PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Thursday, 10 November 2005

REGIONAL SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT, ROCKHAMPTON ...... 3915 PHOTOGRAPHS IN CHAMBER ...... 3915 PETITIONS ...... 3915 PAPERS ...... 3915 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3916 Education Exports ...... 3916 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3916 Abbot Point Coal Terminal ...... 3916 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3917 Southbank TAFE Redevelopment ...... 3917 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3917 Economy ...... 3917 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3918 ICT Industry ...... 3918 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3918 Federal Industrial Relations Legislation ...... 3918 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3918 2006 Ideas Festival ...... 3918 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3919 Queensland Health, Disaster Management Planning ...... 3919 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3919 Remembrance Day ...... 3919 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3920 Palm Island Select Committee ...... 3920 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3921 Crime Rates ...... 3921 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3921 Health System, Recruitment of Health Professionals ...... 3921 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3922 Federal Industrial Relations Legislation ...... 3922

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2005 Table of Contents — Thursday, 10 November 2005

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3923 Coastal Management Plans ...... 3923 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3923 Climate Change ...... 3923 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3923 Queensland Rail ...... 3923 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3924 Arson Offences ...... 3924 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3925 School Sport ...... 3925 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3925 Community Memorials Restoration Program ...... 3925 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3926 International Trade Show Assistance Program ...... 3926 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3926 Tourism Industry ...... 3926 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3927 Blueprint for the Bush ...... 3927 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3928 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3928 SITTING DAYS AND HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3928 TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE ...... 3928 Report ...... 3928 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3929 Health System ...... 3929 Ex-HMAS ...... 3929 Erin House ...... 3929 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3930 Ferguson, Mr D ...... 3930 Ferguson, Mr D ...... 3930 South-East Queensland, Future Development ...... 3930 Ferguson, Mr D ...... 3931 Child Protection ...... 3931 John Tonge Centre ...... 3932 Reform and Development Unit ...... 3933 Unemployment ...... 3933 Queensland Health ...... 3934 Gympie Bypass ...... 3934 Police, Firearms Training ...... 3935 Queensland Health Advisory Committees ...... 3936 Public Transport ...... 3936 Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies ...... 3937 Renewable Energy Diesel Replacement Scheme ...... 3938 Eastern Busway ...... 3938 Indigenous Education, Thursday Island ...... 3939 Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies ...... 3940 TIME CLOCKS ...... 3941 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3941 REVOCATION OF PROTECTED AREAS AND FOREST RESERVES ...... 3941 CENTENARY OF WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE ...... 3947 WATER AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3953 Second Reading ...... 3953 Consideration in Detail ...... 3997 Third Reading ...... 4004 HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL; HEALTH PRACTITIONERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 4004 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 4004 PAPER ...... 4011 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 4011 ADJOURNMENT ...... 4011 Elder Abuse Prevention Unit ...... 4012 Queensland Country Women’s Association ...... 4012 Asbestos in Schools, Chatsworth Electorate ...... 4013 Queensland Health ...... 4013 Wet Tropics Management Authority ...... 4014 Muir, Mr J; Sparkles Auto Care ...... 4014 Remembrance Day ...... 4015 Anti-Terrorism Legislation ...... 4015 Remembrance Day ...... 4016 Liberal Party ...... 4017 10 Nov 2005 Legislative Assembly 3915 THURSDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 2005

Legislative Assembly

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

REGIONAL SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT, ROCKHAMPTON Mr SPEAKER: I advise that this morning a survey will be distributed to members in the chamber seeking comments on the administrative arrangements for the sitting of the parliament in Rockhampton. This is an important evaluation and feedback document for the Parliamentary Service and members are encouraged to complete and return the survey to either the Clerk in the supplied envelope or by placing the survey in the questions on notice tray on the table of the House. I feel I speak for every member when I offer our congratulations and appreciation to all staff of the parliament who were involved in the arranging and delivery of the parliamentary sittings in Rockhampton.

PHOTOGRAPHS IN CHAMBER Mr SPEAKER: I advise that I have approved that from 9.30 am to 11.30 am every day a Courier- Mail newspaper photographer may take photos in the chamber. The photographer will adhere to the general guidelines set for filming and photography in the chamber—namely, that they will only take the photograph of a member who has the call.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Bill of Rights; Anti-Terrorism Legislation Ms Bligh from 23 petitioners requesting the House to introduce a bill of rights and other legislation that enshrines people’s rights to live without unjust interference from local and the State governments; to actively oppose with legal and political action the Federal Government’s present and future legislative plans with regard to terrorism and to actively support good governance in Queensland that bolsters in the long-term social equality, social cohesion and a strong civil society.

Pensioner Rate Rebate Scheme Mr Messenger from 2,404 petitioners requesting the House to change the law to stop the discrimination against aged pensioners who reside in leasehold retirement villages in Queensland paying Local Government Rates via the owner of their village but who are not provided benefit under the Queensland State Government Pensioner Rate Rebate Scheme similar to benefits available to aged pensioners residing outside leasehold retirement villages in Queensland.

PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations (Mr Barton)— • Department of Employment and Training—Annual Report 2004-05 • Emerald Agricultural College—Annual Report 2004-05 • Dalby Agricultural College—Annual Report 2004-05 • Longreach Pastoral College—Annual Report 2004-05 • Australian College of Tropical Agriculture—Annual Report 2004-05 • Training and Employment Recognition Council—Annual Report 2004-05 • Training Ombudsman—Annual Report 2004-05 Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (Mrs Lavarch)— • Legal Services Commission—Annual Report 2004-05 MINISTERIAL PAPERS The following ministerial papers were tabled— Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (Mr Palaszczuk)— • Department of the Natural Resources and Mines—Annual Report 2004–05 and Financial Statements for 2004–05 • SunWater—Annual Report 2004–05 3916 Ministerial Statement 10 Nov 2005

Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts (Mr Welford)— • Department of Education and the Arts—Annual Report 2004–05 • Queensland Studies Authority—Annual Report 2004–05 • Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation—Annual Report 2004–05 • Queensland Museum—Annual Report 2004–05 • Queensland Art Gallery—Annual Report 2004–05 • Library Board of Queensland—Annual Report 2004–05 • Queensland Performing Arts Centre—Annual Report 2004–05 • Non–State Schools Accreditation Board—Annual Report 2004–05 Minister for Police and Corrective Services (Ms Spence)— • Prostitution Licensing Authority—Annual Report 2004–05 • Public Interest Monitor—Annual Report 2004–05 Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle)— • Report on a parliamentary trade delegation to Japan and Korea from 18 to 25 September 2005

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Education Exports Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.36 am): On 4 June 2001 I announced an aggressive Smart State five-year plan on behalf of the government to create thousands of new jobs by doubling the state’s earnings of $500 million a year from the export of education and training. In fact, it was a little less than that. I did so because the study we had commissioned showed that, while Queensland had first-class products, the export push by universities and colleges had been fragmented. The target of $1 billion a year was considered by many to be as outrageous as my target of reducing the unemployment rate to five per cent. We appointed a board to drive our Queensland education and training export strategy and I made sure that the strategy remained focused and aggressive by backing it up with a special task force located in my own department to report directly to me as well as to other key ministers. The board has worked closely with international education and training providers, both public and private, to ensure maximum impact when promoting Queensland overseas. I am happy to report to the House today that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has just reported that in 2004-05 our export education was worth $1.031 billion to the economy—in other words, we have reached the target. We have succeeded in doubling our exports of education in only four years. I congratulate Education Queensland, the various ministers who have been involved and have supported this program, and training providers for their tenacious and tremendous push to increase the number of foreign students that they teach. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard and, in doing so, highlight to the House that the Smart State is working. Leave granted. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training statistics, based on student visas, state that more than 53,000 international students studied in Queensland in 2004. Now we will have to create new targets. A by-product of this policy is that by making our foreign students feel at home and welcome in Queensland, they will tend to have a soft spot for us as they become leaders in business, industry and government in their home countries. So we have already gained enormous economic benefits, dramatically increased the number of jobs involved in the industry and in flow-on areas, and we stand to gain from the goodwill of future overseas business and political leaders who have studied here and called Queensland home for a while.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Abbot Point Coal Terminal Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.37 am): The Ports Corporation of Queensland is getting on with the job of organising the environmental impact study for the development of the $430 million stage 3 expansion of the Abbot Point coal export terminal. This follows six weeks of public comment on the terms of reference for the study. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public comment by the end of the year. The proposed expansion will see the volume of coal handled through Abbot Point double from 25 million tonnes each year, which will be available after the stage 2 expansion, to 50 million tonnes each year. Construction will employ about 950 people. When operational, the project has the potential to double the number of 10 Nov 2005 Ministerial Statement 3917 people employed at Abbot Point to 100. This Abbot Point coal terminal expansion, together with new rail lines, is the infrastructure that central Queensland is calling out for so that it can make the most of the world coal bonanza. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. With rapid industrial expansion across much of Asia, Queensland is experiencing unprecedented demand for its high quality coal. The State Government is pulling out all stops to ensure that we give our coal infrastructure planning processes the priority they deserve within the boundaries of Queensland’s environmental legislation. The Abbot Point project is dependent on the $600 million ‘missing link’ rail project from North Goonyella to Newlands, also undergoing an environmental impact study. The rail link will enable coal from the Bowen Basin to be delivered to Abbot Point. Completion of the environmental assessments and feasibility studies for these two projects will give the industry and government the quality information needed to determine whether expansion of Abbot Point provides the best option for the next major expansion of infrastructure to service the Northern Bowen Basin coal fields.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Southbank TAFE Redevelopment Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.39 am): Accompanied by the minister for employment and training, Tom Barton, I will have the pleasure today of launching the construction of Queensland’s first public-private partnership project, the $550 million redevelopment of the former Southbank TAFE. This project will offer world-class, energy efficient buildings worthy of being the Smart State’s flagship for international training. The Queensland government is working closely with its partners ABN AMRO, John Holland and Spotless Facilities Management. It will create around 315 jobs during the construction phase and ongoing employment for 100 facilities management and support staff. Completion of the first building shell is on target for mid-2006. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. By bringing together the innovation of the private sector and the planning and service delivery skills of the public sector, we will provide Queenslanders with the kind of quality infrastructure they want and deserve. The institute will deliver programs to train the people who are desperately needed in knowledge-based enterprises such as biotechnology and health science, multimedia, engineering, eBusiness and the creative industries. The redevelopment project involves the construction of 11 new buildings and the renovation of another four.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Economy Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.40 am): As members would expect, the Queensland economy continues to go from strength to strength. I notice an article on page 2 of the Australian today headed ‘Once were powerhouses: big states lose their steam’, which states— The powerhouse of the Australian economy through the 1990s is now languishing, with NSW posting less than half the national growth rate for the fourth consecutive year. It continues— The boom states were Queensland— Mr Lucas: It just keeps getting better! Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely. I take that interjection from the minister for transport. Again, it continues— Companies are voting on the future and a lot of them are voting on Queensland. I table that article for the information of the House. As I said, the Queensland economy continues to go from strength to strength. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that nominal retail turnover in Queensland increased by 0.6 per cent in September to be 4.1 per cent over the year. By comparison, the rest of increased by 0.3 per cent to be only 3.1 per cent higher over the year. The latest figures on Queensland’s export industry are amazing. In annual terms, the nominal value of Queensland’s overseas merchandise exports rose by 32.7 per cent to total $8.5 billion in the September quarter. Close to half of this figure is comprised of crude material exports, which rose by 59.4 per cent to a total of $4.1 billion. 3918 Ministerial Statement 10 Nov 2005

The Queensland economy is booming. Through strong economic management by my government and investment in infrastructure, my government is providing a platform for continued growth and prosperity in the Smart State. I seek leave to have the details of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. In turn the rise in crude minerals was driven largely by coal exports, which increased by a whopping 75.1 per cent to total $3.5 billion. In annual terms, the value of merchandise exports to our major export markets increased significantly in the September quarter. Merchandise exports to Japan rose by 32.9 per cent to $2.4 billion driven by a 68.8 per cent increase in the value of coal exports. The value of merchandise exports to India rose by 63.7 per cent, China 68.4 per cent, the European Union 49.5 per cent, the United Kingdom 18.1 per cent and New Zealand 8.1 per cent.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

ICT Industry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.41 am): As I indicated yesterday, the minister for information technology policy, Chris Cummins, and I addressed a major ICT lunch, which I have been doing on an annual basis. We released a survey at that lunch. I seek to table that for the information of the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Federal Industrial Relations Legislation Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.41 am): There is yet further proof that an overwhelming number of people do not support the federal government’s IR legislation. A poll conducted by News Ltd subsidiary NEWS.com.au and CoreData on 1 to 3 November found that more than two-thirds of small business people think that the changes are not necessary. The poll of 3,413 people found 82 per cent of respondents think that the federal government’s proposed industrial relations changes are unnecessary. Only 20 per cent of small business people agree that the changes are a good thing. Two-thirds of them did not think the changes would make workplaces more flexible and 58 per cent did not think the changes would make workplaces more productive. Overall, an overwhelming number of respondents—86 per cent—said they believed the changes would not be good for the average worker. Bearing in mind that Queensland is the small business state of Australia, I would have to say that small business has spoken. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Prime Minister will pull back from this nonsense. It is not good for the economy. This morning I have already spelled out that Queensland is the engine room of Australia. We have the best industrial record for some 30 years. We do not need the clock being turned back to some prehistoric time of industrial relations.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 2006 Ideas Festival Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.42 am): As I said, we are continuing to drive Queensland through Smart State policies. As part of that, the 2006 Ideas Festival will include an expanded exhibition of inventions in addition to the fascinating program of lectures, panels and discussions. Ideas are the centre of the Smart State and are the centre of the growth of this economy. I seek leave to have the details of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The exhibition will bring together a range of new gadgets, innovations and inventions and many will be demonstrated during the festival by their inventors, designers and researchers. The festival program includes ideas about water, work and family trends, our urban environment, innovations for sustainability, communication, justice, international affairs and new medical technologies. The Ideas Festival, which will be held from 29 March to 2 April 2006, will feature more than 50 speakers. The festival at South Bank is an opportunity to hear the ideas of leading national and international thinkers and also the ideas of many leading Queenslanders whose work is having an international impact. Next year, for the first time, the Ideas Festival will also present an Ideas for Schools program, especially designed for school groups. The Ideas Festival is presented by the Queensland Government with the support of major sponsors Griffith University and Brisbane Airport Corporation, as well as sponsors BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), CPR Communications, South Bank Corporation, QPAC and Dot Dash. A detailed festival program will be released in February. 10 Nov 2005 Ministerial Statement 3919

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Health, Disaster Management Planning Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.42 am): Recent events have put the spotlight on the preparedness of the states and territories to respond to significant national incidents. One key area is health disaster planning. Queensland Health participates in disaster planning at the national level and contributes to the statewide Disaster Management Plan. Queensland Health’s disaster plan covers all types of disasters and is used as a basis for planning health support to major events such as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the Rugby World Cup and the upcoming Queensland Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in 2007. Recent activities of the disaster plan include the tilt train derailment and the Asian tsunami and partial activities for the Bali bombings. The disaster plan is supported by district and facility plans which deal with a wide range of scenarios with subplans having been developed for specific health threats including an influenza pandemic, SARS and food-borne disease outbreaks. The Emergency Operations Centre within Queensland Health supports the operations of the disaster plan. As part of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards’ hospital accreditation program, hospitals are also required to maintain emergency plans and provide evidence that they have been reviewed and exercised. Queensland Health also maintains a unique pharmaceutical stockpile—and the Minister for Health has been dealing with this recently—to support a disaster response and has Australia’s largest fleet of aeromedical aircraft that can be rapidly deployed anywhere within or outside Queensland. All Queensland government departments are working collaboratively to ensure an effective and coordinated response to any major incident, including a terrorist related incident. I make that point very strongly.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Remembrance Day Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.44 am): In November 1997 the then Australian Governor-General, Sir William Deane, formally proclaimed 11 November Remembrance Day and urged all Australians to observe one minute’s silence at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month each year to remember those who died or suffered for Australia’s cause in all wars and armed conflicts. Today, I echo this call. More than 100,000 Australian service men and women have lost their lives in wars and conflicts over the past century. I encourage all Queenslanders to wear a poppy during November to remember those Australians who died at war and to celebrate the continuation of life and the wonderful freedom that we enjoy in this country. Recently, I had the honour of launching the RSL’s Poppy Appeal. As part of that, I highlight to the House that wearing a poppy is a way of showing respect to those who served our country in all conflicts right up to the present. I seek leave to have the details of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. All proceeds from the sale of poppies help the RSL with working to support veterans and their families. Last year, the Appeal raised almost $575,000, with about 400,000 poppies being sold. This year, the RSL is hoping to sell more than 500,000 poppies to raise $750,000. I was very pleased to launch the Appeal in a ceremony in the Queen Street Mall. The Queensland Government gave the Poppy Appeal a kick-start with a $25,000 donation. In addition to this once-a-year honouring of those Australians who died or suffered in war, the Queensland Government made a re-election commitment to spend $1.5 million over three years to fund restoration of memorials such as statues, cenotaphs, honour rolls, gardens, fountains and gates as well as some special buildings. This scheme will help ensure that these memories are kept alive and that our heroes are remembered not just once a year but throughout the year. This year 44 memorial restoration projects will be restored throughout the state, attracting total government grants of almost $350,000. 3920 Ministerial Statement 10 Nov 2005

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Palm Island Select Committee Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.45 am): On 24 March this year I announced my plan to establish a parliamentary Palm Island Select Committee, which was supported by the government and this parliament. The committee was established on 19 April. Its purpose was to examine local government arrangements, look at barriers to the provision of council services, explore measures to speed up infrastructure development and develop options to improve services for young people. I would like to thank all members of the select committee for working closely with the people of Palm Island to find a way forward. The committee tabled its report in parliament on 25 August and today I table the government’s response to the select committee’s report in parliament. The committee made 65 recommendations relating to strengthening the capacity of the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council, land tenure, housing, education, employment and training, transport, health, policing, alcohol and youth. The government response provides a detailed government position on each of these recommendations. Of the 65 recommendations, 57 are supported unconditionally, with many being progressed. That means that the government is giving total support to 88 per cent of the recommendations of this bipartisan committee. The recommendation to establish a community and cultural centre is not supported. I am not persuaded that an arts and cultural centre should be prioritised when more than $5.5m has been invested in the multipurpose Palm Island Community Youth Centre. However, my government does appreciate the importance of ensuring that cultural activities are supported and promoted. Arts Queensland has indicated its willingness to work with the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council to develop a cultural plan that will identify arts and cultural priorities. I seek leave to have the details of my ministerial statement, together with the key initiatives being undertaken by the Queensland government on Palm Island, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. There are three recommendations which are partially supported as they may be progressed through other means. These recommendations are to establish an Indigenous knowledge centre, a sport and recreation association and a diversion from custody centre. Funding has been provided for a cell-watch program on Palm Island, which may be a more appropriate response than building a diversion from custody centre. The government supports enhanced negotiations with the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council and community and has agreed to hold further discussions regarding the alcohol management plan with a view to finalising it in January 2006. I am pleased that many of the committee’s recommendations align with current government initiatives designed to promote better service delivery and opportunities for the Palm Island community. Indeed, my government continues making progress on improving infrastructure and service delivery, including: recruiting an alcohol and drug worker to help deal with the effects of alcohol, with a second worker to be recruited shortly; funding a Cell Watch program; operating a new school and community bus from the Palm Island Community Youth Centre; and establishing the government coordination centre for Palm Island. I take this opportunity of tabling a full list of key initiatives under way on Palm Island. Most recently, the government provided $14,500 under the Community Governance Improvement Strategy to address the immediate water issues facing Palm Island. This includes the engagement of a plumber to address any water leakages in housing and infrastructure, and minor repairs to . $150,000 is available for improving the water infrastructure on Palm Island in the long term. The government is committed to improving outcomes for the people of Palm Island, and I look forward to working with the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council and the Palm Island community to continue improving outcomes for the people of Palm Island. Key Initiatives being undertaken by the Queensland Government on Palm Island include: 1. The Government Coordination Centre has been established (a review of its first three months’ operation found that it improved the interface between the government and the council). 2. The school/community bus has been fully operational since August 1. 3. The delivery of a ‘young nippers’ program by Surf Life Saving Queensland has been funded on a recurrent basis and will start in this summer’s surf lifesaving season. 4. A full-time preparatory year of schooling at Bwgcolman Community School and St Michael’s Primary School will start next year. 5. An Indigenous Community/Police Consultative Group has been established. 6. A temporary police station and watchhouse have been constructed. 7. Youth activities have been provided by the Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association and the Red Cross. 8. Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council has appointed Scott McDougall as a temporary resource officer from September to November 2005 to help build its capacity to negotiate more effectively with the state government. This temporary position is funded by the state government. 9. A draft community based economic development action plan has been endorsed and accepted by Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council. Further refinements are being made prior to its finalisation. 10 Nov 2005 Ministerial Statement 3921

10. Housing condition information and demographic data has been collected to inform the draft Housing Improvement Plan for Palm Island (it is anticipated this will be finalised in December 2005, following negotiation with the community). 11. A new plan to improve housing results for Indigenous communities has been endorsed by government. 12. Significant progress has been made on the Community Governance Improvement Strategy (including finalising Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council’s Performance Development Plan in April 2005 and starting a Councillor Training Program with five modules already delivered). 13. Construction on accommodation for Department of Child Safety, Alcohol and Other Drugs Services, and Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy workers has commenced. Work is also well under way in relation to: finalising the Land Use Plan; establishing a Cell Watch program; developing Palm Island partnerships to improve service delivery; conducting a feasibility study for a family friendly social venue; examining land tenure options; developing the sponges aquaculture project; and developing a crossportfolio infrastructure maintenance plan. Further work will continue in consultation with the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council and community. Before I move off this issue, one of the most difficult problems that we confront in relation to Palm Island—and this is regularly reported to parliament by the local member, Mike Reynolds, and also key ministers—is the issues involving land use, land tenure and the provision of infrastructure. I want to say that we will work very closely with Indigenous communities, but we need to get the provision of infrastructure right. At the moment, some of the issues relating to land tenure are delaying the provision of government infrastructure and, therefore, services to Indigenous communities. This government is determined to do everything it can to assist Indigenous communities reach their full potential. But I want to identify these land tenure matters as a major problem up front. Last Monday, cabinet spent a significant amount of time in its meeting discussing this issue. We want to signal very clearly to Indigenous communities that we want a partnership. We want to work with them. But some of these land tenure issues are directly impacting on our ability to provide services— everything from ambulances, to fire service, to schools, to health services, housing, child protection workers—and the list goes on. We have to resolve these bottlenecks. The select committee dealt with this issue. I want to thank them, but we need to have a clear understanding up front that we have to resolve some of these issues. Otherwise, we will continue to delay the provision of infrastructure. I do not think that is good enough.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Crime Rates Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.49 am): Finally, I want to make reference to one matter that I think is of importance to the House. Yesterday, the minister for police tabled the latest police commissioner’s report in relation to statistics involving a drop in crime. I congratulated the police and the minister yesterday. But I want to make this point. I notice that the opposition leader has criticised the clear-up rate for home break and enters. In my view, he was desperate to find something to criticise from the report of the latest crime rates, which indicated, for the fourth year in succession, a drop in the crime rate. The fact is that there was a 17 per cent drop in break- ins to homes. The clear-up rate for home break and enters is more than 40 per cent better than when Mr Springborg was a minister in 1997-98. When Mr Springborg was a minister, the clear-up rate was 12 per cent for home break-ins. The coalition government, of which Mr Springborg was a minister, failed to provide the extra police officers it had promised. Since we formed government in 1998 we have provided at least 300 extra police every year. Overall, crime rates across the state are down and the clear-up rate for home break-ins has increased to 17 per cent. We have just had another example of Mr Springborg providing a half-truth. It is all very well to try to criticise, but he really has to watch his own backyard first.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Health System, Recruitment of Health Professionals Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.50 am): The Beattie government recognises that recruiting more doctors and nurses to Queensland is the key to rebuilding the public health system. Our $6.4 billion health action plan anticipates around 1,200 additional staff will be recruited to work in Queensland’s public health system over the next 18 months. That includes 300 doctors, 500 nurses and 400 allied health professionals. Yesterday marked a major milestone in our 3922 Ministerial Statement 10 Nov 2005 recruitment drive when the state government’s $633 million pay offer for Queensland’s 3,800 salaried doctors employed in public hospitals was accepted and certified through a majority vote. However, it is merely the first step in promoting Queensland as an attractive place to work for health professionals. We realise that it will take a lot of hard work on many fronts to achieve our recruitment targets. That is why we are actively recruiting doctors and other medical professionals within Queensland, in other states and territories and overseas. It is not an easy task given we are competing in a global market for doctors who are in short supply the world over, not just in Australia. But our recruitment drives are starting to reap dividends, especially in the United Kingdom where Queensland has been very active of late. Members will recall that the Premier launched a major recruitment campaign in London on 20 September 2005 to attract UK based doctors to come and work in Queensland’s public hospitals. To date, we have attracted expressions of interest from 297 doctors, 70 nurses and midwives and 63 other allied health professionals. Senior Queensland Health staff also conducted interviews with prospective medical staff across three major UK centres from 25 to 27 October, and again during the recent Opportunities Australia Expo in London on 28 to 29 October. Preliminary feedback indicates that 215 interested professionals visited the Queensland Health stand at the Opportunities Australia Expo and there was an overwhelming interest from doctors. Expressions of interest to work in Queensland were received from 56 doctors and dentists, 73 nurses, 44 allied health staff and six pharmacists. Through the interviews conducted so far in the UK, a total of 40 doctors have been identified as being suitable for employment in Queensland Health and have been passed on to prospective employment hospitals. Queensland Health representatives will also attend the British Medical Journal’s careers fair on 2 to 3 December as well as host information evenings for interested candidates in the week leading up to the careers fair. The government is working just as hard at home to attract doctors to work in our public hospitals. To date, Queensland Health has offered 1,693 positions for doctors in 2006, including 931 registrars, 240 principal house officers, 220 senior house officers, 287 junior house officers and 15 provisional fellowship doctors. Queenslanders deserve to be treated by the best possible health staff. These latest results bode extremely well for our commitment to deliver a world class public health system.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Federal Industrial Relations Legislation Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (9.53 am): The disciples of the Howard WorkChoice Reforms are now coming to the aid of the Prime Minister as his approval rating sinks and outrage against this legislation grows. The president of the Business Council of Australia and formerly one of Australia’s highest paid executives, Michael Chaney, has predicted that the uproar over the legislation will subside over the coming year. Mr Chaney told a gathering of accountants in Perth this week that the proposed WorkChoice changes are ‘not radical reforms’ but continue a process of deregulation and simplifying agreement making that began 20 years ago. Mr Chaney said,— I think in a year’s time people in the workforce will look back and say, ‘What was all that noise about?’—because life continued as we knew it. Further, he said— What I object to about this debate, and I think the unions have been pushing this quite hard, is that there ought to be an ‘us and them’ mentality—that the interests of employees and employers is different. What an amazing statement! This proposed legislation will not only pit worker against employer, but worker against worker. This comes from the head of an organisation that is spending a fortune on television advertising backing the extreme Howard reforms. Well, I can safely advise Mr Chaney that the Queensland government is totally committed to overturning these draconian laws. We have been told that the Fair Pay Commission is not making a decision on the minimum wage until spring of 2006. This means that, when the decision finally comes down, it could be up to 17 months after the Industrial Relations Commission’s last wage rise, in June this year. It should be noted that the WorkChoice bill has no requirement for the Fair Pay Commission to take into account the amount of time since the AIRC’s safety net decision. This is despite the federal government making this assurance on numerous occasions. In June this year the commission awarded Australia’s lowest paid workers a $17 per week pay rise. Taking this figure as a guide, a similar rise delayed next year for, say, 20 weeks would cost these workers upwards of $350. All this on top of the fact that if the Howard government’s submissions to the AIRC wage hearings had been accepted over the years it has been in office, the lowest paid workers would now be $50 a week worse off. But what if the employers’ case had been accepted every time? Well, the poor old worker would be $95 a week worse off today—which is nearly $5,000 per year. Will this be what we can expect in the future? This and other unfair aspects of WorkChoice are exactly why the Queensland government and workers and their families, will not roll over and accept these extreme industrial relations reforms. 10 Nov 2005 Ministerial Statement 3923

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Coastal Management Plans Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (9.56 am): Climate change, particularly any increases in temperature, is likely to impact on our coastline, with rising sea levels. No longer can climate change be brushed aside as a scary story told by extreme greenies. It is a reality and very many Queenslanders know that now. What we also know, of course, is that most Queenslanders live along the coast. That is why the Environmental Protection Agency’s State Coastal Management Plan and more regionalised coastal management plans are being developed now—they are so vital. These coastal plans will help all levels of government to ensure new developments are in areas that will not be vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We need to be smart and to plan now. Climate change, I might say, is particularly relevant to my own electorate of Cairns. Information from my department tells me far- is the only region that is expected to go against the trend of becoming drier. The far north is expected to have more intense rain; to become warmer, including the waters of the Great Barrier Reef; and to have more frequent and intense extreme weather events, such as flooding and cyclones. This has implications for disaster management, as most far- northern towns, infrastructure and resorts are located in low-lying coastal areas. Climate change will affect us all. From today, Queenslanders are being invited to have their say on how their state should address and adapt behaviours to deal with climate change. We are seeking feedback from communities to share their views on how best to prepare for it. We have worked with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines to produce the Climate Smart Adaptation paper, which seeks to both increase awareness associated with climate change and identify future options to adapt to the changes. I want to thank my ministerial colleague, Henry Palaszczuk, for leading this submission through cabinet and for providing the expertise of his department. I encourage all members to read the paper, which we are distributing today, and I ask them to encourage their constituents to participate in this important discussion.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Climate Change Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (9.59 am): Queensland’s lifestyle and economy, not to mention its spectacular natural environment, is envied the world over and much of this is due to our climate. However, over the past 100 years, Queensland has become progressively hotter and drier. Thanks to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from human activities, climate science suggests that this trend will continue. Most of us have heard the climate change projections: we are likely to experience more droughts, reduced soil moisture and soil viability, a higher and more prolonged risk of bushfire and more intense tropical cyclones. Sea levels will rise and there will be increased risk of flash flooding, landslides and severe erosions from extreme weather events. Queensland’s unique biodiversity is also expected to be significantly affected by climate change. But, importantly, Queenslanders’ lifestyles are also set to change. For example, it is predicted in the next 25 years that Brisbane’s average climate will be more like Rockhampton and Mackay’s climate will be more like Townsville. More hot days mean more heat related stress and illness, which will have particular effects on the elderly, in schools and on those who work outdoors. Hotter weather also increases the risk of food related sickness through water-borne diseases, as less rain means decreased water quality. We will all need to learn how to live with such change. Like the honourable minister for the environment, I would encourage all members to read the paper, and also distribute it, and encourage constituents, including schoolchildren, to make their contributions.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Rail Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.00 am): Rail is heading for a major revival in this country, and QR is right at the forefront. Rail is on the national agenda as a safer, more environmentally sound and better alternative to road. It has lower greenhouse gas emissions, cheaper infrastructure and, with one general freight train equal to around 32 semitrailers, it significantly reduces congestion on our roads. QR now operates in a nationally competitive market for rail, and it is continuing to build on its competitive advantage as the only remaining fully integrated rail business in Australia. 3924 Ministerial Statement 10 Nov 2005

I am pleased to report on the positive results in QR’s financial and operational performance. QR is already Australia’s largest freight hauler and continues to set new annual records. Indicative results show that QR has carried at least 175 million tonnes of freight in its ninth consecutive year of growth. QR firmly intends to remain Australia’s leading coal and bulk freight transport provider. This year QR acquired CRT, a major national forwarder, offering integrated logistic solutions across road, rail and sea. It is a bit like government: while the opposition fights, we deliver; while PN, Toll and Patrick fight, QR delivers. The acquisition provides a building block for expansion plans and will bring QR closer to establishing a true Cairns to Perth interstate rail freight service. QR is also making its mark in the interstate coal industry. It is hauling coal in the Hunter Valley on a 10 million tonne a year contract won through an international tender. Profits are going into Queensland’s schools, teachers, nurses and police. Through its national and international marketing group, IQR, it has been awarded an alliance contract for $20 million to lay track on the new Epping to Chatswood rail line in . IQR has helped export QR’s expertise to more than 25 countries worldwide. QR has signed a memorandum of understanding with Vietnam Railways. Vietnam Railways intends to carry out a modernisation program involving refurbishment of rolling stock and the upgrade of its track signalling and communication systems. It is an interesting thing to be at Hanoi railway station and see the old diesel hydraulics with the QR logo on them. It exports to the world. We have also tasted success in the open market in Queensland. For example, the 110-kilometre spur line that links Xstrata’s new Rolleston coalmine with QR’s existing rail line near Blackwater in central Queensland is completed—delivered two months ahead of schedule. It is expected to haul around eight million tonnes of coal annually. That means jobs for central Queensland and royalties and freight profits for QR—more teachers, more nurses, more hospitals and more police are being paid for as a result of this. Although QR is keenly focused on building a national rail business, it is still as strongly committed to Queensland as ever. QR transports coal from 32 Queensland coalmines, translating into more than 460 train services per week. It is expecting to haul about 200 million tonnes a year as early as 2007-08. QR has shown it is a leader in transport solutions for the coal industry, winning every contract it has tendered for. QR has a five-year, $3.5 billion investment program, including rail infrastructure projects, upgraded and new rolling stock to meet the ongoing demand and anticipated growth in Queensland’s coal industry. Of the total figure, $1.8 billion is made up of projects already under way or in the planning stages, including the Blackwater System Enhancement Program, which incorporates the 110-kilometre Bauhinia line and track duplications. Other planned projects include the Minerva Coal Development Project and the construction of a third balloon loop at the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. A further $1.7 billion is earmarked for longer term planning projects, which are expected to be under way or at planning stage by 2010. It just keeps getting better. This includes the 78-kilometre Northern Missing Link, which will help connect coal mines in the Goonyella system with the Abbot Point coal terminal near Bowen. Detailed feasibility works for the missing link are currently under way and are expected to take 12 to 18 months to complete. Construction will take a further 24 to 30 months from approval by the operators. QR is also building its skills base for tomorrow. There are around 400 apprentices and more than 400 trainees working for QR. This is not only about investing in the future of the young people we hire and train but also about investing in the future of QR. The 12,600 people who work for QR—the drivers, station staff, ticketing officers, maintenance workers and all QR staff—are valued. Their professionalism underpins the continued success of the organisation. As I said, rail is heading for a revival. As minister, I want to make sure that we are in a prime position to take advantage of the opportunities that come with the expected swing. This year QR is 140 years strong. I believe one of the major reasons behind QR’s longevity is its ability to reinvent itself in order to respond to changing conditions. I am a very proud minister of QR.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Arson Offences Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.05 am): Over the past five years police have had considerable success cracking down on arson offences and arson rates are on the decline. Last year was no exception, with yesterday’s annual statistical review showing the number of arson offences in Queensland in 2004-05 fell by three per cent. These are good results. However, police have no intention of becoming complacent. This summer, police will be asking for the community’s help in cracking down on arson offences through the Arson Reward Scheme. This scheme offers rewards of up to $25,000 to people who contact Crime Stoppers with information about arson that leads to a conviction. Rewards may also apply for information leading to a conviction in circumstances where attempted arson is involved. A joint initiative of the Queensland Police Service, Crime Stoppers and the Insurance Council of Australia, the scheme is designed to encourage people to provide information to police on fires where arson is involved. 10 Nov 2005 Ministerial Statement 3925

Arson and fraud related arson are serious crimes that put lives and livelihoods in jeopardy every year. Police have identified a range of motives for deliberate fire setting, the most common being fraud, vandalism, crime concealment and revenge. Last financial year there were 1,488 recorded arson offences in Queensland. By offering greater incentives to the public to provide information on these offences, police are hoping to further stamp out arson in our community. We know that these crimes can, and do, endanger lives, not only the lives of the property owners but also the lives of firefighters, volunteers and police officers. They also place a significant financial burden on our communities. The Arson Reward Scheme aims to provide a deterrent to arson and arson fraud, as well as providing information to assist police in the investigation of deliberate fires. We know that giving information to Crime Stoppers works. Since its inception in 1989, calls to Crime Stoppers have resulted in 77 charges of arson. Last year there were seven arson related charges resulting from calls made to Crime Stoppers. It is hoped that the Arson Reward Scheme will provide an even greater incentive to people with information on arson offences.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

School Sport Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) (10.07 am): This morning I want to recognise some of the state’s most dedicated professional educators—the many teachers in Queensland who are involved in school sport. Last night I had the pleasure of recognising a number of these talented educators at the annual Queensland School Sport Award presentations in the function rooms in the Parliamentary Annex. Teaching involves a lot more than just walking into a classroom and delivering a lesson in a single discipline. These dedicated teachers have committed an enormous amount of their spare time to coaching young people in many sporting disciplines, serving on committees and organising school sports. Most of this has been done in their own time with no reward other than seeing the enjoyment and benefit it brings to young people. Last night five educators were given life membership of Queensland School Sport in recognition of their efforts. The five recipients were retired principals Rod Bathe from Nerang State School, Phil Hall from Mount Gravatt State High School and Dave Wilkinson from State High School, retired teacher John O’Keefe from Palm Beach-Currumbin State High School and current teacher Steve Parle from The Cathedral School in Rockhampton. Their recognition brings the number of Queensland School Sport life memberships awarded since 1925 to 137. In addition to these awards, another five teachers received service awards for their contribution to their school sports teams or sports committees over the past 10 years. Most adults are aware that physical activity is vital to good health. Regular physical activity lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease and reduces coronary risk factors. There are also positive social benefits—involvement in sport or physical activity can increase self-esteem and self- confidence. For many students, their first opportunity to get involved in sport occurs at school. In fact, in many rural communities, school provides the only access for kids to play sport. Through the efforts of our dedicated teachers, 22 school sports conducted Queensland championships this year. From these championships, 59 Queensland representative teams were selected to attend national or interstate events held throughout Australia. In both secondary and primary school sport in the past year, Queensland teams made it to between 80 and 90 per cent of all finals. At the end of this month the Pacific School Games will be held in Melbourne, and a substantial contingent of Queensland competitors will be competing in those games as well. I want to thank the many teachers and principals throughout Queensland who generously give their time outside normal teaching hours to organise and coach teams and coordinate regional, intrastate and national competitions. They are making a very real and a very positive difference to the lives of our young people.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Community Memorials Restoration Program Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (10.10 am): I am pleased to announce today that a further 44 Queensland icons will be restored under the Beattie government’s Community Memorials Restoration Program. Among these community landmarks are 29 war memorials, which makes this a fitting tribute ahead of Remembrance Day tomorrow. We must never forget the contribution made by our servicemen and servicewomen in times of conflict. These memorials ensure we maintain community pride in our history and help us celebrate the freedoms we enjoy today thanks to those who fought for us. 3926 Ministerial Statement 10 Nov 2005

This government made a re-election commitment to spend $1.5 million over three years on local restoration projects. This latest funding delivers on that commitment. The program helps fund restoration of memorials such as statues, honour rolls, gardens, fountains and memorial gates as well as some special buildings that symbolise a community’s heritage. In this round of funding, a total of $350,000 has been awarded for restoration projects around the state including $24,000 to restore the wrought iron capitals on the Anzac memorial fence in Townsville; $25,000 to restore the Monto Park and war memorial plaques; $6,125 to improve the Longreach cenotaph and surrounds; $6,590 to restore and upgrade the Mundubbera RSL community hall; $9,000 to repair the Windsor war memorial; $17,500 to re-establish the sinking base of the Sister Kenny memorial in ; and $9,600 to dismantle and repair the Sangster memorial in Ipswich. It is projects like these that make sure we preserve our unique history for future generations. The Community Memorials Restoration Program is administered by the Department of Public Works to subsidise the cost of restoration works undertaken by councils and community organisations. A dollar- for-dollar government grant is given in two instalments to match funds from the applicants. I congratulate all councils and community organisations who have been successful in this round, and I wish them all the best as they carry out their restoration works. I would also urge members to encourage local councils and community groups in their electorates to apply for funding under this program when it is made available next year.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

International Trade Show Assistance Program Hon. CP CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs) (10.12 am): I am pleased today to announce the successful recipients of the 11th round of the Beattie government’s International Trade Show Assistance Program grants, the ITSAP grants. Six ICT companies—Vigil Systems at Eight Mile Plains, the CyberInstitute at Spring Hill, the RSPCA’s Shelter Management Division at Fairfield Gardens, Smartype 88 at Milton, Laser Clear International at Gleneagle and Red Oxygen at Spring Hill are all to receive up to $5,000 each. Two ICT clusters, eSecurity Australia and eLearn153, both based in Newmarket, have been granted up to $10,000. This government established the International Trade Show Assistance Program in 2000 to help Queensland’s ICT and biotech companies expand their export opportunities by attending international trade missions and trade shows. Companies used the funding to access global markets, develop new contracts and partnerships, observe industry trends and competitors, and showcase their products and services to an international audience. Over the first ten ITSAP rounds, the Beattie government has helped 114 companies. Reports back from 110 companies that received funding in the first nine rounds include immediate export sales of $5.3 million and projected future export earnings in the vicinity of $297 million. This translates into a projected additional 1,043 new jobs over the next three years. A smart state exports smart products and ITSAP is helping smart firms maximise their overseas earning opportunities. I look forward to announcing more ITSAP grants in the coming year.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Tourism Industry Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (10.14 am): Tourism is one of Queensland’s largest industries. It is also one of our fastest growing and makes an increasingly significant contribution to our economic development and quality of life. Whether they live in the Whitsundays, Cairns, Townsville, Hervey Bay or other regional centres, Queenslanders know the value of the tourism industry. The industry employs more than 150,000 Queenslanders directly and tens of thousands more indirectly. To the end of the year June 2005, Queensland attracted more than 19.2 million domestic and 2.1 million international overnight visitors and 30.6 million day visitors. That is 135,000 visitors a day to Queensland. Collectively they spent more than $16.9 billion a year. Whilst domestic overnight expenditure in 2004 declined in and Victoria, in Queensland it grew by 5.7 per cent. Queensland experienced a 9.3 per cent increase in international expenditure in the same year—well above the national figure. Tourism reaches into every corner of Queensland and benefits are dispersed across the entire state. The Beattie government’s commitment to tourism is unmatched by any other state or territory government in Australia, and it is a record we are very proud of. As a government, we support sustainable development of the industry. 10 Nov 2005 Ministerial Statement 3927

This year the Beattie government embarked on Queensland’s first long-term tourism strategy. The Queensland Tourism Strategy will provide a broad vision and strategic framework for sustainable tourism and development over the next 10 years. It will capitalise on our unique advantages, set an exciting and innovative direction for tourism in this state, and make Queensland the destination of choice for both domestic and international travellers. The key to continued growth of the higher yielding international sector is air access. To this end, the Beattie government has a very proud aviation record. International seat capacity into Queensland has increased by almost 50 per cent over the past three years, or well over 19,000 extra seats per week. More tourists mean more jobs for Queenslanders. Tourism Queensland’s annual report highlights the advances made during 2004-05 and sets out our priorities for the coming year. The report chronicles a great year for the industry during a year of change for Tourism Queensland. I would like to thank Chairman Terry Jackman and his board, CEO Ian Mitchell and all Tourism Queensland staff for their great work during the year. Tourism Queensland is the best state tourism marketing body in Australia. I seek leave to table the report, which sets out TQ’s operations for 2004-05. Leave granted. Ms KEECH: The tourism industry continues to face many challenges. We cannot afford to take anything for granted. We need to continue to work with the industry and regional tourism organisations to maintain our competitive edge. We are doing that through the development of the Queensland Tourism Strategy, implementation of destination management plans and a range of other initiatives. Over the coming year we will continue to grow aviation access from key target markets through growing capacity from Japan and Korea, encourage non-stop services from China and work to increase services between Los Angeles and Brisbane. The Beattie government is laying a rock-solid foundation for tourism growth in Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Blueprint for the Bush Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (10.18 am): The historic 10-year Blueprint for the Bush being developed as a partnership between the state government and AgForce will be the subject of a special two-day symposium at the end of this week. The two-day symposium to be held in Toowoomba this Friday and Saturday will further consider and refine the range of issues to be covered in the draft Blueprint for the Bush to be released early next year. I would like to acknowledge the work of my parliamentary secretary, the member for Toowoomba North, in assisting me to progress this important state government initiative. The symposium will bring together people from rural areas and those with experience of rural areas to refine the large amount of information that has been gathered during the blueprint consultation period. The state government has established a unique partnership with AgForce, one of the state’s peak primary producer bodies, to develop the 10-year plan to support the sustainable future of rural and regional Queensland communities. Our commitment for a more sustainable rural future extends beyond the economic contribution made by our primary producers. We have adopted a whole-of-community approach because what affects one section of a community can impact on other areas. The symposium will be attended by community and local government representatives from across the state as well as a range of rural development and academic experts to flesh out some of the sentiments and stories raised during the extensive statewide consultation process. The blueprint is an important project with far-reaching potential benefits, so it was essential to get the broadest possible input on ideas and opportunities to see our rural communities through to future sustainability. While the state government is intent on doing what it can to support rural communities, some of the specific issues raised are outside state responsibility. Issues like telecommunications and remote area tax incentives are federal government responsibilities. These are real and relevant issues for rural people. The state government will work with communities as part of the blueprint process to have these issues addressed by the federal government. The draft blueprint document will seek to address the challenges and opportunities being faced by rural communities through a range of strategies including analysis of infrastructure gaps and innovative solutions, new service delivery models for improved service integration, state and local government service coordination, and smart work force planning to develop and retain skills. The draft blueprint is due to be released early next year with a final document expected to be approved mid-2006. 3928 Travelsafe Committee 10 Nov 2005

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Ambulance Service Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.21 am): Peter Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of the world’s largest ambulance service, the London Ambulance Service, visited Queensland recently. He told our paramedics about the lessons learnt during the London bombings in July this year. Mr Bradley met with the Queensland Ambulance Commissioner, Jim Higgins, and our paramedics. He gave a very interesting presentation at the Emergency Services headquarters at Kedron. It was a wonderful exchange of ideas. Mr Bradley’s information will play an important part in our preparedness and planning for major incidents and mass casualty events in the future. I would like to inform the House that Mr Bradley made a particular point of expressing his gratitude to the Queensland Ambulance Service for its role in establishing a staff support program for London paramedics. For the past 18 months the London service has used the Queensland Ambulance Service Peer Support Program. It was used extensively after 7 July to support London paramedics. I have had an extensive briefing from Paul Scully, the manager of our program in Queensland which is known as Priority One. A more dedicated public servant could not be found anywhere. His concern for his fellow workers is commendable. I can report that the satisfaction ratings of our paramedics who use the program are impressive. The satisfaction rating of those who sought professional counselling is 80 per cent, and the satisfaction rating among paramedics with the overall program is 73 per cent. The Queensland Ambulance Service’s Priority One program has also been the model used by the Newcastle and Scottish ambulance services in the UK, and by the Department of Child Safety here in Queensland. Our Priority One services include a 24-hour telephone number. This is for counselling, including self-referral counselling, critical incident stress debriefing, peer support, education and information sessions, gay and lesbian support, Indigenous employee support, and chaplaincy services. Obviously, for our program to be copied and used both here in Queensland and overseas shows that it is a system that works, and it works very well. Congratulations go to Paul Scully and his team at Priority One at the Queensland Ambulance Service. Keep up the great work, and keep our ambulance officers on the road.

SITTING DAYS AND HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.23 am): I advise honourable members that the House can continue to meet past 6.30 pm this day, the House can break for dinner at 6.30 pm and resume its sitting at 7.30 pm. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Motion agreed to.

TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE

Report Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (10.23 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Travelsafe Committee’s issues paper No. 10, Inquiry into vehicle impoundment for drink drivers. Drink-driving remains a significant cause of death and injury on Queensland roads. A high level of community concern also exists about drink-drivers who continue to drive illegally after being apprehended by police or disqualified from driving by the courts. It is worth noting that from 1 January 2005 to 31 March 2005, 85 people were charged with committing a second drink-driving offence within 24 hours of their initial offence. This figure does not represent the actual number of repeat drink-drivers during this period as the number of undetected incidents is unknown. While countermeasures to reduce drink-driving aimed at the entire community are extremely important, this inquiry will concentrate on interventions that target the convicted offender to reduce the chance of them reoffending. To this end, the committee’s inquiry will focus on the practicality of vehicle impoundment or forfeiture and ignition key confiscation as road safety countermeasures aimed at reducing recidivist drink-driving. The Minister for Police and Corrective Services has raised this matter with the Travelsafe Committee, and we are in agreement that they are more than worthy of investigation. I commend the committee’s issues paper to the House and urge all members to support the inquiry. 10 Nov 2005 Private Members’ Statements 3929

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Health System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.25 am): This government continues to con the people of Queensland on the issue of health. We have heard from the Minister for Health in the last couple of days about his 100 days of inaction because that is what it has been. When we were in Rockhampton, on 4 October the Premier said this in relation to the new Capricorn Coast hospital— I am happy to tell the member that, as I understand it, these negotiations have been resolved. We have peace in our time; we have happiness in our time. The Minister for Health will be making an appropriate announcement about where it will be built. I would be surprised if that did not happen before the end of this week. Now we have a situation where, more than one month down the track, there is still no announcement for the people of the Capricorn Coast about where the preferred site is, what has happened with those negotiations and when construction will start. This government conned the people of the Capricorn Coast at the regional parliament in Rockhampton when it sought to create an impression that something would be done about the health system and that hospital by the end of the year. This was all about protecting the ineffectual member for Keppel, Mr Hoolihan, who has been unable to deliver on behalf of his constituents. Where has the member for Keppel, Mr Hoolihan, been in recent times? What has he been doing to make sure that this commitment to an announcement of where this site was going to be, which was made over a month ago, is carried through? Where has he been? Nowhere! This was a con on the people of the Capricorn Coast by this government and by the member for Keppel. We want to see some action. We want to see this hospital built. We want to see some real commitment from this government, not just the weasel words that we have had to date. Ex-HMAS Brisbane Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.27 am): Last Sunday I had the privilege to experience first-hand one of Queensland’s newest and best adventure tourism ventures. Along with my colleagues Dean Wells, the member for Murrumba, John English, the member for Redlands, and Carolyn Male, the member for Glass House, I had the exciting opportunity to dive on the ex-HMAS Brisbane, which lies on the ocean floor five nautical miles off the coast of Mooloolaba. Even though I became an accredited diver in the 1980s, this was my first experience with wreck diving, so I was understandably excited at the opportunity to dive on the specially prepared ex-guided missile destroyer, which is 133 metres in length and was expertly sunk off the coast on 31 July this year. I was not disappointed. I think I speak for all my diving companions when I say that diving the ex-HMAS Brisbane was a unique and wonderful experience. Despite the short time the vessel has lain in her new home, she has become home to a fascinating range of aquatic life including barnacles and a variety of fish species. I am confident that the dive site will continue to become more and more fascinating over time as it serves its purpose as an artificial reef and becomes home to a growing variety of aquatic plant and animal life. The site is protected through its declaration as a conservation zone managed by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Time constraints limited our dive to an exploration of the bow section of the ship. It would take many more dives to fully explore the various sections that have been made accessible by cleverly designed cut-outs placed in strategic positions along the ship. But I can confidently say that the ex- HMAS Brisbane has added strength to Queensland’s reputation as a premier tourist destination and has certainly given our adventure tourism sector an enormous boost. We expect up to 10,000 divers to take the plunge every year, so it is a significant attraction bringing money, employment and recognition to Queensland as a premier dive destination. Finally, I want to thank the people from Scuba World in Mooloolaba, especially Ian and Simon, who supported and guided us on our most memorable dive. Erin House Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (10.29 am): Erin House is an organisation aimed at providing a number of services for women who have experienced domestic violence. In the old days Erin House would have been described as a women’s refuge, but in reality Erin House and its exemplary staff offer so much more—everything from counselling to accommodation, information and referrals such as legal, medical and financial. Most importantly, Erin House offers safety and security for women and their children who have nowhere to go and no-one to talk to. Erin House offers a haven for physically and emotionally abused women and their children and is a godsend for any woman who finds herself in such a traumatic situation. Unfortunately, time constraints mean that I cannot mention all of the great work that Erin House does and has done for the community over the years. I can say that we cannot function without it. The alternative for women would be too horrible to even contemplate. 3930 Questions Without Notice 10 Nov 2005

As a result of the rapid growth in population, there is an increasing need for Erin House and the assistance it offers. The organisation has come to the point at which additional housing is essential. Erin House has been trying for five years to access the necessary funding to allow the expansion of its premises and is currently turning women and their children away. As recently as last weekend, some families were having to be housed in tents and staff cars. To do this to an emotionally and physically battered woman is inhumane. I will be writing to not only the minister for housing but also the minister for women as well as their federal counterparts and the Cooloola Shire Council so that between each level of government funding can be garnered to allow this critical service to continue to meet the needs of the growing number of women in crisis. I believe it is a whole-of-government responsibility to protect and support battered women in our communities, and I call on all levels of government to work together in a bipartisan way to help Erin House. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I welcome to the public gallery staff and students of the Strathpine West State School in the electorate of Kurwongbah, which is represented in this place by Mrs Lavarch. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ferguson, Mr D Mr SPRINGBORG (10.31 am): I ask the Minister for Police and Corrective Services: can she confirm that convicted serial paedophile Dennis Ferguson has been arrested for offences allegedly committed against children in Dalby? Ms SPENCE: I can inform the House that I have been informed about a particular criminal action in the last 24 hours, and the Leader of the Opposition would expect me as police minister to be updated. I cannot comment on this particular action as it is currently before the court. If I do obtain legal advice to the contrary, I will be very happy to comment further in the House today. At this point I am unable to discuss the particular case. However, since the Leader of the Opposition has asked, I can say that this morning the police have provided me with a number of statistics on how we are going with the national child sex offender register. Currently there are 477 people on the register. Thirty people have been served recently with papers and will soon register. A further 463 people are in custody and have been identified as needing to be on the register after their release. Another 86 are in custody or in community custody and have not been served with their papers. I am very proud of the fact that we were one of the first states in Australia to get the national child sex offender register operating. It has been operating well. I am informed that the police are satisfied that most people on the register are fulfilling their reporting requirements. I am also satisfied that the police tell me that it is a useful tool for them to keep track of former child sex offenders. Specific officers are designated in each region in the state to keep a watching brief over people on the register who reside in their locality, and that is being done. We should remind ourselves as well that we were the first state in Australia to introduce the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act. We should remind ourselves that this is a unique act and it is working. This morning I have asked, although I have not received the figures, for the number of people in prison who have overstayed their sentences because they have been given extended sentences under this act. We are tough on law and order and we are tough on child sex offenders. We do not want to see the issue of paedophilia being made into a cheap political stunt by the opposition today. If I am given the legal advice that I can say more about this case, I will certainly come back into the House today and do so. Ferguson, Mr D Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to the fact that on 14 January 2005 she said in a press statement that ‘Ferguson is being watched’. She gave a guarantee that convicted serial paedophile Dennis Ferguson was being watched. I ask: if it turns out that this convicted serial paedophile has committed further offences and they have been proven to have been committed while he has been under watch, as per her personal guarantee will she do the decent thing and resign? Ms SPENCE: I absolutely stand by my statement of January this year. South-East Queensland, Future Development Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: with the future planning and development of south-east Queensland being very high on the government’s agenda, is the government working with organisations such as the Urban Development Institute of Australia, which has a strong interest in this work? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member, because he lives in that Ipswich corridor and is quite rightly concerned to ensure that the infrastructure is built for the future growth of his region and for his community. I thank Don Livingstone for that. He talks to me regularly about these issues. 10 Nov 2005 Questions Without Notice 3931

Mr SPEAKER: Please refer to the electorate he comes from. Mr BEATTIE: The honourable member for Ipswich West, Don Livingstone, talks to me regularly about these things and shows a strong interest in his community. Tomorrow I will be addressing the Queensland membership of the Urban Development Institute of Australia at the Brisbane Convention Centre. I am inviting them to work in partnership with the government to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to meet the future needs of south-east Queensland. Over the next 20 years the population of the region from Noosa south to the New South Wales border and west to Toowoomba will increase by one million people, and 250,000 of them will be in the honourable member’s western corridor, the Ipswich region. Increasing from about 2.7 million people today, by 2026 this region will be home to 3.7 million. Across the state the population will increase from just under four million to 5.3 million residents. The Regional Plan protects the natural attractions of the region while providing for development. The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program 2005 to 2026 is the most ambitious in Australia since Federation. It details more than 230 projects worth $55 billion. Nothing has happened like this in Queensland’s history. It is a first. This will help prevent water shortages, road gridlock, public transport stress and overstretched electricity works. The member for Ipswich West knows all about transport stress. It would be really nice if we had some action from the federal government in relation to the Ipswich Motorway. Some of the major projects include $1 billion for new hospitals on the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast; almost $2 billion for rail infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast, including an additional line through Landsborough to Nambour and a new line to Maroochydore; $1.2 billion for new busways in Brisbane; another $1.8 billion for 63 new schools; $590 million for a rail line from Corinda to Redbank and a new line to Springfield from Darra; $399 million for water mains and water treatment works; $107 million for water recycling projects; $500 million for a rail line to Coolangatta; and a $680 million road bypass for Toowoomba, depending on Commonwealth government support. This plan will be replicated on a smaller scale in other areas such as the Wide Bay-Burnett district. Our recent mini budget contained details of a further $2 billion commitment to infrastructure projects over the next four years. This includes $1.3 billion for the Gateway Motorway upgrade and major electricity upgrades. In addition, we are currently examining five future potential industrial land sites under the South East Queensland Regional Plan. We will build the new Queensland. That new Queensland will be built on the back of the south-east Queensland plan, the infrastructure plan to go with it and our other plans. Ferguson, Mr D Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Can the minister tell the parliament what she did in reality to ensure convicted paedophile Dennis Raymond Ferguson was being watched after the press release of 14 January 2005? What did the minister actually do to ensure that this person was being watched in a way that would prevent him from assaulting further children in Queensland? Mr SPEAKER: Just be a little bit careful with some of the comments being used here this morning. I think you know what I mean. Just be a bit careful. Ms SPENCE: I continue to make the point that I am not going to prejudice a court case by discussing particular matters. It would be very irresponsible of me to do so. I would warn people not to jump to conclusions until they hear the facts about this matter. When those facts come out they may find themselves looking very stupid. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. My question is about the actions the minister took or did not take in January, when she put out the press release. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr SEENEY: I think it is a valid question. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, please resume your seat. You have asked the minister a question; the minister has responded to your question. Child Protection Mrs REILLY: This issue is too important to trivialise. Can the Premier and Treasurer tell us what the state government does to protect children from paedophiles? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Mudgeeraba for the question. This is a very serious issue. I know that she, along with all members of this House, is concerned to ensure that we protect our children. I inform the House and assure the community that Queensland has some of the toughest and most effective laws in the nation, including laws relating to sexual offenders and serious violent offenders. 3932 Questions Without Notice 10 Nov 2005

In 2003 my government removed the principle of prison as a last resort for people who commit sexual offences against children. No other state has yet achieved this. We also have the toughest penalties for those offences. Queensland was the first state to introduce specific legislation that permits the Queensland Police Service to conduct operations to detect paedophiles using the internet to procure children to engage in sexual acts. We also introduced the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 that provides a regime for the monitoring of sexual offenders in the community through the recording of personal details, vehicle identification and travel information. The Criminal Code (Child Pornography and Abuse) Amendment Act 2005, passed in March 2005, overhauled the state’s child pornography laws and doubled the maximum penalties. We also introduced the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act, which allows people committing such heinous crimes to be detained indefinitely following the end of their prison term. Crimes involving violence are dealt with more harshly by the law. When we brought in the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act we were attacked by some civil libertarian groups because we had taken away people’s rights. My government stands by what it did then. It was the right thing to do. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I warn you under 253. Mr BEATTIE: We withstood the challenges in the courts and elsewhere. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I said I warn you under 253. Mr BEATTIE: The reality is that the civil libertarians who attacked us on that occasion were wrong. We will use the law to continue to protect children against paedophiles. As I said, crimes involving violence are dealt with more harshly by the law. Where an offender is declared to be a serious violent offender, the law provides that they must serve at least 80 per cent of their sentence before they can be paroled. Everyone wants our children to be safe. Sexual offences committed against children are amongst the most abhorrent crimes in our society and no decent person would support anyone who engages in that level of activity. The fact is that this government has enacted Australia’s strongest antipaedophile laws. These laws include a new law that can block the release from prison of dangerous paedophiles who have not reformed, even after they have done their time in line with their sentence. In fact, just recently the government blocked the release of an 84-year-old paedophile because of fears that he would reoffend. That is now the law. We stand by that law. The government has also introduced legislation to ensure that the judiciary considers a term of imprisonment for all sex offences committed against children. John Tonge Centre Mr McARDLE: My question is for the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I table 40 media reports from early 2003 to October 2005 raising very serious concerns about the John Tonge Centre including long delays in testing DNA and drug samples, a review that was meant to clear the backlog but did not, an increase in funding by $5 million and complaints by legal practitioners and magistrates about court delays. As the first law officer of Queensland, can the minister advise what action her department specifically took during this time to ensure courts were not delayed in hearing matters and determining the guilt or innocence of those accused? Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the honourable member for his question. In relation to the John Tonge Centre, the Queensland forensic and scientific services centre, a ministerial task force was set up after matters of concern were raised in relation to that centre. The John Tonge Centre is the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Health, but the ministerial task force combined the portfolios of Health, Police and Justice and Attorney-General to look at the issues arising from the centre. The outcomes of this report are publicly available on the web site and are primarily the responsibility, as I said, of the Minister for Health. My department is progressing amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act as recommended in the report. These amendments will: require the defence to state whether it will contest the fact that methylamphetamines had been produced with seized equipment; insert an evidentiary aid to remove the requirement for scientific testing of sealed proprietary pharmaceuticals unless challenged by the defence; and clarify that a certificate is admissible as evidence of the identity of drugs even if it does not contain an actual quantity of drugs. A number of amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act were recommended as a result of the inquiry conducted by the ministerial task force. In relation to the matters before the court, I am only aware of one matter that was not proceeded with, and that was publicly reported. The government has acted on concerns raised in relation to testing at the John Tonge Centre. The ministerial task force report is a comprehensive report. It covers a number of areas including, as I said, those matters in relation to drugs and also in relation to DNA. 10 Nov 2005 Questions Without Notice 3933

Reform and Development Unit Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer to the creation of the Reform and Development Unit under Professor Stephen Duckett and the fact that around 24 new administrative positions have been created in this unit. What amount of recurrent funding is required to maintain Professor Duckett’s Reform and Development Unit? Is this money that could have been spent on giving patients timely surgery in our public hospitals? Mr SPEAKER: Just before the Minister for Health responds, I ask members to please turn off microphones. Members are switching them on too early, and this affects the microphone of the speaker on his feet. Please, do not turn on the microphone until you are called to speak. Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. As the honourable member should know—if, of course, he has actually read the quite extensive report from Peter Forster into our public health system—the division that he referred to in his question was a recommendation by Peter Forster. What we are doing, through the appointment of Professor Duckett in leading that reform group, is ensuring we have the intellectual grunt in Queensland Health to carry through those necessary reforms. In fact, the appointment of Professor Duckett, who is recognised throughout Australia as one of the best thinkers when it comes to the delivery of health service policy in this state, was welcomed by the vast majority of people who choose to make comments or have anything to do with our public health system. There were, of course, some naysayers, as one would expect. When appointments like this are made, it seems that unless particular people get their preferred candidates up they take it upon themselves to criticise the process or have certain things to say. But I can assure the honourable member in terms of concerns that have been brought to my attention that I met with the AMA, as did my director-general, just last week. I assured them that the appointment of Professor Duckett to that position was in the best possible interests of driving the reform agenda in Queensland Health. I have been noting this new-found fiscal concern by the Liberals about allegations of throwing money at the problem in Queensland Health. In fact, just yesterday they put out a press release titled ‘Robertson exposes Beattie’s health plan as “just throwing money”’. I am a bit confused, because I seem to recall members opposite saying that there was insufficient funding for Queensland Health. In fact, they said that as recently as 19 October. They said it on AAP as recently as 4 October. Dr Flegg said it as recently as 29 September in this House. They repeated it again on 24 August. They did it on 28 June. They did it on 15 April. They did it on 7 April. It goes on. All of those statements were made in press releases or in this House by the Liberal Party spokesperson or the Leader of the Opposition. They criticised this government for not spending enough money on our public health system. What did we do? We found the extra money—$1.5 billion extra in year five. What do they say now? They say that we are just throwing money at the problem. Once again, they have been caught out. Once again, we cannot trust them. Unemployment Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: My question is for the Premier. Could the Premier advise what the latest unemployment figures are for Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to do that. One of the benefits of daylight saving is that these figures, which are usually released at 11.30 am, are released at 10.30 am. That is another very great benefit for our southern states. That means that I can share with the House the news that Queensland’s trend unemployment rate is down to 4.9 per cent for October. Do members remember that we said we would have a target of five per cent unemployment? Queensland’s unemployment rate is 4.9 per cent. The Australian unemployment level is unchanged at 5.1 per cent. Queensland is the engine room of Australia. I produced the statistics earlier. For years we have been making John Howard look good. We are happy to do that in the national interest. I am quite happy for Queensland to make Australia look good, because we are all Australians. In October in Queensland 2,300 jobs were created in comparison to 300 jobs lost across the whole of Australia. In other words, 2,600 jobs were lost in the rest of Australia. Queensland’s participation rate—that is the number of people looking for work—is 66.6 per cent, which is a very, very high figure. The annual jobs growth for Queensland is 3.9 per cent compared with 2.8 per cent nationally. In the past year Queensland accounted for 27 per cent of jobs growth nationally. Bearing in mind that Queensland has less than 20 per cent of Australia’s population—just over 19 per cent—the figures for Queensland are extraordinary. How has this growth in employment come about? Because of good fiscal management by this government—very clear, sound fiscal management and balanced budgets. It has also come about because of our Smart State Strategy. The Smart State Strategy has made us, and it continues to make us, the engine room of Australia. Previously I talked about exports. I talked about the strength— Opposition members interjected. 3934 Questions Without Notice 10 Nov 2005

Mr BEATTIE: The members opposite can interject, but our figures are better than those of the rest of Australia. If we are at the top of the mark, we are leaving the others behind. It does not matter how much politics the National Party wants to play. If Queensland has better figures than the national average, then it has to be dragging the rest of Australia along. Members opposite should just get used to that. Queensland is dragging the rest of Australia along. No wonder 200 people come here to live every day! I will return to the point. I ask members to think about the strategies—Smart State strategies. A few years ago we did not have an aviation industry. We now have more than 6,000 people working in aviation who did not have those jobs six years ago. This morning I highlighted for the first time that export education is worth more than $1 billion. We set that target and we reached it earlier than the time we set down. If members look at the new industries that have been created, they can see what is happening in Queensland. The Smart State is delivering. Mr SPEAKER: A mistake was made before. The member for Callide jumped to his feet. I did not know he was on the speaking list, so I did call two opposition members one after the other. I will rectify that by calling the member for Mansfield. Queensland Health Mr REEVES: My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister inform the House of any recent progress made in fostering a new workplace culture of respect and integrity in Queensland Health? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Queensland Health has made much progress in developing a new code of conduct to reflect the new values of the organisation: caring for people, leadership, respect, integrity and public service. To begin this process I tabled a draft code of conduct in parliament just last month. The draft code is a working document that we have used to obtain and consider the feedback that we need to make the final document the best possible code of conduct for Queensland Health employees. A copy of that draft has been posted on the Queensland Health web site with an email link to enable feedback from staff. My director-general has asked all district managers to make paper copies available to staff who do not have internet access. So far, around 100 Queensland Health staff members have taken advantage of the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft code. The feedback has been constructive and positive. I thank everyone for their contributions. I encourage any Queensland Health employee with an interest in their workplace to have a look at the draft code and tell us what they think. I can assure them that every piece of feedback has been read in confidence and given due consideration. Copies of the draft code have also been circulated to health unions and other stakeholders, such as the Integrity Commissioner, for their input as well. I want the new code to be the result of a genuine partnership between Queensland Health, the health unions and our employees. In October an interest based bargaining team comprising representatives from Queensland Health’s senior management and health unions also considered the draft code as part of its work on Queensland Health’s workplace culture. The team believes that a number of issues about the code need to be addressed. We will act on the feedback from the team and continue to work with health unions on that code. Cultural change is not easy to achieve in any organisation, let alone an organisation as large and as diverse as Queensland Health. However, I believe that the new code, when it is completed, will represent a significant platform for achieving change and it is an important step forward in improving Queensland Health’s workplace for staff and management. That can only be a positive outcome for the thousands of Queenslanders who access our health services each and every day. Gympie Bypass Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is for the minister for transport. No doubt he is aware of the response from residents in my electorate regarding the proposed routes for the Gympie bypass. What assurances can the minister give my constituents who are concerned about the proposed bypass corridors that they will not be railroaded into accepting a route that they do not support? Will the minister agree to personally meet with my constituents in order to listen to their concerns about the proposed routes? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. Many of us, the honourable member included, are very much concerned about the issue of the Bruce Highway and in particular that section of the Bruce Highway between Cooroy and Curra—around the Gympie region—which is acknowledged to be the worst section of the National Highway in Australia. Recently the Australian Automobile Association published comparative safety performance data for national highways as part of its Australian road assessment program. There are two indicators of safety performance on the Bruce Highway between Yandina and Gympie. It is the only section of the 10 Nov 2005 Questions Without Notice 3935

National Highway which scores a high risk in both categories. In other words, the worst section of the Bruce Highway—the National Highway in Australia—is located in the electorate of the federal transport minister. Road statistics from November 2002 to November 2005 along that stretch of highway indicate that 25 fatalities, 119 hospitalisations, 148 injuries and 200 property damage incidents have been reported. That has to stop. As I have said repeatedly in this place, there is one solution and one solution only and that is a Gympie bypass. This issue is about how we build that bypass in a compassionate and sensible way. What is the state of the road that we are talking about? Of course, the member would know the current alignment of the road. It is a two-lane road in rolling terrain with limited overtaking possibilities. There is not really a possibility of widening the road to any great extent on its existing alignment. Rural sections of the highway carry up to 14,000 vehicles a day while a section within Gympie carries 20,000 vehicles a day with growth at five per cent per year. Of course, this highway is a major thoroughfare to Cairns, Townsville and all points in between. I know the local member has been very active in this matter. I appreciate her view on the issue. Indeed, the Gympie Times has campaigned on the need to upgrade this road. I note that over the past couple of days it has published a number of articles about this issue. The paper has not actually spoken to me in regard to them. It has not given me the opportunity to comment on them. But I welcome the interest of the Gympie Times in the Bruce Highway. I also say that we will go out there and talk to the community about various proposed routes. That is all about listening to the community; it is all about getting their ideas. If the honourable member has people who speak with her and she would like to have a meeting with them as individuals and with me, I am more than happy to do that, because this road is the worst section of the National Highway in Australia. I am more than happy to meet those people, just like I met with the people of Tugun. We sat down and tried to work out the issue. In terms of the consultation for that 65 kilometre-long section, the federal government is looking at a 30-year horizon, but I think we have got to get there soon. We will know the route in the middle of next year out of the five options or, indeed, what the community throws up in the consultation process. We have maps being circulated widely. I understand that there are some concerns about some of that mapping information. I am more than happy to take on board the views of the community. This is about getting it right. But I have got to say this: I make no apology for asking the federal government to meet their responsibilities when it comes to this section of the National Highway. I do make this apology: ultimately, there will need to be land resumptions—it is about consulting with the community in relation to them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Redlands, I welcome to the gallery staff and students of the Forest Lake College in the electorate of Algester, which is represented in this place by Ms Struthers. Police, Firearms Training Mr ENGLISH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. I heard the comments made last week by the opposition leader about firearms training for police in that the government has failed to provide information about compliance levels. Minister, how many of Queensland’s police officers are accredited in firearms training and what are the statistics in terms of the training that they have to do each year? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Redlands for the question. As a former police officer, he is well aware of the situation concerning firearms training in our Police Service. Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition is getting a bad track record on getting statistics right. Yesterday I released the annual statistical review, and we had a very good story to tell in terms of a reduction of crime in this state—in fact, one of the best reduction levels in crime we have seen for a long time. But what does the Leader of the Opposition do? He goes out and criticises the clear-up rates achieved by the police. He goes on the statewide media and says, ‘You’ve only got a two out of 10 chance of getting your robbery cleared up if your house is robbed.’ I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I got an email from a lady who said that she saw him on TV saying that. She thought it was an incredibly irresponsible thing to go out there saying, because all he is doing is inviting would-be thieves to do some more house robberies. But let us have a look at the real statistics. Under the National-Liberal government, the clear-up rate for robbery was 30 per cent. Now it is 46 per cent. Clear-up rates for other offences against a person, which included offences such as extortion, kidnapping, deprivation of liberty and stalking, were 42 per cent under the opposition. Today they are 63 per cent. Assault clear-up rates have improved from 68 per cent under the Nationals to 78 per cent under this government. As I said yesterday, there are good and bad figures in terms of the annual statistical review when one examines them by region and district throughout the sate. But, all in all, it is a good story and I am very sad to see the Leader of the Opposition go out and criticise police efforts in this regard. 3936 Questions Without Notice 10 Nov 2005

In September the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about firearms training compliance levels within the police. My answer to him at that stage was that I could not provide accurate data because the police officers were midway through their firearms training semester. So what did he do? He chose to ignore that detail. He went out with guns blazing. He issued a media release last week claiming that we had no idea how many police officers are accredited with firearms training. That is simply wrong. He is embarrassing himself yet again, because police officers know better. As of 1 September, 7,830 officers were issued with a Glock pistol and 7,430 had attended and completed training. This represents a 95 per cent compliance rate. The police will never achieve a 100 per cent compliance rate, because at any time there will be officers on extended leave or in non- support roles. So a 95 per cent compliance rate is absolutely where they think they should be. I will tell members, though, that we also spent $200,000 last year on training and we spent $850,000 on ammunition. Queensland Health Advisory Committees Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the creation of an advisory committee by his new director-general and also the creation of an advisory committee to Professor Duckett’s Reform and Development Unit, and I ask: how many VMOs are on each of these committees, and will the members of the committees be paid? Mr ROBERTSON: I think this matter was discussed during the last parliamentary sitting. If I recall correctly, it was explained that the committee that was established to advise the director-general is not a broad committee. It is actually an internal committee. That is why we got, if I recall correctly, 150 applications for the 17 positions to sit with the director-general to discuss workplace issues in Queensland Health. So that is why, in terms of the 17 people who were selected, on this occasion there may not be representation from VMOs on that committee. However, in our meeting with the AMA just last week when we actually worked through these issues, it was explained that, because there had been such a heightened level of interest—150 applications for these 17 positions—there would be a regular roll-over of membership of those committees so that as many people as possible who have an interest in Queensland Health will get an opportunity to sit around the table with the director-general to talk about the issues that are important driving reform. That is where we are going with it. We are actually trying to be as open and transparent as possible. There is no agenda to exclude anyone. There is no agenda, but frankly because of the heightened level of interest in the reform agenda that we are driving so many people in Queensland Health are putting up their hands. They are wanting to be part of the solution. They are wanting to come on board and actually drive reform. That is actually welcome. I think that is a tremendous outcome, given where we have been over the last six months and something I think you should actually celebrate, member for Moggill. I think the member for Moggill should actually come on board and start being a bit more positive about the future for Queensland Health, because the work force is. They are putting up their hands saying, ‘We want to part of the reform agenda. We want to make a contribution.’ That is why, when we met with the AMA just last week, we explained to them that there will be a number of levels— at state level, at area level, at district level. We will be maximising the input by clinicians into the decision-making process. Even those people who missed out on this occasion in terms of setting up that level with the director-general will have a second bite at area level and they will get a third bite in terms of contributing at the district and hospital level. This a new age for Queensland Health. Earlier today I spoke about the new draft code of conduct and the positive response—over 100 responses from the work force in Queensland Health putting forward their ideas as to the new code of conduct. Some 150 put up their hands to be on the committee. The future is looking very good. Public Transport Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. On Tuesday the member for Chatsworth claimed credit as a former Brisbane City councillor for public transport patronage increases. If the increase in patronage is due to Brisbane City Council initiatives, then presumably there would be no increase in public transport patronage outside the Brisbane City Council area. Could the minister advise the House of the success or otherwise of state government public transport initiatives in south-east Queensland and, in particular, whether this success is confined to the city of Brisbane alone? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is an avid supporter of public transport and, I might say, public transport staff in her electorate. It is always interesting to read what the member for Chatsworth says here. I am glad that he entertains us with his farrago of falsehoods, fictions, fallacies and the like. The other day he said that nothing happened under the Labor council during 13 years of neglect. I actually think that is really interesting, and the minister for natural resources does as well, because I can remember that under the tories there was no Brisbane City Council bus service for the people of Wynnum or the people of Inala. Isn’t that a surprise! We have had excellent cooperation from Campbell Newman as the mayor of Brisbane—far more cooperation, I suspect, than 10 Nov 2005 Questions Without Notice 3937 we would have got had the member for Chatsworth been the mayor of Brisbane. I also say this: TransLink happened on 1 July last year and no-one did more to facilitate TransLink in its planning stages than Maureen Hayes and the Labor council of Jim Soorley and Tim Quinn. We have had excellent cooperation from both Lord Mayor Newman and also the now Labor opposition when it was in office. So we work well with the council. Let us look at the big picture. Public transport increases from 2003-04 to 2004-05 have been 9.9 per cent—136 million passenger journeys on rail, bus and ferry in south-east Queensland. Why is CityCat usage going up? Because fares have gone massively down with TransLink. Who carries the bulk of risk in TransLink? The state government does. Patronage has increased significantly in not only Brisbane but also Caboolture and other areas. In Caboolture in 2004-05 patronage was up 59.2 per cent. The patronage of Caboolture Bus Lines alone was up 194.2 per cent. In Ipswich in 2004-05 patronage was up 61.4 per cent; Redcliffe, 25.3 per cent; the Sunshine Coast, 13 per cent; and the Gold Coast, 15.4 per cent. All of the work, no doubt, of the member for Chatsworth and the Brisbane City Council! Thanks very much, Michael! Maybe the member for Chatsworth knows something that I do not know about the Brisbane City Council expansion plans, and maybe he thinks he has some level of control over that area. The simple fact of the matter is that this is a partnership. The Brisbane City Council does and has always put more money into public transport than any other council in Queensland. We welcome that and we thank the council for that. But let us not get churlish. Do not gild the lily, because all it does is destroy the member’s already very ordinary credibility in this place as someone who is more of a factional hack than someone, unlike the mayor, who wants to work with the state government to sort things out. What are we going to do? We have not only our TransLink expansion plans but also our rail expansion plans—the CAMCOS corridor, the Springfield corridor, extensions on the Gold Coast, duplication from Mitchelton to Keperra, triplication from Kuraby to Kingston and then Salisbury to Kuraby. We have the busway network, the Boggo Road busway and the mayor’s green bridge. We have the eastern busway, and I think the honourable member might have some views on that. I look forward to hearing them. I know what he is up to! We have the northern busway. I look forward to hearing from him shortly. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Gladstone, I welcome into the gallery a group of people who have travelled from Fingle Head in northern New South Wales to the parliament of Queensland. Welcome. Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Premier. The LGAQ has received Queen’s Counsel advice that there is no constitutional constraint on holding a referendum on fluoridation of this state’s water supply in conjunction with the next state election. I table its press statements. On that basis will the Premier now postpone implementation of his fluoridation plans and ask the people of this state for their opinions on the issue of adding yet another chemical to their drinking water? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Gladstone for her question. If I understood what she said correctly—that is, that the Local Government Association, by way of news release, has indicated that there is no legal impediment to holding a referendum at the next state election—I assure her that that is contrary to all the legal advice that I have received to date. An opposition member: Can you table it? Mr BEATTIE: Do you mind? This is actually not your question. Would you please not be rude for once? I want to answer the member for Gladstone’s question. The reality is that the legal advice that I have been provided with over a period of time indicates that we cannot hold referendums in conjunction with state elections, and that applies to four-year terms, which I would like to do—and we have Liberal Party support for that. I would like to do that. I think that is worth while. I would like to have a number of referendums in relation to state elections. On the legal advice I have been given, that is not possible. Frankly, I have always been of the view that it is a crazy position and it comes out of an interpretation of our Constitution. Let me assure the member for Gladstone that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to hold a referendum on a number of issues in relation to the next state election date. One I would love to do is four-year terms. That is one of the reasons why I have indicated to the House—and I have written to the Prime Minister subsequently about this—that if we have a four-year term referendum we will have to do it in conjunction with the federal government when it holds one next and we would have a state and federal one. In terms of whether we are prepared to change our offer—which is a substantive offer to local government to pay the infrastructure costs for the introduction of fluoridation—the answer is, no, I am not and nor is the government. We gave a commitment in the mini budget that we would make available money—$6 million, if I recall correctly—to encourage local government to bring in fluoridation, to cover the capital costs. That offer still stands. We will continue to liaise with local governments and we will try 3938 Questions Without Notice 10 Nov 2005 to encourage them to introduce fluoridation. As the member knows, there are a number of communities in this state that already have it—including Townsville and a number of others. As I say, the people of Townsville do not look terribly poisoned to me, nor do the people of Thuringowa. They look pretty healthy to me. As I have said on a number of occasions, I have never seen anyone from Townsville glow in the dark. I say this with great respect to the member for Gladstone. We will get all sorts of nonsense argued about fluoridation. The member should remember that it applies in every state in Australia. That is my understanding. It applies 100 per cent in the ACT. I think it is about 90 per cent, if I recall correctly, in New South Wales and 77 per cent in Victoria. Why do we suddenly find this crazy argument against fluoridation based on some sense that it is going to hurt people? It has been going on for years and years around the world. What is going to improve the teeth of our children is absolutely clear. I do not wear this nonsense about it. I am disappointed we do not have support from the Local Government Association but we will continue to work with them because we are introducing it. Time expired. Renewable Energy Diesel Replacement Scheme Mr McNAMARA: My question to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women. There has been an outcry that the important Renewable Energy Diesel Replacement Scheme has been suspended. I am aware of numerous calls for it to extended. Can the minister explain to the House who is responsible for this important scheme being suspended in Queensland? Ms BOYLE: I thank the member for the question. It is a matter of some concern and confusion for many people, particularly in remote areas of Queensland. The Renewable Energy Diesel Replacement Scheme is a Commonwealth scheme. It is administered in Queensland by the Environmental Protection Agency, but it is a Commonwealth scheme and it has been a very good one. It was aimed at residents and businesses in areas outside the electricity grid and encouraged them to replace diesel generators with renewable energy. In most cases that means solar panels. The scheme provided a rebate of up to 50 per cent of the cost of installing renewable energy systems. It is important to understand that the Commonwealth put a finite amount of funding into the scheme. Due to the scheme’s popularity and aware that the money was running out, we negotiated changes to try to extend the life of the scheme. The main change which took effect in August this year was to reduce the rebate from 50 to 40 per cent. However, once people became aware that the rebate was reducing, there was a rush of applications. The EPA received about 270 applications in July compared with a normal monthly average of about 30. Available funding in Queensland has now been completely oversubscribed. As administrators, and that has been our role, we were left with no alternative but to suspend the scheme and no new applications are now being accepted. A public notice to this effect is being placed in local and regional newspapers. Funding from another Commonwealth scheme, the Working Property Rebate Scheme, was made available. However, even with this increased funding, currently about 170 applicants will not receive a rebate. The state government has received many letters mainly from renewable energy system installers who have commercial as well as environmental interest in the scheme’s continuity. But also we have received many letters from members of parliament and the public requesting that the scheme be extended. I absolutely support their calls. The letters, however, should have been directed to the Commonwealth government. A small bit of good news is that Commonwealth funding for diesel replacement has not been fully utilised in other states where the uptake has not been as great as in Queensland. I have, therefore, written to the Hon. Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, asking him to reallocate this unspent funding from other states to Queensland to meet existing demand. I encourage those concerned about the Renewable Energy Diesel Replacement Scheme to stand with me on this issue to make their plea to the Commonwealth government, to compliment the Commonwealth government on what has been done and to call for a continuation of this important initiative. Eastern Busway Mr CALTABIANO: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. I refer to the $530 million eastern busway in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and the recent secret briefing provided to Labor Brisbane city councillors at which a new route option north of Old Cleveland Road was presented. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please wait till the question has been asked of you. Mr CALTABIANO: This presentation directly conflicts with the advice from the Premier’s office to the South-East Advertiser where denials were issued about an alternative route to the already 10 Nov 2005 Questions Without Notice 3939 announced Old Cleveland Road corridor. Can the minister advise the thousands of people living in the suburbs of Coorparoo, Camp Hill and Carina whether his office is correct and there is an alternative route as advised to local councillors or the Premier’s office is correct and there is available no alternative route? Mr LUCAS: I will tell the House one thing: we will not adopt the planning process of the Liberal Party when it comes to any infrastructure that we build. I can assure people in the honourable member’s electorate that we will not actually decide the route on 2 December and then have preselections on 28 November on a Sunday at a motel in Ipswich, which is the way the Liberal Party conducts its planning for the future. We are very serious about this busway addressing the problems of the people in the corridor in that part of the world. We have 1,000 people a week moving to this state and many of them will be moving to the Redlands to enjoy the wonderful lifestyle there. If we do not do something about public transport on the Old Cleveland Road corridor, it will grind to a halt and people in the member’s electorate will be the majority of people suffering from that, as do people in Coorparoo. We have always made it clear that the corridor for the eastern busway will broadly follow Old Cleveland Road, and that is something that we will get out very shortly with the community and talk to them about. There are a number of things we want to talk to the community about with respect to the corridor and get their views. I note that the honourable member did not indicate that Councillor Schrinner was also briefed as a result of that. I know that he was briefed. I know that Councillor Schrinner has indicated that he is supportive of the busway. I know that he was the hand-picked candidate for the member’s ward. By 2016 the eastern busway could cater for more than 35,000 trips a day, requiring one bus per minute between Buranda and Carindale during peak periods. Mr Speaker, there are very many problems with it being on the Old Cleveland Road corridor in certain parts. Up in your electorate where there is the old tram corridor that is probably not so problematic, but we already have traffic issues at Coorparoo Junction and they are of great concern to the community. When we talk about the Coorparoo Shopping Centre and the future of the Megamart there, we need to be able to work with the Brisbane City Council to achieve an outcome for integrated planning and transport planning that will stop some of the problems we are having at Coorparoo Junction. What we want to do is talk to the community about it. We will talk to the community about their ideas broadly. If some of them think that the Old Cleveland Road alignment is the best, we want to hear from them. If some of them think another alignment is better, we want to hear from them. There will be consultation broadly within that corridor, not only on Old Cleveland Road. We will be out there talking to them very shortly about the potential benefits. In peak hour at the moment—and it will get worse as traffic volumes increase—on Old Cleveland Road it can sometimes take an hour to get into the city. It will be 15 minutes on a busway. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr LUCAS: Just look at the success of the South East Busway. It has been so successful that it is running at very high capacity at present. That is one of the great initiatives of this government. Indigenous Education, Thursday Island Mr O’BRIEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and the Arts. I refer to the Premier’s announcement of the historic community cabinet to be held on Thursday Island in early December, and I ask: what progress is being made to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous Queenslanders, particularly those on Thursday Island? Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for his timely question and his interest in the future of young people in the Torres Strait. I am pleased to advise that this week four Queensland state schools and three principals who have achieved positive outcomes for Indigenous students were honoured at a ceremony here at Parliament House. These high-achieving principals were recognised under our government’s Partners for Success program, which seeks to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. One of the principals recognised was Tony Considine from Thursday Island State High School. Mr Considine has increased the number of students staying on from year 10 to year 12 from around 40 per cent six years ago to 76 per cent today. Another principal recognised was Terri Davidson from Yarrabah State School, who has introduced strategies that have improved the literacy skills of his Indigenous students over the past year. Mr Tom Byrne from Inala State School has provided students in years 3 to 7 with one-on-one tutoring to improve their literacy skills. These principals are demonstrating by their actions that a big difference can be made to the lives of Indigenous students with the right approach. Each has achieved improvements in attendance rates and educational outcomes for their Indigenous students. The 2005 Partners for Success program also recognised four schools as centres of excellence in Indigenous education. These were Thursday Island State High School, Spinifex State College at Mount Isa, Redcliffe State High School and Yarrabah State School. These schools are working closely with their communities to improve educational outcomes for all their students. Under the Partners for 3940 Questions Without Notice 10 Nov 2005

Success program, we have been working closely this year with Cape York and Torres Strait communities on an action plan which should be completed by the end of this year, and next year each region in Queensland will have strategies and targets for the educational improvement of Indigenous students. Our government wants the very best outcomes for young Indigenous students. Our Partners for Success program is addressing the barriers and finding solutions. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Warrego, I welcome to the public gallery staff and students of the Forest Lake College, College Avenue Campus in the electorate of Algester, which is represented in this place by Ms Struthers. Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Mr HOBBS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer to the minister’s comments on 25 October in Hansard, in which he said— For the state government to conduct a statewide referendum at the next state election is constitutionally not possible. I have advice from a Senior Counsel which says that there is no legal impediment to the state government conducting a referendum on the issue of water fluoridation in conjunction with the next state election. The act provides for two types of referendums—(1) a referendum to submit a bill for an act to the electors and (2) a referendum to submit a question to electors. This is not a constitutional matter. Will the minister table the state Solicitor-General’s advice on which he has based his comments to make it clear that he did not mislead the parliament, especially in view of this latest opinion? Mr ROBERTSON: After what we saw yesterday, I thought that members opposite would use the time between the time allotted for their questions to rewrite questions that had already been answered. Had the member for Warrego been paying attention he would have known— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego! Mr ROBERTSON:—that the Premier provided a response in relation to that. I would refer him to the Premier’s comments Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, take your seat, please. Member for Warrego, this is the second time within this question that you have interrupted the minister. If you do it once more, I will have to take action against you. Mr ROBERTSON: I can only refer the honourable member and indeed the LGAQ to the response by the Premier, but if the member tables that legal opinion that would be more than welcome. I note that the LGAQ claims there is a link to that legal opinion on the web site, but that has not yet appeared. So, if the member could assist in any way by tabling the legal advice that he refers to, that would be a useful contribution to enable an informed debate. In relation to earlier matters referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, he claimed quite unfairly that in his view there had been no action taken with regard to Yeppoon Hospital. He was quite right. We did announce— Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, take your seat, please. What is the point of order? Mr HOBBS: I request that you rule that the minister’s answer is irrelevant. I did not ask anything about the hospital. I asked the minister a question relating to fluoridation, and I would ask for your ruling on relevance. Mr SPEAKER: My ruling is that the minister is entitled to answer the question in the way he sees fit. Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker, I move a motion of dissent from your ruling. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, I am getting a little sick and tired of the comments that are being directed at me from that side of the table. I just warn you now. We will take the motion on notice. I call the Minister for Health. Mr ROBERTSON: I believe I had about two minutes to go. In relation to the Yeppoon Hospital, I inform the House that the offer of purchase with respect to the land, as announced at the Rockhampton community cabinet, was made by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. That offer was rejected by the owner, who advised that three of the parcels were not for sale and that the fourth site was available but at a much higher price. Ministerial approval has been obtained to acquire the four sites by compulsory means under the Acquisition of Land Act. Prior to the owner being issued with the notice of intention to resume, the executive directors made a further offer to the owners. Unfortunately, the owner of the land is now overseas so we cannot proceed to acquisition until he returns. He has a right of response until December. 10 Nov 2005 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 3941

TIME CLOCKS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I inform you that the Speaker has a clock in front of him. I work from this clock. Earlier this morning the Leader of the Opposition objected to my allowing a crossbench member to make a two-minute speech. I pointed out to him that I use my clock. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, he accepted the fact that we work on the clock in front of me. Regardless of what the two clocks in the chamber say, this is the one that the Speaker and the temporary chairs work from. It is now 11.30 am. I did allow the Minister for Health to continue his answer to the question because there was some delay due to the motion being moved by the member for Warrego. Please allow the chair to conduct the affairs of this chamber.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.31 am): I move— That government business orders of the day Nos 1 to 22 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

REVOCATION OF PROTECTED AREAS AND FOREST RESERVES Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (11.31 am): I move— (1) That this House requests the Governor in Council to make a revocation by regulation of the dedication of protected areas and forest reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 of those areas as set out in the proposal tabled by me in the House on 29 September 2005, viz— (A) A proposal, under sections 32 and 70E of the Nature Conservation Act 1992, requesting the Governor in Council to make a revocation by regulation of the dedication of protected areas and forest reserves of: (a) Those parts of Crater Lakes National Park described as being the area illustrated red on drawing CNS05/ 048 (A) prepared by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and containing an area of about 0.31 hectares; (b) All that part of Expedition National Park, described as being an area below a depth of 250 metres from the surface of the national park; (c) That part of Grey Peaks National Park described as Lot 1 on plan SP178692 and containing an area of 1.549 hectares; (d) That part of Noosa National Park described as Lot 11 on plan SP161940 and containing an area of 1.422 hectares; (e) That part of Caloundra Conservation Park described as being within stations 1-2-4-5-6-7-1 on plan SP181240 and containing an area of 0.5822 hectares; and (f) All those parts of Nour Nour Forest Reserve described as being within stations 4-5-6-7-8-4, 9-12-11-10-9 and 13-16-15-14-13 on plan SP160530 and containing an area of about 2.6306 hectares. (2) That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament convey a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women for submission to the Governor in Council. I only support the revocation of land from the protected area estate for alternative uses if it can be clearly demonstrated that the proposed usage is in the broader public interest and that there is no practical alternative to the proposal. Careful consideration has been given to each proposal. In each instance detailed consultation has occurred with affected state and local government agencies and stakeholders. Native title issues have also been considered in relation to the above proposals. In each case it has been determined that the action may proceed. I will now outline the background for each proposal and the offsetting arrangements that will be implemented where appropriate. Crater Lakes National Park The first proposal is for the revocation of an area totalling about 0.31 hectares from Crater Lakes National Park, which is about 16 kilometres east of Atherton. The area proposed for revocation is to be used for the realignment of Lake Eacham Road. This action is part of a larger project involving the redevelopment of the day use area. It is necessary to divert traffic to improve public safety and to manage the area in a safe and effective manner. The proposal will allow for works to be undertaken, culminating in new improved amenities for the local community and visitors. This will be achieved by providing better parking facilities to accommodate up to 70 vehicles, a bus turnaround, a new amenity building, picnic tables and shelter sheds with landscaping, and allow for recreation zones to be developed in the planning context of managing different user group needs. No significant conservation values are affected by this proposal. The offset for this area to be added to the national park totals about 15.8 hectares, which is the balance of the unused road reserve. This action results in a win-win situation for all concerned and demonstrates this government’s determination to strive for good community outcomes. 3942 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 10 Nov 2005

Expedition National Park The action involving Expedition National Park is for a subterranean revocation 250 metres below the surface of the whole of the national park to allow for the extraction of coal seam gas. I wish to make it clear from the outset that this action, with its unique circumstances, is a one-off for this activity and does not set a precedent for same or similar activities over the protected area estate. This government is committed to supporting alternative energy sources but not when it is at the expense of the environment. However, there are no known significant conservation values affected by this action. The coal seam gas resource will be accessed by drilling beneath the national park from adjoining properties. When the coal seam gas resource is depleted, the subterranean component debated today will be returned to national park status. This is a sensible outcome for all parties. The conservation values of the national park are not affected, the gas resource becomes available and the public continue to enjoy one of the largest national parks in our state. There will be benefits to the local and greater communities as a consequence of this action. There is no offset with this action as there is no conservation impact. Grey Peaks National Park The Grey Peaks National Park proposal is for the revocation of an area totalling 1.549 hectares from part of the national park, which is about five kilometres east of Cairns across the Cairns Harbour. It will remove an area that has houses and farm sheds that were part of the East Trinity aggregation which was added to the national park. The East Trinity aggregation was originally purchased by the state to address a serious acid sulphate soil issue and to protect the green backdrop of Cairns. I thank the minister of the time who led that action, Jim Elder. The park, which is east of the Yarrabah Road of East Trinity, was subsequently added to the national park. The houses and sheds are not required for management purposes, so they can be available for community uses. Once revoked, this area will be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency as trustee until the area is taken up for community purposes. As the area contains houses and sheds, no conservation values are affected. Noosa National Park The proposal for the revocation of an area of 1.422 hectares from Noosa National Park, which is located about two kilometres south of Noosa Heads, is for road purposes. This proposal will allow for the completion of the final section of the Eenie Creek Road, which is part of a major east-west arterial road in the Noosa shire. Stage 2 of this project is nearing completion and, accordingly, stage 3 will follow on. The area surrounding the proposed revocation is suffering traffic congestion. The completion of this section of road will bring a long-awaited solution to this problem. The Noosa council donated land to the EPA in the early 1990s which was subsequently added to Noosa National Park. This section of land is known as ‘the link’ as it provides a corridor between the Noosa Heads and Lake Weyba sections of the national park. At that time Noosa Shire Council retained a corridor for a future road. The council advised that, as a result of recent studies, the proposed new alignment would have a lesser environmental impact than the original alignment. Considerable negotiations between the EPA and the Noosa Shire Council have resulted in a design change for the bridge and road spanning the heath land that dissects that national park. The bridge design has been increased in height and length to span the entire heath land section of the national park, and the outcome is to decrease the impact on the fauna and flora and water flow across the national park. Ground parrot protection screening will be installed on both sides of the roadway to the full length of the heath land. A substantial wildlife underpass on the western side of Burgess Creek has been included in the design, along with a purpose designed koala bridge overpass, which will be provided on the eastern side of the bridge structure. A fauna exclusion fence will be included on both the eastern and western sides of the bridge structure. The council also intends to implement a wildlife monitoring program with an emphasis on the ground parrot. The council hopes that community groups will support this monitoring program for which the EPA has offered to provide assistance in developing and establishing. This is a good outcome for the community and the environment where a necessary and important section of road is completed, while taking into account the delicate environmental issues affecting a highly visible section of national park. The offset for this action is that an area totalling 1.58 hectares will be added to the national park, and the Noosa Shire Council has agreed to bear all costs associated with this action. Although not part of the mitigation, an area of about 10.31 hectares adjoining the national park near Emu Mountain to the south will be added to Noosa National Park. Caloundra Conservation Park The proposed revocation area of 0.5822 hectares from the Caloundra Conservation Park is located about eight kilometres west of Caloundra. This proposal is part of the larger project—namely, to duplicate the remaining section of Caloundra Road from an existing two-lane single carriage way to a four-lane median separated road. The upgrade of Caloundra Road will involve approximately 3.5 10 Nov 2005 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 3943 kilometres of roadworks. The Department of Main Roads is undertaking the design and planning of the upgrade of Caloundra Road between the Bruce Highway and Westaway Road. Caloundra Road is the main road that connects Caloundra with Brisbane via the Bruce Highway as well as providing access to the Nicklin Way and communities to the north. The vegetation on the area to be excluded from the conservation park is classified under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 as not of concern, and no significant fauna or flora has been found. The realignment of the southern service road adjacent to the north-eastern corner of Caloundra Conservation Park includes a bridge crossing of the new Caloundra Road four-lane alignment joining the southern and northern local road network. The Department of Main Roads has designed this bridge for vehicles, fauna, local equestrian riders and pedestrians. The offset for this proposal is that all costs will be borne by the Department of Main Roads, including the survey and plan preparation, and the amount of $60,550, comprising $20,000 for the purpose of other suitable land for addition to the protected area estate and the balance being for fencing, signage and weed control. Nour Nour Forest Reserve. The final proposal is for the revocation of an area of about 2.6306 hectares from Nour Nour Forest Reserve for road purposes and is located about 52 kilometres south-east of Monto. The purpose of this proposal is to realign part of Kerwee Road. This is the only sealed section of road between the towns of Eidsvold and Mount Perry and, hence, has a higher usage than other routes. Kerwee Road carries significant amounts of traffic and this revocation is required for safety reasons to remove an S- bend in the road and replace it with a sweeping curve. An investigation into the vegetation on the areas to be excluded found no significant fauna or flora and the area is classified as not of concern. The offset for this proposal is that the council will bear all costs for the revocation, which includes survey and plan preparations costs along with $3,840 for the revoked land. I encourage members to support this motion. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (11.44 am): I rise to second the motion. I support the revocation from part of Noosa National Park as it allows for the completion of a major arterial road project. That project is part of the Noosa Strategic Plan, which has been ongoing since the late 1980s. This is clearly a good outcome for conservation as the area being exchanged is of higher conservation value, is more ecologically significant and is best managed as part of the protected area estate. This part of the Noosa region suffers from traffic congestion, and the completion of stage 3 of the Eenie Creek Road project will assist in alleviating this problem. Council has worked closely with the government on the environmental issues affecting this action, and the final bridge design goes a long way to protecting the fragile wet heath ecosystem. The two major fauna species found in the wet heath land are the acid frog and the ground parrot. The significantly revised bridge design agreed to has been extended to span the entire heath land section of the national park, preserving habitat that would otherwise have been lost. The bridge grading provides for additional clearance to both the wet and dry heath land that will allow for future movement of the acid frog, the ground parrot and other fauna species throughout the national park. The height of the parrot protection screen on the bridge will be 3.1 metres high and will span the length of the bridge. This is a good example of the government being able to work with the local council for sound beneficial outcomes for the community. Whilst there will be a loss from the national park of 1.422 hectares, this has been offset with an area of 1.638 hectares. The area being revoked in this instance is the minimum area necessary and is a sound, logical and practical solution when all aspects are taken into account. This action proves yet again that this government responds to the many demands of various public needs in a way that places high value on the environment but also acknowledges and encourages the economic and sustainable development of the state. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (11.46 am): I rise to support the motion before the House and, in particular, the revocation of land which lies within the boundaries of the Expedition National Park. The Expedition National Park is one of Queensland’s biggest national parks, covering approximately 110,000 hectares. It is located in Expedition Range, 128 kilometres, or two hours drive, north-west of Taroom in Central Queensland. While I have never visited Expedition National Park, I am well aware of its existence as it lies just to the south of the southern boundary of the Fitzroy electorate, south of Bauhinia Downs. I am told that the area was inhabited by local Aboriginal tribes for thousands of years before Europeans first explored it in 1844. In fact, it was Ludwig Leichhardt who first passed through the area on his way to Darwin. Through research on the internet, I was able to find out that the area is, in the main, inaccessible except for properly equipped and experienced bushwalkers. The attractions of the national park include excellent bushwalking and the enjoyment of being in the bush and mixing with the flora and the fauna that inhabit the area. Tourists are drawn to Expedition National Park to visit Robinson Gorge, which holds within its steep rocky walls the secrets of previous Aboriginal habitation. Expedition’s 110,000 3944 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 10 Nov 2005 hectares are split into four sections: Lonesome, Robinson Gorge, Bielba and Fairview. These sections are well known to local families who have grazed cattle in the area. In July 2001 the EPA, with Commonwealth funding support, acquired the adjacent Lonesome pastoral holding for inclusion in the Expedition National Park. Once gazetted, this holding will link the four sections to make a single national park. The additional 10,000 hectares will increase the size of the Expedition National Park to around 120,000 hectares. The revocation now the subject of debate is for a subterranean revocation from beneath the whole of the national park area below a depth of 250 metres. This will allow for the extraction of coal seam gases by drilling underneath the protected area from adjoining parcels of land. This can happen by drilling horizontally for extreme distances below the surface to develop a series of bleeders which will drain gases to a central collection point where the methane gas is captured and under pressure sent down gas pipelines to meet industry demands. It is taking advantage of a resource that exists within deep coal seams. The extraction of coal seam gas is seen as a growing industry both locally and interstate with far-reaching benefits for regional communities through jobs and flow-on benefits that come with those types of developments. The revocation has been negotiated to resolve any uncertainty and to avoid a contingent liability with Santos Ltd. It allows the company to continue extracting coal seam gas to supply the Queensland market and once the resource has been taken it is intended that the subterranean revocation will be reinstated into the Expedition National Park. The outcome of the revocation is a win for both parties. Queenslanders can get to keep important national park, the miner gets to extract gas and there is no conservation impact. I understand that there is a precedent, although the environmental consequences could be significantly different through subsidence from the mining activities as may happen in the case of the precedent that has already been set. In 1998 Cudmore National Park near Alpha was gazetted to a depth of 50 metres below the land surface. The situation was that the park’s eastern limit coincided with the western limit of a measured and indicated resource of coal. The gazetted 50 metres ensured further underground mining would not be impeded. The two revocations for the purpose of accessing a resource have separate environmental consequences for the area above where the resource lays in situ. On this occasion there are limited, if any, environmental consequences and therefore every reason to support the provision of ongoing access to a resource while at the same time providing for a protected area for preservation. I am satisfied, given the comments made earlier by the minister, that the appropriate consultation with local government, land-holders and native title interests has taken place and I support the motion before the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (11.52 am): I rise to offer the support of the opposition to the motion that is currently before the House. At the outset let me state that the opposition recognises that revocations are necessary from time to time and the excision of sections of a national park is sometimes unavoidable. However, I strongly believe that the decision to excise part of a national park must only be undertaken after very serious consideration and extensive consultation with the local community. There are a number of national parks that are affected by the revocation motion that is before the House and I will mention each of them briefly. It is proposed that the Grey Peak National Park on the eastern side of Cairns will have 1.5 hectares excised. I am advised that the land for this particular national park was purchased under a joint state-federal arrangement some years ago. Unfortunately, it seems that surveying work was not accurately conducted when the park was gazetted and as a result the national park encompassed an area of cleared caneland, a small shed and a house. Obviously this is not consistent with national park principles and it is therefore proposed to excise this particular section of the park and allow local community groups to utilise the house and shed. It will be particularly interesting to see which community groups manage to gain use of that house and shed. In the ministerial briefing, which I must congratulate the minister on, a local Landcare group was one of the frontrunners. Approximately 2.6 hectares are proposed to be excised from the Nour Nour Forest Reserve near Mount Perry. I understand that this was a proposition put forward by the local council to assist with the realignment of an existing road and improve public safety in that area. Similarly, 0.6 of a hectare of the Caloundra Conservation Park is to be excised to improve public safety near the Bruce Highway. The Noosa National Park will have 1.4 hectares excised for the purpose of realigning a previously identified road corridor. Many years ago I visited the Noosa National Park. It is a very, very beautiful park. Apparently the Noosa National park was declared in 1939 and covers more than 4,000 hectares and includes areas surrounding Lake Wyeba, Peregian and Coolum. As the coast becomes more developed this park is becoming increasingly important for nature conservation and protects several rare and threatened species. As mentioned on the EPA web site— Noosa National Park features spectacular coastal scenery— I will have to attest to that— and provides an important refuge for native wildlife including the koala, glossy black cockatoo, ground parrot and wallum froglet. 10 Nov 2005 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 3945

My Grandad always told me that if one sees black cockatoos in the trees one can expect rain. I am looking forward to those glossy black cockatoos visiting my property. Approximately 1.3 hectares will be revoked from Crater Lakes National Park. I understand that there is an existing road reserve between Lake Eacham and Lake Berrine and in conjunction with the local council there has been a proposal to upgrade the carparking and picnicking facilities which necessitates the removal of a small section of the park. I am advised that while 6.5 hectares in total are to be revoked from the national parks and forest reserves, as I have just mentioned, an estimated 17.5 hectares will be added to the protected area estate in land swaps. I support this approach. No doubt it goes some way to easing any concerns that local members or the local community may have regarding revocations. Of course, given the lack of survey work that was done prior to the gazettal of the Gray Peaks National Park I would hope that any land swaps are undertaken only after rigorous scientific assessment to ensure that the parcel of land is consistent with the rest of the protected area estate. I would particularly like to refer to the revocation proposed to occur at Expedition National Park south of Carnarvon Gorge. I am advised that extractions of coal seam methane are currently occurring in the state forest and freehold land which borders the park. The revocation is designed to ensure that extractions can continue uninhibited under the surface of the national park without affecting the park itself. I understand that this is the first time that this has ever been undertaken and I applaud this approach. Of course, I am very interested as to what sort of precedent this revocation may have. While I welcome the opportunities made available to this particular company, it does raise the question of whether other companies will be offered similar opportunities either now or in the future. I have to admit that I was not au fait with what coal seam methane was used for. I understand that the chemical formula for the methane is CH4 and it is formed as part of the burial of peat to form coal. Biogenic, or bacterial activity, methane forms at shallower depths and thermogenic, or burial peat methane, at greater depths. Mr Palaszczuk: I will give you a briefing later on. Mr MESSENGER: Okay. The methane remains attached to the coal. The methane is held in the coal by burial pressure and water. Because of natural fractures called cleats, coal has a large internal surface area. Coal is therefore capable of holding larger volumes of gas than conventional sandstone reservoirs. The amount of gas present in a coal seam depends on the depth of the seam, the thickness and the extent to which the fracture system is interconnected. I note that in May 2002 the Queensland Energy Policy: a Cleaner Energy Strategy required 13 per cent of Queensland electricity to be generated from gas by 2005. As the minister would be aware, the statewide forest transfer process has raised some concerns in the resource and mining sector regarding the opportunities that will be made available to the industry to explore and possibly extract prior to this land being transferred over to national park. I would be interested in hearing the minister’s view as to what rights the mining industry will be granted in these former state forest areas and if the minister envisages that these types of subterranean revocations will be replicated in the future. I commend the motion. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (11.59 am): It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of this revocation motion. I note that I am speaking immediately after the member for Burnett, who gave us an impassioned explanation of how methane works. I want to put on the record my delight at hearing that, because I cannot imagine any other member of this parliament who would be better qualified to speak about methane. I support this revocation motion primarily because of how it relates to the Noosa forest park. It is a wonderful part of Queensland and a wonderful part of Australia. On a number of occasions I have spoken to the member for Noosa about how much I enjoy spending time in that forest park. This revocation motion today will make sure that people continue to enjoy the delightful environmental values of that part of Queensland. I have also spoken in this place previously about my desire to see the genuinely wonderfully good part of the Noosa River—the bit that has not been destroyed by idiots on jet skis, jet boats and God knows what else—protected in the long term under our wild rivers legislation. I genuinely believe that 80 per cent of that river could be considered wild. I would like to see that stretch of the river protected in the future under our wild rivers legislation. I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest to the minister a couple of national parks in Queensland that could really use some extra funding. I think next year is the centenary of national parks. Do I have that right? Ms Boyle: 2008. Mr LEE: 2008. I think in the lead-up to 2008 there is a wonderful opportunity for the government to make some excellent announcements about some extra funding for national parks throughout 3946 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 10 Nov 2005

Queensland. I will stay tuned for them. In particular, I would love to see some extra money for the Daintree. At the moment some interesting things are happening at a national level. The federal Liberal and National parties have control of the Senate. That has raised a number of concerns. People are concerned about industrial relations, terror laws and everything else. I think this situation allows us an interesting opportunity to discuss in a meaningful way exactly how federalism relates to a number of significant policy areas. I think we need to have a genuinely informed national debate about how we look after our national parks. A lot of people come to this country as tourists to spend time in Queensland’s national parks. These parks draw money into Australia. People fly to Australia, their plane lands in Sydney, they spend some time in Sydney or Melbourne and then they come to Brisbane and spend some time in Brisbane and other areas of Queensland. But what draws those people to Australia are Queensland’s national parks. I think we have been gypped by the federal government in terms of funding for these national parks. People throughout Australia gain a great deal of economic benefit from the tourists our national parks draw to this country. I do not think we are getting our fair share of funding from the federal government. I think we have an ideal opportunity to debate the issue of federalism and how it relates to national parks. I think it is a genuinely good way for Queensland to get the same amount of money out of the federal government that would be provided to state based parks in other countries throughout the world. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (12.03 pm): I seek clarification on one point relating to the Caloundra Conservation Park. I apologise for not being in the House when the minister made her contribution. I heard what she had to say over the monitor in my office. As I understand it, this revocation is going to be used to allow the widening of Caloundra Road. It is really related to that purpose alone and perhaps also to the construction of an intersection between Pierce Avenue and Caloundra Road to facilitate that road widening. That is the only point that I ask the minister to clarify. Is the revocation, in fact, for the widening of Caloundra Road and also the interchange that will occur around that area? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Copeland): Order! Before calling the minister I recognise in the public gallery students and staff from Strathpine West State School in the electorate of Kurwongbah. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (12.04 pm), in reply: I will make only some brief remarks in response. I thank all members who have spoken in support of these revocations. In particular, I recognise the considered presentation of the opposition spokesperson, the member for Burnett. I thank him, too, for his support. In relation to the revocation of part of Caloundra Conservation Park, the member is correct: it is for the upgrade of Caloundra Road and the realignment of the southern service road adjacent to the north-eastern corner of Caloundra Conservation Park, which includes a bridge crossing of the new Caloundra Road four-lane alignment joining the southern and northern local road network. This revocation has been well consulted. I am pleased to offer the member for Caloundra further and more detailed briefings should he wish to have them. I will respond to the issue raised by the member for Burnett in relation to the mining arrangements for exploration in national parks. I confirm that these are most unusual arrangements. They came about in unique circumstances. The proposed revocation has been negotiated to resolve uncertainty, to avoid a contingent liability with Santos Ltd and to allow it to continue extracting coal seam gas to supply the Queensland market. Nonetheless, the implication of the member’s comments was that there is a tension between mining activities and national parks. He is quite correct. National parks are not places for mining activities. Therefore, I hope I was very clear—and I certainly reiterate this—that national parks, as pristine environments, should be set aside for conservation purposes and mining activities are not appropriate. Therefore, this revocation is not to be regarded as a precedent in any way. I also make a slight correction to some other remarks that the member for Burnett made. It is easy to be confused about the purchased land to the east of the Grey Peaks area under discussion today. It was, in fact, a purchase under a Commonwealth-state agreement. However, I am proud to say that this particular land was purchased entirely by the Beattie government of the day. As the member for Cairns, I know the area well. I know how very well this action by the Beattie government, under then minister Jim Elder as the minister for state development, was received in the broader Cairns and far-northern community. It is an area of badly degraded land. Since the land was purchased, the responsibility for it has been transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency. We are working in a scientific and steady fashion on the remediation of the acid sulfate soils. In fact, I look forward to updating all members of the House on our progress to date and our future plans for East Trinity in the near future. It offers some potential opportunities for a kind of scientific ecotourism development in the years ahead. But it is entirely to the credit of the Beattie government that the land was purchased and turned into national park. I thank all honourable members for their support for this motion. Motion agreed to. 10 Nov 2005 Centenary of Women’s Right to Vote 3947

CENTENARY OF WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE Resumed from 27 October (see p. 3681). Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (12.08 pm): It is my great pleasure to rise to contribute to the debate of this very important motion that is before the House—that is, the recognition of the centenary of women’s suffrage in Queensland. It is an achievement that has rightfully been acknowledged by this debate in this parliament which has continued throughout the year. I see that it will draw to its conclusion this week—a week in which we see another small achievement in the second appointment of a woman to the High Court, Justice Susan Crennan having been sworn in earlier this week. It is probably fitting that we conclude this debate at this time as that small achievement is a stark reminder of just how far there is to go. Here we are, 102 years down the track since the High Court was set up, and Justice Crennan becomes only the second female to ever sit on the bench. Nevertheless, in my view she is a welcome appointment and one deservedly so on merit. I would like to make a contribution that recognises this centenary from the point of view of someone who at the moment is the youngest member of the House. There are many parallels between the hurdles that women faced in their struggle to be recognised—the right to vote, the right to stand for election and the right to be elected to this parliament—and those that many young people face today. I read some of the arguments that were put forward about why women should not have the vote—that they did not actually want it, that they were unfit, that they were easily led, that the rough and tumble of politics should not be visited upon them, and that they should be allowed to live in domestic bliss free from the travails of that torrid game of politics. I cannot help but think that we all today, 100 years on, think how ludicrous that sounds. It is a complete anathema to many of our minds and philosophies in this place today, but, at the same time, I suppose it brings into some relief that the arguments about the line in the sand as to where the franchise exists at this time and about the age of 18 are not exactly particularly well thought through, in my view. I note that LCARC is at present conducting an inquiry in this regard. But, if members look at some of the issues that surround that, many of the arguments about whether franchise exists at 18 relate to those very same arguments: that younger people do not want the vote, that they are unfit, that they do not have the capacity, capabilities or faculties to be able to accept that vote in a way that would see them discharge it responsibly. I note particularly the fact that there is actually no requirement upon anyone else to discharge the right to vote responsibly, and in that context, if you look at some of the ages at which young people attain rights, they can drive at 16½, leave home at 17, generally seek medical treatment from the age of 16 and work from 15. People can rent, bank and pay tax from any age, which, of course, should not surprise anyone. They can fly a plane at 16 and they have the right to fire a gun at 11. When all of those are added together, it seems to me that at this point in time, 100 years on from granting the right to vote to women, revisiting the issue of the age at which we allow people to vote might in fact be timely. Having said that, I want to make a contribution also as the member for Mount Coot-tha. I know that the former member for Mount Coot-tha would have very much enjoyed being here to participate in this debate, being, as she was, not only the first Labor member for Mount Coot-tha but also the first female member for Mount Coot-tha. I know that Wendy Edmond would have enjoyed participating in this debate today. She has always been a keen advocate for women and, as members know, a former minister for women in this state. The electorate of Mount Coot-tha, of course, contains Government House and I think it is worth noting in that context that Government House is, as we all know, at present occupied by Queensland’s second female Governor, Her Excellency Quentin Bryce AC, who I think we would all agree has done a sterling job as Governor in Queensland—a class effort and a class act from day one, in my view. She has also done a lot using the Office of the Governor to promote the centenary of women’s suffrage and to promote and advance the cause of women generally in the state during her time at Fernberg Road. It is 100 years since women gained the right to vote, but it is only 40 years since Indigenous women gained the right to vote and stand in the parliament, back in 1965. I suppose that means for all of us that we can perhaps lapse into hyperbole or comfort about how far we have come, but I note that it is still the case that the Queensland parliament has yet to elect a female Indigenous representative. That time cannot come soon enough, in my view. 1965, of course, was the year also that a couple of ladies chained themselves to the bar at the Regatta Hotel in my electorate at Toowong, one of them being, as we all know, Merle Thornton. When we reflect that that is only 40 years ago, I think that checks most of us in our tracks. We reflect on the fact that 40 years is, in fact, a very short time. I want to conclude by reflecting upon the fact that parliaments work best not when they are homogeneous, not when, as in the days of yore, it was the middle-aged propertied man who was sitting around making laws for everybody. I think that it is important that we recognise the fact that parliaments function best when they represent the diversity of views in our society. I often say to people when they question me about being a young’un in parliament that there is no way in the world that I think that the parliament should be comprised of 89 people who are 29. I think that would be ludicrous. I equally do not think that the parliament should be comprised of 89 people over the age of 50, or that only men or only women should sit in this parliament. 3948 Centenary of Women’s Right to Vote 10 Nov 2005

Mr Wallace: All Labor is all right. Mr FRASER: I will take that interjection. I would not mind if they were all Labor Party members, because I am sure that would provide for a robust and progressive government. I do not have a problem checking my support of diversity in that regard at all. I thank the member for Thuringowa for that interjection. As I said, parliaments work best when they are diverse and include as representatives many people from many different walks of life. I think the motion that has been put forward by the member for Mundingburra in this parliament this year was an excellent vehicle to put on the record the celebration of those 100 years and also a proper way to reflect in this House that there is still such a very long way to go. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.16 pm): Today we continue recognising the 100-year anniversary of women’s right to vote in Queensland. We find it difficult at times to make changes today, but for those women who stepped outside their square, causing extreme embarrassment to their husbands, appalling the society of the day and upsetting the status quo to get us to where we are today, we can only imagine what courage it took. The statement that behind every good man there is an even greater woman is often said in jest, but, in reality, in many instances, it is the woman who, over the last 100 years, has been and continues to be the motivation behind many men while she herself is happy to remain in the background. It was expected that men would be the breadwinners and that the women would remain at home and nurture the children. Today, things have changed. The men are taking on the role of caring for the children, while more women are taking the opportunity to display their talents. However, in many industries, there still remains a glass ceiling and it will take some very strong women to break through. There is a long way to go but the days when the options for women to work were virtually those of a secretary, a nurse or a teacher are far behind us. The reality today is that whatever we, as women, can aspire to be, we can be. Perhaps in rural areas the load women have borne over the years is more marked than in city areas, a starker comparison than in any other occupational relationship. Since the time of settlement, a woman on the land has worked beside her man, raised the children, cooked, cleaned and doctored. On the land, women have been thought of not so much as wives and mothers but as another worker—as a mate. During both wars, women filled many positions that were needed to be filled when the men left to go away. Since that time there has never been an occupation that man has claimed to be his own that a woman has not found some way to fill. The genie had at that time been let out of the bottle and women will never be restrained again as they had been in the past. After familiarising myself with the history of the suffragette movement I doubt that I would have had the courage to live among them, but I would like to acknowledge that it is because of those women of courage that I have the chance to stand here and speak today. It is also because of my husband Tony’s belief in me and the women and men of the electorate that I represent, who have a much broader view of women’s abilities than the few I am about to mention. I am extremely honoured and proud to have been the first woman elected to represent the seat of Barambah. The electorate has since had a boundary change and has been renamed Nanango. I remember, at the time of my election in 1998, the words of several local National Party men and local councillors—also men—who stated quite clearly: how can she expect to represent this rural electorate when she is not local, not a National Party member and only a woman? My response was very simple. To the first point, I responded that no-one had the right to dictate just how much service anyone could contribute to their community. If the Nationals had done the job in the first place, according to the people’s wishes, I would not have contested the election, and as for being a woman—well, tough luck, guys, I am a woman and I love it. That attitude displayed by those men in 1998 was not far removed from the attitudes displayed 100 years ago, so we have not progressed an awful lot in that particular time. Some women could not be stopped then, and we all benefit from their efforts. Women will not be stopped in the future. I only have to look back on the women of my own family who, at the tender ages of 17, 19 and 20, settled in wildernesses with no neighbours or friends—just their husband and any children born to them as company. They endured incredible journeys from southern New South Wales to central Queensland and two, aged 17 and 20 years of age, never again saw their family. They suffered incredible hardships and personal tragedies during their lifetimes, including the deaths of several of their children. They displayed incredible strength. I am grateful that I live in the time I do. In comparison, we have become cosseted and soft, and living through the hardships endured by those early pioneers is something few people can imagine and, I suspect, even fewer could suffer as stoically as they did. It is interesting to note that of any race, religion or gender which has been oppressed in the past, once given the freedoms that we take granted, they have ensured that they do not oppress others in the same way that they were oppressed. We are celebrating the 100 years of women’s vote in Australia. But for some women—namely, Aboriginal women—the vote has been a long time coming and it will be a long time before they celebrate 100 years of having that right. As women have fought to have their status raised above that of servant, wife, chattel or object, this government has allowed them to be 10 Nov 2005 Centenary of Women’s Right to Vote 3949 debased or debase themselves by legalising prostitution. Yes, prostitution as a way to make a living has been around since the year dot but so have fraud, murder to claim insurances and theft but we do not make those legal. I am extremely proud of the generations of women who have gone before us and I acknowledge that here today. I have no doubt that women can achieve anything they desire, but they do not make better councillors or better politicians or better people just because they are women. But as women we do add a different perspective to the male one which adds balance to any debate. To vote is a privilege. Everyone should value their right to vote and not waste that opportunity to have a say on government issues. A right that was fought so hard to obtain should not be squandered. I commend the motion moved by the member for Mundingburra. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (12.21 pm): It is an honour and a privilege to be here to participate in this debate as a female member of the Queensland parliament in the year 2005. That my female parliamentary colleagues and I are here in such numbers is the direct legacy of a group of magnificent women who, a century ago this year, fought for a right that so many of us now take for granted. In fact, the decision in January 1905 to give women the vote followed over a decade of campaigning. Wonderful, valiant and courageous women pursued the cause relentlessly despite entrenched opposition and repeated rejections over the years from 1890 to 1903 until they were eventually successful on 24 January 1905. Probably the campaigner most remembered was Emma Miller but others including May Jordan, Liz Adler, Dr Lillian Cooper, Helen Huxham and Margaret Ogg deserve recognition on the public record. These women were not campaigning just about the vote. As important as the franchise is in itself, it is also a symbol of women having a full and fair opportunity to participate and to address the issues of the day. In fact, a quote from May Jordan applies. She said— I want the vote not because I insist on men’s and women’s equality in the State but because I want to make use of the most simple and direct form of making my influence felt. I want the right to give practical weight to my opinion. To commemorate the centenary of suffrage, the Office for Women commissioned a book about the lives of 20 extraordinary Queensland women. The book includes the stories of some amazing women who changed the political, social and economic landscape of Queensland and whose contributions are still felt today. Some of the women, like Emma Miller, Oodgeroo Noonuccal and Elizabeth Kenny, may be familiar to Queenslanders; most will not be. They are unsung heroes, typical of women who generally do not blow their own trumpet but just get on with the job. If those who fought so hard for women to get the vote could see us here today, they would be at once pleased and dismayed. They would be pleased to see that Queensland is leading Australia with female members making up 34.8 per cent of this parliament. They would probably not be surprised to discover that this has been achieved through determined efforts by the Labor Party in Queensland with history to date recording a considerably poorer performance by both the Liberal and National parties. It is disappointing today to see that there are no female members of the Liberal and National parties present in the chamber during this debate. They would nod with respect to former Premier Wayne Goss and to Premier Peter Beattie, who have supported increased participation by women in the parliament and in the ministry. I am sure the other women of the Labor caucus join me in also thanking the grassroots membership of the Labor Party for their commitment to gender equity and their support through preselection for the fine array of women who have become members of the Queensland parliament. A substantial share of the credit must also go to EMILY’s List and in particular to the determined leadership of Australia’s first female state premier, Joan Kirner OAM. I for one may not have been here without her support and without her enduring determination that women should take their rightful place in this and other parliaments. For her the road was, even 25 years ago, much harder. As she wrote— Those male politicians who fought the suffrage less than a century ago on the grounds that it would masculinise women were describing their own political lives, lives of oppression, competition, conflict. Their mistaken assumption was that women would assume or acquire the same characteristics in the same environment … The task is to find a way to get there and survive, without becoming in any way like them. I was first elected to this parliament in 1998. At that time there was a boost in female representation to a then record of 18 per cent. We thought this a great advance. The women in our caucus were not discriminated against—on the contrary, we were generally treated as more special and given extra support. There was nonetheless an ever present awareness of our gender. Things got much better in 2001 when after the election the proportion rose to 37.1 per cent. The women were treated as less special because we were now more common and more frequently matters were dealt with without emphasis on gender. I noticed too that the male members seemed to adjust and more easily talk about what had previously been regarded as women’s business. We are nearly there in having a parliament in balance, a parliament where the differences in our perspectives arising from gender and other factors such as our cultural, educational and employment backgrounds bring diversity and dimension to our debates and are welcomed but do not in any way limit our full participation in parliamentary business. Unfortunately, however, those same brave campaigners for the vote for women may be dismayed to see that progress for women in society in some key areas has been limited. Those 3950 Centenary of Women’s Right to Vote 10 Nov 2005 great women of 100 years ago fought a valiant battle not only for the vote but also for good working conditions, fair pay and on issues such as a right to property ownership and against domestic violence. While women may have succeeded in education and in some fields of employment, equity is, in fact, far from being achieved. Women consistently earn less than men due to women being overrepresented as carers for children and, increasingly, ageing parents. There remains an increasing trend for women to work part time or casually. Of all women employed in Queensland in June 2004, 46.2 per cent worked part time. In February 2004 women in Queensland earned an average of $548.90 per week. Men earned an average of $839.80—a difference of $290.90 per week. Women earn just 64 per cent of men’s earnings. This can be partially explained by women’s higher rates of part-time and casual employment. However, even when full-time workers’ earnings are compared across all industries and employment sectors, the disparity remains. While women may not choose to get married or may choose not to remain married, unfortunately they are still not safe in their own homes. During 2003-04 there were over 21,000 applications for domestic and family violence orders in Queensland. A report released by Access Economics into the cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy estimated that in 2002-03 there were over 400,000 victims of domestic violence in Australia of which 87 per cent were women. The total annual cost of domestic violence in 2002-03 was estimated to be $8.1 billion. Too many women in 2005 are disproportionately bearing the burden of caring—caring for older relatives, caring for children and caring for the disabled. Additionally, women today face some new challenges—challenges that were not in evidence 100 years ago. Today too many women are struggling to balance work and family and finances. Too many women are struggling to raise their children and work for a living, frequently in low- paid jobs on a casual basis with shiftwork extending into evening hours and weekends. Affording and managing their household, child care, rent and transport leave them in a perpetual cycle of poverty. While many of us have escaped from that cycle, there are still many thousands of Queensland women who have not. I affirm my commitment to working with women’s organisations and with the union movement to address these issues, and I call on the Commonwealth government to play its part in reviewing the barriers to women sharing in the financial prosperity of our country and in reviewing the system of child care and its attendant costs. I make this speech at a time when across Australia there is widespread dismay at the industrial relations changes proposed by the federal Liberal government. The proposals in the name of a boost to the economy and the nation’s prosperity will diminish workers’ entitlements, benefits and conditions. If these changes are brought in, we will take a huge step backward. Workers and their families will be sacrificed on the Liberal-National coalition’s altar of economic prosperity. This is a false god indeed. In time it will be shown that eroding workers’ entitlements, diminishing their standing and their families’ lifestyles will result in reduced confidence and pride, and this will diminish, not enhance, the economic health of our nation. Women who are overrepresented in part-time and casual work and in poorly paid jobs will suffer. Those most vulnerable and most in need of assistance will bear the brunt. The Commonwealth government recently released the findings from a 10-year study of women’s health. The Australian longitudinal study on women’s health is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the health of Australian women and involved 40,000 women across the country. The impact on health is related to the amount of paid work that women consider desirable. Women who indicate that they are happy with their hours of paid work generally have higher scores on both physical and mental health. Women who would like to work fewer hours have lower mental health scores compared to other employed women, although not as low as those with no paid work. Women in professional jobs with higher levels of work satisfaction, interest and financial rewards manage long hours of work better than do women in unskilled or semiskilled work. Mental health scores decline for younger women who experience increases in time pressure. The health of middle-aged women who have consistent paid work is better than that of those who do not do any paid work and also better than that of women who moved in and out of the paid work force during the survey period. Women are sacrificing healthy activities in order to better manage their work and family commitments. The research has identified a number of trends that may stem from these changes in women’s lifestyles and time use patterns. Strategies are needed to assist women who move in and out of the paid work force to more readily combine their paid and unpaid work responsibilities. This study reinforces the argument for strengthening work and family balance policies, and strategies for supporting women’s labour force participation. Such strategies might include legislative reform amendments to workplace laws or regulations including the right to, or the right to request, part-time work or legislated paid maternity and paternity leave. Such strategies might also include social policy changes such as assistance to families to encourage greater engagement of men as carers and/or to encourage women to maintain work force attachment. They may include changes to social security taper rates that act as a disincentive for carers to combine caring responsibilities with paid part-time work and/or greater assistance to families to access care for children or other family members. I am pleased to be the minister responsible for the Office for Women. The office and other state agencies have done, and are still doing, some great work for women in the Smart State. Their achievements are recorded elsewhere and are so many that there is no time to list them all today. I do, 10 Nov 2005 Centenary of Women’s Right to Vote 3951 however, want to mention the recent announcements by the Premier and the Minister for Health in regard to maternity services. The establishment of the new maternity commission—improving and expanding existing maternity services, trialling alternative birthing services and the introduction of a new program of ‘bub-hubs’—is being widely welcomed by the women of Queensland. Motherhood will never go out of fashion and will remain at the heart of loving family life and the symbol of hope and the future. I will take a minute to recognise my own good fortune. I come from a long line of strong women who battled for better rather than accepting their lot. They showed me that determination and persistence to make it better for their children should always be a mother’s priority. I wish my great- grandmother Julia Bennett, my grandmother Ilma Besley and my mother, Pamela Bennett Dunn, had easier lives—lives with more comfort and more good times—but they turned their adversity to advantage certainly for me. My strength and my success I owe to them. It is, however, equally incumbent upon me to do the same for my daughters, Rachelle and Charlotte, and for my granddaughter, Trinity, and others yet to come. As we head towards the close of the centenary of suffrage, I am pleased to say that Queenslanders have embraced the year with celebrations across the state to commemorate this important milestone for Queensland women. The Office for Women has registered more than 150 events held throughout the year and there are still a few more to squeeze in before the end of the year. I am pleased to say that Indigenous women have joined the celebrations, though we recognise how sad a story it is indeed that it was some further 60 years before the Indigenous women of Queensland had their right to vote. There have been a number of commemorative books released, seminars and conferences held, a historic afternoon tea at Parliament House with over 500 guests and a swag of young women being educated on the history of this important event for Queensland. The success of this year has led me to believe that we need a permanent monument to commemorate the centenary year and Queensland women in general, and I am pleased to advise the House that the Queensland government is currently considering suitable sites for this special place. What will be the situation 100 years from now? I hope equality of proportion and standing between men and women in this parliament, and in society more broadly, will be an issue only in the dusty history books. I hope that they will look back and marvel on how undeveloped and unfair it used to be for women from that future perspective—the olden days. But this vision splendid in which violence between a man and a woman, and more generally, is no more and in which gender differences are simply valued as part of the rich diversity of life in the 22nd century is unlikely to be achieved without considerably more effort yet on our parts and from those who will influence directions in the decades ahead. Let us, therefore, celebrate the past and recognise the successes and gains made but concentrate still on the work to be done before we can claim that a truly fair future for women is in sight. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (12.36 pm), in reply: I would like to acknowledge the many contributions made by members, both male and female. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Currumbin for her bipartisan support of the motion. She approached me to take part in recognising women’s achievements over the last 100 years. When one considers the appalling number of female representatives in the opposition, it is critical for those who are there to take part in important contributions that we have just been part of today and in the past. As EMILY’s List attests, we are women first. And the fact that some of us achieve well supports the saying that when women support women, women win. The member for Algester drew our attention to the history surrounding the right to vote but, more importantly, to the inequality of Indigenous women and women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. These groups are still severely under- represented in many key areas such as education, health, employment and leadership. It is essential that this parliament reflect the cultural diversity of our community. We need to preselect and elect women from Indigenous and ethnic backgrounds, as the minister has just been espousing. The member for Whitsunday gave a perfect example of how the women of this state have reaped the benefit of women in parliament. The story of her great-grandmother, who was not able to leave her violent, alcoholic husband for a better life as she had no physical or financial means of support, was a very common occurrence many years ago. Now, thanks to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act and the amendments made in 2002, protection from domestic violence has extended beyond the spousal relationship to include the elderly, people with a disability and people in dating relationships. The member for Kurwongbah observed how easy it is to become complacent about the right to vote, especially when faced with going to the polls three times in a year. Voting is a democratic right and it is important that women exercise this precious right that was won for us. It is fantastic to see the Pine Rivers Shire Council contribution to female representation in government, which started back in 1983 when Yvonne Chapman was elected to state parliament. Pine Rivers is proud, and rightly so, to claim record female representation at all three levels of government. I am saddened that the member for Aspley has given up on her dream as a 20-year-old to become Prime Minister because I think she would have been made a great Labor female Prime Minister. The member never disappoints when she talks in the House about sex and sexuality. We are fortunate to be able to discuss these important issues in Queensland parliament. 3952 Centenary of Women’s Right to Vote 10 Nov 2005

The member for Clayfield rightly stated that women did not break new ground in receiving the right to vote but were merely recovering lost ground. She said that we need not mark this as a centenary but as a way to point out our ongoing progress. I am sure we would all agree with that. I thank the member for Ipswich for questioning why we have not come much further in the last 100 years. Women have achieved their own kind of power. However, we are still not close to achieving genuine gender equity or equality in Australia. She also paid tribute to the great work of the Labor women’s caucus. This group meets every parliament sitting and is chaired by the member for Aspley. It is a great opportunity for us all to come together to try to make significant changes within government. It was fantastic to see the member for Ferny Grove dedicate his speech to his mother-in-law, Loma Thompson, who is a friend and a constituent of mine. Loma was a member of the Union of Australian Women, which strongly campaigned for women’s rights. Much of their work helped to build the foundations on which the women’s movement later developed. The member for Gladstone highlighted the ongoing perception that women who stay at home and raise their children somehow do not contribute to the community. A woman who chooses to stay at home to work is no less valuable than someone who works full time. Unfortunately, many attitudes have not changed in 100 years. The member for Mount Ommaney highlighted the role International Women’s Day has played in the history of women and how it is still relevant today. She also highlighted the need for women’s centres across the state to provide women with assistance, training and activities in a safe and supportive place. The member for Springwood experienced first-hand the problem of trying to get a home loan in the 1980s. She was told by a bank manager that she needed a husband, not a home loan. She was only allowed to apply for 50 per cent of a home loan that a male could apply for. The issue of financial security for women will be ever present until wage equality is achieved. Along with the member for Mansfield, I am also looking forward to the day that Australia has a female Prime Minister and Queensland has its first female Premier. Hopefully that will not be too far in the future. I do apologise for not being here for most of the speakers who spoke on this motion today. I am unable to comment on the contributions that they made, although I did hear much of the minister’s commentary. I believe that it was very similar to the points that I am going to wrap up with. The Deputy Premier highlighted the fact that only 50 women have taken a seat in this parliament. Women in the community are very supportive of female MPs tackling the man’s world of politics, as many members can attest. While I am sure that the suffragists had some idea of what the future may hold after women received the vote, I do not think they ever would have imagined women MPs arguing across the chamber with their male colleagues. What happened to the once proudly proclaimed equality of opportunity for Australian women? Why, in the first decade of the 21st century, do so many women feel exhausted and trapped? Why do they feel discouraged and disheartened? Is there really a real choice in women’s lives today? More than 160,000 Australian women are prevented from working because they cannot get child care. Women’s total average earnings are just 66 per cent of men’s. That is less than it was 10 years ago. Mothers of young children suffer government imposed financial penalties for choosing to be in the work force. As the minister for women has just so aptly described, this is going to get much worse. Today 25 per cent of Australian women choose not to have children. At least 200 women are sexually assaulted every day in Australia. Less than 10 per cent of senior executives in Australian companies are women. As of late 2002, only 8.2 per cent of the directors of Australia’s top 200 companies were women. Far from achieving the equality promised them a generation ago, women in this country are still battling for recognition, equal pay and promotion in the workplace, and for the right to return to work after they have children and not to suffer discrimination when they are pregnant. Women’s advances have also created opportunities for men, considering when the first elections were held in 1860 some men were able to vote twice because they owned multiple properties and other people had no vote at all. With more women entering the work force, today it is acceptable for men to stay home and look after the children. While not all men choose to do that, it is fantastic that families can make that choice. Men are able to take on jobs such as nursing and hairdressing while women are moving into traditionally male dominated roles. Since we have had women voting and women in parliament, there have been significant advances on issues such as equal pay for equal work, and paid maternity and paternity leave. Women did push for the Domestic Violence Family Protection Act in 1989 and, of course, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. However, as we have heard, there are still many things that women need to fight for. Queensland women continue to earn less than men—on average they earn $290 less a week; women remain under-represented in senior and influential position’s; women shoulder the double burden of work and family responsibility; and women are more likely to be subjected to violence with 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3953

23 per cent of women experiencing violence from their partners or ex-partners at some time during or following their relationship. The minister for women, Desley Boyle, launched the Centenary of Suffrage celebrations at King George Square in Brisbane near a statue of suffragette Emma Miller and announced more than $80,000 in funding for community groups across the state to hold their own events. Many events were held throughout Queensland. It was great to see young women getting involved. Again, I thank all members who contributed to the debate. Here is to the next 100 years. I commend the motion to the House. Motion agreed to.

WATER AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 9 November (see p. 3907). Mr HOPPER (—NPA) (12.45 pm): There are a few issues on this subject that I would like to address with the minister. I hope the minister listens intently and can clean up a few of the questions that I will be asking him throughout this speech. Yesterday in the House we heard the minister make a statement. I know that this was addressed earlier by the shadow minister. The minister said— I want to make it perfectly clear to the House today that there is no intention whatsoever of extending the pipeline to the Darling Downs. Those people still promoting such an initiative are simply peddling false hopes because the cost benefits of the proposal does not stack up. I totally disagree with the minister; I absolutely disagree. I know that the minister knows Phil Jauncey and John McVeigh. Those men started Vision 2000. Vision 2000 was the start of this project to get waste water up to the Darling Downs. It is now new water. Much research has gone into that. Much money has been invested in it. I have seen Brisbane City Council maps showing where it is going to take the water from Luggage Point to Mount Crosby and how many times it will cross the river. It has done its sums; it has done its work. I know that a lot of farmers and a lot of people on this project have worked extremely hard. Yesterday I was extremely disappointed when I heard the minister make that statement. We on the Darling Downs, us farmers, have our heart in this project. Mr Livingstone: Has the federal government got its heart in it? Mr HOPPER: I see the minister nodding. I will take that interjection. The federal government does have its heart in it because if this state government would put a bit of dough towards that pipeline the feds would come on board and help fund it. When we win government, we will make sure that pipeline is put in place. The farmers on the Darling Downs need that waste water. At the moment that waste water— Mr Palaszczuk: You are peddling false hopes as well. Mr HOPPER:—is being pumped into the ocean to no avail whatsoever. The pipeline is an extreme necessity. To say that those people are peddling false hope— Mr Palaszczuk: As you are. Mr HOPPER:—is wrong. I am not peddling false hope. It is very possible to get that waste water pipeline up to the Darling Downs. The Toowoomba City Council mayor has been talking about recycling sewage and waste water. I do not expect anyone to have to drink that water. I talk to people in that city all the time. Most of those people are very, very unhappy. The people are even worried about the thought of having coffee in that town. There are other ways of providing water for Toowoomba. The member for Toowoomba South and I met with the Queensland Gas Company. The previous bill referred to methane gas. It is called coal seam gas. Out towards Condamine, Queensland Gas Company has a very big project. Over the last few weeks it has signed two major contracts lasting 15 years. That is going to provide about 7,000 megalitres of water. Currently that water is evaporating into the atmosphere. It would cost $70 million to put in a pipeline to Toowoomba. Toowoomba City Council uses 14,000 megalitres a year. We only have two signed contracts. There are another three or four contracts waiting to be signed that would produce adequate water. Once that water is released from Condamine Gas in a pipeline it can come through Chinchilla, Warra, Dalby, Jondaryan and Oakey to Toowoomba. There is a gas pipeline easement already there. All that is needed is a bit of legislation to allow for the use of that very easement. No farmers will be affected by that pipeline being put in place. What I am saying is that there are other ways of getting this water to Toowoomba. 3954 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

I am extremely concerned that Toowoomba Mayor Di Thorley has stated on many occasions that she will cut off the water to Gowrie Creek. A number of farmers with millions of dollars of infrastructure are living off the irrigation that goes into Gowrie Creek. They have irrigated from that creek since 1940, when was first built. Two springs ran through that creek. Cooby Dam was built and the springs were taken away. The Wetalla waste water plant was put in place and the effluent from that goes into the creek. Those farmers use that, but suddenly it will be cut off. There are two feedlots on that creek and the Jondaryan Woolshed is also on that creek. The implications of this will be absolutely immense. We took this fight to the previous minister, Mr Stephen Robertson, on many occasions. It would be devastating for those farmers to lose that water. They bought those licences; they were allocated those licences. It has been a wonderful thing. The mayor herself was an irrigator on Gowrie Creek. When she was an irrigator, she was the biggest advocate for an increase in the licence. Now look at the changes. Di Thorley wants to go down as the first mayor in history to put recycled waste water into an Australian city. There are other ways of doing this. We can use Queensland Gas Co. water. I know that some of the councillors met with irrigators who are willing to take Toowoomba’s waste water and give Toowoomba city the irrigation water that they pump out of their bores, and that is feasible. We also have the Acland Coal Mine and Millmerran Power Station. A number of areas out there need that water. Those farmers will be in a desperate situation if that water is taken from them. Alternatives must be looked at. I ask the minister to seriously look at the alternatives for the city of Toowoomba. I turn now to the water tax of $4 a megalitre that has been introduced. Everyone has to pay for their water, but the $100 charge on bore licences is just a joke. The actual take will probably be $1.2 million. How much will it cost to administer this project, to collect those funds? Farmers have rung me to ask, ‘Should I license this bore?’ What does the minister think my answer is? As soon as they do, they have to pay $100. It is just another tax on farmers. The other day a fellow said to me, ‘We have to get rid of this government because they will end up bringing in an investment tax on the valuations on our property.’ That is about the last thing it could possibly tax. Everything that farmers try to do is thwarted and another tax is imposed. I think it is terrible to be charging those farmers for those water licences. There are two tank companies in Dalby: Bushmans Tanks and Clark Tanks. At the moment they are overworked because of the number of tanks they are putting out. I think Bushmans Tanks is the second largest employer in that town. They have developed quite a simple system. People say that tank water is dirty. That may be the case in cities, where the exhaust fumes land on the roof and result in a build-up. To avoid that, all they do is attach a piece of six-inch PVC pipe to the tank. There is a bend before the tank, a four-foot drop on that pipe, which has a screw-on lid on the bottom. The first flush of rain on that roof goes into that pipe. Once that pipe is full, the rest goes into the tank. After the rain, the cap is undone and the first flush runs out onto the garden or wherever. Rainwater collection is very feasible. I have stated in the House many times that we have raised a family of five on a 5,000-gallon rainwater tank. We always had drinking water. Never once in the last 12 years of drought did we run out of drinking water. The toilet and the shower are hooked up to bore water, but the water that we drink and cook with comes out of that tank. People who are water wise and careful can do this. People in the cities need to seriously consider rainwater tanks, because the catchment water that comes with rain needs to be utilised. About 1,500 people a week are moving to Queensland—about 200 a day. The reason this legislation has to be passed—the reason we are standing here and talking on this legislation—is simply the inadequacies of this government. What has it built? A footbridge, a football stadium and one dam. What did Sir Joh do? He built nearly every dam and every freeway, opened up the Bowen Basin—you name it. What infrastructure has been put into place by this government? Now we are found wanting. We have to pass a bill by which the government can overrule councils and tell them what to do with their water in an emergency situation. That is the fruits of a lazy government that did not have the ability, the capacity or the willpower to put in infrastructure in place. Now we are seeing the fruits of its past performances. There are other ways of addressing these water problems. I ask the minister to seriously look at the situation in Toowoomba, because no-one wants to drink their own sewage. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.55 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Water Amendment Bill. I would like to address the amendments to the Water Act 2000 that support proposed actions to be taken by the south-east Queensland water company to deal with the current drought being experienced in the south-east region. South-east Queensland is currently experiencing its second-worst drought on record. If significant inflows are not received by early next year the current drought will be the worst on record. To address the current drought, is developing a drought management strategy. In the area covered by the drought management plan there are a number of irrigators who hold water licences but are supplied with water by SEQWater under an historical free-of-charge regime. Under these current arrangements SEQWater is required to supply water to this group of water users 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3955 but, unlike other customers that SEQWater supplies, it does not formally have a supply contract with this group of water users. This results in there being no means for SEQWater to have a meter installed. In addition, this group of water users does not fall under SEQWater’s water restriction framework. To respond to the current drought, it is imperative that all water supplied by SEQWater is managed, and this means, particularly in times of drought, that the water used is metered and water supply can be managed under a water restriction program. However, under these historical arrangements, this group of water users is not currently metered nor subject to SEQWater’s water restriction program. The proposed amendments establish a framework which will allow SEQWater to implement those aspects of its drought management strategy regarding installation of water meters and water restrictions to include this group of water users. This will allow SEQWater to implement its strategy consistently across the range of entities it supplies. The amendments will establish a supply contract between SEQWater and the water users, bringing the users and SEQWater into a customer relationship for the purposes of metering and water restrictions. Prior to these amendments commencing, SEQWater and the department will be consulting with the water licence holders about the new arrangements. The current no-cost supply of water arrangement will not be affected. SEQWater is still obliged to supply the water free of charge. The supply contract will address the issue of metering, allowing for a meter to be installed and for SEQWater to recover the costs of metering. The metering of water use is vital to managing our water resources and ensuring our valuable resource is protected. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.58 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Amendment Bill 2005. This bill has its origins in the 1994 Council of Australian Governments report, which claimed that governments were not charging enough for water in rural irrigation areas. Those COAG participants then agreed that full cost pricing for water must be implemented across Australia. We would remember that in 1994 we had a federal Labor government under Keating, a Labor government in Queensland and a variety of Liberal and Labor governments in all the other states and territories. Since then, the federal government has changed hands to the Liberal-National coalition under Howard and Anderson and then Vaile which currently has the Nationals holding the balance of power. In Queensland, we had a term of a National-Liberal coalition in conjunction with the federal coalition before the state returned to Labor in 1998. Yet nothing was turned around during these terms in favour of the rural conservative voters. The changed control of the water in this country and this state is now through bipartisan or converged political agreement and control. This bipartisanship has decided that the old concept that water is free water must stop and that all users, be they irrigators or urban or industrial users, must pay for the water itself in addition to the costs associated with the delivery, treatment and storage of the water. This is in line with the new user-pays system now plaguing the country. The Water Act was passed in 2000. The concepts of supplemented, unsupplemented and other systems came in, along with upper and lower bound pricing aimed at full price recovery. Water trading and separation of water from the land on title deeds have been subsequent additions. I thought it was interesting when, not long after I first came into this House, I attended a briefing in relation to the full price recovery of water. When I asked the minister’s advisers at that time to explain what were the costs that had to be recovered from, say, Tinaroo Falls Dam, they could not tell me. Sitting suspended from 1.01 pm to 2.30 pm. Ms LEE LONG: When I asked the minister’s advisers at the time to explain what the costs were that had to be recovered from, say, Tinaroo Falls Dam they could not tell me, except for a few people doing maintenance work on the channels and around the dam wall and a few people in administration— maybe a new skin on the dam wall every 50 years or so and the rest of the money was to build a new dam one day to replace the existing one. When I asked them how long they expected the current dam wall to last, they said 300 to 500 years. Methinks there is a big rip-off going on here. Since 1996 this whole exercise has been causing much angst for users in my electorate, in particular the irrigators above and below Tinaroo Falls Dam. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I guess we ain’t seen nothing yet. COAG 1994 led to the signing of the national competition policy and related reforms in 1995 by all state premiers and the Prime Minister who agreed on national competition policy payments to the states until 2005 subject to, of course, the implementation of each state’s water reforms. The Queensland Water Plan 2005-2010 sets out the proposed new water charges that will apply from January 2006 excepting, of course, local governments which will not pay anything until 1 July 2006. In times of drought priority will be given to people and essential industry ahead of mining and agriculture. Charges will be reviewed again in June 2008. Charges for irrigators where meters are installed will be $4 per megalitre; urban and essential industry, $15 per megalitre; and all other industry, including mining, $10 per megalitre. 3956 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

For irrigators without a meter the charges will be based on half the specified water allocation at $4 a megalitre or $18 a hectare, or if there is no meter and no specified allocation there will be a $100 annual charge per entitlement. Water harvesters will be charged on the metered take at $4 a megalitre, otherwise it will be an annual charge based on the size of the entitlement. Stock and domestic charges for individual licence holders will be $100 per licence. This is an increase of some 100 per cent from 2003 when it was introduced at $50 per licence. Those users fiercely object to this huge increase as there has been no cost to the government and all costs to the user to purchase, transport, install and maintain their own infrastructure. This bill will allow pensioners to get a 40 per cent discount. SunWater users will move to full cost pricing with new pricing from 1 April 2006, and that will continue through until 30 June 2008. All of this stems back to the COAG and subsequent national competition policy agreements of the mid-1990s. Water is one of our most precious resources. It is one of the most precious that is under government control. But it probably will not be long before the very air we breathe comes under some kind of government licence arrangement with a fee for every breath we take. That certainly is the direction this government seems to be taking. This bill provides the framework and mechanisms with which to handle a water supply emergency. Most of us would imagine that to be severe and extended drought, but supplies contaminated by algae or infrastructure suddenly breaking down are other possible causes of a water supply emergency. This proposition includes provisions supporting actions already taken by the South East Water Corporation to cope with the current water supply shortage in this part of the state. It also allows service providers such as SunWater and the South East Queensland Water Corporation to pass on new statutory water charges to their customers. This is in preparation for the introduction of the new water charges. The power of service providers to impose water restrictions is increased and a number of other minor amendments are made under this bill. I think that a most telling comment is made on page 1 of the explanatory notes which states— The current water supply shortage being experienced in south east Queensland raises immediate and longer-term issues about the actions necessary to protect the security of the State’s essential water supply needs. Of course, the situation would have been unimaginably worse if earlier governments had not invested heavily in dams in this region. There is only one way to ensure we have enough water, and that is to store it in dams. Desalination, recycling and rainwater tanks all have their place and all serve useful functions, but none provide the same large-scale, long-term answers as do dams. We simply need to build more dams. It is not complicated. It is the policy which has worked for decades, that has watered our towns and cities and opened up vast stretches of country and it is the dumping of that policy which has led us directly into this current crisis. We have only one new dam of any size under way in this entire state. That is not water management; that is pandering to the green vote. In relation to water management, my electorate is in, I believe, the 11th or 12th year of trying to nail down a management plan for the Barron River beginning with the WAMP process back in the 1990s. While much of that has been under an ALP government, the Nationals not only did nothing about it when they had the chance but it was the Nationals who slammed a moratorium on new licences for irrigators above Tinaroo Falls Dam which has caused many years of grief for so many farming families. There is a Barron water resource plan which took more than seven years to bring together and the follow-on resource management plans which are still being developed for the area above Tinaroo Falls Dam. This has been a process under consideration for about three years. That is a massively long stretch of anxiety and uncertainty for irrigators. The result has not been good for anyone at all. The process did deliver an additional 4,000 megalitres below the Tinaroo Falls Dam wall and farmers waiting on license decisions viewed that with some hope, but those hopes were dashed when every drop of that extra water was allocated away from the productive agricultural area on the tablelands and set aside for Cairns city’s exclusive use. The same process also uncovered an extra 4,000 megalitres above the dam wall. While that has not been given away, it is still unable to be accessed by local irrigators because no decision has yet been able to be reached on how it should be distributed. For those below the dam, the situation is especially ludicrous. For example, I have a constituent farmer who has a permanent creek running through his property. He can pump a little from it already and wanted to pump a little more, but now he has been knocked back in favour of Cairns. He can see the water running through his land, but he has been told that he cannot touch it because it belongs to the city. Even though he cannot touch the water in the creek, he is responsible for keeping noxious weeds out of the waterway, responsible for erosion control on the bank, responsible for vegetation management, responsible for feral animal control, responsible for any run-off and on and on the list goes, but he cannot touch the water. That is George Orwell stuff. That is water bastardry, not water management. Another issue thrown into this long, drawn-out process is the almost total disconnection between on-the-ground reality and departmental goals. Many irrigators above the Tinaroo Falls Dam have long held licences based on an area—that is, they have been licensed to irrigate five, 10 or 50 hectares et cetera. They have irrigated three and sometimes four crops a year on that land. Under the water resource plan, those area allocations are to be converted to volumetric licences at the rate of 6.6 megalitres per hectare. That is barely enough for one crop per year. Farmers operating illegally under 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3957 an area system are now having their production slashed to a third or even a quarter of what it was because suddenly the Beattie government has decided that they cannot have the water. The most telling question mark on the process is this: according to the department’s new understanding of the resource, it is incapable of meeting the allocations of existing licences, let alone any new ones. But if there was not enough water, then what in heaven’s name have the tableland farmers being pumping onto their land and using to irrigate their crops? The fact is that the area has never lost a season because there was no water. It is as simple as that. No region-wide irrigation collapse; the water is there. Whatever the department wants to say, the water has been there. That is what makes so much of this bill difficult. It is based on the same science that cannot see the water coming out of the irrigation sprays and instead tries to simply say that it really is not there at all. Of course we need to manage our water resources. There is no doubt about that. But we are not getting management; we are getting guesswork, we are getting environmental wish lists, we are getting hammered on our farms and in the bush. As I have said, the single biggest water management issue is how much water we have available. The fact is that we have plenty. What we do not have are enough dams to store it in. I return to the Barron water resource plan, under which 4,000 extra megalitres below Tinaroo Falls Dam was discovered. All of that was allocated to Cairns. The Cairns residents are expected to drink the dirty Barron water, cleaned up with poisonous chemicals, when they could be drinking the pristine water from the Goldsborough—no dams, just an intake. Instead, this government simply lets it flow out to sea a few kilometres downstream and feeds the Cairns residents the dirty Barron water. It is under this plan that we are being told that there is insufficient water for new licences in the most fertile part of the region. ‘There is not enough water, but we don’t need more dams’ is what the Beattie Labor government says. That is another fine example of ALP logic. I will give members another example. Our farmers are constantly attacked for alleged run-off. Wild claims are made about the supposed effect on the reef because of inland farming activities and coastal cropping. This government is saying that chemicals and fertilisers are pouring down our rivers and poisoning the reef. That is how it justifies imposing huge burdens on agriculture in the name of protecting the environment and protecting the reef. But what has this Beattie Labor government just proposed? Pouring tonnes of toxic chemical fluoride in all our domestic water supplies. The vast majority of that will run down our toilets, our baths and our showers and straight into the ocean and onto the reef. How much are we talking about? A kilo of fluoride for every 100,000 litres of water. Brisbane’s average house— Mr WALLACE: I rise to a point of order. I believe there is a bill before the House that talks about fluoridation at the moment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! I ask the member to return to the provisions of the bill. Ms LEE LONG: This is all about water. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to return to the provisions of the bill before the House. Ms LEE LONG: That is an indication of how badly distorted water management is under this government. The wettest part of the driest continent has huge amounts of fresh water running out to the sea, but despite severe drought, a growing population, an increasing demand for agricultural products and already insufficient water storages, what do we get? Wild rivers legislation, recycling and so on— ensuring that we are stuck with too few dams for our growing population and growing need. Where are our fees, levies and charges going? They are not giving us more water, that is for sure. Clause 4 of the bill deals with the powers of the minister to give directions to service providers requiring certain actions to be undertaken. This occurs when there is a water supply emergency or one is looming. However, despite the desperate circumstances one can imagine could exist at such a time, the service providers will still be required to get any necessary approvals before undertaking such measures. Clause 4(1) sets out the meaning of a water supply emergency, which is when— ‘... there is a demonstrably serious risk the State’s, or a part of the State’s, essential water supply needs will not be met. The clause also contains definitions of the term ‘essential water supply needs’. Clause 4(2) deals with the water supply emergency declarations which apply for up to 15 business days and regulations which deal with longer-term actions. New section 25B, which is contained in this clause, sets out the contents of a declaration and includes a requirement to say who will pay for any work and how they will pay. That includes customers of service providers. It seems clear that customers, especially agricultural customers, may well be asked to pay for work that actually leaves them without water. This is based on almost all agricultural water being ranked a lower priority than urban water. New section 25O provides for a similar right to recover costs from a customer for works carried out under a regulation. This is a joke. We are talking about works that are needed to ensure that the state or parts of the state are able to meet essential water needs. Not only does this government refuse to fund more dams, not only does this government refuse to build vital infrastructure so this state can grow and develop; it will not even pay for emergency actions to protect essential water supplies. I wish I could say that was unbelievable stuff, but I cannot. It is sadly par for the course from this government. 3958 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

I will conclude by pointing out that the consultation process as listed in the explanatory notes does not include any agricultural user group, no industry representative group and, indeed, no user group of any kind apart from the LGAQ. That is pathetic. Where have all our taxes, fees, levies and charges gone? Not into health, not into our water supply and not on our roads. We do not even seem to have enough for anything. But we can afford to fly the Premier around the world and, more recently, to the Melbourne Cup. I hope his cup runneth over, because for the rest of us it is a damned dry drink indeed. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (2.45 pm): I am pleased to speak to the Water Amendment Bill. I note that the member for Tablelands talked about the Nationals doing nothing about water when they were in power. I would like to enlighten the member. When I was the minister for natural resources we put together the water infrastructure task force, which identified nearly all the major sites for dams in Queensland. I was the only minister who actually had the money available—$2 billion available; the cash was there—to do the job. We started the process, then this government came to power and the file is still there. All it has to do is turn the pages and follow it. It is all there. The costings have been done. The assessments have been made. Of course, it would not cost now what it was predicted to cost then; there would be a need to get some updated figures. But the process has been completed. All the government had to do was turn the pages and follow it. It was as simple as that. So we had all of those dams under way. One dam that the Goss government did away with—and some ministers in that government are still here—was the Wolffdene dam. At present Queensland’s south-east corner is experiencing a water shortage. The previous National Party government had bought the land for the Wolffdene dam. Those opposite sold it off. Recently, there was a lot of rain on the Gold Coast. Had the Wolffdene dam been built—it might not have been completed by now, but construction of it would have commenced—it would be half full by now. People often say, ‘It doesn’t rain.’ Of course it does not rain all the time, but when it rains we should catch the water. There are many dams located around Queensland—the comes to mind and the , which is located in the electorate of the member for Gregory, is another good example. They are big dams. Within a few weeks of their construction they were full. Ms Jarratt: Just luck. Mr HOBBS: Just pure luck, but it happened. That water was stored. That is the way it is. We have those big rains that only cause flooding and damage anyway. In this day and age we should still build big dams, but we should make sure that, if we have lighter rain, we let some of that water flow. We have to have environmental flows. I am not saying that we should do everything exactly the same way it was done many years ago, but we certainly have to have water storage. The is the second biggest dam in Queensland. The Wolffdene dam was planned to be about the same size. The land for it was bought, and the government sold it. There are now houses on that land. The stupidity that existed at that time is just extraordinary. The minister is shaking his head. He was a member of that government. Mr Palaszczuk: I will give you the answer to that. Mr HOBBS: The minister can give me the answer to that, all right. The Wolffdene dam would have been very similar in size to the Wivenhoe Dam—about 800,000 megalitres, or nearly one million megalitres. It was a magnificent site. At the time, Ed Casey was the responsible minister. He said, ‘We are going to do away with the Wolffdene dam and we are going to build Glendower in Beaudesert and Teviot Brook,’ which is what it was called in those days; it is now called the . Sure. That is fine. They are dams, but they are not big dams. They are very, very small. They are a bit like the St George dam. Those dams are not big. They will certainly be a help, but they will not solve the government’s problem. The population of this area is going to explode over the next 25 or 30 years. We have to have water. Sure, let us hope that down the track we will have better water recycling, a better reuse of water and desalination—if we can get the cost for that down. We could have all of those things. Many other countries that have been faced with a water shortage have done those things. But in Australia we have an abundance of natural resources and those guys opposite went and sold off the land. It was just extraordinary. There is also the next phase of the , stage 3. For those nervous Nellies who say, ‘It can be too big,’ the reality is that we have a big dam so that when we have heavy rainfall, we can catch it. If we do not have a heavy rainfall, we can still let the flows go through. So, there are still ways to be able to do that. It is better on management— Mr Palaszczuk: You have said that three times. Mr HOBBS: I am just making sure it is getting through. I am pleased that the minister has picked it up. I hope that he remembers it and that when he talks to his caucus colleagues he keeps reminding them that we can have big dams but we do not have to fill them up every time. That is the point. The Hinze Dam was originally planned to comprise stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3. Stage 3 has quite a large capacity, and it would certainly be wonderful for the Gold Coast and the hinterland. There is an enormous amount of growth in that region. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3959

The provisions of the bill relating to water restrictions are important. We have to look after our water. In the past we have wasted a lot of water, but the reality is that we can do very well. We have only just seen the Lord Mayor of Brisbane talk about the fact that, because the current regime of water restrictions has been so well responded to, there has been a dramatic reduction in the revenue of the water authority. It is great that we are getting a good response. That proves that we can do better. Mr Palaszczuk: The council is not too happy with that. Mr HOBBS: And we can understand why, because their budgets are structured to manage it and suddenly there is a cut in their budgets. It is a matter of stability. Maybe the minister’s department can give them a short loan to carry them through. I am sure the minister would be able to handle that. Mr Palaszczuk: We have the Blueprint for the Bush to look after that. Mr HOBBS: I see. I refer to the $250 million southern regional water pipeline. The plan for a pipeline to Gatton, the Darling Downs and the Lockyer Valley has obviously been on the table for quite some time. In fact, they came to me when I was minister and we gave them an amount of money to undertake the first study into the proposal. It has progressed from there. I still think it is feasible. Sure, the cost of going up the range is high. We all know that. We should plan ahead and at least make sure the pipeline is big enough to carry that excess water from here to wherever it branches off. It might be done in two phases. The reality is that no dam in Queensland would have been built—maybe apart from Wivenhoe—if there had not been that bit of imagination. A lot of rural dams, such as those at Emerald and St George, were built for breeding fat lambs. I do not think fat lambs have ever been reared out there, on any large scale. Things move on. At St George they are growing cotton; in years to come, they might be growing vegetables or doing other things. The reality is that the return on those dams is enormous. It is very important that the minister understands my next point. The government keeps on saying that the ACCC and everybody else say that we cannot build the dams. The government could argue that we can build the dams. All it has to do is be transparent in relation to the community service obligation that is provided. Once that community service obligation is provided, the government can say, ‘We are going to put in 20 per cent,’ or whatever the case may be. The dam is built, and away it goes from there. The government could have further management down the track. If it did that, the government would find that the returns will be there later on. Some of the schemes we have in Queensland are fairly marginal schemes, but what is their value to the local community? The Burdekin is a good example. The Burdekin is a very viable irrigation scheme, but the government has been a bit too greedy and that rate of return—I think it was done before this minister’s time—was an illegal charge. The purpose of this bill is to try to cover the backside of the government in case the court case goes against it. The minister is shaking his head. In his summing-up, can the minister guarantee to this parliament that this legislation will not impact on the current court case in the Burdekin involving the department? Can he guarantee that this legislation will not have any impact on the present argument in relation to the rate of return charge put on those irrigators in the Burdekin? We all know that the government has reticulation charges and management charges in relation to water, and people accept that. In the past I think reasonable money has been made out of the Burdekin scheme. But the government cannot do that all the time. Industry can be strong for a few years, particularly the sugar industry, but not necessarily all the time. There are periods when industry is on its knees. Certainly in the past industry has not had some good times. I ask the minister to give this House a guarantee that this legislation will have no impact on those producers in relation to the illegal charge that is put on them at present. We do not have enough dams. We desperately need more. The other day the minister mentioned the Connors River dam. It is a damn good site. I flew over it the other day. The Urannah dam site is also a very good site. The minister should be actively going out there looking at those. If he did, I think he would find that, for not a lot of money, he could have some really good dam sites. What is extraordinary to me is that, because the Urannah dam was not built, government and industry will spend $350 million to build a pipeline from the Burdekin to the coalfields in the Bowen Basin. The government could build a dam for $150 million and it would have 25 to 35 times the volume. Ms Jarratt: We need water next year. Mr HOBBS: For sure, but the dam could have been started. The dam should have been started. Ms Jarratt: There are processes. Mr HOBBS: But you have not done anything. There has been no planning done. Everything has been there. The sites have been there from time immemorial. Mr Cummins: You knew the mining boom was coming? Mr HOBBS: Of course we did. That was why we did the water development in those areas, you clown! That is what it is for. I withdraw that. 3960 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

There certainly is a need to look seriously at what can be done. I desperately hope that members opposite see that there are problems in relation to water development in this state and that there is a desperate need to address them. A lot of research has been done. As I said earlier, the Urannah site is magnificent, as is the Connors River site. I believe that the Connors River dam can be built in stages. For not a lot of money—probably $50 million or $60 million—a reasonable dam could be built. But the planning has to be done so that it can be expanded. There is an enormous valley there that goes in both directions. I do not think there are a lot of land-holders involved in that region. It is the same for the Urannah site. Water in Urannah would ensure water back through the Elliot channel and down to Bowen. There is enormous potential for further development there. Recently I was in Bowen. The farmers there are doing a magnificent job with the amount of water they have. Just think of what they could do if they had guaranteed, reliable supply. Ms Jarratt: It was never intended to bring water to Bowen. Mr HOBBS: I tell you what: we can bring water to Bowen with it. Ms Jarratt interjected. Mr HOBBS: That is coming down through the Elliot channel. That is our scheme. Currently there is spare capacity in the , but all you would be doing is eating into another supply. It is a bit like the situation here in Brisbane. The government is saying, ‘Let’s not build any more dams. Let’s use what we have.’ It takes years and years to build a dam. In relation to the Nathan Dam, the government is blaming the Commonwealth. Mr Palaszczuk: True. Mr HOBBS: But it is the ACCC and the government can argue its way through it. The government can argue that the government CSO is transparent; it should not just roll over and say nothing. It has to fight them. It is not good enough for the government to just sit there and say, ‘The ACCC said we can’t do it.’ It has to go out there and argue the case strongly. I know of cases where the government has said that the money was held back because we had not complied. The reason it had not complied was that an independent audit was not done. The audit was done by the department of natural resources instead of somebody else. It was an administrative thing, a departmental thing. That is why the government did not get the money. I think eventually it did get the money after the audit was done properly. The government cannot blame everybody else. The government of the day has the power and the authority to provide the resources for this state. There is a desperate need for infrastructure. We support most of the bill, but we are very unhappy with clause 16. Mr Palaszczuk: So you’re unhappy with that clause? Mr HOBBS: Clause 16 is the one that gets you out of jail in relation to the court case. Mr Palaszczuk: You’re not happy with that? Mr HOBBS: No. I do not think the government has done the right thing, the way I understand it. As I said before, if the minister can say that he will not use that clause in relation to the present charge that has been levied on those Burdekin growers, that will be very enlightening. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.01 pm): Last night we heard the usual tirade from the member for Callide about water matters, dam matters and infrastructure matters in Queensland. It was a repeat of what we have heard many times. As usual, his denunciations were inaccurate, a load of half- truths or worse. He impugned the Labor Party’s history in relation to dam structures in Queensland. The Labor Party has a proud history in relation to the construction of dams and water provision in Queensland. Recently I was at Tinaroo Falls Dam. That was an example of the Gair Labor government’s foresight—400 or 600 kilometres of waterways that were principally built in the mid-1950s. There was a great deal of foresight. Whilst the member for Tablelands spoke in this debate today, she omitted to make reference to that fact and who was responsible for that magnificent construction. Reference was made again today by the previous speaker to the Burdekin Dam. That was an initiative of the Hawke Labor government, principally, promoted at the time by the then member for Herbert, Ted Lindsay. It behoves us to accurately recall history and who was responsible for these things. I come from an area of Queensland in the Brisbane valley near Wivenhoe Dam. Only recently massive work was done on raising and strengthening the wall of the Wivenhoe Dam. A lot of money has been spent by this government in relation to that project. On the Brisbane River, was an initiative of past Labor governments going back to Gair, Hanlon and Forgan Smith. They are but a few examples of what the Labor Party has done in Queensland. We hear these usual ravings from the member for Callide, the member for Warrego and their like who conveniently ignore historical facts. Mr Palaszczuk: Mr Shine, not one of those opposition members has mentioned the Nathan dam yet. Mr SHINE: I am glad the minister mentioned that. Only recently I was in Theodore in the electorate of the member for Callide. A question was asked about Nathan dam. I understood that the original proposal, which was probably during the Borbidge government, was such a grandiose scheme, of the sort of proportion that the member for Warrego was urging us to adopt in relation to Wolffdene, that it was too big for its own good. What has happened is that it has been bogged down in the 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3961 processes of the federal government. For all the good that that dam or some version of the dam may have been, it has been carried away with these grandiose plans that the National Party still have, as the honourable member was referring to before with respect to Wolffdene. As I understand it, had the Borbidge government got its way with the Burnett dam it, too, would have been in jeopardy much the same way as the Nathan dam is stagnating today. Its original plans were too grandiose. Rather than celebrating the filling of that dam at the moment and planning for its opening, we would have been right back where we were with the proposal stuck in the environmental agency or competition authority quagmire that the Nathan dam is in at the moment. So I reject entirely the arguments of the member for Callide. No doubt we will continue to hear the same speeches made on every water bill that is raised in this House. The problem we face at the moment is not really so much one of infrastructure, although infrastructure to a certain degree is important. It is a question of rain or the lack of it. A great example in my neck of the woods in relation to infrastructure and rain is the at Warwick. It is a substantial dam on the Condamine. In my time it has never been full. I think it is probably down to about seven or eight per cent at the moment. The problem is not that there has not been a dam built but that it has not rained. Under those circumstances we have to be smarter with our use of water. We have to encourage the use of grey water, as the government has recently done with the purple pipes in new subdivisions and those types of things. We have to support projects like the recycling initiatives of the Toowoomba City Council which the government is very supportive of. We have to support the introduction and encouragement of the use of tanks. I commend those councils that have done that. We have to take note that Queensland is changing. Like the rest of the world, we are subject to global warming. There are examples, unfortunately, over the last 50 years of global warming here in Queensland. It is a hotter and drier state than it was 50 years ago. These facts cannot be ignored. Part of this bill refers, as I said earlier, to an area of Queensland where I was brought up—on the Brisbane River at Wivenhoe pocket, just below the Wivenhoe Dam. I must declare an interest in relation to this bill, particularly if I am here when the voting takes place later today. My pecuniary interest register indicates that I have a small interest in the family farm in that area and the farm does irrigate from the Brisbane River. In that area there has been historically free water, the reason being that the farmers there irrigated from the river well before either Wivenhoe or Somerset Dam were built. There was good water supply even in droughts. Having declared my interest in the matter, I do not want to go into it to any degree other than to draw the attention of the minister to the concern of those irrigators—that they be treated equitably with commercial interests in Brisbane. In other words, if they need to suffer some reduction in the supply of water, that burden should be experienced by Brisbane industrial users as well. The other point I raise in passing is that the meters are going to be installed at a cost to the farmers, as I understand it, and some particulars of what likely costs there are would be appreciated. The bill refers to rainwater tanks, mixing the town water supply with tank supply and the ability of the department to control the usage of that water. Clearly, rainwater tanks are to be encouraged. As I said before, I congratulate councils, including the Toowoomba City Council, on its initiatives in that regard. I would like to encourage moves to make it compulsory and necessary for new estates and new houses to install a tank when subdivisions are approved. With respect to existing homes, that is of course much more difficult but, using the carrot approach, some incentives could perhaps be given in that regard. Finally, and we are sick of hearing it, the question of the Brisbane-Darling Downs pipeline was raised last night by several speakers. Reference was made to the statement by the minister yesterday on this matter. What the minister said yesterday related to the western corridor initiative. It is a $20 million initiative which was announced at the same time as the mini budget. In its essence, this is to supply waste water to Tarong Power Station and Swanbank Power Station, and possibly extending it to the Lockyer to be used by the farmers there. Clearly this western corridor initiative is referable to the western corridor. It is not referable to the Darling Downs or anywhere else in Queensland. Therefore, as I understand it, the minister was at pains yesterday to make it clear to the people of the Darling Downs that this project did not apply to them. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to make something of that, but in all fairness and with a proper reading of the statement that is what it refers to in my view. However, today the member for Darling Downs again raised that issue. He said that the Commonwealth government was supportive of the Darling Downs pipeline scheme. That was news to me. I thought there was an application pending before the water commission. I would like to hear what the federal member for Groom and minister for resources has to say about that. He should know, if the member for Darling Downs knows, whether the Commonwealth has agreed to support that project. Let us hear what it is. Let us hear the details. Let us see how much money is on the table. Mr Palaszczuk: The member for Darling Downs made the announcement today in the House. Mr SHINE: The minister is right. The member for Darling Downs—by what authority I do not know—made that announcement in the House today. I would like the federal minister and member for Groom to comment on that. Is it true or not? Because it is of vital interest to people who live west of Toowoomba, as people in the House would know. 3962 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Finally, the member for Darling Downs gratuitously criticised the Toowoomba City Council and Mayor Di Thorley’s scheme for the use of recycled water in Toowoomba. He suggested that nobody in their right mind would drink sewage water. It is a childish sort of argument that is being run in Toowoomba at the moment. He ignored the fact that Dalby, the largest town in his electorate, has been using Toowoomba’s waste water for many years. I think the honourable member is ignorant of that fact. It is either that or his arguments are totally unsustainable and not responsible, because members of parliament have to take some leadership on these matters and cannot really come in here and say the first thing that comes into their head. Under all of those circumstances, I support the bill and support the minister’s initiatives in meeting the exigencies of these times. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (3.12 pm): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Water Amendment Bill 2005. I am surprised at the length of time it has taken for these amendments to be made, particularly with our knowledge of the drought conditions which much of rural and regional Queensland has faced over the last five years. With the amazing growth this state is experiencing, along with the fact that we have less rainfall, it is vital that this government do whatever it can to meet the challenges of maintaining an adequate water supply for this state. The challenges we face are more greatly felt, I believe, in rural and regional areas such as the one I represent. It is interesting to note that it was not really until there was a threat to the supply, around two years ago, that anyone south of Cooroy appreciated the extent of the looming water crisis. As I have said previously in this House, water has been and is taken for granted and wasted to an alarming degree. With regard to the need for water, in particular by the farmers in my electorate, I would need about two hours to articulate to this House what my constituents are actually facing. Like a lot of legislation and opinions of urban members in this House, little regard has been and is given to regional residents and the constant battles they face on a day-to-day basis. I will take this opportunity to bring to the attention of this House an appalling wrong done to a hardworking farmer in Traveston Crossing, south of Gympie. Whilst I am relieved that water availability is being addressed, the point of this legislation is questionable when there are people who can unlawfully take water from a major water source such as the Mary River, change and reduce its flow and suffer no consequences. My constituents Alan Holznagel and his wife purchased their water-frontage property in 1989 for $800,000, with full access rights to the Mary River. Approximately eight months after the Holznagels purchased their property, a sand and gravel operation commenced adjacent to the Holznagels. This business continued to excavate and pump from the Mary to wash and screen the gravel up until 2003, at which time the Mary River’s course had been altered dramatically. In 2004 I asked the minister for natural resources whether or not a licence was granted for water extraction other than for stock and domestic use from the Mary River near Traveston Crossing to operate a washing and screening plant for a sand and gravel business. The minister’s answer was that no authorisation was granted to take water for the purpose of operating a washing and screening plant. The minister then went on to say that none of the water for the sand and gravel business was being taken from a source for which a water entitlement would be required. Why would a permit not be required to take water from a major primary water source such as the Mary River? In response to another inquiry from me, the minister advised that there are no records which reveal authorisation of a pump on the Mary River for the purpose of a washing and screening plant. The minister in further correspondence states that the water for the quarry must be sourced from overland flow into a storage dam. What is so amazing about this statement is that the Holznagels, who are located directly across from the quarry site, have no water in their dams. Until a few months ago their dams were completely dry, as was most of the surrounding district. As a result of the water being pumped out of the Mary by the sand and gravel company— Mr Palaszczuk: Member for Gympie, who signed that letter? Miss ELISA ROBERTS: Which one? Mr Palaszczuk: The one you are referring to. Miss ELISA ROBERTS: Robertson. Mr Palaszczuk: Oh, he said that? Miss ELISA ROBERTS: Yes. The Holznagels were forced to chase water and the drop in their income as a result of not having water or the ability to grow fodder meant that they had to sell off portions of their property. In 1991 their annual turnover was $57,000. Seven years later it was only $18,000. The Holznagels have been forced to sell off farm machinery to survive. Mr Holznagel, who, as a result of an accident, has only a thumb on each hand, should be entitled to a disability pension but has been knocked back because his assets are too high. This farmer, thanks to the inaction of this government, which is supposed to monitor water usage and penalise those who take water illegally, is unable to sell his property because no-one wants to buy a farm with no water access. To give members an idea of the extent of the problem, when the Holznagels purchased their property, the section of the Mary River adjacent to their property was two metres deep at its highest 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3963 point. It is now only 30 centimetres. In order to pump water, the water source must be at least a metre deep. The Mary, when the Holznagels bought their property, was 60 metres wide. It is now only 3.5 metres in width. There would not be a person in the Mary Valley who is not aware of what the Holznagels have gone through. I have had local experts involved in organisations such as Landcare who know what has been done but who are afraid to support Mr Holznagel publicly because they fear they will jeopardise future funding grants from the state government. The minister has admitted in writing that the sand and gravel company degraded the river and has offered Mr Holznagel advice on how to ‘chase water’, or he was told that if he paid $100,000 he could have the whole area rehabilitated. I cannot believe the innocent party in this whole debacle is the one who is having the onus placed on him. It is about time that this government had the guts to take on the abusers of the current water management system. Mr Holznagel should be paid compensation for his years of loss. The government should be forcing the perpetrators of the destruction of the Mary River to cough up the money to rejuvenate one of the most valuable water sources in this state, the Mary River. The thing with legislation is that, if it is not adhered to, then it is not worth the paper it is written on. Stealing is a crime. Taking water without permission is stealing and is therefore a crime. Before any of us on this side of the House can take this government seriously in regard to water, the government needs to prove its commitment to punishing those who do the wrong thing. It is about time this government stopped turning its back on Queensland farmers, who simply due to their location and vocation appear to be regarded as being of less value than a city dweller and worker. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (3.19 pm): I rise to support the Water Amendment Bill 2005. The bill provides a number of measures to support actions which might need to be taken to deal with drought and emergency water situations in south-east Queensland. It does that by making a number of amendments to the Water Act 2000. Water is very important. It is arguably the most important issue currently facing south-east Queensland and Queensland, and certainly will be in the future. Many members have spoken widely on a range of topics in relation to water management, water provision, water distribution and the effect that that has on our primary producers as well as residents in urban areas. I do not wish to cover those areas again too much other than to say that as the member for Mudgeeraba, which has the Gold Coast’s water supply, the Hinze Dam, in the middle of my electorate, I have taken it upon myself to be aware of the issues in relation to the water supply. I have watched with interest over the years the debate and the information available as to whether stage 3 of the Hinze Dam should be undertaken—that is, basically whether the walls of the Hinze Dam should be raised either for flood mitigation purposes only or ultimately for flood mitigation and water storage. I recognise that it is a very complex and controversial issue. Amongst my constituents there is a definite divergence of views on whether that should happen and in which direction we should go in order to ensure the continued supply of water for residents of the Gold Coast. I do not want to go into the detail of that other than to say that I welcome information and comments to my office and to me on this matter as it progresses. I am keeping the lines of communication open for residents and with the minister for natural resources. If I may, I want to take this opportunity to table a non-conforming petition in relation to dredging of the from residents of the Garden Grove area and the Carrara area which backs on to the Nerang River in the name of Robert Marks, who is the chief petitioner. The petition was put in a format that could not be tabled, so he asked me to mention it in the House. I seek leave to table that non-conforming petition. Leave granted. Mrs REILLY: I do that quickly now, because I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Nerang River is—and would be for residents if it becomes too heavily silted and unnavigable— both a danger to small vessels that use it and potentially a flood risk. My electorate has areas that can flood if flood mitigation is not undertaken properly and also the water supply. So I am very aware that these are very important issues. At this stage, I want to thank the minister for bringing this bill to the House with these amendments so that we can deal with the drought and the emergency situations that might occur. The Gold Coast is very lucky to have a good water supply at the moment, but it is one of those things that we just cannot count on. The dam is currently at 75 per cent capacity. The Gold Coast City Council has worked very hard to communicate with its residents and constituents about the management of water, better water usage and saving water. It has spent a lot of money advertising and managing that process. It is working with other councils around the state, even though it has had a bit of disagreement around the edges about how that is to be done. We realise that we are a bit lucky at the moment, and we hope that that rain continues to fall in the right places in the hinterland catchment area to continue to give us that good water supply in the Hinze Dam. In the past we have seen that supply at a very low level, and that caused many people great concern. I thank the minister and commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (3.23 pm): I rise today to speak to the Water Amendment Bill 2005. All of a sudden there seems to be a crisis. This morning in the chamber we heard the minister for natural resources speak about global warming and hotter and drier summers in Australia and Queensland in particular. That should be enough for us to do something about it. But what else has this 3964 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005 government done over the past few years? I heard the member for Toowoomba North’s contribution to this debate today, and I always respect his contributions to debates. However, he criticised the member for Callide and the member for Warrego for their contributions. It is all very well saying what government did what. Yes, the Bjelke-Petersen government built numerous dams around Queensland and one only has to look at the growth and the productivity that has come from those dams. The member for Toowoomba North made reference to Tinaroo Falls Dam on the tablelands. It is an excellent dam which has had excellent and genuine outcomes over a long period of time. However, we have to do something about this issue. This morning I heard the minister for transport say that a thousand people a week are coming to live in Queensland, and those thousand people a week are going to tax our water supply, our electricity supply and all other public utilities and we have to be smart in the way we manage these things. This government talks about being the Smart State. It is not very smart when we do not accommodate growth in these areas. If members really want my honest opinion of this whole exercise, I believe that we should have a national summit on water. We are in crisis. Every state of the Commonwealth is crisis when it comes to water. This is an issue where the federal government and state governments have to earmark dollars and sites where dams can be built in order to address these issues. An honourable member interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I will come to that in a moment, the Howard Hobbs exercise. This issue is about a vision and being fair dinkum as to what we are trying to achieve as members of parliament. Governments have a responsibility to be able to deliver on projects, whether it is water, road infrastructure, schools, more police or whatever it may be. Recently I had occasion to visit areas of the north Queensland coast such as Airlie Beach and Mackay. The member for Warrego, the member for Mirani and I had occasion to visit Hamilton Island, which is a classic example of an organisation making the best it can of the facilities and resources available to it. It is recycling a megalitre of water a day. It is going back into the parks and gardens and what have you. It is a magnificent exercise. It is a classic example of an organisation embracing the need for change and embracing the need to create an environment which is not going to waste that resource. I come back to my idea of a national summit. We just heard the member for Warrego talk about the water infrastructure plan that he had when he was a minister. Mr Palaszczuk: I remember that one. Mr JOHNSON: That was a $2 billion package, Minister. Mr Palaszczuk: A lot of hot air. Mr JOHNSON: Hang on a second. The sites were identified. I refer to the Nathan Dam. Somebody said that we would not mention the Nathan Dam, and somebody wanted to be critical of the member for Callide in relation to the Nathan Dam. The member for Callide was not even in the House when the Nathan Dam was being debated. I can assure members that it is all very well to blame the federal government, but there are ways and means of negotiating these issues and getting outcomes that are going to be advantageous for the local people. Let us take the Urannah Dam site. When the member for Warrego was speaking, I heard the member for Whitsunday talk about the Elliot channel and the water pipeline going back to those coalfields and therefore we could qualify the need for those coalfields to generate the wealth that they can create. Nobody had a vision that there was going to be that coal there. I heard the minister for small business make comment on that a while ago. If we could all look into a crystal ball and know exactly and precisely what was going to happen tomorrow or next year or the year after, it would be a pretty awful old world. We were created to be able to think for ourselves, work things out for ourselves and achieve things. The Urannah Dam is one piece of infrastructure. A couple of weeks ago I flew over that dam site with the member for Warrego. That is one of the most natural dam sites I have ever seen in my life. I see the member for Whitsunday, the member for Thuringowa and other members from the north of the state in the House at the moment. I urge them to fly over that dam site to have a look at it. There is a natural cliff face on either side. I would not know how much water it could hold. I think it would be twice as big or maybe three times larger than the Fairbairn Dam at Emerald, and we only need to look at the wealth generation capacity of that project. I say to the minister here today: he can create a Smart State environment by building that type of infrastructure. That is infrastructure that is going to generate wealth. It is going to accommodate 1,000 people a week coming to Queensland and it is going to encourage the coalmines in that region to grow, develop and export so this country can take advantage of high coal prices. We know the wealth that the coal industry generates in places such as Mackay, Rockhampton and Gladstone. It flows on and on. We know the wealth that this government is reaping as a result of those coalmines because of the vision of the Bjelke-Petersen era, and I am not going to criticise governments before that. The point I make is that we have to bite the bullet now. It is a bit late if we have another dry summer this year. It is no use sucking another reserve dry or putting in another pipeline—spending another $100 million or whatever. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3965

The grey water from the south-east could be utilised as is done at Hamilton Island. Every day we hear the member for Toowoomba South, the member for Cunningham, the member for Darling Downs and even the member for Toowoomba North talking about the reticulation of that used water up to the downs. Look what it would do for agriculture up there. Look at the water saving it would bring about in that community. It would let that city grow even more. We are seeing too many things strangle those areas because of procrastination by governments that do not have a vision and do not know how to do it. In the House this morning we heard the minister for industrial relations and training talk about the first PPP that the government has put together, the Southbank TAFE. That is a darned good project and I applaud the government for it. However, when are we going to see this government put together some PPPs for dams so we can see that infrastructure built? There are really big companies out there such as Leightons and Abi. All those big companies are out there just bursting to get their hands on some of these projects so they can see even further wealth generated for Queensland. They could build some of these dams with a private finance initiative or a public-private partnership. At the same time we would see the flow-on benefits to the wider community, to the people in your area, Madam Deputy Speaker, and even further north and south. I was up in Bowen the other day, which is in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an area that I believe has tremendous potential for further industrial growth and advancement of agriculture. However, again, it has been strangled by government procrastination because that infrastructure is not being put in place. I return to the Nathan dam. I am going to stand on my record on this. When the member for Warrego was the minister for natural resources and I was the minister for transport and main roads in the Borbidge government we were the ones who worked damned hard to put in place an objective to see that become reality. It is all very well saying that the federal government is strangling it now. Here in the House yesterday we saw the Deputy Premier and minister for state development answer a question about something important. But what did she want to do? She wanted to attack the Liberal Party over its preselection process. What does that say about how fair dinkum she is about showing leadership and how she really feels about the portfolio she represents? It is about being fair dinkum with the people of Queensland. It is about putting in place projects and infrastructure. It is about finding the dollars so that we can see those dams built and this shortfall of water overcome. The point I make is that we are experiencing a crisis in Queensland in relation to water. There is no doubt about that. If we did not have water in the Central Highlands, we would not have the coalmines we have now and the coalmines that feed your part of Queensland, Madam Deputy Speaker. The important factor is that this is one artery of wealth that we have to really nurture. There are lots of other arteries of wealth out there that we have not tapped into yet. We can take advantage of that. We have the best agricultural industry in the world—an industry which hangs off the back of water every time. In the water pricing report put forward by Nicolee Dixon from the Queensland Parliamentary Library, she states that 65 per cent of water is used for irrigation, 23 per cent for domestic needs and 12 per cent for rural needs. When we analyse that, we find that 23 per cent of the state’s water goes towards providing for the needs of the population. Therefore, we have to look at how we can make this a better deal all round. That is why I say to the minister here today: I believe Australia does need that summit, and I believe Queensland needs to be an integral part of that summit. The population growth that we are experiencing in this state and the wealth that is going to come with it is going to be taxing on our resources. At the same time we have to put in place remedies to address that problem as it arises. I know that is happening every day. I know the government is confronted with that. We have to have a policy in place that can make certain that we do not fall behind. That is exactly what is happening now. Just a little thing like rainwater tanks is a hell of a saving. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The member for Darling Downs is a bushie, as is the member for Burdekin, the member for Burnett, the member for Mirani and many other members on the government side and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—a good farmer’s daughter. There have been many times that I have boiled the pot of some pretty mucky water, put in a handful of tea-leaves and drunk it, thinking, ‘This is the last water in the world.’ When you are perishing, you will drink anything. I see the member for Callide walking back through the door. I can assure honourable members that he has had the same experience, because I know his background. Water is a commodity to people in the bush. Regardless of where they are—and they could be in a mustering camp somewhere—it is treated as if it is the last drop they have. People do not know what it is like until they are perishing in the bush. People talk about summers and this morning the minister talked about them becoming longer and hotter. I can tell the minister that until he has been on a knocked up horse with an empty waterbag he does not know how hot a summer is. I can hear laughter from a few people on this side of the House who know what it is like. I can see the member for Callide, and I know the member for Darling Downs— Mr Palaszczuk: Tell us your story 3966 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Mr JOHNSON: It is about water. Mr Palaszczuk: Tell us the story. Mr JOHNSON: I can tell the minister plenty of stories, and they are all true. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! We might return to the bill. Mr JOHNSON: Don’t cut me off like that. I will come back to the legislation. The real issue is about realistic, open policy—policy that is going to deliver for the majority of Queenslanders. It is all very well talking about water and talking about all other types of infrastructure, but water is essential to meet the everyday needs of society. There is a lot of waste out there; there is no doubt about it. We see waste every day. I do not know how many times I drive past a house and I see somebody hosing the darned footpath and I think to myself, ‘Strike me, what is going on there?’ Mr Palaszczuk: Dob them in now. It is illegal. Mr JOHNSON: I realise that. The point I make is that we can drive through a town at night-time— even in Brisbane—and we will see the water running down the road. Do these people really know what is going on in the world? It is the old adage: they think they can turn the tap on and it will come out. Maybe it does, but one day they will turn the tap on and it is not going to come out. I say to the minister that this is a very critical situation and one that I believe has to be tackled now. The minister is in the driving seat and has to do something about it. He should not just nod his head. I believe that, as a member of the government, he has the power to be able to put in place the necessary infrastructure. There are low-interest loans available that big companies can take advantage of in PFIs or PPPs, as I said. This type of planning can be done. We can see this infrastructure built. Honourable members should look at the situation in Israel and how they recycle water seven times before they let it go. I was on Hamilton Island the other day and I saw it happening there. I did not drink the water and I do not think the member for Mirani or the member for Warrego did either. No doubt the honourable member for Whitsunday, the Acting Speaker, has been there too. I know that the water is pretty clean, but I did not taste it. If I was perishing I suppose I would. With the technology available today there is no doubt that these outcomes can be achieved. We need a couple of dams quickly. The member for Warrego and I have flown over the Urannah site. If members have not flown over it I would advise them to because it is a magnificent site on the Broken River. I believe that the Nathan Dam has to be further investigated and that the minister needs to talk to the federal government to get outcomes. We cannot procrastinate anymore. We have to see the grey pipelines to the downs happen, too, because there is too much wastage there. Whilst I support what this bill is trying to achieve, there are a couple of issues in the clauses that have been alluded to by the member for Callide. It is no good standing up here today talking about water amendment bills and then coming back here in 12 months time when the drought has gone on and on. We have recorded the longest drought ever; no rain has fallen this summer. If we do not get rain this summer we are in Queer Street. Please, God, that is not going to happen. I beg and implore the minister to take control of this agenda, take the ball in his arms and run with it because something has to be done. Only the minister for natural resources can do it with the responsibilities that he holds in that area. Hon. NITA CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (3.41 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Water Amendment Bill 2005, a bill that is very straightforward and should be supported by both sides of this House. These amendments provide the mechanism for implementing state directions to service providers in response to a water supply emergency situation that is impacting on the security of a water supply. This is commonsense and necessary to allow the state the power to give directions in times of drought infrastructure failure, contamination or any other emergency. We have seen in the past local governments whose water supply is down to two or three weeks yet they still have not imposed any water restrictions because they feared voter backlash. This legislation is indeed necessary. I am pleased to be able to say that Bundaberg’s water situation, which had been of grave concern for some 30 years, has been safeguarded by this government’s construction of the new major dam on the Burnett. We have heard in this debate the opposition’s usual excuses why it did not build this dam and we have heard again from the member for Callide that the opposition was going to build it anyway. But the fact is that it did not. Its recent claims that it would have built it even bigger shows clearly that it never intended to build it at all because it knows full well it would never have got approval to build a bigger dam on that river for environmental reasons. I can understand that the member for Callide, who had a lot of fun with this bill yesterday, feels embarrassed that the member for Bundaberg worked so hard to get this dam in his electorate. It would grate that a woman did what he could not do. As that dam fills with the wonderful rain that we have been receiving, it significantly reduces the risk of emergency situations in the entire Bundaberg-Burnett region. It is important, in response to the opposition’s claim that the Beattie government is not providing any water infrastructure, to put on record that the $240 million of water infrastructure that this government promised to Bundaberg was not just for this major dam on the Burnett. It also included a 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3967 new weir at Eidsvold that has already been constructed and recently opened; another new weir called Barlile that is going into the Upper Burnett; the Jones Weir at Mundubbera, which is to be raised; and the Ned Churchward Weir, which is also proposed to be raised. Mr Seeney: When? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: Just watch this space. This is indeed a massive infrastructure boost for Queensland and it is in regional Queensland. On this side of the House we can feel very proud of these achievements. The residents of the entire region are excited about the water security as well as the economic benefits that they are already enjoying. In contrast, the opposition is trying to forget that it is happening. This amendment bill in the House today is just another responsible move by this government to address water needs across Queensland. I congratulate the minister on addressing these problems and I commend the bill to the House. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (3.45 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2005 I would like to address the measures in the bill dealing with a water supply emergency and the amendment which corrects an inadvertent error in a process under the Water Act 2000 relating to the management of financial interests on the separation of water from land and on the creation of water allocation. Water is an essential natural resource and the key to Queensland’s economic, social and environmental prosperity. Queensland’s long-term prosperity will, to a significant degree, be determined by our ability to manage water to sustain economic growth while protecting the natural environment. The Water Act 2000 is fundamental to our water management framework and for providing security of water supply in Queensland. As all members are aware, Queensland is currently experiencing extended drought conditions. In particular, the south-east Queensland region is currently experiencing one of the worst droughts in 100 years. These drought conditions, in combination with our state’s growth, place increased pressure on our water resources. Severe extended drought or a failure of major water infrastructure may result in a region experiencing a water supply emergency that could threaten the continuity of water supply to Queensland’s towns, cities and essential services. These amendments before the House today provide a framework for the state to respond to any such water supply emergency situations. The amendments contained in this bill will establish a framework and mechanism for implementing state water supply emergency directions designed to respond to a water supply emergency situation and protect the security of essential water supplies. The exercise of these powers is only where there is a demonstrable water supply emergency. Firstly, what is a water supply emergency? A water supply emergency is a situation where there is a demonstrable serious risk that essential water supply needs will not be met. This could arise in a number of situations, for example, where a region is experiencing a severe extended drought; where there has been a failure of a major water infrastructure; or where there has been a contamination of a water storage supplying essential community needs. Currently when such an emergency occurs the state does not have the power to coordinate a response, as the responsibility and accountability for managing water supplies rests with a range of service providers. In this case the individual service provider may have to deal with the situation in isolation when a regional level response is required. There is a need in these extreme circumstances for the state to be involved in order to ensure the continuity of supply of essential water supplies. Under the new framework, the state may declare the situation as a water supply emergency and coordinate the response to the situation. The amendments create certainty for Queenslanders as the state can now take a lead role in protecting the security of water supply in Queensland in such an emergency. Secondly, the amendments set out a clear process for declaring a water supply emergency, what action or measures a service provider can be directed to carry out and how a water supply emergency ends. The process for declaring a water supply emergency allows for any necessary consultation by the state with the service providers being directed to undertake the direction. In considering if a water supply emergency exists or one is developing, the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines must consult with the Premier and Treasurer. A water supply emergency may be declared in two ways: a water supply emergency declaration and/or a water supply emergency regulation. Where a short term action, such as the imposition of water restrictions, is required, the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines may prepare a water supply emergency declaration. Otherwise, where a long-term action, such as the construction of additional infrastructure, is required a water supply emergency regulation may be made. Under a water supply emergency declaration or regulation, specified service providers will be directed to undertake certain measures such as redirect water being supplied or undertake works or achieve certain outcomes such as reduced water consumption by 20 per cent to deal effectively with the situation. The Coordinator-General may be authorised to build certain works. The minister is also obliged to consult with the Premier, the Treasurer, the Coordinator-General and relevant service providers prior to directions being given about appropriate measures, works or outcomes. When the water supply 3968 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005 emergency ends, a regulation must be made to acknowledge that the emergency has ended. However, when the water supply emergency ends, if the benefits of completing the works or achieving the outcomes outweigh the implication of not completing the works, the service provider may still complete the works. The state needs to be in a position to respond appropriately to water supply emergencies. It is imperative that the essential water supply needs of a community are secure. The general public already has the expectation that if a water supply emergency arose the state would be in a position to respond and, if necessary, coordinate a regional solution to the emergency. The amendments contained in the Water Amendment Bill 2005 will enable the state to meet those expectations. These powers will allow the state to respond as necessary when our distinctive climate and the pressures being placed on our water resources give rise to a water supply emergency situation. The other issue I would like to address relates to inadvertent error in the process under the Water Act 2002 relating to the management of financial interest upon the separation of water from land on the creation of water allocations. The Water Act 2000 provided a process for separating water from land through the creation of tradable water allocations. The act was amended early in May this year to streamline the process for dealing with existing financial interests at the time that water is separated from land on the grant of a new water allocation. The new process facilitates the transfer of existing mortgage interest from land to water allocation. When an irrigator’s entitlement is converted to a tradeable water allocation when a resource operations plan comes into effect in a region, the Water Act allows for a streamlined process for transferring a mortgage onto a water allocation where there is an agreement between the water allocation holder and the mortgagee. This refinement of the process saves the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and its client time and money and avoids unnecessary confusion about what title, land or water allocation the mortgage is attached to. The process has been supported by both irrigators and financiers alike. Resource operations plans—known as ROPs—came into effect in the Pioneer Valley and Barron catchments in June this year. The ROPs had been released in a draft for public consultation prior to the approval. This is the first opportunity in this new Water Act process for transferring mortgages from land onto water allocations to be used. However, given that the timing of finalising the ROPs and the passing of the Water Act amendment could not be guaranteed to coincide, the Water Act amendments included a special transitional provision to ensure that the new process could be used for the Pioneer Valley and Barron resource operations plans irrespective of when they were approved. A number of water users and financiers took advantage of the streamlined process and had the existing mortgage interest noted against the new water allocation. An inadvertent error has since been identified in the drafting of the transitional provisions included in the earlier Water Act amendments, which were used in relation to the water allocations granted under the Pioneer Valley and Barron ROPs. This amendment simply corrects that error to give certainty to that group of financiers and water allocation holders who have recorded their security interest under the new Water Act process. The actions taken by the water allocation holders and their financiers at the time the water allocations were granted in the Pioneer Valley and Barron catchments are now assured by this proposed amendment and no rights have been adversely affected. This amendment will guarantee that the Water Act 2000 continues to operate as efficiently as possible and that water trading continues to be an efficient and fair means of reallocating water, promoting efficiency and innovation and encouraging the development of high-value and productive enterprises. In June this year, almost 2,500 tradable water allocations with a combined volume of over 350,000 megalitres were granted to water users in the Barron and Pioneer Valley catchments. Introducing water trading to these areas has the potential to benefit individual water users and the wider community by allowing water to be allocated to the use where it would be most highly valued. With the market determining price, water users can clearly see the value of water allocations. This allows for informed business decisions and enables water users to take advantage of emerging business opportunities with any resultant rise in farm profitability benefiting regional economies. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (3.54 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Amendment Bill 2005. I guess this is the bill we have when nothing has been done for 15 years and suddenly we are facing a situation where we are running out of water and, more particularly, we are running out of water in south-east Queensland. Today, other speakers in this House have mentioned in passing that the issue of an efficient water supply and irrigation suddenly became high on the agenda when people in Brisbane and the Gold Coast came under water restrictions. Indeed, the councils of those areas also became concerned about the fact that they were forcing water restrictions on their ratepayers. Being a rural person and having lived on a farm all my life, I have had to supply water for domestic use to my house and other houses on the farm as well as over the years develop an irrigation scheme without any government support. I drilled many bores on my property and basically found water for myself. I put the infrastructure in place so that I could grow crops even during the worst drought, which is what we have experienced over the past few years. It is really overwhelmingly disheartening that the government has put in place a bore tax of $100 a year on every licensed bore on a property. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3969

The government has put no money towards putting in those bores. It has put no money towards providing the infrastructure. Indeed, when people went to the department to find out if there were any alluvial seams below their land, in most cases the department was not even able to provide the detail on that. Basically, despite having no input at all, the government has imposed a tax of $100 a bore. The worst part of it all is that the tax was put in place simply because the state is running out of water. I ask any member to work out how those two things came together. A land-holder, or a person on the land—or even a person living in the city that has a registered bore on their property—is going to have to pay $100 a year more than they paid before. Those people have developed that bore, yet they are going to have to pay $100 a year to the government simply because the government did not have the foresight over the past 15 years or so to put in place water infrastructure. I respect the comments made by the member for Toowoomba North. He detailed what Labor governments had done in previous years in terms of building water infrastructure in Queensland. I support what happened in previous years—the construction of the Tinaroo Falls Dam and the Somerset Dam in the Brisbane Valley. A lot of good projects were put in place during that time. I have to say that the Labor members in government at that time would roll over in their graves to think that in this day and age there are Labor members in this House who basically take their marching orders from Aila Keto and the green movement in Queensland and who are opposed absolutely to the building of any dams in Queensland. Reports on climate change are being tabled in this House as late as today. Previously, the Parliamentary Library put together a brief on climate change in Queensland. The indications are that we are moving into a period of drier, hotter summers and warmer winters. Indeed, over a period we will probably see more severe weather events and less rain. The summation from that is that we should not build any more dams because it is not going to rain. The reality is that people have to save whatever water they get. They have to save during the major rain events, as we are seeing in the southern part of Australia over the last few days. We will still get those big rain events where we get flooding and so forth. They may not happen every year; they may happen every five or six years, or every 10 years. But we cannot build puddle holes. We have to build deep, large dams that will be able to continuously supply water for up to 10 years without being refilled. That is not impossible. Indeed, that is what we need to be looking at. We need to supply and build major infrastructure and make sure that it can actually supply, as I said, through the periods of drought. It is pretty obvious, according to all scientific endeavour, that we will be looking at reasonably long-term dry periods and possibly short-term major weather events, so we have to put in place the infrastructure that will actually make that happen. I would like to address from my perspective the issue of the infrastructure in the central Queensland area that has been spoken about by Howard Hobbs and also by the member for Gregory, Vaughan Johnson, in respect of Urannah dam and also the so-called Gin’s Leap dam, or the dam on the Connors River. I just went quickly back through some documentation that I had in respect of the Connors River dam in my office and I was able to pull out some information on the Connors River dam that was supplied in 1976 from a report prepared by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. That was a feasibility study of the Connors River on the 95.7 dam site. When the minister yesterday indicated in the parliament that there was money to be made available to look again at the Connors River dam site, I became very interested because I do believe that, built to its major extent, that dam is quite a large dam. In more recent times, the minister’s department has actually prepared a report in respect of that dam—I think it was September 2005—which considered two sizes, I think it was 150,000 megalitres and 200,000 megalitres, indicating that that was the most economic option for supplying water to the central Queensland minefields. The interesting thing about the Connors River dam site is that it does not necessarily only supply water to the inland region of central Queensland but could possibly also supply water to the coastal region, in the St Lawrence to Sarina area. Quite frankly, that is one of the areas in central Queensland that is underdeveloped and indeed it could even be possibly the next Burdekin region. There are large areas of quite flat, very arable and very high-quality land in the Waverley plains area of St Lawrence, and if we were able to get irrigation water down from that dam site the sky is the limit in terms of what we would be able to produce. But I do question the logic of building a pipeline for the Burdekin Falls Dam into the Moranbah region at a cost of something like $350 million when we have two excellent dam sites in the region. The member for Gregory spoke passionately about the Urannah dam site which, indeed, is a very good site and which would fulfil all the requirements, and more, of that central Queensland mining area. The interesting part of it, of course, is that that dam site would not just supply enough water for the mines but also for irrigation and supply to the townships in the region. The member for Charters Towers has spoken very eloquently in this place in respect of the growing needs of Moranbah. They have the situation out there that they virtually cannot use a hose at all at Moranbah. People cannot water anything in Moranbah. Even if the pipeline from the Burdekin Falls Dam was built, there is still very limited excess capacity to supply water for general living needs in that community. 3970 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

We have also a situation where a mining company has bought a cattle property about 100 kilometres away from their mine site with an allocation of close on 1,000 megalitres and they are expecting to be able to change the licensing requirements to haul that water back to the mine site. They are so desperate for water that they are considering something like 30 B-double truckloads of water a day going over a country road, intermingled with school buses and heavy transports, which is just impossible. The worst thing about it is that they will be drawing from an alluvial seam that runs right back up to Nebo from which Nebo actually draws its water. The real problem is that most of the cattle properties in that region also access that alluvial seam and if it is overpumped one can be sure there will be no water for the Nebo township or for the properties around. So there is a huge need for a good, reliable water supply in that region. There are two magnificent dam sites that could be developed with the money that is going to be spent on one lousy pipeline. It just does not make sense. I know that the mining companies are paying for the pipeline. Maybe that is the reason for it. But it just does not seem to make sense to me that we are spending all that money on a pipeline that ultimately will be restricted in being able to supply the region. I would like to raise a very serious incident with the minister. Just yesterday a farmer suicided in Mackay and I can actually give the minister some details in respect of that matter. It has a lot to do with the minister’s department. I will call this person Joe. Joe refused to allow departmental persons or officers to come on his property to check out bore sites and also to perform the reading of the meters. The department persisted in that matter. Joe was taken to court on 4 August this year. The case was dismissed because the department did not appear, as I understand it. The cost of that court case to Joe was $700. Joe was a good farmer. He was also having some difficulty, but he was a good farmer. $700 was a fair amount of money for him. On 25 October this year, or two weeks ago, Joe was told that the department was going to appeal the case. On 25 October, Joe was admitted to hospital with a nervous breakdown and he was suicidal. The director-general’s office of the Department of Natural Resources was informed and the department said that they would withdraw from the appeal provided that he signed a document allowing the department to go on his property whenever they wanted to read the meters. That was fair enough. But the next thing was that if he did not do that, he would be fined $175,000. The department was informed, and I understand the minister was informed also, that Joe was very suicidal by this time. As I said, two weeks ago he was approached with a document to sign or otherwise he would be fined $175,000. In simplistic terms, for a person who, basically, was concerned about his situation with the department, that was enough to put him over the edge. He became very suicidal and Joe committed suicide yesterday. If I find out the department pursued this man to get him to sign that document knowing, as I understand the department knew, that he was suicidal, I can tell the minister I will take this case as far as I possibly can. I would like the minister to chase that matter up. It is a terrible situation. We have heard of other incidents relating to vegetation management where departmental staff have done the same thing to an extent. In this case, the department was warned and the minister was warned, as I understand it. He may not have been. This man was in a very difficult situation. The department has pursued this. As I said, I am very concerned about the case. I hope that the minister, with his compassion, will make sure that things like this do not happen again. Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (4.10 pm): In rising to participate in the debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2005, I want to speak on the proposed amendments to the Water Act 2000 which address measures for effective water restrictions. The current drought highlights the need for measures which allow the application of effective water restrictions. Under the existing framework, service providers are responsible for managing water supplies. The Water Act 2000 provides the framework for the service provider to apply certain water restrictions to certain customers. The question is: what initiated the changes? Under the existing framework a service provider has the power to restrict the volume of water supplied, the hours when water may be used for a stated purpose on the premises, or the way in which water is used on the premises. These provisions do not give the service provider the explicit power to restrict the actual volume of water taken by certain customers. In addition, rainwater tanks that are connected to the reticulated supply use a combination of rainwater and reticulated supply for domestic purposes and to water gardens. It is recognised that average use from a rainwater tank connected to reticulated supply will invariably include reticulated supply. The practicalities of a local government enforcing water restrictions over the use of water from these connected rainwater tanks is difficult. The amendments before the House today provide a framework for the water service provider to restrict the actual volume of water taken by certain customers and will ensure a service provider’s ability to apply water restrictions to the use of water taken from a rainwater tank connected to reticulated supply. This brings a number of issues with it. It is vital that the framework for imposing water restrictions allows for equity across water users and ensures maximum water savings during drought. Firstly, the power to restrict the actual volume of water taken by a customer is fundamental to imposing restrictions on indoor water use. Under the existing framework, a water service provider may restrict the way in which water may be used on the premises. This is effective for restricting outdoor 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3971 water use. However, this power is not as effective in the case of applying restrictions to indoor water use, as the indoor uses vary significantly per premises, specifically in the case of indoor industrial water use. So applying water restrictions to industrial customers can be complex due to the many and varied methods of uses of water for each individual industry and even individual customers. Under the new framework, water service providers may specifically restrict the volume of water taken by a customer or type of customer which will allow restrictions to be applied to industrial customers to better facilitate local management of drought by applying equitable restrictions to both residential and industrial customers. Secondly, the power to place water restrictions on the use of water taken from a rainwater tank connected to reticulated supply is crucial as they invariably draw water for garden watering from the reticulated supply. Rainwater tanks have been used for many years to provide water for drinking and other purposes for housing in rural areas. Recently, there has been a resurgence of their use in urban areas. In communities with reticulated water supplies, rainwater tanks are used to supplement the reticulated supplies. The state government is encouraging this trend, which has positive water management outcomes, by giving local governments the power from 1 March 2006 to mandate the installation of rainwater tanks in new dwellings. The best water efficiency outcomes are achieved when the tank is ‘plumbed into’ the house for indoor water use. As these tanks usually have a small storage capacity relative to daily consumption, they must be connected to the reticulated water supply so as to ensure continuity of supply. Such tanks are also used for garden watering, even though they are ‘plumbed’ for internal use—that is, to the dwelling. This is desirable from a water management perspective as it maximises the possible contribution of the tanks to meeting the household’s needs. Some house tanks are only used for garden watering but are connected to the reticulated water supply so as to ensure continuity of supply. These tanks typically only have a storage capacity of 1,000 to 3,000 litres. A hose or sprinkler will typically use 1,000 litres an hour. Thus, for much of the year, a house which was watering the garden for two to three hours a week would be drawing on the reticulated water supply. Under the existing framework, restrictions applied by water service providers do not apply to the use of water taken from a rainwater tank which is connected to the reticulated supply. The amendments will expand the existing power to allow a water service provider to impose water restrictions which apply to the use of water taken from a rainwater tank connected to reticulated supply. The application of water restrictions in times of drought contributes to significant reductions in water demand and promotes community awareness of the value of water. This, in turn, encourages behavioural changes which may lead to permanent reductions in demand. The amendments before the House will ensure equitable application of water restrictions on the use of reticulated supply in times of drought. I commend the bill to the House. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (4.16 pm): I rise to speak briefly on the Water Amendment Bill 2005. The main part of the bill is to implement water supply emergencies where there is a demonstrable serious risk to the state or where some of the state’s essential water needs will not be met. This makes a lot of sense. This bill also provides for water supply emergency declaration which, upon gazettal, has effect for up to 15 days. The bill also gives the state government the power to direct councils and other service providers to restrict or redirect water or to make other changes. The bill also gives the state government power to require a percentage reduction from all water users. I think this could be important in times of drought, which we have been suffering. Service providers can be fined if they do not comply with the emergency declarations. The bill also links the state government with public works organisations and gives the Coordinator-General powers to facilitate any work that is required. Issues have been raised about clause 7 relating to SEQWater. I have had discussions with some of the people that the minister has probably had discussions with about this bill. The Labor government has had 16 years since the Goss government stopped water infrastructure in south-east Queensland being built, and in those 16 years the Labor government has not built any water infrastructure. Now all of a sudden when Brisbane’s water levels fell to 35 per cent the government responds. The government has known for at least 20 years that water in south-east Queensland would be an issue, yet at the 12th hour the government, without completing negotiations with the 130 irrigators on the Brisbane River, has inserted clause 7 in this bill. I urge the minister to listen to the irrigators, as I am sure he will. I table for the parliament a letter from David Keller so it is on the record. David Keller has been talking to the department and the minister, along with the Brisbane irrigators. I think some of the points he raises are valid. As a shareholding minister, I am sure that he will make sure that SEQWater does do the right thing. I was curious whether other people pay for their own meters under SEQWater’s supply arrangements. I know most irrigators do, but this is a little different from that. I would also like the minister to answer in his summing-up whether this will destroy some of the common law rights of the riparian land-holders on the Brisbane River. I have talked to some of those land-holders, and some of the older families have had those rights for up to 100 years. I have also had a look on the web at the south-east Queensland water drought strategy. I notice that when the dam is 40 per cent full level 1 restrictions are enforced. I would ask the minister to have a look at that, because level 1 provides that people should restrict their water use. That should probably 3972 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005 be in place at all times. It is fairly broad and it says that people should conserve water. That is something that should be in place at all times. The department and South East Queensland Water should be promoting that more than they have done. I tried to find out when the drought strategy was put in place, but the web site did not say. I think they have been a bit remiss in not acting sooner on the drought strategy. I think that a new drought strategy is to be put in place by 2006. I would like to make sure that South East Queensland Water makes that public. I am sure the minister would be pleased to get that out into the public sphere so we can all have a chop at it. It has been pointed out to me that the member for Toowoomba North, Mr Shine, has said that the new water proposal for Toowoomba does not stack up. I call on the member to come into this House to explain where the new water proposal does not stack up. We would all like to find out why the proposal does not stack up. Mr Palaszczuk: I will give you the figures in my summing-up. Mr RICKUSS: I thank the minister for that. I urge the minister to think carefully about those irrigators on the Brisbane River and treat them with respect. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (4.21 pm): I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of the Water Amendment Bill 2005. I want to speak very briefly in support of this piece of legislation. This bill is before the House today because, obviously, we have a shortage of water. It will do some useful things to address that issue in the future. The message that I would like to pass on to the House today, however, is that one part of the water debate that we do not ever seem to consider is that of our diet in Australia. We are one of those incredibly lucky countries in that we are reasonably affluent and we have an ability to consume meat based products, if we want to, seven days a week. It takes an incredible amount of water to raise cattle, sheep and other animals for food. I would like to encourage members, if they want to do their bit to conserve water, to perhaps on one or two days of the week take a step down the food chain and have a day where they do not eat meat. They will be doing their bit to conserve water. In a lot of ways, the Western diet is not just bad for water conservation but also incredibly crazy from a health point of view. A couple of days ago I spoke to the member for Moggill. I mentioned to him that the lead table of suburbs in Brisbane that used the most amount of water was published and that out of the 10 biggest water-use suburbs in the city of Brisbane five are within the electorate of Moggill. He suggested to me that the figures were not totally right, and I can understand what he is saying. He basically said that we have to look at how much people have decreased their water use across those suburbs. I take his useful suggestion, but those suburbs are using more water than they should. As this week’s editorial in the Westside News said, they should do the neighbourly thing and use less water. It prompted me to mention to the member for Moggill that he was not part of the problem, because I believed him to still be living in the delightful electorate of Indooroopilly in the suburb of Fig Tree Pocket. It was not one of the listed suburbs. In fact, no suburb in the electorate of Indooroopilly was listed as an inappropriate water-guzzling suburb. I want to confess to the House today, though, that I was wrong. The member for Moggill now lives in the electorate of Moggill. He does not live in the electorate of Indooroopilly. There is another person who has an interest in water who also does not live in the electorate of Indooroopilly, and that is a fellow by the name of Peter Turner, who incidentally is the preselected Liberal candidate for Indooroopilly. He does not live in the electorate of Indooroopilly, but two or three weeks ago he wrote a letter to the editor of the Westside News. It was a bit awkward to understand what he was getting at, but the gist of it seemed to be that we have water restrictions simply because the government is not putting enough money into water—a proposition which, frankly, I totally reject. However, I thought it was worth mentioning to the House today on the subject that Jay Ridgewell, from Auchenflower, wrote what I thought was a very good letter to the editor in response. I thought it was worth reading that letter into Hansard today, considering we are dealing with such an important issue as water conservation and water resources. Jay Ridgewell’s letter, with the headline ‘Comments miss the bigger picture’, states— READING Liberal candidate Peter Turner’s nonsensical babble last week made me want to scream. It seems Mr Turner does not understand how the world goes round and what taxes are for, a huge concern considering he’s running for parliament. We are told to use less water because we’re in a drought, not because the Government hasn’t paid its bill to the heavens for rain. We (well, I do. I’m guessing Mr Turner doesn’t) use public transport and walk/cycle because of the harsh effects of pollution on the environment, including our quality of life, not because of an ‘inadequate road network’. We (not sure about Mr Turner) live healthy lifestyles because we want to get the most out of life, not to reduce hospital waiting lists. Mr Turner, I enjoy doing my bit for the world. If you don’t, I suggest you pursue a new career. Jay, I could not agree with you more and I am delighted to support this legislation here today. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3973

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (4.26 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Amendment Bill 2005. The main part of this bill sets out the framework for the state government to declare a water supply emergency where there is a demonstrably serious risk that the state’s, or a part of the state’s, essential water needs will not be met. It will also allow, in preparation for the introduction of new water charges, service providers to pass through the new statutory water charges to their customers and will increase the power of service providers to impose water restrictions. To address these and other issues, this Water Amendment Bill 2005 allows for a number of amendments to the Water Act 2000. The introduction of this bill is just the latest instance of this Beattie government’s scrambling to explain away another bungle—another bungle of such huge proportions that it will affect each and every person in this state. Every single Queenslander will be worse off: those who will find that they no longer have the domestic supplies available to them that we would expect in a developed Western economy; those who will find that their business or industry is affected because of lack of supply and reliability; those mining companies and farmers who find they cannot meet the export commitments that much of this state’s growth is dependent on; and those people who naively think that the Premier and his ministers have the faintest idea how to plan for the future. That is what is responsible for this bill’s introduction: this Labor government’s complete and utter failure to fulfil its primary responsibility of planning for this state’s future. The Premier has proven time and again in health, power, emergency services and more that his government is a case of the clueless leading the inept. He and his ministers are directly responsible for the crisis that we are experiencing in the state’s water supply and infrastructure. On the front page of the explanatory notes of the bill, we can read the bland sentence— The need for the amendments is principally to provide a framework and mechanism for implementing State water supply emergency directions to respond to a water supply emergency situation and to protect the security of the State’s essential water supply needs. I could say, ‘Welcome to the real world, Mr Premier.’ Yes, there currently is an emergency situation in water supplies in Queensland and it is entirely of the Premier’s own making. This is despite reports that water use in Queensland already appears to be lower than in other states. Queensland’s water use is lower than other states. I cannot understand why the Premier has not had the time to listen to the concerns of Queenslanders and to be prepared for what has happened. Yes, we have an emergency and, yes, it needs instant action to cope with it. But this emergency did not arise yesterday. It did not arise last month or even last year. This emergency started to arise years ago and, as any accident investigator will tell you, accidents and emergencies are the result of a series of connected incidents that if not identified and rectified immediately will snowball into a major emergency. Does that sound somewhat familiar? Do members really think that we would be in this situation if adequate planning and resources had been allocated to such a fundamental aspect of this state’s prosperity? Does anyone in this House doubt that this emergency situation could have been avoided if the proper planning and forecasting had taken place? No, and neither does the Queensland public; neither do the businesses and communities that are suffering so badly because they simply cannot do without water. Another pearl of wisdom from the explanatory notes to this bill—again on the front page— reads— The current water supply shortage being experienced in south east Queensland raises immediate and longer-term issues about the actions necessary to protect the security of the State’s essential water supply needs. This is a truly amazing example of stating the totally obvious. The minister responsible for approving this astounding statement must have had quite a sense of irony or perhaps deja vu. I am sure that the other members of the House, including those opposite, took particular note of the phrase ‘current water supply shortage’. Does this mean that until this emergency became obvious, even to the Premier, no plans were in place to deal with potential water shortages and drought on the second driest continent on earth? Did we have to wait for the Premier to be late for a corporate knees-up, because he was hand watering his garden, for his government to take action? The crisis in water management that is happening now is directly attributable to a complete failure to plan in the past. It is as simple as that. If this state Labor government, led by the Premier, had done its job, we would not be facing the current onerous restrictions and water price hikes that we are going to cop for the foreseeable future because it is going to take a very long time to plan and construct the infrastructure for water conservation and supply necessary to even begin to meet our current needs, let alone cater for future requirements. This government has had an antipathy to major capital works. Its lack of vision will cost Queenslanders dearly for many years to come through massive water price hikes for all consumers and through missed opportunities as businesses and industries look to locate in other states more aware of the need to build for the future. If I may again quote from the explanatory note—a very revealing document, I must say—this other little gem appears— Queensland’s extreme variability and seasonality of rainfall and predicted climate changes present many water resource management challenges. 3974 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

At the same time it goes on to say that Queensland is Australia’s fastest growing state. Finally, the Premier has found some other cause of blame for his failures. It was that wretched weather and all those greedy southerners sneaking into the state all the time. It was probably another wicked plot by the opposition to discredit his most worthy and enlightened stewardship. Unless this information was taken to cabinet by the Premier, and therefore kept secret from the rest of Queensland, it would have seemed to have been fairly common knowledge. One would assume that there were no great revelations there, but apparently there were. For the first time this government realised that two plus two equals four. It realised that lack of rain plus inadequate water storage equals disaster. If it were not so disastrous it could be comical. We have the notes to a major amendment stating that we live in a seasonally challenged state with a fast-growing population. All of a sudden, hey presto, the government finds a sudden, unexpected emergency. No wonder the Premier was casting about for suitable villains to blame. No wonder the Premier decided that Queenslanders did not really realise the true value of water, so let us slug them for the government’s mistake. That is a somewhat familiar theme in this state these days. Not only was the Premier going to charge patients for our free health system; he was going to tax southerners for daring to move here, and now he is going to slug farmers yet again because they are his favourite whipping horse. I do note and acknowledge the minister’s positive words yesterday regarding water infrastructure. There is a lot of ground to make up. I also acknowledge that the minister was not in the place when these earlier decisions were made. Let me move on from highlighting this government’s mismanagement to highlighting its use of stealth and subterfuge in its dealings with its constituents. I refer, of course, to the covert insertion of clause 16. No doubt this is one of those minor amendments referred to in, would members believe, the explanatory notes. Close examination of the actual clause in the bill itself proves that this innocuously worded provision is not minor but in fact has huge ramifications for irrigators in my own electorate of Burdekin. This clause retrospectively provides a means for the state government to get out of trouble. It changes the legal standings of directions that are currently being challenged by irrigators in the Supreme Court. The government’s own notes on the ability of the bill to be constituent with fundamental legislative principles state— Validation of Statutory Notice (Clause 16, section 1137) in relation to the amendment to validate the Rural Water Pricing Direction Notice gazetted on 6 October 2000 will impact on legal proceedings currently in the Supreme Court to which the State and the Minister and Treasurer have been joined. It is considered justifiable to confirm the validity of the notice to supply the existing State- wide rural water pricing framework. In other words, this state Labor government considers such retrospective action justifiable in order to support its own questionable water pricing policy. In effect, it will mean that this government will have no case to answer because of a political sleight of hand. It will mean that the affected irrigators, currently already being used and abused as revenue cows by the Premier, will no longer have access to due justice. They will be hung out to dry without recourse to legal action. The government knows it is wrong. Instead of letting the Supreme Court decide the legality or illegality of its actions, the government instead chooses to bury the issue by abusing its majority in this House. These same irrigators in the Burdekin River Irrigation Area, or BRIA, produce some of the highest yields and highest quality sugar cane in Australia. The BRIA makes up about half of the sugar producing area in the Burdekin. It is located within the Burdekin River delta and associated flood plains, and it is located approximately 100 kilometres south of Townsville. It encompasses about 40,000 hectares of irrigated land. The BRIA was originally commissioned in the 1950s with construction of the Clare, Millaroo and Dalbeg systems. Development of the Burdekin Falls Dam in the 1980s led to further expansion of the area including establishment of the Elliot, Houghton and Barratta Channel networks. The Burdekin Falls Dam provides the region with the majority of its water requirements. There are close to 300 irrigators and farmers in the BRIA area who will be directly affected by this provision that will remove their access to legal action. Over 3,000 hectares are currently dedicated to the production of melons, cucumbers, mangoes and sweet corn, amongst others. This area is one of the major suppliers of those products to interstate markets. This year the area’s cane growers will harvest four million tonnes of sugar cane from nearly 35,000 hectares and, on current price indications, will be responsible for directly injecting over $115 million into the local and Queensland economy. The indirect benefits are obviously many times this amount and are not an insignificant part of this state’s economy. The Burdekin was the only region in Queensland to be charged a rate of return on water prices set by SunWater. It was the only area that had this onerous extra charge put on it. Burdekin irrigators have been challenging the validity of the charges for the past five years. They resorted to withholding payment on the rate of return. They paid all the operating and maintenance costs but withheld the rate of 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3975 return element. SunWater has now taken the Burdekin irrigation area chairman, Russell McNee, to the Supreme Court on this issue, essentially as a test case. That is the basis for this amendment. The Queensland government is covering itself. In common parlance, it is covering its butt because it knows what it has been doing to the Burdekin irrigators, and it is trying to get away with it. However, as members are well aware, the sugar industry is experiencing an industry downturn at the moment. Although prospects are looking brighter, many farmers are still only receiving marginally more than their cost of production. Despite this massive contribution already pouring into the state’s coffers and the industry’s present well-known and acknowledged viability concerns, the Premier and his cohorts refuse to recognise this contribution and instead continually find new ways to extract more fees and taxes from this group. The government is determined to remove any schemes that may assist farmers being able to fairly compete in world markets and has demonstrated a breathtaking ignorance of basic economic principles and global impacts. The same lack of understanding and vision has led to this state’s concurrent crisis in health and water and will no doubt lead to others as long as the Premier is allowed to wield power with complete impunity and no sense of responsibility or propriety. Increasingly, we see the Premier and his spin maestros reverting to form and ignoring and avoiding responsibility for this government’s actions. I would ask the Premier and the minister responsible for this bill why it is necessary to include this amendment in this bill. Why are they afraid to see this particular amendment either debated and lost or passed on its own merits instead of classing it as minor and concealing it within the depths of this bill? Why are they afraid to see the court action continue? Why will they not let their government and their ministers be judged by the highest court in the land? Without discussing the court action in any detail, I will simply inform the other members of the House that the action is primarily concerned with alleged unlawful charges being levied by SunWater and the alleged failure of the relevant ministers to discharge their obligation. We are all familiar with the contempt that the Premier has for due process in Queensland and the CMC in particular, but his arrogance in trying to avoid possible damaging judgments from the Supreme Court is staggering. As I said, I would not like to hold the current minister responsible for these actions. However, to use an oft abused term these days, it is un-Australian. Australians pride themselves on giving people a fair go and on being judged by their actions and on their merits rather than their rhetoric. This should especially apply to our leaders, and to see the Premier stooping to these means to avoid judgment and potential criticism is shameful. What kind of example does this give to others? What do the affected irrigators think when they see provisions such as this one tacked onto a bill made necessary by the Premier’s own mismanagement so that the validity of their claims cannot be clearly ascertained? That this government deems it necessary to introduce retrospective legislation to avoid possible censure is unworthy. That it will abuse the position of trust it holds as the state government and use its numbers in the House to pass this shameful amendment is unworthy. That this government chooses to deny natural justice to those whom it presumes to govern is unworthy. Even the bipartisan Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was concerned about this legislation and, in particular, this clause because it is retrospective. It states— It appears possible that the validation will adversely affect a number of consumers, as the rates and charges set in the regulation may have been lower than those in the notice. This is an appalling disregard for the legal system. It is an arrogant and gross abuse of the judicial system in Queensland. The main thrust of this bill is worth while but, on behalf of my Burdekin constituents, I will not be supporting clause 16 for these very obvious reasons. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (4.42 pm): I rise to support the Water Amendment Bill 2005. It is an important piece of legislation that provides the minister for natural resources with the tools to take control of water in the state in response to a water emergency. With Queensland’s water supply in diverse hands and under the day-to-day control of councils, it is essential that very clear lines of overarching authority are in place to provide coordination and decisive action if necessary. A fair bit has been said here about the alleged complexities of water and our water management system. I would like to suggest that in some ways it is perhaps a fairly straightforward matter. There are really three questions that we face. The first is which water do we collect? The second is how do we collect it more efficiently? The third is how do we manage demand? I would like to suggest that perhaps an examination of those issues might overthrow some of the orthodoxies that get tossed up here. One of the first ones that gets tossed around a lot is the suggestion that we live in the driest inhabited continent on earth. It is a chestnut that is bowled up frequently whenever we start talking about water, yet we need to perhaps look at how much water is available to those of us who actually live here. According to the World Resources Institute, we in Australia have 51,000 litres of water available per capita per day. It makes pretty interesting reading when we start comparing the water we actually have available per capita per day in Australia with other parts of the world. We have, in fact, one of the highest levels of per capita water availability of any country on earth, after only Iceland and Russia. We are well ahead of countries such as the US. The US has only 24,000 litres of water per capita per day available and the United Kingdom has only 3,000 litres of water available per capita per day. 3976 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

The issue here is what are we doing with it, how are we using it and why is it that we find ourselves constantly facing demands for bigger dams and water restrictions when in fact we have very substantial amounts of water available to us? I would like to suggest that perhaps we are not making the most of what we have. We certainly need to have a good hard look at what we do with demand. Of the water that does fall in Australia, we actually divert only about five per cent of average annual run-off and about 70 per cent of that water is used for irrigated agriculture concentrated largely in the Murray- Darling Basin where relatively little water falls. Most water in Australia falls in the north of Australia, especially northern Queensland, across the Gulf of Carpentaria and on Cape York Peninsula. That is where we are water rich. I am not suggesting straight up that we need to start piping water from various parts of Australia to others, but we certainly have options. At this time in our history we choose to let the water fall in north Queensland and not move it south. We choose not to take water from Fraser Island, for example. We choose not to pipe artesian water that comes out and is left to evaporate massively in open drains. These are economic, social, political and environmental choices that are not actually an excuse for then running around and saying, ‘We live on the driest continent on earth and we will all be ruined.’ I suggest that the first question I posed—that is, what water do we collect—is still a debate we have to have. I guess we have collected the easy water that is near to the larger population centres. Perhaps it is time to think a little bit harder about collecting water that is not quite so close. In relation to the issue of how to collect water more efficiently, the Beattie government is doing a substantial amount in terms of creating new water storage. The Premier announced in the infrastructure plan $2.3 billion worth of new water projects. That certainly focuses on increasing water supply to accommodate our growing population, particularly in the south-east. That program’s budget includes $149 million for the Wyaralong dam, $2 million to investigate desalination options and $23 million for urban conservation initiatives. I suggest that we are simply not trying hard enough. We all stand here and say blithely that water is this incredibly valuable resource—which it is—while at the same time our efforts in demand restraint are frankly paltry. The Ipswich City Council has some very good information succinctly put on its web site with regard to facts about water. They are quite astonishing. If every Queenslander turned off the tap when they brushed their teeth, 10 Olympic sized swimming pools of fresh, clean water would be saved every day. On average, each person in Ipswich uses 350 litres daily. We physically consume less than one per cent of all of the treated drinking water delivered to consumers. The rest is used on lawns, showers and toilets and on washing clothes, dishes and cars. Some 33 per cent of all domestic water usage is consumed in toilet and bathroom areas of the family home. I do not want to put all of the weight here on domestic consumers, but there is enormous potential for savings of anything up to 20 per cent in water consumption by very simple measures—savings that would add up to $40 million a year in direct expenditure—that could in fact push back the need for something like stage 3 of the Hinze Dam by 20 years. Beyond that, as I have said, it is not only domestic consumers. I know that I have been here banging on about power and water and the connection between the two, but the supply of power uses an enormous amount of water. South-east Queensland power stations actually suck up about 5 per cent of south-east Queensland’s total water supply to cool turbines. The estimated cost of converting Tarong and Swanbank to dry cooling is about $500 million. That is not a cheap price tag, I admit. Nevertheless, if that was undertaken as a choice, it would free up 5 per cent of south-east Queensland’s water supply for other purposes. In reality, we do not do anywhere near enough in terms of conservation. The water authority in my electorate of Hervey Bay, Wide Bay Water, is a world leader in demand management, leak management and pressure management. I am firmly of the view that water authorities that do not undertake serious work in this area—be they council, private or government—lose anything up to 20 per cent of their water supply in leaks. By implementing best practice standards and dropping water pressure at various times of the day, putting serious money into upgrading infrastructure and stopping leaks, extraordinary amounts of very valuable water can be saved, thereby removing the need for very expensive and politically controversial options such as dams. We need to introduce incentives, beef up those standards and ensure that we provide every possible incentive for recycling water, particularly for industrial use. Many good projects in that regard are now going on. Again, I encourage the minister to give every possible support to those. To finish, I will touch on a matter that we certainly should consider and do a lot more work on—the potential efficiency gains from water trading in Queensland. Water trading has not really been much used in Australia. I guess you could say that the history of the water industry is that price has rarely been used as a mechanism for allocating water as a resource. It has been used only as a partial cost recovery mechanism. Water prices generally have been set at very low levels through public funding of major impoundments. There has been effective subsidisation of many government operated distribution systems. I suggest that the time is now right to consider water trading on a much larger scale. Irrigation underpins approximately one-third of the value of Queensland’s agricultural production. Water trading, particularly in irrigation areas, has very substantial potential to bring benefits to those communities. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3977

There are three areas, I suggest, where benefits can be expected from the introduction of water trading. The first involves the gains to be made from transferring water between sectors of low value use to high value use. The second involves gains from transferring water within sectors where heterogeneity between farmers creates substantial differences in marginal revenues. Finally, there are substantial gains to be had in the longer term from fostering innovation and entrepreneurial attitudes among water users. I agree that the resource is valuable. This bill is important in recognising that somebody has to take responsibility—politically and decision-wise—for the ultimate use of water, particularly in situations where there is a water emergency and local authorities who have local interests and local connections may find it difficult to make hard choices for the good of the whole state. This legislation is important in that regard. The very fact that we are debating this legislation this afternoon indicates that we need to do an awful lot more in relation to demand restraint for water. We need to think a lot more laterally in relation to where we harvest water from and how we harvest it. With those few words, I encourage the rest of the House to support the bill. I certainly will. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (4.53 pm): The very first sentence of the minister’s speech states— A combination of Queensland’s extreme rainfall variability, predicted climate changes and rapid growth is putting pressure on our water resources. Well, der! A government member: How does the member expect Hansard to transcribe that? Mrs PRATT: Excuse me, but I believe that is a defining Homer Simpson statement if ever there was one. Has the government only just come to this conclusion? We who live and rely on rainfall on a daily basis to grow crops, water herbs, collect tank water for our homes, whose very financial survival is dependent on offsetting the extreme rainfall variability and predicted—and ‘predicted’ is the defining word—climate changes to make a living have lived with this knowledge all of our lives. For us, simply turning on a tap without consideration for tomorrow is not an option. Turning on a tap is not the be-all and end-all of our knowledge of water. The honourable Ernie Bridge presented a paper on behalf of the Watering Australia Foundation titled ‘Striking the Balance—People, water and land’, but not one without the others. He was president of the foundation at the time and he was speaking at the Landcare and Catchment Management Conference in Mount Isa in 1999. Ernie has been a very strong advocate of policies which are intended to ensure that water is secured for times of drought. Some people may not agree with the proposals that he and many others like him put forward, but at least they were extremely well aware of what was a major issue for the majority of the country. There were concerns then and dire predictions long before he wrote his papers, long before he entered parliament as the member for Kimberley, and long before he became the shadow minister for the north west and Aboriginal affairs. Back in 1994, he wrote— It will take bold and visionary political leadership to give the inland absolutely secure water supplies. There are any number of bureaucrats in government departments who will argue that governments should do little more to improve the inland’s water supply infrastructure. But while they are well educated and no doubt well intentioned, none of them will have had firsthand experience of a drought. They will not have seen cattle die from lack of water. Nor will they have suffered the agony of putting too little food on the table for hungry children because the only chance to earn money for the family’s needs has evaporated with the last drop of rain three years ago. It is practical points like this which the bureaucrats miss as they scramble about in their city offices, formulating short-term drought relief measures for coping with the distant crisis. Courageous political leaders need to look beyond the well-intentioned but cold and detached analysis provided. What has really changed today in the way of thinking? Not very much. Australia has always been known as the driest continent on earth and that has often been alluded to in this chamber. Over previous years, Queensland has undertaken moves to mitigate the effects of the drought that it has endured by building dams and weirs to ensure that towns suffered minimum impact from these droughts. However, this government has been remiss in following such practices of late. The ever-increasing flow of people from other states has been a known quantity for some time and this government has failed to keep up with the demand. That is not to minimise the fact that during this government’s three terms, Queensland has suffered one of its driest periods on record. However, what it reveals is that this government was, and is, prepared to gamble on the likelihood of rainfall rather than prepare for the extreme. The Wivenhoe Dam feeds Brisbane and it is well below capacity. Only when Brisbane’s water supply began to be threatened by the drought did we ever really get any acknowledgment that there was indeed a real and major problem. Over the past few years there has been mass migration from southern states. Where was the infrastructure to offset that demand? When it rains, we need to be ready. This state is not ready. It is playing catch-up and again forcing farmers to dig into their pockets and pay. The government can say that it gives drought assistance, that it recognises the hardships of rural areas. However, I saw no understanding of the situation and no compassion. I saw a number of families put through a hell of a process in trying to obtain assistance from both state and federal 3978 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005 governments. I heard of families who were driven from their farms because it was stated in places like this, by people who did not have a clue what they were talking about or what these farmers and graziers were going through, that those farmers who were going under must be hopeless farmers and should get off the land. It was also stated that farmers get too many handouts. In the past 14 years, the South Burnett has had three reasonable years—but not everyone has had a reasonable year. Many farmers were not situated under the storm cells and they missed out on rain. If a farmer wants to grow 100 acres of corn, they need to work the land. This requires plant and equipment, fuel, wages, pre-emergent seed, potash, fertilisers et cetera, which comes at a cost of $110, plus GST, an acre. That does not include an application by ground rig or aeroplane. If they have an average year which yields 1.5 tonnes an acre, they might get back $225 per acre. If you take off the cost of the GST, fuel, mechanical repairs and wages for others, because farmers do not usually draw wages until they see what is left—and there is not usually much of that, but they are the lucky ones if there is anything left—they receive something for their effort. But if a farmer was one of those who did not receive rain on their property, they simply got deeper into debt with the banks. If next year that farmer is not able to harvest a crop, that farmer goes further into debt. A lot of farming families went backwards financially several years in a row—not because they are not good farmers but because they are dependent on water that did not come and governments did not consider it worth insuring against that by building much-needed infrastructure. As most members in this House would know, the suicide rate for rural land-holders is very high. I would like to see the government members in this chamber work from daylight until dark, seven days a week, to not get paid for a year and then get told that they are useless at their job and that they should get out—and then have the same thing happen two, three, four or more times. After they do that, then they can talk about useless farmers getting too many handouts. Many of those people were not able to collect unemployment benefits, either. It does not matter who built dams or water storage facilities in the past; what matters is what has happened recently and what is going to happen in the future. Laying the blame has never resolved an issue, but working to solve what is a common problem for each and every one of us, regardless of our political affiliations, is essential. In recent times governments have been short-term thinkers with no long-term plan to offset the bad times. Men such as Ernie Bridge were dismissed as dreamers, but they are the very people governments should be listening to. Governments may not agree with what men such as Ernie put forward, but they offer ideas. They are long-term thinkers, experienced in the area of rainfall shortages. The method of using open canals in some irrigation areas is a most wasteful practice and should be curtailed. Suggestions have been made by people who are familiar with some areas that a series of weirs would have a more economic and beneficial effect than would a dam. I do not say that they are right, but I ask this government to think outside the square. There are dams full of silt that limit their capacity. When these dams are very low—as they have been over the past few years—they should be dredged so that when the rain comes, they are back to their original holding capacity. If necessary, that silt should be sold to offset some of the dredging costs. When any weir or dam gets low, it should be dredged. During this sitting I have mentioned the issue of riparian rights over Cressbrook Creek. I can see that happening to farmers downstream of other areas. They cannot be left stranded like that. I must say that it is nice to see the Nationals finally picking up the issue of riparian rights. I say to this government that, by all means, build monuments, but make them water storage facilities to safeguard against water shortages in the future. If it does that, I have no doubt that it will be remembered for eternity. People cannot live on football stadiums. A government that provides them with water will stay in their minds forever. Recently Kingaroy was recorded—and each and every member should know this—as having the lowest consumption of water per capita of anywhere in the state. I say to the government that it should talk to the people in that town and learn how they achieved that. Maybe one day the people in the city could match them. Let us hope so. The amount of water that is wasted in the city is abominable. Other countries utilise their major dams and other water storage facilities. They build camping grounds and other facilities around them so that people can engage in water activities. They make their facilities work for them. We should be doing that, too. In the past farmers and irrigators have paid dearly for water. They will be paying a lot more in the future. If we compare the effort that is involved in growing and supplying produce with what city people do, we find that there is no comparison at all. Farmers pay a very, very high price. The Tarong Power Station uses a lot of water to generate power. That water could be utilised further. In the past proposals have been made for the establishment around the area of that power station of an industrial precinct comprising maybe fish farms and multipurpose canneries. There is so much wastage of our water. It is time that not just the government but each and every one of us thought outside the square and made long-term plans and looked to long-term thinkers such as Ernie Bridge and his ilk to get to where we need to be. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3979

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (5.04 pm): It is indeed a pleasure to rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2005. Lest members of this House and those others listening think that the members opposite have a monopoly on the dependence upon rainwater tanks for their water, I will tell them my childhood story, too. I grew up on a farm where rainwater tanks and the water that was contained in them was the only source of water for all household purposes. The three children shared the two inches of water that was put in the bath—whatever colour it was, depending on whatever we had been doing. The greatest delight in our lives was sitting on the veranda during the summer thunderstorms and watching the overflow spout from the water tank. The moment it overflowed, that was our signal to go and turn the bath tap on, put the plug in and let the water run until it was full to the top. I can assure members that in my household an Olympic sized swimming pool never had the same attraction as a full bath. Even when I went to boarding school I was limited to three-minute showers. That was not because the school was dependent on a rainwater tank—it had town water—but the boiler did not work very well. In Warwick, where it is pretty cold in winter, I had to limit my water use so that everybody could have a hot shower. I spent my formative years conserving water in a way that has led to lifelong habits. I would gladly share some of those habits with members of this House and elsewhere because it is the way of the future. There is no more important issue for this state or this country in the future than water. So I am very delighted to make my contribution to the debate on this bill today. It is also worth mentioning that this morning the minister for the environment and the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines released a discussion paper called Climate smart adaptation. It urges people to consider what changes we might need to make in our thinking, in our environment and in our habits in light of the now indisputable fact that we will have to adapt to the effects of climate change. A section in the report refers to water resources and states that water quality and quantity are expected to decline in some areas due to higher temperatures, increased evaporation and lower rainfall. These conditions may suit algal blooms. When it does rain heavy downpours will increase the risk of soil erosion and the sediment and nutrient loads in waterways. The amount of water available for ecosystem functioning is also likely to decline. So climate change is a serious matter. Part of this bill addresses the security of the water supplies that we have currently and which we must protect if a drought becomes so prolonged that we need to have emergency responses to our use of water. Before I address other aspects of the bill, I want to reply to some comments that have been made today by those opposite about Urannah Dam. The Urannah Dam proposal has been around for quite some time. It has always been predicated on the need to complete the water resource plan for the Burdekin catchment. That has not yet been completed and no decision has been possible. If one listened to those opposite, one would think that we were just being bloody-minded in not making a decision. That is not true. The facts are not before us. For instance, we do not know the ultimate cost of that water and who is willing to pay for it. There is a suggestion coming out of Bowen that there could be a greenfield cotton industry around the Collinsville area. I have written to Cotton Australia asking them to confirm that that is a likely event. I have received no reply, even though it has been some months since I wrote that letter. I do not know whether that means that Cotton Australia does not support the idea. For whatever reason, Cotton Australia has not replied to my letter, although it has been quoted as supporting this industry with the water from a potential dam. I am also led to understand that the owners of the land upon which the Urannah Dam would be sited are Indigenous owners. It is not certain that they would be willing to part with that land. I think there is a long way to go before we make a decision to put the dam there. However, if it does happen, there is good news. De-Anne Kelly, the federal member for Dawson, has stated in my electorate’s local paper that, through the funds available to the federal government from the National Water Initiative, it will fund the dam. So at least we know that the state government will not have to get out the chequebook; there is a commitment from the federal government. I think that we can keep going with our processes and if it should turn out that that dam is feasible, then we will just hand it over— Mr Palaszczuk: That is the second commitment. The first commitment was the funding of the recycled pipeline to Toowoomba by the member for Darling Downs today. Ms JARRATT: That is very generous of the federal government. We need to hold it to those commitments. I think that must be noted. I will return to the bill because I want to deal with infrastructure investment and issues regarding compensation in the event of a water supply emergency. These are important elements of this bill. The Water Act 2000 provides a framework for the sustainable management and allocation of the state’s water resource, principally through a comprehensive water planning framework. Further, the Water Act 2000 regulates water service providers. In particular, the act requires water service providers to prepare strategic asset management plans that detail specific infrastructure and capital works requirements. Regional water supply strategies are currently being developed in parts of 3980 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Queensland which identify specific infrastructure requirements to deliver future water supplies. Despite this comprehensive planning framework for future water needs, factors such as increasing population, increased water demand and climate variability may still threaten our water supply security, and I pointed that out earlier in my address. The Water Act 2000 does not currently provide for the state to coordinate solutions at a regional level and make directions in response to a water supply emergency. For example, the construction of a significant water infrastructure may be an option not considered by a service provider without a state direction despite its obvious benefits. In complying with the water supply emergency declaration, a water service provider may invest significant capital in the construction of works to comply with the direction. The amendments before the House today provide an infrastructure framework for service providers that are directed to carry out work under a water supply emergency direction. In recognition of the potential impacts on third parties, the amendments provide a framework which allows for the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, in consultation with the Premier and Treasurer and the Attorney-General, to consider on a case-by-case basis an application for compensation flowing from a declaration. There are certain types of activities that a water service provider might be required by the state to do in a declared water supply emergency. These activities could range from protecting the current water source or providing an alternative source of water, thus ensuring the community’s essential water needs can be met. These activities might include constructing new infrastructure, fast-tracking major maintenance programs to reduce water losses, implementing demand management programs or implementing water restrictions. Significant investment might be required by the water service provider and the state in the implementation of those activities. The new provisions allow the water service provider to recover investment costs from customers where such costs have been approved. Some costs may also be recovered from the state when the state chooses to make an up-front contribution. This ensures the water service provider’s financial viability is not compromised as a result of having to comply with a water supply emergency declaration. Water service providers will be able to recover a rate of return on their investment even if this emergency investment is different to or is made sooner than the previously planned programs. To ensure works are completed in the time needed, the state has the ability to appoint the Coordinator-General or another appointee to complete the works. In such circumstances, costs of completing the works incurred by the appointee on behalf of the water service provider can also be recovered. These provisions provide investment certainty to the water service provider, which otherwise may have been unable to undertake the works without compromising their financial viability. Investments made under a water supply emergency will not subsequently be removed from a water service provider’s asset base by a pricing regulator. This ensures that there are no penalties for complying with a directive to deliver the water supply needs of the community. The amendments also set out a process for applying for compensation. An application for compensation may be made if a person has suffered loss or damage as a result of the water service provider complying with a water supply emergency declaration or regulation. For example, compensation may be payable where the minister requires a service provider to redirect supply from one customer to another. However, compensation will not be payable for losses incurred as a consequence of restrictions, as is currently the case, or for losses incurred by a service provider as a consequence of complying with a direction where the costs of complying are recoverable from the customer. To be considered for compensation, an application must be made to the minister within 65 business days of the declaration or regulation. A judicial review process is available to claimants who are not granted compensation as a result of a process matter. Queenslanders will benefit from these water supply emergency provisions. The state will be able to direct water service providers to undertake measures necessary for ensuring the community’s essential water supply needs are met whilst providing financial certainty for water service providers required to undertake the activities. In light of the uncertainty that surrounds the future of our water supplies because of global climate change, I cannot but support the amendments in the bill before the House tonight. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (5.15 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Water Amendment Bill, particularly with regard to one issue that the member for Hervey Bay mentioned which is certainly near and dear to my heart—that is, the fact that we basically do not reuse our water. If we look at countries like London, they are recycling water and using it many times— Mr Lawlor: That’s not a country. Since when has London been a country? Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I take that interjection and that wonderful geography lesson. Thank you, member for Southport. I will make sure that I do not do that again. As I was saying before being interrupted by the member for Southport—that is a country, is it not? Southport is a country? Mr Lawlor: It should be. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Yes, it should be; that is right. In places like London, water is used over and over and over again. In fact, I found out after I visited London and drank copious amounts of water from 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3981 the taps that the water was on about its fourth, fifth or sixth go through. In Australia we are very inefficient users of water. We flush perfectly good drinking water down toilets. We hose our driveways and wash our cars with potable—drinking quality—water. In fact, our use of water is quite ludicrous. Let me say at the outset of this debate that I would like to see both ends of this tackled. Not only do we need water infrastructure on a grand scale, but we also need to be more conscientious as to how we use and reuse water. I am all for the idea of recycled water being pumped over the big hill to the Darling Downs or anywhere else we can reuse it—that is, water from washing machines and things like that. We need to use that water in our gardens and get recycling under way. One other area in which we are very inefficient in the use of water is in our gardens, and recently I replaced all of our couch grass with buffalo grass, which only needs two to three hours— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Concrete in Southport, yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask for your protection from the mirthful members up the back here. I cannot get a word in edgeways! In all seriousness, buffalo grass is so much more efficient than couch and only needs about two to three hours a day of sunlight. Even without rain, it grows incredibly. We need to think a lot about the grasses that we use in our gardens. We have taken all of the plants out of our garden and replaced them all with Australian native plants. Whether it rains or not, they grow very well. So we need to think about domestic consumption. We need to think a great deal about our use of washing water, and next year I intend to bring to this parliament a private member’s bill regarding urinals. We can call that the piddle bill, if we like. In all seriousness, in doing the research and speaking with Desley Boyle, the environment minister, on this particular point, we came up with some figures. One of the high schools in Brisbane had the old style urinal which constantly filled up and flushed and ran all day. It was using something like 270,000 litres of water a fortnight—that is, this one urinal. When motion sensors were fitted to it, it cut it down to 4,000 litres. If we translate that right across the state, the savings are monumental. As I said, I aim to bring that legislation to the House next year. At the moment in the Maryborough district things are very good for us with regard to water. The Mary River barrage is 100 per cent full and the Tinana barrage is 100 per cent full. In the overall area, the is at 100 per cent; , 53 per cent; , which is just a beautiful wildlife haven, 87 per cent capacity; and the Claude Wharton Weir, 100 per cent. So in our particular region there is a fair bit of a water. However, Hervey Bay is struggling for water. There is a concerted effort there to raise the walls of . That has been met with some resistance from some of the locals who are very concerned about its impact on the Wongi waterholes and the local Indigenous population is very toey about that particular issue. It has been suggested that they will build some levy banks at the Wongi waterholes, even though the dam walls are raised. Of course, people would then say, ‘But look what happened in New Orleans.’ It is a tough one. However, we need to keep water infrastructure growing and we need to take a long hard look at ourselves in terms of water use and consumption. Of course, using tank water is excellent. It is amazing how things go full circle. When I was a kid every house had a tank, but over the past few years they have fallen out of favour. Now they are starting to return with a vengeance. Part of the problem was rusty, leaking tanks, which have been replaced by poly tanks. Also, desludging tanks is difficult. In our area a company called Fluid Industries makes all sorts of innovative desludging products. The company is run by Steve Walker, a very good friend of mine and a local candidate for the Green Party who stood against me at the last election. Steve is a great guy. He shares my passion for water and produces some fantastic products for tanks. An area that concerns me is the ownership of water. If someone goes to the expense of building a dam on their own property and creates infrastructure with their own capital, I fail to see the logic of the argument that they do not own that water. That is illogical and an unusual perspective. I have already spoken about the Wongi waterholes. A constituent has brought a complaint to me that Wide Bay Water said it was a done deal, even though all the permits were not in place. He was very upset about that. Mr McNamara: Do you support the Burnett dam? Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Absolutely. As part of the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program, the state government has set aside funds for a new weir on the Mary River and a future major storage facility in the Mary River Basin. A broad range of options have been looked at for the project which will include not only new infrastructure but also demand management measures, the reuse of treated waste water, desalination, domestic rainwater tanks, integrated urban water management systems, the expansion of and improvements to reticulation systems including leakage management— which is one area where Wide Bay Water pretty much leads the Southern Hemisphere—and other initiatives to improve water use efficiency. It is all about finding the balance between water infrastructure and keeping things moving while, more importantly, looking at our use of water and, specifically, our reuse of water. 3982 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (5.22 pm): You do not really appreciate a glass of water until you go thirsty. I discovered and experienced the truth of this statement as a 15-year-old in the hills of Tumbarumba in New South Wales during the survival phase of my RAAF initial training. As RAAF apprentices on survival training, we were all expected to dig for water in dry creek beds, and the digging was not all that profitable. After a couple of days of gritty brown sludge, I well remember the delightful taste of that first mouthful of crystal clear rainwater and also the luxury of a bucket shower. The enactment and implementation of the Water Amendment Bill 2005 means that if, in extreme circumstances, the security of the state’s water supply is threatened we will not have to resort to digging in dry creek beds for our water. That is why I will join with my National and Liberal colleagues, as well as members opposite, in supporting this legislation. As the minister stated in his second-reading speech, the amendments to the Water Act provide a framework and mechanism for implementing state directions given to service providers in response to a water supply emergency situation impacting on the security of water supply. The minister is referring to the Water Act 2000, the master legislation that is amended by the legislation before the House. When one visits the Isis, the Burnett, Discovery Coast and country hinterlands, one sure-fire way to prompt conversation is to ask someone how much rain they have had. However, be warned and prepared: that discussion may carry on for a few hours if not a few days. When working as an ABC Radio presenter, I remember a challenge to choose topics that engaged the listeners and caused them to ring and make comments. One of the most successful talkback topics, which was always guaranteed to start the phones ringing, was: how much rain have you had and have you received enough? The phones ran hot when Cyclone Benny parked itself over the Fred Haig Dam, or the Monduran Dam as the locals know it, and dumped almost 20 inches of rain. The dam had been reduced to four per cent capacity and the farmers’ water allocations had been drastically cut. Water had been traded and sold for up to and above $1,000 per megalitre. Many people in my electorate are not connected to the town water supply. I am amongst that number. I have to rely on the water we collect in our rainwater tanks, as many other members have talked about in the parliament today. Therefore, I believe that we have a greater appreciation for the need to save water. I am talking about psychology. Country people have a greater appreciation for maintaining water quality and are more thankful than their city cousins when rain falls from the heavens, because they have a more immediate connection with the environment. When I was hooked up to a town water supply and I could turn on a tap that was guaranteed not to run dry, I took water for granted. I could never understand why my dad got excited when it rained and the tanks filled, until my cousin pointed out that grandma and grandad brought up a family of seven children relying almost exclusively on a couple of very small water tanks, a hand-dug well and a dam. If we really want to find someone who is waterwise, we need to travel into the country and regional areas and talk to people whose survival in a very real, immediate and practical way depends on having a reliable water supply. Those people not only understand in an academic and logical manner the importance of water supply security, but also they feel it in their very bones. If I am permitted a pun, they feel it in their very own water. It is a visceral understanding that has escaped many members of the Labor Party. Those members are blinded by an unbelievably simplistic and fanatical green ideology that can be best summed up as dam bad, no dam good. It is a profitless political ideology that has, in part, led to the creation of this legislation. The member for Callide, along with many others on this side of the chamber, have eloquently pointed out that this Labor government needs to have the political courage and foresight to plan and build water infrastructure sufficient to accommodate our state’s growth and give us the capacity to withstand the vagaries of our diverse climate. In the past 17 years, Queensland has been governed by the Labor Party for approximately 15 years. While I agree with the major thrust of this legislation, the document is proof of Labor’s 15 years of water mismanagement. Mr Nuttall: We have just built a dam in your electorate. Mr MESSENGER: I take the interjection from the member for Sandgate, who says they have just built a dam in my electorate. First of all, it is not in my electorate. It is in the electorate of Callide. Mr Nuttall: It is next door, you idiot. You are an idiot. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The minister will withdraw that comment. Mr Nuttall: I withdraw—poor little sook. Mr MESSENGER: I accept the thrust of what the member for Sandgate is trying to say, albeit in such a clumsy way, that we will benefit from the creation of that dam. I remember a billboard located on the outskirts of Bundaberg that showed cartoon caricatures of the Premier and the member for Bundaberg, and asked the big question: ‘When are we going to get our dam?’ They had to be shamed into building the dam. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, this document is an admission of Labor’s water mismanagement and guilt. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3983

This legislation is a bit like one of those fire axes stored behind a glass cover and on the cover it says, ‘In case of emergency, break glass.’ If the minister wanted to get the symbolism right, perhaps he might like to store a copy of this legislation the same way as a fire axe. Do not forget the lettering, big and bold: ‘In case of emergency, break glass.’ Or, if we really want to be precise, the lettering should read, ‘In case of a Labor-induced water emergency, break the glass.’ Let us hope that this legislation does not have to be used. While I have already mentioned that I will be supporting this legislation, there is one major flaw that I draw to the attention of the House, and it is one that has been mentioned a number of times in the House this afternoon and this evening. Clause 16 is designed to get the state government out of trouble in a matter presently before the Supreme Court in which issues are raised about the validity of rural water pricing direction notices. It ensures that the directions are valid. This has also been pointed out by the shadow minister, and we will be listening to the minister’s reply when questioned about this clause in the consideration in detail stage. We do have a number of local water problems which I would like to address. The Burnett Shire Council is one of three local government areas in the state Burnett electorate. The council operates seven water supply schemes. These currently service an estimated 16,000 consumers. The Kalkie plant supplies treated water to communities of the Coral Coast—Port Bundaberg, Burnett Heads, Kalkie, the Hummock, Bargara, Innes Park, Coral Cove, Elliott Heads and Riverview. The shire also has treatment plants servicing the communities of Moore Park, River Park, Burnett Downs, Rocky Point and Tantitha West. Tantitha sources bulk-treated water from Bundaberg City Council. An estimated 16,000 consumers receive treated water from the council. The shire water areas are predominantly within the Bundaberg irrigation area and also contain declared ground water areas and declared catchment areas where both ground and surface water is highly regulated by the department of natural resources. Raw water for the reticulation schemes is obtained from a variety of bores, the Bundaberg irrigation scheme and the Burnett River. At the Kalkie water treatment plant, bore water is generally used only when insufficient river water can be obtained as it is of a poorer quality. Occasionally when the river water is unavailable only bore water is used in the plant. This is due to SunWater conducting maintenance along its supply channels. During this time the water will taste and smell different than normal due to the higher mineral content of the water. Water meters were installed in the Kalkie scheme in 1996 and 1997. The current charging system is a two-part tariff. No base allocations apply to any premises and all customers pay equal use charges. By installing water meters, and through other demand management initiatives, water consumption was reduced in the council’s major scheme by almost 50 per cent in three years. I applaud the council for that initiative. The savings in capital infrastructure expenses are in the order of $6 million to $10 million over the subsequent five years. Due to water being such a precious resource in an uncertain long-term supply, many areas of the shire are under permanent water restrictions. These restrictions apply to premises either within or connected to the nominated water supply areas. The minister will also note that in the Burnett coast area there is a problem with approximately 200 farmers who have to access their water from underground. In recent times that water is becoming saline and farmers, by irrigating with this water, are essentially poisoning their soil with saline water. There was one particular case last zucchini season where a farmer irrigated a crop of zucchinis worth about $60,000 to $70,000 and the saline content of the water killed off the crop. So a crop was lost as well as quite a number of jobs—probably 20 to 25 jobs picking that crop. It is very important that we get the water policy right there. One of the solutions for decreasing the salinity in the underground aquifer along the Burnett coast is to hook up and connect those 200 farmers to the surface water supply system. It is a program which I believe is being studied at this very moment, but it has been studied for a heck of a long time. We need $20 million to $30 million at least to connect those farmers and extend the infrastructure. It is a project that I hope the minister looks at quite seriously. I will move north in the Burnett electorate to the Miriam Vale Shire Council. That council is in a unique position. It has very small resources when it comes to water supply. In fact, every drop of water sold in the Miriam Vale shire is paid for by the residents. For example, in 2003-04 the water access rate was $160. A further charge for each kilolitre of water used was $2.19. In 2004-05 the water access rate was $180 and the further charge for each kilolitre of water used was $2.25. In 2004-05 the water access rate for Agnes Water-1770 was $325 and the further charge per kilolitre was $2.80. The Miriam Vale Shire Council has a regulation whereby new houses must be accompanied by a rainwater tank, and I compliment the shire on that initiative. In practical terms, it means that small businesses in Agnes Water-1770 are looking at a quarterly water bill of anywhere between $250 and $300. There are a number of other water problems that we have in the Burnett. Recently I tabled in this parliament a picture of some water hyacinth or salvinia. It is a pest that is clogging up our waterways. From the centre of the Cedar bridge the photograph looks backwards, and from bank to bank one can see water salvinia and no water whatsoever. This is a huge concern to the mayors of the Burnett shire and the mayors of Isis and Miriam Vale. If we are blessed enough to get a substantial downpour this summer in that water system, that water weed will be carried almost on a tidal wave all the way down 3984 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005 the river, and so it poses a direct threat to property and life. I have seen photos where water weed has almost sunk boats. It has ripped out moorings and infrastructure on the side of the banks. It is something that we need to get rid of. The state government’s effort has been really poor in helping those local government authorities and the federal government rid the Burnett of salvinia. I have met and spoken with Stuart Kininmouth, an ecologist from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, who said that the salvinia in Kakadu, where he worked, was eradicated by a beetle. Unfortunately, in Bundaberg it gets too cold during the winter for that little beetle to work, so we have to rely on means other than biological to get rid of that weed. A water harvester is one such method. After talking with a number of people I have come to the conclusion that water harvesters are not that effective. They cost initially $300,000, quite a large up-front capital cost, and they can cost anywhere up to $1,700 a day to run. They do not do a great area of river when they are operating. I think both sides of parliament have to put our heads together as well as the community to find a better way of removing this water weed. It is a weed, as I have pointed out, but it is high in nitrogen. Perhaps a way could be found of converting that into money—perhaps by the Isis mill, which has a cogeneration plant. Maybe there is some way to rake this weed out of the river, deposit it on the banks, collect it with those cane bins and haul it off to the mills. Perhaps we could use it in a cogeneration plant. Perhaps we could use it as a fertiliser to fertilise the ground. Either way we need to get rid of that water weed from our rivers. There is not only a threat to property and life but also a threat to the biodiversity of the river, especially the lung fish that lives there, a 300-million-year-old living fossil. In closing, I reiterate that I am pleased to support this bill, but the minister has some big problems in the Burnett, and I would appreciate his attention. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (5.40 pm): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak in support of the Water Amendment Bill 2005. Members will be pleased that I am going to limit my contribution to addressing the water supply emergency provisions of the bill. We have heard a lot of talk about the current drought in the south-east region and how important the management of our state’s water resources are in these circumstances. The way in which the state manages or deals with the water supply emergency situation is another key part of how we manage our water resources. The water supply emergency powers will clearly be used as a last resort measure to address any emergency situation. It is necessary for the state to be able to provide a response in circumstances where the essential water supply needs of a community are under threat of discontinuing supply. This may occur for a number of reasons. By way of example, the Water Amendment Bill identifies a number of such circumstances—for example, if major water infrastructure, like a water treatment plant, failed and there was a contamination outbreak in the major water supply storage used for essential water supply needs. In these circumstances there is an obvious need for action to be taken to ensure continuity of water supply. The proposed amendments will allow the state, where appropriate, to determine and direct what action should be taken to address the emergency situation. This is a direction given to particular water service providers. It should be stressed that these emergency powers form part of an overall framework of the state’s management of our water resources and will, because of their nature, only be used as a last resort measure. Our management of our water resources is fundamentally based on the water planning framework set out in the Water Act. The Water Act establishes the framework for the sustainable allocation and management of our water resources. This framework is further supported by a number of regional water supply strategies being developed throughout the state. It is within this context that these new water supply emergency powers are situated. It is therefore anticipated that the powers be exercised infrequently. The amendments include a requirement for the minister to review the water supply emergency framework to assist the effectiveness of its operation. This will ensure that any necessary refinement or adjustment of the process will be identified and undertaken. This review will therefore ensure that the objectives of the Water Amendment Bill are being achieved. To address the water supply emergency, one or more water service providers may be directed by the minister to undertake specified measures—for example, certain works—or achieve specified outcomes—for example, implement a water restriction program—or perhaps do both. A directed service provider will be obliged to carry out all directed measures or achieve all the directed outcomes. Despite the requirements under the declaration, it is still necessary for the service provider to obtain any necessary approvals to comply with the directions. However, the amendments provide a service provider with a defence to any prosecution action for non-compliance if the provider was unable to obtain any necessary approval. Should a directed service provider not comply with a declaration another person—for example, another service provider—may be appointed by the Governor in Council to carry out the requirements of the declaration. This ensures a continuing response to the emergency situation in these circumstances. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3985

The water supply emergency powers will benefit all Queenslanders. The state will be in a position to respond effectively to the water supply emergency situation and where one is developing for the purpose of ensuring continuing supply of essential water supply needs. I wanted to take this opportunity to remind Gold Coast residents that on 1 October the draft resource plan was made public. I understand that a number of workshops have already been held on the Gold Coast, one was held in Nerang on 11 October and one was held at Tamborine on 13 October. The Gold Coast plan area comprises the five catchments of Pimpama, Coomera and Nerang rivers, and Tallebudgera and Currumbin creeks. The plan area is part of two local governments, the city of Gold Coast and the shire of Beaudesert. The water resources support major urban communities, agricultural production, industrial enterprises and recreational activities in these areas. I understand that the draft plan is available to residents. I encourage all residents to call a toll free number of 1800 994 188 to get hold of the report. They are encouraged to provide feedback by submission. The submission closing date is 18 November this year. I encourage all residents of the Gold Coast to do this, particularly the interested stakeholders. They could include water service providers, councils, irrigators, rural users, conservationists, fisheries interests people, traditional owners, recreational interests, bore drillers, earthmoving contractors, financial institutions, developers, researchers, catchment groups and other Gold Coast residents. I call on interested residents to get hold of that report. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (5.46 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Water Amendment Bill that is before the House, like so many other members have wanted to do. Members just have to look at the speaking list on this bill to realise the importance of water supply right around Queensland. There has been a very broad spread of views stated and a very broad spread of geographical areas represented by the members who are making their contributions. It is absolutely excellent that we have had some progress and that this government now realises that water infrastructure is necessary. For too long the pendulum has swung in favour of the green movement where it has been seen to be not sustainable, not feasible, to build any dams anywhere. It has only been when the very highly populated areas of Queensland were affected—the south-east corner and up the coast—that all of a sudden we have a recognition that dams are needed and, yes, they are needed. We need to have that infrastructure in place to catch the rain when it falls so that we have a sustainable resource for people, whether they are in residential areas, industrial areas or agricultural areas. It is terrific to see that we finally have a somewhat belated acknowledgment that, yes, dams are necessary. I look to forward to seeing some dams being built because none have been built since Wivenhoe was built way back in the 1980s. We have the Burnett River Dam approaching completion. Various members have touched on that including the shadow minister, the member for Callide, who gave the background of how and why that dam was built. I think it is instructional to notice that if voters can force the Premier, in an election campaign, to say something about water infrastructure, they might just get it because it is the only time that they will get it. That is the only piece of water infrastructure that has been completed. I often use that as an example in my own electorate; that it is the only piece of infrastructure completed since the Wivenhoe Dam was built. My constituents are astounded that that is the case because we have been living with water problems for some time. Everyone in the Cunningham electorate is very well aware of the necessity for water infrastructure. Like on so many issues, I get a unique perspective because my constituency is a very broad one. I see what happens with the water supply in a major city—the city of Toowoomba, which has over 90,000 people—with the water supply for small country towns and with the water supply for agricultural purposes. In each of those cases there has been very real and sometimes conflicting demands on water. We have very efficient irrigators in the irrigation areas in my electorate. The yield per megalitre of those irrigators and farmers is exceptionally high. It is valuable, productive country. Being able to water the land means that we can actually produce very high value crops. They contribute significantly to the economic value of this state and this nation. That is something that we need to recognise; that there is a value in water being used for agricultural purposes. Of the smaller towns in my electorate perhaps the one that has had the most serious problems with water supply has been Clifton. Over the years it has had problems with the quality of the water supply to the township. It has been something on which that council has been working quite significantly. The problems associated with the water supply of Toowoomba and the residential areas of the surrounding shires that the Toowoomba City Council supplies is what I want to focus on tonight. The challenges facing Toowoomba are significant and are probably greater than those facing any other city in Queensland and one of the most difficult circumstances facing any of the cities in Australia. Toowoomba is a large city with a large population base at the top of a hill. We do not have a catchment area on which we can take a lot of water. Any water that we do collect in our dams has to be pumped a significant way both vertically and a long distance and that adds to the cost of supplying water to the Toowoomba area. 3986 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

We in Toowoomba are now on level 4 restrictions and have been for some time. The member for Hervey Bay, for example, was saying that we need to address demand when it comes to water. Yes, we do need to address demand. If we look at a city such as Toowoomba, we see that water demand is something that the city council has been addressing for some time out of necessity. Toowoomba has a daily per capita use of 240 litres, which is 20 per cent below the south-east Queensland average. I think that is a significant saving that we already see. I understand that Brisbane, the Gold Coast and other councils in this area have been on level 2 restrictions, and there has been some debate about that. Toowoomba went on level 2 water restrictions in 2003. That is how long we have been on water restrictions. Level 3 water restrictions were introduced in September 2004 and level 4 water restrictions in August 2005. It has even been floated by councillor Joe Ramia that we will be looking down the barrel of level 5 water restrictions and we may even have to examine level 6 water restrictions. When asked what level 6 water restrictions are they said, ‘We have not really got that far. We have never had to use them before.’ They are the very real problems that we are living with in Toowoomba. It is because of those problems that the city council has had to come up with some new and innovative ways of looking at supplying water to the residents. It is an issue that has generated a lot of debate and division in Toowoomba, and it is certainly going to continue to do so for some time. Members may or may not be aware of the Toowoomba Water Futures project that has been spoken about variously. It is a very innovative project. I supported the application for funding to the federal government because I believe that we do need to look at things innovatively and we do need to upgrade the water that comes through the sewage plant. Regardless of what happens with that water, whether it goes into the Murray-Darling system—and Toowoomba is at the headwaters—or whether it is eventually used for indirect potable reuse, we need to improve the quality of that water. Having said that, I do have some concerns about the recycling of sewage water to be used for indirect potable reuse. It is an issue that has generated a lot of angst within the Toowoomba community. The Toowoomba City Council has been pursuing that, particularly Mayor Di Thorley. It has been seen as the only option open to Toowoomba city because of the restrictions geographically for us and the access to water supplies. I have to say that I do have some remaining concerns about the large-scale use of recycled water for drinking water in an area such as Toowoomba. We have had a lot of debate with scientists. Conflicting views have been put forward. A range of views has been put forward. People I speak to say, ‘Yes, I understand that the science may say it is okay to do it, but I still do not want to do it.’ It has the yuck factor associated with it. A government member interjected. Mr COPELAND: It may only be a psychological thing, but it is a very real issue for those people. They are the people in the middle, the ones who say, ‘Yes, I probably accept that it is okay, but I still do not want to do it.’ There are some people who say, ‘Yes, I am happy to do it. We should be doing it. There are a whole lot of areas around the world that do it.’ Then there are other people who are absolutely dead opposed to it and will not be convinced of its safety. I spoke about this to one of my very close friends with whom I went to university. He studied for a science degree. I will not send him the Hansard because I do not want him to read what I will say about him. He is one of the most intelligent people I know. A government member: He would be a member of the Labor Party. Mr COPELAND: No, he is not. He has worked for Brisbane Water ever since he left university. He has very strong academic qualifications but he also has very strong practical qualifications. I asked him in conversation for his view of it. He said, ‘It is probably all right, but I would still have concerns about being able to get the hormones completely out of the water.’ That then triggered something off in my brain, because he is someone I respect and I value his opinion. He may not be a scientist with the CSIRO, but he knows what he is talking about. When he made that comment, it led me to wonder whether in fact it is the best option for a city such as Toowoomba. There are a lot of issues still to be dealt with before it happens in Toowoomba. I have to say that I support the actions of Ian Macfarlane. I think he has tried to come to an outcome and hopefully we can work our way through this issue. During the last sitting week of parliament, the Premier tabled this document—though it is a Natural Resources and Mines document—titled Making best use of south-east Queensland’s water. It has a range of things in there about how water is going to be used, what infrastructure is going to be put in, the pipelines that are going be constructed including the one to the Tarong Power Station. Nowhere in this document is Toowoomba mentioned at all. There is absolutely no indication in this document that there is a problem with water in Toowoomba. Toowoomba is included in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, but there is not a single word about Toowoomba in the document that is supposedly making the best use of south-east Queensland’s water supply. The people who live in Toowoomba, who have the most dramatic, significant and urgent water problems out of all of the shires in the south-east Queensland plan, would have to think that the state government does not really care about them. It is a real shame that the opportunity that presented itself 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3987 was not taken advantage of. Cynically, I have to say this is yet another glossy brochure that makes it look like the government is doing something for a city such as Toowoomba, but to not even mention it is an outrage. In that same week the Department of Natural Resources and Mines released a document titled Toowoomba and area supply future directions: review of recently identified alternatives. A range of alternatives has obviously been generated in the debate in Toowoomba so we do not have to look down the barrel of drinking recycled water. It is a little disappointing, because some of the statements in here make it look more like justifying the need to support the drinking of recycled water or justifying the need to get money from the National Water Initiative than looking at the alternatives for securing the supply of water to Toowoomba. A range of options is looked at in this particular document. I will not go through all of them because there is a large number. It is at least useful to have a document that highlights a whole range of alternatives. A number simply are not supported by the government. One is the pipeline to Wivenhoe, and I agree with that because I do not think it is sustainable. The Wivenhoe Dam is going to be fully committed anyway in terms of the areas it already services. There is the construction of Emu Creek dam. This document says that the state government has advised that this is not an option. I have actually written to the minister for natural resources to get some more information on that because we do need to look at dam infrastructure. At the moment that is probably one of only two sites in the Toowoomba area that is even a possibility for building a dam. I look forward to receiving the minister’s response about all of the information regarding Emu Creek—the size, the costs and why it was simply ruled out as not being an option. Where it gets more concerning is the proposal to source potable water from the Condamine groundwater management area, option 2. Point 7 in the document states— Under this option effluent would be permanently supplied to irrigators and bore water would be supplied to Toowoomba. This would mean indirect potable reuse would not happen. This option is hardly an option that would meet the National Water Initiative objectives. Not Innovative. That is not a reason why it should be ruled out. It should not be ruled out simply because it might not attract money from the federal government, because it is the responsibility of the state government to provide water infrastructure. To rule it out because it is not innovative is simply ridiculous to the people of the Toowoomba, Cambooya, Crow’s Nest and Jondaryan shires who are having to look at recycled drinking water. We need to look at options such as the Emu Creek dam. We do not have to do something simply because it is innovative. If it is a good response, let us have a look at doing it. Further on the proposal to source water from , which I had not actually heard until I read this document, it states— Supply of water via conventional pipelines and dams is not an option that would receive support under the National Water Initiative. So what? If it is not going to receive water— Mr Palaszczuk: Read further. Mr COPELAND: Sure, there are other comments there. I absolutely agree, Minister. However, to put that in there as an excuse for not pursuing it, because it is not innovative and because it will not receive support from the National Water Initiative, is unacceptable. Mr Palaszczuk: Read the reasons. Mr COPELAND: I have read the reasons. However, I think for that to even be stated in the document as a reason is unacceptable. Supply of water via conventional pipelines and dams is not an option that would receive support under the National Water Initiative. That it is even a consideration is unacceptable. The Chronicle has contained photos of people who live in Toowoomba standing up at protest meetings with signs stating ‘No to poo, pee and period water’. That is the sort of concern that is being expressed by our community. We need to consider all the options on the table, regardless of whether they are innovative and regardless of whether they will receive federal funding so that the state does not have to pay for it. Regardless of any of those issues we need to consider all the alternatives because I believe that the last alternative, the very last one, should be drinking recycled water. It is a very, very contentious issue. As I said at the outset, this document seems to be more about justifying the need to drink recycled water than it is about realistically looking at alternatives. That is a real shame. Another option that is touched on in this document is a water swap that would involve a recycled water pipeline, which was proposed by Vision 2000, DDV 2000, NuWater—it has had a number of names—that would pipe water from Brisbane and surrounding areas to the Lockyer Valley and the Darling Downs. In the document titled Making best use of south-east Queensland’s water, the western corridor will take water to Tarong and will be used in other industrial areas. 3988 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

I was astonished yesterday when, in a ministerial statement, the minister for natural resources stated in relation to recycling water— I want to make it perfectly clear to the House today that there is no intention whatsoever of extending the pipeline to the Darling Downs. Those people still promoting such an initiative are simply peddling false hopes because the cost benefits of the proposal do not stack up. That is a very clear statement that this government does not support the pipeline to the Darling Downs. This morning’s Toowoomba Chronicle stated that the member for Toowoomba North said the quote was taken out of context. That is a pretty clear quote, as far as I am concerned. I take the nod from the minister that it is a clear quote, that the government does not support the pipeline for recycled water to the Darling Downs. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr COPELAND: I hope that Hansard records that the minister just said ‘it is’. That is quite different to the statements by the member for Toowoomba North in the House again today. He tried to say that only the pipeline going to Tarong will not be extended, but there is still an option down the track for it to go to the Darling Downs. That is very different to the statement made yesterday by the minister and it is very different to the confirmation he has just provided to me now that this state government will not support it. I say to the people of the Toowoomba North electorate and the other Toowoomba electorates in the Darling Downs who have supported this project for a long time that I hope that they will no longer fall for the Premier’s con during the last two state election campaigns. During those campaigns, the biggest issue was water. One of the biggest issues in water supply has been that recycled pipeline to the Darling Downs, which many members on this side of the House have spoken strongly about. During the 2001 campaign, the Premier came to Toowoomba and held a press conference with the member for Toowoomba North. The journalists, quite rightly, asked the Premier if he supported it, and the Premier said, yes, they would look at it, they would support it, and hopefully they would get it off the ground. Of course, nothing ever happened. In 2004, exactly the same thing happened. The Premier came to Toowoomba and held a press conference with the member for Toowoomba North. He was asked if he would re-look at the issue of a pipeline to the Darling Downs. The Premier said, oh yes, they would have another look at it. The only reason he said that was to get it off the agenda during an election campaign and to make people think that this government actually supported it. It is now very clear that this government does not support it, it will not support it and that the only way we will get it is with a change of state government. I think that the federal government will be supportive of it. I certainly hope it will be. However, the only way that it will get up is if the federal government, state government, local government and industry all get together. This will not get up without the support of all levels of government. If this state government—as it indicated yesterday and tonight—will not support it, that will make it very difficult for the project to get up. I say to the member for Toowoomba North to stop trying to make excuses for the minister and the government; to stop saying that you will support it when we have it clearly on the record that the government does not support it. Let us not hear the Premier, during the next election campaign, trying to con the people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs yet again. It is simply unacceptable that the Premier continues to do that just to try to get the public relations spin rather than the delivery of services. The dams in Toowoomba are currently at 28.6 per cent. If they drop to 20 per cent—and hopefully they will not, hopefully we will get some good rain over the summer and we will be able to get some run- off into those dams—we will be looking at level 5 restrictions. At the moment, there is already very limited use of water outside the house. There is some watering with watering cans and buckets. Car windows, windscreens and mirrors can be cleaned and that is it. You cannot fill up pools, you cannot do any watering, you cannot do a lot of things. It is very restricted. The people of Toowoomba have done their darnedest to manage the demand but there comes a point where demand management simply does not work. We need to have infrastructure in place. I see the Minister for Energy on the other side of the House. It is exactly the same thing with energy. Time expired. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.06 pm): I rise to speak to the Water Amendment Bill 2005. As previous speakers have said, the importance of this as a commodity to our community cannot be understated. Currently, we are in a cycle of rainfall variability. In the south-east corner, particularly, but in pockets right across the state, there is a higher demand for water, because of both urban development and industrial development. This bill introduces a number of new initiatives. I particularly want to speak about the emergency declarations that this bill will introduce. A number of examples of circumstances which constitute emergency water supply situations are given in the legislation. These include the failure of a large part 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3989 of water supply, treatment or distribution infrastructure, or waste water infrastructure; extended severe drought conditions; or contamination of a water storage used for essential water supply needs causing the water to be unfit for supply. Three specific supplies are designated as essential water supply needs: domestic purposes, essential services—including the generation or distribution of electricity—or processing or refining minerals or petroleum in the Calliope or Gladstone local government areas. Indeed, in his second- reading speech the minister stated— The continued water supply to households for domestic purposes must naturally be ensured and essential services, including for power generation and for the significant mineral and petroleum related industries in the Calliope and Gladstone areas, clearly demand a higher priority for continued supply given the economic and social impacts, should there be a failure of supply. Certainly industries in my electorate cannot operate without an adequate water supply. For example, should Queensland Alumina Ltd lose all of its supply, the system of pipework carrying the bauxite slurry would set solid. The plant would effectively be inoperable for months, even years, while the pipes were cleared, if indeed that were possible. A catastrophic situation such as that would have untold economic impacts on the region, as indeed it would on the state and the nation. Prior to Cyclone Bennie, the Gladstone-Calliope region was in an extremely serious water situation. Not only were residents on high-level restrictions—including no hand-held hoses, sprinklers or any external watering—the major companies were on a 25 per cent restriction to their contract and were facing within a matter of months a 50 per cent reduction in allocation. These were dire times. They say that for every dark cloud there is a silver lining. Throughout this period, significant investigations were undertaken to identify avenues to effectively drought-proof the Gladstone region. The preferred option was a pipeline from the Fitzroy River into the Gladstone-Calliope area. Indeed, both GHD—on a consultancy basis—and the Gladstone Area Water Board conducted studies on options available to them, both recommending this same final preferred option. Larger consumers such as Boyne Smelter and Queensland Alumina spent considerable resources identifying ways to conserve water, including reuse, recycling and, as a new water source, desalination. A significant recycling project was undertaken by QAL in conjunction with the Gladstone City Council in relation to treated sewage from the Gladstone City Council’s treatment works. The redirecting of this treated sewage water is now complete and it is operating well as an augmentation to QAL’s water supply. As a result of a declaration, this legislation will allow customers of water boards or other water entities to mandatorily reduce water allocations, be they take-or-pay contracts or, indeed, any contract. In relation to take-or-pay contracts, I seek clarification from the minister. I acknowledge that a significant portion of the legislation deals with compensation payments. But in relation to take-or-pay contracts, will the consumer in such a contract have a pro rata reduction in their payment obligation in relation to that contract? It would be entirely fair, transparent and defendable. The community will accept reductions in domestic water allocations when it is clear to them that the region is in drought and there is a clear and logical method by which the water restrictions will be administered. Indeed, most residents would prefer early, low-level restrictions to be implemented rather than no response or action being taken by councils and then significant and intrusive restrictions being put in place. This bill gives service providers a number of mechanisms by which restrictions can be implemented, including restricting the volume of water taken by or supplied to a customer or type of customer, restricting the hours when water may be used on premises for stated purposes, and restricting the way water may be used on premises. Although conferring significant powers to the Coordinator-General in relation to the implementation of an emergency declaration, there is another area within this legislation about which I hold grave concerns. The minister mentioned specifically in his second-reading speech the Gladstone and Calliope industries and development. I believe this region has rightly been recognised for its current development and for its potential development. The current investment in the port expansion is an indication of the confidence that is rightly held in the region. However, I seek clarification from the minister about the true intent of those provisions of the legislation that empower the Coordinator-General in relation to cost recovery. As I stated earlier, it has been acknowledged by the government through its government owned corporation Gladstone Area Water Board that the pipeline from the Fitzroy River to the Gladstone council and the Calliope council areas is the preferred option to drought proof the region. Preliminary technical drawings have been completed and provisional corridor options have also been identified. The time for construction is now. It should not be deferred because Cyclone Bennie brought deluge rain to the area and it should not be constructed as a result of a water supply emergency declaration. However, I must question whether indeed this is the intent of this legislation. I cannot argue that water is not an imperative to all communities but, as the minister reinforced—and rightly so—it is more so in terms of the heavy industry in my area. Is it this government’s intention to wait for the next water shortage crisis, to declare an emergency situation and, under the powers of the State Development and 3990 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Public Works Organisation Act 1971 and the powers conferred under this legislation, require the full cost of construction of this pipeline to be either underwritten by local industries in my area or, more concerning, fully fund the construction as an up-front contribution, possibly in excess of $20 million per plant? I reiterate that the potential shortage problems have been known for some years now. The work should be done now and not further postponed, even for opportunistic reasons such as those that could be invoked by this legislation. If the government’s intention, as it should be, is to build the Fitzroy River pipeline, I believe that major consumers such as QAL and Boyne Smelter Ltd would be willing to discuss processes that are logical, fair and transparent. Their use of the resource is clearly measurable. The domestic component of my local water supply is small. The last time I looked, it was approximately 20 per cent to 25 per cent. The take-off for each of the companies is known to the Gladstone Area Water Board, as it is to the government. The cost of the pipeline construction and ongoing maintenance as a new asset would also be known prior to construction. I believe companies in my area would very favourably discuss their responsibilities in relation to their pro rata share of that cost amortised over, say, 40 years. The companies can manage that order of responsibility. It is a much more difficult for them in the short term to manage a major cost impost that is suddenly required of them in this type of emergency situation in an unpredictable commodity market. Again, that cost impost could be $20 million plus. I reiterate that the need for this second water supply is known now. The mechanism of drought- proofing the region is known now. I believe the companies and the communities in my area would be saying, ‘Build it now. Let those who will be required to contribute to the capital of the infrastructure factor that into their future budgets and their financial obligations.’ I ask the minister: is it the intention of this government to have the Fitzroy River to Gladstone pipeline built as a result of a water supply emergency declaration? There are several other areas that I wish to touch on. This legislation extends the ability of government to restrict reticulated water supplies in any discrete water supply area to include, ‘Water taken from a rainwater tank connected to the service provider’s reticulated supply.’ This inclusion reflects the options now offered by councils to some new specific subdivision areas. In Calliope shire there are several new development areas that are connected to a trickle feed reticulated service. The properties are allocated their water—say 375 kilolitres a year. However, the method of delivery differs markedly from a normal urban supply. It is trickle fed to a holding tank on the property and is subsequently pressurised with a pressure pump for household purposes. Once pressurised, it is suitable for washing machines, dishwashers and the like. A gravity feed does not have the water pressure that is required for that type of equipment, but it could be used just at the tap. Delivery is a designated proportion of the yearly allocation over the day. However, they are consumers of a fully treated urban reticulated water supply; it is simply delivered in an alternative manner. Therefore, it is appropriate that water restrictions, as applied to urban users, apply equally to them. Last night the member for Callide made reference to the Burdekin scheme, which will be addressed in this legislation. I was certainly concerned to hear the implications to the residents of the Burdekin scheme as a result of this bill. The member for Callide said— The Burdekin was the only region in Queensland to be charged a rate of return on water prices set by SunWater. Burdekin irrigators have been challenging the validity of those charges for the past five years. They resorted to withholding payment on the rate of return. They paid all the operating and maintenance costs, but withheld the rate of return component. I will go through that in some detail when we debate this clause during the consideration in detail stage. He goes on to state— Let me put on record very clearly that we will oppose that clause in the consideration in detail stage of this bill. We will oppose that type of clause every time it comes before this parliament because it simply cannot be justified. It is one thing to validate a particular piece of legislation or validate provisions of legislation if they are called into question, but it is simply unacceptable to do that when the government is joined in a Supreme Court case with individual Queenslanders. That is a gross misuse of the power of this parliament. This is something that we will not support in the consideration in detail stage of this bill and we will never support it in the future. As I said, I will go through that in some detail when we get to the consideration in detail stage. I welcome the position of the member for Callide. To my memory, in this parliament, both Labor and the coalition have twice supported legislation that overrode an individual’s rights after that individual had taken the matter to the Supreme Court and won. This occurred once in relation to South Bank and I believe on the second occasion in relation to the Gold Coast area. These individuals had taken in one case a local government and in the other case the state government to task on the decisions that had been made. They took them to the court. They won their case in court. Subsequently, this parliament voted to override the decision that was made fairly and justly. Therefore, it is pleasing to see the coalition working to preserve the rights of individuals and, in this case, the Burdekin community as they pursue this legal process. This bill also brings into consideration the use of tanks attached to houses. That is a sound investment, providing it is not mandated to the point where individual landowners are disadvantaged. Everybody’s economic situation is different. The problem with mandating tanks is that there will be those families who simply cannot afford to install a tank either ever or at a particular point in time. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3991

It requires several thousands of dollars for the installation. However, for many families, given the Premier’s answer in question time this morning in relation to fluoride, it may be the only option they have to fluoride-proof their drinking water. Much has been said about this government’s noninvestment in water infrastructure, and in the main that would have to be clearly defendable. There has not been a lot of new water storage built. I would have to acknowledge, though, that a major augmentation to the Awoonga Dam was completed just before Cyclone Benny. It certainly has proven its worth in terms of the additional storage that is available to both the community and industry in the region. I support Calliope shire in its application to government to construct a new water treatment plant—I believe it is at Banaraby. For a long time there was a historical agreement on price equalisation for treated water for the two communities of Gladstone and Calliope. That agreement was soundly based, it was fairly based and it was done in good faith. That has been brought into question and the council has done a feasibility study and a costing on treating and reticulating water to Boyne, Banaraby, Wurdong and Calliope from a new plant in the Calliope shire. I give my 100 per cent support to their application. It is soundly based. It is good economics. It is certainly to the benefit of the community of Calliope shire, the community that that council is charged to represent. I look forward to the minister’s answers in relation to the government’s proposal to fund the Fitzroy River pipeline, the timing of the construction and the impost that will be placed on industries in my electorate. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (6.22 pm): It is my pleasure to speak at the end of this debate—a debate that I note has been characterised mainly by Labor members talking about important issues in their local areas and issues such as demand management, while National Party members and, to an even greater extent, the Independents who have replaced them in the seats they used to represent, have come in here and complained about the current drought and the fact that Labor governments, in their eyes, have let them down by not building sufficient new water storage. Indeed, the member for Callide last night accused me, as I interjected upon him, of making shallow, stupid, ill-informed comments which did not help progress the debate. While I am sure the charming member for Callide is one of those boys who only punches the girls he likes, I would like to quote Ali G to him, who would say to someone like the member for Callide that when it comes to speaking to women he might want to think about showing some ‘respec’. I want to challenge those two fundamental assumptions: the first is that we are in the midst of a terrible drought, and the second is that we are suffering the effects of that drought because not enough water storages have been built. I am going to talk about my local area but this also includes the member for Lockyer’s area. I have some average rainfall figures for the Bremer catchment, which show some long-term trends. The figures start in 1895. There was an upswing from 1895 to 1925—a significant period of high rainfall in the Ipswich area. That was followed by a trough that went through until about the 1950s. Rainfall started increasing again in the 1960s. It was high through the 1970s and the 1980s, and declined from about 1990 and is still low. When I say low, though, it is not as low around Ipswich now as it ever was during that period from 1925 to 1955. Indeed, we are sitting at about 10 to 20 per cent below the long-term average but not nearly as low as rainfall was for a prolonged period from the 1920s through, basically, to the 1950s. So, is this a drought? I have to say I do not know. It seems to me that for my whole life the National Party has been talking about the drought. I do not know that we have droughts in Australia. We have variable weather. It is not a drought. It is the weather and it is always going to be like this. We are not going to return to some kind of mythical Golden Age that never was and, indeed, that never will be. We have to deal with Australia as it is. If we do not like it, we are going to have to go somewhere else where it rains more. This is not simply a drought; this is the weather pattern that we have in Australia and we need to start learning to deal with that. So how are we going to a deal it, given that, at least around Ipswich, including the Lockyer, this is not the period of lowest rainfall that we have ever had? I think there are a couple of ways that we are going to have to deal with it. We need, firstly, certainly in urban areas—I note the member for Callide was talking particularly about rural areas—to use water more efficiently. In south-east Queensland, the average household uses about 350 litres of water per day. In Europe, those figures are much lower. It is about 150 litres in England and as low as 110 litres per person per day in France. So there is an enormous capacity for urban Australians to match the sort of water use levels that Europeans have and I do not see that it is really impacting on their quality of life. So, firstly, there are long-term rainfall patterns and, secondly, while we have done some things, we can do much more to be more efficient in terms of urban water use—and, indeed, we should. The other thing that we need to do in Australia is get serious about recycled uses of water. Bizarrely, a number of National Party members have come in here and confidently told us that some time soon the Howard government is just going to come along and fund the recycled water pipeline from Brisbane to Gatton. I have to say from my experience of the Ipswich Motorway that we do not want to spend too long waiting around for the Howard government to just come along and fund our infrastructure, because it can be an awfully long wait. So I admire their diligent hope but I feel a little sad for them in their naivety. 3992 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

In contrast, the Beattie government provided $20 million in the mini budget for planning and some preliminary work for a water pipeline that will run from Brisbane through the western corridor. That is the first hope we have had that that Lockyer pipeline will actually happen, because the economics of it are this. A number of studies have shown that if that water pipeline is just for agricultural use in the Lockyer Valley the numbers will never stack up. If, however, we are able to use the water three times—first, for urban water in Brisbane; second, for industry that is beginning to grow around Ipswich; and, third, for agricultural use in the Lockyer Valley—then it may just be the case that the numbers for that project will stack up. The Beattie government, in contrast with the Howard government, has put $20 million—a significant funding injection—into doing some work on that. I do not want to speak for long, because this debate has gone on for a long time, but I just make those points. This is just how the weather is. We do need to get much more serious about water efficiency. We, unlike the Howard government—the mates of those opposite—are actually doing something serious by putting $20 million into water recycling. Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 7.30 pm. Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (7.30 pm): At the end of a very long debate, I will only make a couple of quick comments. Whenever we debate water legislation, one of my main concerns is always the differentiation that is occurring between rural people, especially those in irrigation, and those living in urban areas. The other night I went to Flagstone Creek to hear the first of the urban development talks. Many people made the statement that the government was not providing infrastructure, and certainly not infrastructure for dams. They asked: if all this development is to occur at places such as Yarrabilla and Bromelton in the Beaudesert area, where will the new water come from? The person leading the urban development debate said that the Beaudesert Shire Council had made assurances that it can last for 12 to 15 years on the water that is already there and that it can cater for any further urban expansion in that 12 to 15 years. I know that the council says that simply because when the gets down to a certain level, which is around the 20 per cent mark, it will ensure that two years of water is left for the Beaudesert council and the town of Beaudesert. Only when water gets down to a low level do we see anomalies occurring between rural and urban people. Obviously as soon as the Maroon Dam gets down to 26 per cent or 27 per cent, the irrigators will be cut off and priority users such as industrial concerns and urban development will stay on. To ensure two years of water supply for the Beaudesert council, absolutely no-one will be able to use the water except the Beaudesert council and priority users such as industrial users. Clearly, the ones affected by this decision are the irrigators, who can no longer irrigate at all. Up until then they might have been able to draw water for three or four days. We also have to remember that they are paying maintenance costs on the irrigation equipment. provides an even worse example. When Moogerah Dam received some rain and filled to about 12 per cent, what did we see? They floated two damfulls of water down to the Swanbank holding dams, dropping the water level at Moogerah to about seven per cent or eight per cent. Similarly, the water will be retained at Swanbank for the Boonah township and Ipswich, but the ones who are neglected—bearing in mind that originally the dams were built for agricultural viability—are our irrigators. Let us look at additional charges for irrigators on supplemented systems—that is, systems that have dams and weirs—and unsupplemented systems. Irrigators with meters will pay $4 per megalitre while irrigators without meters will be charged a rate of $4 per megalitre or $18 per hectare on 50 per cent of their allocation. Properties on creeks such as Running and Christmas creeks are provided with water based on their property size rather than a megalitre figure. People with licences for rural stock and domestic water will be charged $100 per annum with discounts for pensioners. Based on the government’s figures, a Running Creek property with a 65 hectare allocation of water will pay an additional $585 per year, plus $100 for a stock and domestic water licence and $100 for a water harvesting licence. On those creeks, there are about 3,000 hectares of allocation, 70 water licences and at least 50 stock and domestic licence holders. Based on the government’s new charges, those creek farmers could pay a combined total of $40,000 a year. The state government’s new five-year action plan appears kind to farmers, charging them only 0.4c per litre as opposed to their urban counterparts who will pay 1.5c per litre. However, it is no secret that farmers use greater volumes of water than do urban users and, therefore, ultimately will pay more. This is on top of the expenses they incur by purchasing and maintaining irrigation equipment, including pipes and pumps. The state government claims that it is seeking a fair and equitable pricing system, but the average Brisbane household will pay only $1 more per quarter—that is, $4 per annum—while some farmers will be forced to shell out thousands of dollars per year for a resource they are not guaranteed to be granted access to. The bureaucrats make many of their decisions at times when water is plentiful and dams are full—that is, above 30 per cent holding. However, when the dams get below 30 per cent, people in industrial areas and urban users are given priority. Well may the urban people grumble when they say that they pay more than farmers. However, the issues are the amount of water that farmers need for irrigation and the surety of water that urban people have. People in Brisbane and other city people will never get to the stage where water runs out completely. Limitations might be placed on when they can use their hoses or wash their cars. However, the government will ensure that they have water. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3993

That does not occur with irrigators. Of course, when irrigators do not have irrigation water available, it is extremely costly and detrimental to them. I continue to read the minister’s public works comments of many years ago when he said that the Wolffdene dam was not necessary because there would not be a population to cater for. Certainly we can see what has happened. Regardless of the Wolffdene dam, there is a dam site at Glendower that the government is not taking any advantage of. The Glendower dam site was bought by Ed Casey and resumed by Ed Casey. To give him his due, he spent a lot of money on that project. All of that land is sitting there, but the government is not taking any advantage of the Albert River, which is probably the fastest flowing river in that area. As far as the Logan is concerned, I have concerns about the . What will happen is that it will be good in good times, but in times such as we have now the irrigators of the Logan will be told that they cannot use the water because to develop the Cedar Grove Weir we have to have water. It will be exactly the same situation as is occurring now, where the irrigators and the farmers of Beaudesert, Rathdowney and Maroon will not be allowed to access water to ensure that the Cedar Grove Weir has water for all of the urban development occurring around that area. I say to the minister that something funny is going on at Wyaralong. The government has certainly resumed some properties at Wyaralong, but as yet no properties have been resumed for the wall. If it is that the government cannot make up its mind about exactly where the wall is to be built, something is funny. The minister knows that area. He knows that, if one drives from Boonah to Beaudesert, the property of Lillybrook has been resumed. I assume that the Overflow has been resumed. However, the area where the wall is to be built supposedly has not been touched yet. Something funny is happening as far as the Wyaralong is concerned. It will be interesting to see where the pipes will come from the pipeline. Another unusual thing is that those pipelines will go through the old Wolffdene site. The minister has had a lot to do with that site. Would it not have been a great advantage if the Wolffdene was in a position to be built, because we would not have needed too many pipelines to get the water to urban areas? It would have been a magnificent sight, regardless of how supposedly shallow the Wolffdene would have been. Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (7.39 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their participation in this debate. Close to 30 members contributed to the debate, so I will not go through all of their contributions. However, I have a summary of the issues that were raised and a summary of some of the respective amendments contained in this legislation. As we all know, the Water Act 2000 is fundamental to our state’s water management framework. These amendments before the House today build on that framework and address in the main the current pressure on our water resources. The member for Mirani raised a matter concerning a gentleman called Joe. In respect for the privacy of the man’s family, I will not identify him further. I am aware of the matter that has been raised by the member for Mirani. It certainly is a great tragedy. As was stated, when the department was advised of the gentleman’s medical condition last month, it took the view that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the actions and the family was advised accordingly. It is disappointing that the member has chosen to politicise this matter in this way. I believe that conjecture like this is distasteful at the best of times. The department did not hesitate to end the action and withdraw the appeal once it became aware of the circumstances that had arisen. I will move on now to the issue of the Wolffdene dam which was just raised by the honourable member for Beaudesert. A few of the members opposite have used this debate to attack the government on infrastructure. However, they have ignored the fact that we are presently in the worst drought in 100 years in Queensland. They have also ignored the obvious fact that even the best dams end up empty if it does not rain. They have also trotted out one of their most favoured myths to attack the government. In this debate and elsewhere there has been a lot of uninformed speculation about the potential contribution that a Wolffdene dam would have made to south-east Queensland’s water supplies. Today I certainly hope to debunk this urban myth once and for all. In 1991 a joint feasibility study was carried out by the Brisbane and Area Water Board and the Water Resources Commission on several potential dam sites in south-east Queensland. After considering all relevant information, the government of the day accepted that Wolffdene was a poor option for a dam site. The Wolffdene dam site was found to have unacceptably high social and financial costs. At that time, the dam was expected to yield around about 120,000 megalitres a year based on a structure with a volume of about 1.1 million megalitres—not much smaller than Wivenhoe Dam. By contrast, the yield from the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams is more than three times the original estimate for Wolffdene. We have to remember that the yield of a dam has much more to do with the amount of rain falling in the catchment than the size of the storage itself. Recent studies using more modern analytical techniques have indicated that the original estimates in all storages were too high. The catchment area of Wolffdene dam on the Albert River is 725 square kilometres and is simply too small to support a large dam. This compares to the catchment area of Wivenhoe Dam of some 5,500 square kilometres, which is 7½ times larger. The combined capacity of 3994 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Glendower and Wyaralong dams, for which the government has already begun acquiring land, is in the vicinity of 200,000 megalitres, yielding about 50,000 to 60,000 megalitres per annum. These dams are located and sized such that there will be much less impact on the health of the Logan River system and also on Moreton Bay. Finally, there is not enough capacity in the dam sites that are likely to be viable in the southern areas of south-east Queensland to support long-term growth in the region. Other solutions such as strategies to reduce demand, water recycling and possibly desalination could be necessary. It is interesting that the member for Callide called on me for more dams and infrastructure to be built. He also suggested that Queensland now has the same water supply as when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen left office back in 1987. Mr Seeney: That’s right. Mr PALASZCZUK: Well, let us have a look. The honourable member is clearly unaware of this. We have had the second stage raising of the Bedford Weir on the Mackenzie River; the second stage raising of the Bingegang Weir, also on the Mackenzie River; the stage 3 raising of the on the Dumbleton Weir on the Pioneer River; the refurbishment of the Moura Weir; the ; the Moura off- stream storage; the Gattonvale off-stream storage; the Ned Churchward Weir, the Burnett River Dam; the raising of the Eidsvold Weir; the Warrill Creek Diversion Weir; the Bromelton Weir; the stage 2 raising of the Borumba Dam; the lower Cressbrook Creek Weir and others. I will now touch on the issues raised by the member for Toowoomba South and the member for Darling Downs. They have certainly spoken with passion in their support of the new water proposal to pump recycled water from Brisbane to the Darling Downs. As I said in my ministerial statement yesterday, the simple truth is that the project is not commercially viable. The proposal put forward by NuWater is for a smaller project than that investigated by the state government—100,000 megalitres a year compared to 126,000 megalitres a year using a slightly different route. NuWater indicated that its proposal would cost an estimated $662 million whilst an earlier proposal investigated by the state and the relevant local authorities estimated costs to be nearly 800 million. The member for Toowoomba South mentioned the Ernst and Young study. This study is not a cost-benefit analysis as it is based on flow-on effects, not direct benefits and costs. Ernst and Young indicated that this approach would not meet Queensland’s guidelines for new water infrastructure, and of course it is right because it does not. NuWater’s pricing policy is based on irrigators taking an equity position in the proposal by making up-front capital contributions of $1,475 a megalitre in addition to an annual usage charge of $300 a megalitre to cover recurrent costs—a much larger sum than the rural sector indicated it would pay in the earlier studies. Even if these prices could be afforded by farmers—and remember that irrigators in the Condamine north branch presently pay SunWater just $40 a megalitre—the farmers’ contribution would still fall well short of making the project viable. Even then the proposal is based on councils and the state making large capital grants towards the project. To date, councils have not indicated that any financial support would be forthcoming, and the submission fails to confirm the commercial sustainability of the project—even with a one-off federal grant of $248 million. I turn now to the provisions of the bill. The first question is: what is a water supply emergency? A water supply emergency is a situation where there is a demonstrable serious risk that essential water supply needs will not be met. Currently, when such an emergency occurs the state does not have the power to respond or coordinate a response, as the responsibility and accountability for managing water supplies rests with service providers. The amendments will enable the state to respond to a water supply emergency. Let us go through the process for the declaration of a water supply emergency. The amendments set out a clear process for declaring a water supply emergency, what actions or measures a service provider can be directed to carry out and how a water supply emergency ends. The process for declaring a water supply emergency allows for necessary consultation by the state with the parties being directed to undertake the direction. A water supply emergency may be declared in two ways—a water supply emergency declaration and/or a water supply emergency regulation. Where short-term action such as the imposition of water restrictions is required, I may prepare a water supply emergency declaration. Otherwise, where long-term action such as the construction of additional infrastructure is required, a water supply emergency regulation may be made. On the issue of infrastructure investment in a water supply emergency, a water service provider may be directed to undertake certain activities under a water supply emergency regulation. These activities might include constructing new infrastructure, fast-tracking major maintenance programs to reduce water losses, implementing demand management programs or implementing water restrictions. The new provisions allow the water service provider to recover investment costs incurred from carrying out directed activities from customers as determined under the emergency declaration. This ensures the water service provider’s financial viability is not compromised as a result of having to comply with a water supply emergency declaration relating to emergency water supplies. With regard to compensation for loss incurred as a result of compliance with a water supply emergency direction, the amendments 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3995 set out a clear process for applying for compensation. An application for compensation may be made if a person has suffered loss or damage as a result of a water service provider complying with a water supply emergency declaration or regulation. In relation to restrictions on the volume of water taken by a consumer or type of customer, under the existing framework a water service provider may restrict the way in which water may be used on the premises but not the volume of water taken by the customer. Under the new framework, water service providers may specifically restrict the volume of water taken by a customer or type of customer which will allow restrictions to be applied to industrial and commercial customers to better facilitate local management of drought by applying equitable restrictions to both residential and industrial customers. On the issue of restrictions on the use of water taken from a rainwater tank connected to a reticulated supply, under the existing framework restrictions applied by water service providers do not apply to the use of water taken from a rainwater tank which is connected to the reticulated supply. The amendments will expand the existing power to allow a water service provider to impose water restrictions which apply to the use of water taken from a rainwater tank where the reticulated supply passes through the rainwater tank. The amendments before the House will ensure the application of equitable water restrictions on the use of reticulated supply in times of drought. With regard to supply contracts for south-east water customers, as the members of the House are aware, south-east Queensland is experiencing its second worst drought on record. The amendments establishing a framework for South East Queensland Water to install meters on the group of water licence holders who historically have been supplied water at no cost will importantly support South East Queensland Water’s current drought management strategy. Metering is the most effective way to measure the taking of water for resource management and compliance. This new framework does not alter the current supply arrangements at all. The water licence holders will continue to be supplied water by South East Queensland Water under the current arrangements. In relation to the mid-Brisbane Valley irrigators, the member for Callide, sadly, chastised the government for failing to consult with irrigators in the mid-Brisbane River. The consultation started when I met representatives of the irrigators on 23 August, some 2½ months ago. The consultation is continuing, and senior staff from the department have met with these irrigators on a number of occasions in the past week. I believe that these meetings are very positive. They are very cordial, and we are working with the irrigators to iron out implementation issues in a way that meets their needs whilst also meeting the requirements of the south-east Queensland drought management plan. The member for Lockyer raised the matter of riparian rights and if they were affected by the amendments. I can reassure the honourable member and the House that these amendments do not affect a riparian land-holder’s right to take stock and domestic water. On the issue of rural pricing validation, the amendments confirm the validity of rural water pricing directions given to SunWater under the Water Act 2000 jointly by the Treasurer and the former minister. The need for the amendment is to address concerns raised about a pricing direction in a current action in the Supreme Court that challenges its validity. The pricing directions are fundamental for the imposition and recovery of rural water charges by SunWater across the state. The pricing directions continue to set the rural water pricing until April next year, where practical. Therefore, it is necessary now for the government to put beyond any doubt the validity of the pricing directions by making this necessary amendment. This amendment removes any doubt about the existing pricing arrangement and provides certainty for both SunWater and its customers on how pricing arrangements applied in the past will continue to apply in the near future. The honourable member for Callide was not here in the House during the Borbidge years, but it is clear that those members who were here during that time have very short memories. In 1998, during the Borbidge years, a decision was made to protect stock and domestic water supplies from the impact of a mine in north-west Queensland. The decision was challenged in the Land Court. Whilst the challenge was still before the court, the government amended the Water Resources Act to clarify that it was a valid consideration. I have before me a copy of the Water Resources Amendment Bill 1998. Basically, what the government is doing today is no different to what the Borbidge government did in 1998. I now turn to matters raised by the member for Gympie concerning Mr Holznagel of Traveston Crossing. As the member is aware, there has been significant correspondence on the matter over a long period of time, so I will recap its history. The extraction of material from the Mary River in the vicinity of Mr Holznagel’s property was authorised under the Water Act 2000 for a number of years until extraction was halted under the Water Act. Mr Seeney: Until when? Mr PALASZCZUK: It was halted for a number of years until 1998. Extraction was halted in 1998 as an assessment determined that no further sustainable resource was available and therefore no further authorisations were issued. This was a very responsible approach. Presently, a pump is authorised for removing water from the Mary River for stock and domestic purposes only. In response to information provided by Mr Holznagel to the department, this pump was the subject of a thorough investigation undertaken by the department during 2003-04. 3996 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

During the latter half of 2003, investigating officers from the department held many discussions with Mr Holznagel. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the extraction of material from the Mary River was the cause of the changes in the Mary River adjacent to Mr Holznagel’s property. The changes that have occurred in the Mary River adjacent to Mr Holznagel’s property are not dissimilar to changes in the Mary River both upstream and downstream of Mr Holznagel’s property and indeed throughout large sections of the Mary River and its tributaries. The Mary River is a high-energy river carrying a significant sediment load. Land use changes, vegetation clearing and cattle grazing in riparian zones contribute to the active bed and bank changes observed throughout the Mary River system. I now turn to the comments of the honourable member for Gladstone. The honourable member asked when the pipeline from the Fitzroy River to Gladstone would be built. The Queensland government at present has a Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy in progress and is investigating, amongst a range of other measures, the need for this pipeline. Once the outcome of this strategy is available in 2006, the Queensland government will decide on future infrastructure arrangements in the central Queensland area. The honourable member also asked if the emergency powers in this bill would be used to force water consumers in the Gladstone area to pay for a future pipeline. The emergency powers in this bill will only be used as a last resort. However, if the pipeline was built utilising these emergency powers, then all Gladstone water consumers may be asked to contribute towards its costs. The most likely mechanism by which they would pay would be through an increase in the annual water charge in a similar way to what would apply if the infrastructure was built as a non-emergency measure. It is therefore highly unlikely that water consumers would be asked to pay the total costs on an up-front basis. I turn now to a couple of these contentious issues. In relation to perceptions that the emergency provisions to force water service providers to operate in a certain way may be misused, appropriate levels of consultation with the Premier and Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the Coordinator- General will be undertaken prior to the exercise of these powers. Furthermore, I will be undertaking a review of the water supply emergency framework within two years to ensure the objectives are being met. This provides an opportunity for adjustment and refinement if necessary. In relation to the perception that compensation claims may expose the state to significant cost, the bill provides that the minister’s acceptance of an application for compensation does not give an applicant an entