ Toni Hoffman knew full well that we could have easily ended up in the mental health unit. Where would we be without whistleblowers? Toni Hoffman’s courage and tenacity set in train a course of events that we could not have even dreamt of. Even if one wanted to sit down and create a work of fiction one could not do it. Toni’s actions have certainly saved many lives and led to the uncovering of Queensland’s biggest ever health scandal. This bill was originally created after the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry, the Davies report. It revealed a number of grave deficiencies within the government’s current whistleblowing protection system. Overall the Davies report found that the current legislation that is supposed to be protecting our whistleblowers who made or wanted to make public interest disclosures was in fact failing to do so. What I find incredibly arrogant is that this Beattie government has not even taken on board those recommendations. If it had, then the Whistleblowers Act would have already been amended to ensure far greater protection. This government would not have waited 12 months before making the necessary amendments to the act. The Premier is making a virtue out of his tardiness. Recent similar recommendations were made by the all-party Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, which released its three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I note that the committee’s report fully supported the recommendations made by the Davies inquiry. Yet still this arrogant Labor government has not taken any action whatsoever to address either of these recommendations. It raises one question: does this government have any intention to protect the brave individuals such as Toni Hoffman who expose shameful deficiencies in order to bring about change for the better? So far what the public is seeing is a government that is not committed to protecting our whistleblowers. This bill, the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill, addresses these deficiencies within the Whistleblowing Protection Act 1994 that the Davies inquiry and the three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission mentioned. As was recommended in these two reports, this bill makes changes to the act by giving the Queensland Ombudsman responsibility for overseeing all public interest disclosures made to public sector entities with the exception of those disclosures involving official misconduct, which will continue to be the responsibility of the CMC. There will of course be additional but necessary costs involved in expanding the role of the Ombudsman’s office. The bill also expands the categories of people who make a public interest disclosure rather than restricting it to public officers. Under the new amendment it would allow disclosure of dangers to public health and safety and negligent or inappropriate management of the public funds to be made by any individual. 200 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 07 Feb 2007

Another important amendment to the act would be to allow for persons to make a public interest disclosure to a member of the Legislative Assembly or a member of the media under certain circumstances. I note that in order to invoke this protection the person is required to make the disclosures to a public sector entity or the Ombudsman initially. If the complaint has not been dealt with satisfactorily and resolved within 30 days the person can then go to a member of the Legislative Assembly to seek assistance and disclose the relevant information. Furthermore, if after a further 30 days the Ombudsman has not advised of a satisfactory resolution the person can then go to the media. Finally, it is important to point out that the bill would also provide whistleblower protection for people who made disclosures regarding last year’s two public hospital commissions of inquiry. As it stands, the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 does not provide protection to whistleblowers such as Toni Hoffman. That is a disgrace. When I spoke with Toni I said, ‘Would you like to be classified or would you like me to acknowledge you as a whistleblower?’ She said yes. Under the existing legislation I was not an approved entity so she was not an official whistleblower. Initially her name was not mentioned in the parliament. It was not until the Google search inspired by Hedley Thomas came out that she was offered protection. It showed the history of the person in question. It is time this government took notice of the two inquiries and its recommendations and implemented these reasonable suggested amendments to fully protect our brave whistleblowers. As the member for Southern Downs says, evil flourishes when good people do nothing. This is an opportunity tonight for all good people to do something. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (8.52 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 2006 ostensibly to set the record straight based on the contribution of the previous member. All Queenslanders have the right to raise legitimate concerns with government and expect those concerns to be managed properly and openly. The Whistleblower Protection Act 1994 was introduced to provide protection for public officials and others who disclose official misconduct, maladministration, negligent or improper management affecting public funds, danger to public health and safety, or danger to persons with a disability or to the environment. The purpose of the Whistleblower Protection Act is to ensure proper accountability in the public sector so that Queenslanders can have confidence in government. It protects public officials and others from intimidation by providing them with protection from civil and criminal liability for making a disclosure. It also provides protection against subsequent reprisal action by making it a criminal offence and by providing Public Service employees with the possibility of relocation if reprisal is likely if they remain in their workplace. I want to assure the House that Queensland Health has the safeguards in place to ensure that whistleblower complaints are assessed, recorded and managed in accordance with the provisions of the act. A Queensland Health employee can submit a public interest disclosure to a range of department officials without fear of retribution. These could include the director-general, a supervisor, a person within the department who is responsible for managing the type of information disclosed or directly to an external agency such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Queensland Health’s Assurance and Risk Advisory Service assesses the complaint and advises what action should be taken to deal with the complaint and any measures that should be taken to protect the whistleblower from any risk of reprisal action. Queensland Health has received 67 public interest disclosures under the Whistleblowers Protection Act over the past 3½ years. The Queensland Health Systems Review and the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry both examined whistleblower protection and made various recommendations. The Office of the Public Service Commissioner also reviewed the Whistleblowers Protection Act and reported its findings last year. In May 2006 I wrote to the Director-General of Queensland Health requesting an audit of all applications for protection under the Whistleblowers Protection Act in Queensland Health. The Crown Solicitor reviewed cases where whistleblower status was rejected and cases where whistleblower status was granted. The Crown Solicitor’s report stated— ... the decisions made by Queensland Health to positively grant public interest disclosure status are legally sustainable ... Crown law also observed that— ... there may actually be a tendency (by Queensland Health) to err on the side of caution in granting of PID— that is, public interest disclosure— status. The report recommended basic legal training for human resource management staff and improvements to the filing systems for recording public interest disclosures. Queensland Health is committed to implementing Crown law’s recommendations in relation to file management and the provision of basic legal training to managers and human resources staff. But, in addition, any whistleblower request rejected by Queensland Health will be reviewed by Crown law, because as an employer Queensland Health is determined to be open, transparent and accountable, particularly in how our employees are valued and treated. 07 Feb 2007 Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill 201

This Whistleblowers Protection Amendment Bill proposes to extend whistleblower protection to anyone who raises matters concerning public health and safety as recommended in the Davies report. However, adequate protection is already available under the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006. Any person making a complaint to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, the Crime and Misconduct Commission or any professional registration body is afforded protection. That includes members of the public and Queensland Health employees alike. Further, the review by the Office of the Public Service Commissioner found that extending coverage of whistleblower protection could have significant ramifications for the public sector. Once again, complaints against private practitioners are already dealt with by the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and registration bodies. I am also concerned about extending whistleblower protection to those who make a disclosure to the media. The Queensland Health Systems Review did not support protection for persons making disclosure to the media because this would permit untested allegations being made public that unjustly impugn the persons subject to the allegations. This government recognises that improvements can be made to the current legislation, and to this end a bill is in the House to extend whistleblower protection to persons making public interest disclosures to members of parliament. This change supports the recommendations of the health systems review and provides parliamentarians with the means to ensure that public interest disclosures are properly managed and investigated. For the reasons outlined above, I am confident that existing legislation rather than that proposed appropriately balances the rights of whistleblowers with the public interest. Therefore, I oppose the bill before the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (8.57 pm), in reply: I look forward to joining in the debate here tonight. I want to make a couple of opening comments. Essentially, this bill before the House is that introduced by the coalition in June 2006 that lapsed as a consequence of the election. The original reasons for the bill stem from the report of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry—the Davies inquiry—released on 30 November 2005. The Davies inquiry highlighted major deficiencies in the current legislation and made detailed recommendations for amendments. Since the introduction of the coalition’s original bill, the all-party Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee tabled its report on the three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission on 9 October 2006. Part 10 of the committee’s report again stated the concerns of the Davies inquiry and made five recommendations for reform—that is, recommendations 22 to 26 at page 96 which are totally consistent with the coalition’s bill. It is also worth noting the committee’s comment on the government’s inaction on whistleblower reform since its last three-year review in 2004. The committee states— The committee notes that in response to the recommendations of the last three-year review the government initiated a whole-of- government review of the experience of public sector agencies in relation to the operation of the act, including relevant whistleblower issues discussed during the Bundaberg Hospital commission of inquiry and the Queensland Health systems review. No outcomes of that report are yet available. That is stated at page 95 of the report. The purpose of this bill is twofold. It is to implement the recommendations of the Queensland Public Hospitals Commission of Inquiry as set out in paragraphs 6.509 to 6.512 of the report and to implement recommendations 22 to 26 of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee report on the three-year review of the Crime and Misconduct Commission tabled on 9 October 2006. The three issues addressed by the bill are, firstly, the Queensland Ombudsman will have responsibility for overseeing all public interest disclosures made to public sector entities except for those disclosures involving official misconduct. These will continue to be the task of the CMC. The Ombudsman may either investigate the disclosure itself or refer it back to the relevant public sector entity for investigation. The Ombudsman will have powers to monitor and give directions to an agency about an investigation. Secondly, the categories of persons who may make a public interest disclosure under the act have been expanded. Earlier, only public officers could make disclosures about dangers to public health and safety and neglect or improper management of public funds. These types of disclosures can now be made by any person or body. Thirdly, protection under the act will be afforded under certain circumstances to persons who make a public interest disclosure to a member of this House or to a member of the media. The circumstances require that the person make the disclosure to a public sector entity or the Ombudsman in the first instance. If the Ombudsman has not advised the person within 30 days that the subject matter of the disclosure has been resolved, then the person may make the disclosure to a member of this House. If, after a further period of 30 days, the Ombudsman has not advised of a resolution, the person can make the disclosure to the media. A further issue addressed by the bill will be to afford whistleblower protection status to any person who makes a disclosure to an entity not earlier recognised as an appropriate entity about a matter raised at the Morris and Davies inquiries. This type of retrospectivity is highly defensible in terms of fundamental principles because it seeks to preserve and enhance the rights of an individual. That is a very short overview of the bill before the House. I also make comment on all members who spoke here tonight, and I thank them for their contributions. I believe the member for Southern Downs made a very apt and appropriate comment. He said that this Beattie Labor government has treated whistleblowers absolutely shoddily in the past, and that is absolutely correct. There is no 202 Adjournment 07 Feb 2007 question about that. We have to understand that this bill is before the House for one reason, and that is the Bundaberg Hospital disaster. At that point in time this House was approached by the member for Burnett on behalf of Toni Hoffman to expose the disastrous situation that had been allowed to develop by inadequate and negligent actions by this Beattie government. That is the reason this bill is before the House. The member for Hinchinbrook gave a rational and detailed breakdown of the act, for which I thank him. The members for Gladstone and Nanango also offered their support, for which we thank them. I also thank the member for Burnett, who is so railed against in this House for being passionate in what he believes in and what he does. Passion is what drives this House—passion and a belief in what you say and what you think and how you act. That is what makes this House a great institution. If we ever lose passion—if we ever lose the sense that a member cannot come into this House and be driven by what they believe is right—we are not in the game at all. The member for Burnett put everything on the line when he walked into this House and referred to Toni Hoffman’s disclosures that resulted in two inquiries and significant criminal action having to be taken. If it had not been for that passion, if it had not been for that drive, then we would still be covering up the tracks in Bundaberg. That is simply a reality. For that, the member for Burnett must be thanked. It is because of him that the bill sits here tonight. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr McARDLE: The member may think this is a laughing matter. He may make light of the issue of the deaths at Bundaberg, but that is ridiculous. Tonight, comments have been made about the role of the Ombudsman in this bill. The role of the Ombudsman is as an independent, impartial umpire. We know the terror that whistleblowers take with them if they start to consider making declarations about what they believe is malpractice or any form of criminal activity. The Ombudsman provides a buffer. The Ombudsman is an independent person who can make the assessment within a 30-day period. There were also comments about whether the time of 30 days was appropriate. In Bundaberg, 30 days was too long. In Bundaberg, 30 minutes would have been too long. If a matter is urgent, it has to be acted on urgently. I would have thought that somebody’s life being at risk would constitute an urgent situation. It is appropriate that this House supports this bill, because it is driven by the principles that whistleblowers need protection. It is driven by the principle of the history of this government neglecting whistleblowers and the actions of the coalition in having to support whistleblowers and provide them with the relevant protection. I support the bill. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 27—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Foley, Hobbs, Hopper Horan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Dickson, Gibson NOES, 51—Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.15 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Education, Nicklin Electorate Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.15 pm): With a new school year underway, it is timely to look at a range of education matters which seem to crop up every year. Firstly, I congratulate the Minister for Education on introducing prep classes to our schools in 2007. It will be interesting to get some feedback from parents and school communities in the months to come to see how this new class is received. This government needs to ensure that sufficient teachers, support teachers and resources are provided to our schools to cater for this demanding prep class level. One thing that has already come to light with the launch of prep classes in my electorate is insufficient classroom space. In one case, one of my schools is struggling to find sufficient space to cater for after school hours care. Although it is a great concept, another school has struggled for two years to achieve after school hours care due to the long list of demands that were placed before them as they went through the process. Surely Education Queensland can provide our volunteer parents and citizens organisations with a hassle-free plan to set up after school hours care in a simple and quick manner. Some of the red tape attached to moving or expanding already established after hour school care programs has proven too restrictive and beyond the means of my local schools. 07 Feb 2007 Adjournment 203

One of the concerns I have in my electorate that comes up regularly at this time of year is the loss of staffing and resources to our very small schools. One small school in the Nicklin electorate produces great results for its students, but it is continually struggling to keep its few teachers in place. Although the student population has fluctuated between 80 and 100 at times during the past eight years, a low enrolment at the beginning of this year has seen the principal returned to the classroom and valued part- time staff lost. Queensland Education is continually boasting about what wonderful education opportunities it is offering to our young people, yet for the sake of a handful of students, the very small schools of Queensland are in a constant battle to retain valuable resources. Although I realise that a system must be in place to calculate staff numbers, surely in our small schools a cut-off level of resources should be set in place to ensure a secure and well-rounded education for our young people, and security for staff. Our primary level students are losing much-needed teachers and resources and their education and future opportunities are being eroded. I have spoken before about the need for Education Queensland to ensure that administration and other non-teaching staff are provided sufficient working hours to manage small schools. Again, for our small schools to function efficiently, they need office staff and other support staff in place to manage the school. In the case of very small schools, if the principal is in the classroom all day it is vital that there are administration staff manning the office. Parking around schools on the Sunshine Coast continues to be an issue which the department needs to address at both existing and new schools. Aged Care Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (9.18 pm): Providing care for our ageing population is a key issue facing this state, particularly in the Waterford electorate, where we have nine retirement communities and two on the way. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the federal government’s Report on the operation of the Aged Care Act 1997—2005-2006, released on 28 November 2006. This report provides clear evidence of the tragic record of this federal government in aged care. When the Howard government came to office in 1996 there were 92 aged care beds for every 1,000 people aged over 70, exceeding the benchmark of 90 beds per 1,000 persons aged over 70 years. This was a surplus of 800 aged care beds across the country. In 2004, realising it was in trouble, the federal government responded by reducing the benchmark from 90 to 88 beds per 1,000 people aged over 70. It is incredulous that the federal government’s answer to aged care was to reduce the benchmark rather than provide more aged care beds. In 2006, we now have only 85.6 beds per 1,000 people aged over 70. This government has been able to turn an 800 bed surplus in 1996 into a 4,613 bed shortfall in 2006. But I must pay tribute to those people who are working hard to provide aged care services for our seniors. On 24 January this year, I visited the site of the soon to be Jeta Gardens retirement community. Jeta Gardens is the first retirement community in Australia where the design, services and management are based on Asian values and philosophies. This facility will provide 600 accommodation units, ranging from independent living units through to high-care and dementia wards. The first stage will be opened in February this year. I was amazed by the level of thought that has gone into the design of this project. The designers have included gardens, lakes and walking tracks to the Logan River as well as culturally appropriate housing design. Jeta Gardens is the vision of Choe-Lam Tan. Choe-Lam first raised the issue of aged care services for Asian communities at a ministerial regional community forum in 2001. Choe-Lam was concerned that existing aged care facilities did not cater for dementia patients whose language skills often return to their first language rather than English. I cannot explain how impressed I am with Jeta Gardens, and I hope that this will become the benchmark for aged care into the future, particularly for ethnic communities. National Livestock Identification System Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (9.21 pm): Tonight I want to talk about Australia’s own horse sport of campdrafting and some of the difficulties that this great sport is facing with the National Livestock Identification System which I believe can be suitably overcome. The sport started in Tenterfield in the early part of the 20th century, and it has expanded to the extent that in Queensland there are now over 200 campdrafts per year. The Cambooya Campdraft, which was held just the other day near Toowoomba, had 1,200 entries. There are other great drafts throughout the length and breadth of the state, such as the Warwick Gold Cup, which goes for almost a week, the Chinchilla Grandfather Clock and the Proston Golden Spurs. These drafts are family events where up to three generations can be involved. All the proceeds go to charities or to local infrastructure 204 Adjournment 07 Feb 2007 such as the showgrounds or sportsgrounds. They are very much volunteer orientated, with volunteers working the yards. Trucking companies provide trucks at minimal costs and feedlots and cattle producers provide cattle for the draft. Since the introduction of the National Livestock Identification System there has been an exemption to allow for the cattle to not necessarily have to be tagged or read off as they come in and out of the draft. Normally what happens is that the cattle are only there for a few hours: they are loaded off the trucks, they get drafted and, as they get drafted, they go over to the other side of the arena where they go through yards and are loaded onto trucks and go. Or in some of the remote parts of the state the cattle are donated by property owners and are walked into the draft, and once they are drafted they are walked back home. The exemption has meant that they worked under what was called a mob based movement system, which has worked well in association with property identification codes and a weigh bill providing a description of the cattle. QNIC, which is the organisation responsible for the implementation of the National Livestock Identification System in Queensland and represents exporters—the processing industry, the livestock industry and so on—has ruled that this exemption must end. I want at this stage to thank the minister for primary industries for receiving a deputation I took to him this week. He was very interested and committed. He has arranged for the Australian Campdraft Association to have another meeting with QNIC and hopefully they can work out a proposal on a timetable basis that may be acceptable. There are two issues. First, it is difficult to get cattle from some of these properties because they do not tag the heifers until their culled cows are 10 years of age, so they may not donate. Secondly, you need volunteers and facilities to run the cattle up a crush and race, read them and put them on to trucks or, if they do not read, put them into another yard. With those issues in mind, I hope that, through the work of the minister, the delegation from the Australian Campdrafting Association can move forward with QNIC to find a sensible and practical proposal, limited strictly by a timetable that will eventually see all cattle tagged and read. Then we might be able to get somewhere, which will be good for the industry and all of the communities that are helped by campdrafting.

Helensvale Town Centre Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (9.24 pm): The last time I rose in this House in the adjournment debate I talked about the paucity of the Gold Coast City Council’s provision of library services to the Helensvale Library, which services, on the council’s own figures, some 110,000 people yet is the size of 400 square metres when in fact on the Gold Coast City Council’s own measurements it should be 2,400 square metres. I now turn my attention to the Westfield Helensvale Town Centre, which was the result of a nine- year battle by the people of Helensvale, Pacific Pines, Oxenford, Studio Village and Gaven to overcome the Gold Coast City Council’s opposition to Westfield building this magnificent and much needed regional centre. Of course, this was brought before the minister of the time, Nita Cunningham, bless her soul, who called in the objections and granted the approval. She is a wonderful woman and it was wonderful to see her here today. The people of the northern suburbs of the Gold Coast are very appreciative. The Gold Coast City Council is now doing everything it possibly can to stop the expansion of Westfield because, according to the logic of the Gold Coast City Council, everything needs to go to Coomera before Westfield, the people of Helensvale and the 110,000 people who live in the area are allowed any sort of expansion of their town centre. There is a desperate need for an additional department store on the Gold Coast. The sixth largest city in Australia has only two department stores, both of which are located at the southern end of the Gold Coast at Broadbeach and Robina. Both Myer and David Jones wish to build at Helensvale, but the Gold Coast City Council has said that that will not happen. The Gold Coast City Council has restricted the size of the Helensvale town centre to 34,800 square metres of retail space. It was the only shopping centre on the Gold Coast that was granted approval without any retail bonus space being allocated, and that is an absolute disgrace. The centre, which services people here and now, will have to wait until 2012 to be allowed to expand. The powerful and vested forces that exist in the Coomera area are trying to force all development into Coomera. The people of the electorate of Gaven do not object to the people of Coomera having those things, but they are not there yet. We should not have to wait for eight years to get decent shopping centre facilities in the Pacific Pines, Gaven, Oxenford and Helensvale area. The Gold Coast City Council is particularly obstructionist on this due to vested interests within it. We all know the history of the Gold Coast City Council. Members can believe me that the white shoes shine brighter than they have ever shined before, and it must end. 07 Feb 2007 Adjournment 205

Police Resources Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (9.27 pm): In the light of recent break and enter crime sprees and the increase in serious assaults, drug and sex crimes in the Bundaberg-Burnett region, I call on the minister to allocate extra police resources. The Annual Statistical Review 2005-06 shows that Bundaberg has only 142 police officers looking after a population of nearly 90,000, which is a police-to- population ratio of one to 633. That is a disturbing figure when we compare it to other regions such as Maryborough at one to 581, Rockhampton at one to 465 and Gladstone at one to 483. It becomes a joke when we compare the Bundaberg district, which covers the coast to Monto and some 90,000 people, to Queensland’s average which is one to 436, making us 45 per cent below the state benchmark. With the latest break and enter crime sprees in Bundaberg and serious assaults, drug and sex crimes on the rise in Bundaberg, the Beattie government needs to provide more police and equipment to combat the rise in crime in our community. I will be reiterating to the police minister the importance of setting up a police beat for the Moore Park community due to the lack of frequent police patrols and poor response times of up to two hours for reported criminal incidents. I also urge the minister to upgrade the Bargara police station to a 24-hour station as, currently, the community relies on the Bundaberg police after hours, which not only raises concerns over delayed response times but also takes police resources away from the Bundaberg community. Our police do an outstanding job, but they need the staff numbers and appropriate resources to do their job efficiently in order to protect our community. The minister should not only consider increasing police numbers in regional and rural areas such as Bundaberg and Burnett, but also reassess the formula used to calculate those policing numbers. We need to ensure that police numbers keep up with the pace of population growth and that police are provided in the right places. Managing policing numbers in communities that have a high-growth rate is critical, particularly in areas such as Agnes Water where the population swells from approximately 3,000 to around 12,000 during Christmas and Easter periods. The other issue regarding police resourcing is the growing need for water police in Bundaberg. At the moment, whenever the police need to venture out onto the water they call on the services of the SES. I have spoken to a few SES people and they are very concerned about having to rescue suspected or alleged offenders and the danger that that puts their members in. The introduction of a water police division in Bundaberg would be a very welcome development.

Tingalpa Cemetery Heritage Group Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (9.29 pm): As the member for Chatsworth, I recently had the pleasure of attending a very significant event that celebrated the life and times of early pioneers in the Tingalpa area. I would like to thank the Friends of Tingalpa Cemetery Heritage Group, and, in particular, president Jackie Butler for her kind invitation. Proud locals, members of the church, descendants of those hardy and spirited early settlers and caring supporters all joined in the celebrations. If I may, I will impart to the House some Chatsworth history. A government member: Please. Mr BOMBOLAS: I thank the member very much. In 1868, the Tingalpa pioneers built their shingle-roofed, weatherboard church close to Bulimba Creek. They called it Christ Church, which was often referred to as the Bush Cathedral. Sadly, it blew down in a cyclone eighteen years later, but the hardy pioneers gathered up undamaged timbers and rebuilt it on a cement slab. More than 120 years later it still stands, guarding the graves of the settlers. Generations of Tingalpa families have used the old chapel for worship, baptisms and funerals, with over 300 burials taking place in the grounds. In 1996, the historic Tingalpa church was deemed redundant, decommissioned and stripped for demolition. Protests by the community and descendants of the pioneers drew attention to its significance and both the chapel and cemetery were heritage listed. This stopped demolition, but the chapel was kept locked and unused for years, making it a tempting target for termites and vandals. In 2002 the Friends of Tingalpa Cemetery Heritage Group formed to restore the chapel, tend the graves and record the stories of Tingalpa’s pioneers. With lots of voluntary labour, fundraising events and donations from members, as well as grants from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Gambling Community Benefit Fund and Powerlink, they have replaced the chapel roof, the floor and a termite damaged interior wall and ceiling. Painting has also been completed. As well, the friends have erected a white picket fence with donated materials, built a toilet/store room, had water, power and sewerage connected, and restored graves and erected plaques. They have over 100 members, many of whom are descendants of Tingalpa’s pioneers. 206 Adjournment 07 Feb 2007

The same pioneers who built Christ Church helped establish Tingalpa State School and their children were some of its first pupils. Each year they hold an annual decoration day when folk are invited to bring flowers and decorate a pioneer’s grave. This year is the 139th Anniversary Decoration Day and it is likely to be scheduled for 27 October, the date of the consecration by Bishop Tufnell in 1868. The featured pioneer family will be the Arnolds. Last year, a short anniversary service was held to honour the Stanton family whose Holmwood dairy farm is today’s Minnippi and Meadowlands Parklands. Organisations like the Friends of Tingalpa Cemetery Heritage Group are invaluable and we need to acknowledge their work in our community.

Butterfly Kids Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (9.33 pm): Last Saturday I was honoured to compere a fundraising auction for a group known as Butterfly Kids, an extremely worthy not-for-profit community group that provides respite and support to 286 disabled children and their families within the Noosa shire by offering specialised equipment and assistance. This support extends to families and carers, special education units, sporting and recreation clubs and other community groups that have services that benefit children and teenagers with a disability within the shire. I have been involved with Butterfly Kids since its inception and was happy to lend a hand in the early stages helping the committee to set up by providing advice and information on developing a constitution and the incorporation process. The professionalism that the committee has shown in just a short time is inspiring and sets a benchmark for other associations to follow. I am proud to say that Saturday’s fundraising event showed the Noosa community at its best, with businesses and individuals all happy to help by either giving their time or contributing financially. The event raised much-needed funds, and I would like to thank Donna Lethborg from Asian Discovery in Noosa Junction and her partner, Sandy Moore, for their hard work in putting it all together. Thanks must also go to David Garwood, of Remax Property Specialists, who gave his time and expertise to conduct the auction. Other supporters include Greg Holman of Holman Accountants, solicitor Joe McMahon, the Noosa Council Social Club and the Noosa Heads Rotary Club. As the coordinator, Leanne Walsh is to be commended for her realisation of the Butterfly Kids concept when, as a mum with a disabled child—and he is a great young fellow by the name of Curtis— she recognised that this type of service was desperately needed in Noosa and went about setting it up. Butterfly Kids has now grown and employed Simon Edes from the Victorian Disability Sector, who brings knowledge, experience and a forward-thinking approach to his role with Butterfly Kids. I am sure Simon will be a great asset to the association and to the Noosa community. I wish Leanne and Simon and everyone else who is associated with Butterfly Kids continuing success with their work on behalf of disabled kids and their families.

Prep Year Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (9.36 pm): Earlier today I had the pleasure of attending a full school assembly at Stafford State School in my electorate. Today’s assembly focused on welcoming the newest and youngest members of that school community: the 27 prep students. As the Minister for Education and Training advised the House yesterday, last week we witnessed education history in Queensland with the first of the universal prep year starting across the state. In schools around the Stafford electorate last week, 323 young minds and bodies were among the first intake of the prep year. For a week and a half now, they have been enjoying wonderful facilities and the guidance of dedicated staff at all my local primary schools. Our local parish schools—Holy Cross, OLA, Queen of Apostles and St Anthony’s—have provided excellent environments for this new beginning for educational experience. Our local state schools have all seen outstanding improvements as part of the largest capital works program in Education Queensland’s history. Somerset Hills State School and Wavell Heights State School benefited from minor refurbishments in their old preschool classrooms and curriculum resources to the tune of $27,350 and $46,878 respectively. Stafford Heights State School has enjoyed a major refurbishment of two classrooms and resources costing $563,667. Kedron State School, with which a preschool unit had never been associated, has a superb new two-classroom building, which with curriculum resources cost $600,067. Today at Stafford State School I was able to inspect with Acting Principal Garry Drummond the completed and operational new two-classroom building, which again with curriculum resources cost $570,000. These new classrooms were required by the consolidation of state education in Stafford onto the one campus. 07 Feb 2007 Adjournment 207

This may not be bricks and mortar; perhaps it is building blocks and ‘bendy-goes’. It is also important to acknowledge the educational opportunities that are more important arising out of this new beginning for education in the Stafford electorate. This afternoon at Stafford State School, I took part in what was in effect a handing over of a ‘baton’ from one educational generation to another. I say this as I also attended a ceremony in December to acknowledge the end of preschool at Stafford. At that event, I not only played the role of local MP; I was also the only representative present of the first intake of preschool students at Stafford in 1975. At that time, in response to a huge demand, a preschool unit was opened at Collier Street with students taken in September for the last term of 1976. So a generation later, today I joined many parents from my own cohort attending the Stafford State School assembly and celebrating the beginning of prep.

Brigalow State Forest, Gold Fossicking Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (9.39 pm): This morning I tabled a petition with 569 signatories calling on the state government to allow access to the Brigalow State Forest for gold fossickers to continue to enjoy a hobby that is one of our great Australian pastimes and ways of life. The Clermont district has a history rich in gold deposits and discoveries, and every year the community celebrates its history with the Goldfest celebrations that bring hundreds of people into the town to fossick and enjoy the lifestyle this rural community has to offer. This decision to lock up forests and deny access will have a significant impact on fossickers and the economy of towns that rely on fossickers who travel from all over the country to grasp hold of a pick, pan and detector to have a go. In other states, prospectors have good access to state controlled land and are able to pursue this hobby. The lock-up of millions of hectares of Queensland state forests will seriously impact on communities such as Clermont which actively promote the activities as tourist attractions and benefit from the many fossickers who travel to pursue their hobby. I received a letter from a fossicker who travels to Clermont each winter and is dismayed that in this day and age where obesity is such an issue enjoyable outdoor activities such as fossicking are not available to ordinary people because of the possibility of state forests being locked up. These communities relish the opportunity to showcase their towns. They do not have the multimillion-dollar cinema complexes, massive shopping centres or giant sports stadiums but they have their history, and they offer opportunities for visitors to partake in activities that allow access to bushland with the added advantage of possibly finding some gold. Tourism is the major source of income in many rural and regional towns. Instead of hindering a community’s ability to offer something unique, this government should be encouraging the initiatives these communities show to attract visitors and therefore boost the economy. I would ask the minister to look clearly at the names of the signatories. Every state in this country is represented on this petition. There are even signatories on the petition from New Zealand. This sends a clear message that, firstly, Clermont has done a great job in selling the prospecting angle to the tourist market and, secondly, that locking up the state forests—state forests that belong to Queenslanders—is destroying the viability of an industry that encourages and enthuses participants from the local community, Queensland, Australia and all over the world. With fossicking, it is all about going to a creek bed, grabbing a little pick, picking at all the cracks and crevices and dirt, finding some gold, using a metal detector, using a pot and pan and polishing a nugget when you do find one. This is very important for these people. They need access to do this stuff. So on behalf of the Clermont community, the tourists and the fossickers, we call on the minister to make provisions to enable them the access to fossick in local state forests.

Accommodation for Homeless People Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (9.42 pm): On Christmas Day 2006, 21 people woke to Christmas in their own homes. There is nothing unusual about that, you might think, except these people had been homeless for a long time. Thanks to the efforts of the Minister for Public Works and Housing, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, a motel in Burleigh was purchased and refurbished into suitable accommodation for single men and women. You could not find a happier group of people. Unfortunately, many of them had waited years for the opportunity to have secure housing. The period of waiting for such accommodation can be extremely difficult. Some had been staying in emergency accommodation run by charitable organisations; others had been in difficult and even dangerous situations in order to keep a roof over their head. The waiting time has an impact not only on the individuals but also on the community. People who are constantly struggling to find accommodation are often unable to move on with the rest of their lives. They are unable to obtain or hold down employment, properly care for their children or maintain their own health—all of which creates a burden on the community. Can you imagine the anguish of being without secure housing for years on end? To have to think every day or every week, ‘Where will I stay? Who can I call? Can I impose on my friends or family again? Is there a shelter that will take me in?’ It must be soul destroying. 208 Attendance 07 Feb 2007

I cannot help but reflect on the ridiculous amounts of money that the federal government wastes on rent assistance. Over the last eight years, the federal government has spent approximately $4 billion on rent assistance in Queensland. This is an incredible amount of public money—taxpayers’ money— spent in the private rental market. It is a ridiculous and pointless scheme. It cannot possibly come close to paying the rental costs of people living on Centrelink benefits. Rent assistance contributes to artificially maintaining higher rates of rent than the market would otherwise be able to sustain. Imagine how much housing this government could provide if it had access to that money. $4 billion would build and maintain a lot of public housing. That property would be owned by the people of Queensland, and those assets could be used to provide housing for the future as well as for this week. The federal government should urgently reconsider its policy of spending public money in such a wasteful and extravagant fashion. It should be using public money to benefit the large number of Queenslanders waiting for years on end for the opportunity to live in safe and secure housing and allow them to get on with their lives. I call on the federal for Moncrief, Steven Ciobo, who has been so critical of this government, to come down and meet the people newly accommodated in Burleigh. He could then see for himself how happy and grateful these people are to have accommodation to live in. Perhaps then he would stop interfering in state politics and start telling the Prime Minister how important public housing is and just how desperately it is needed on the Gold Coast. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.45 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson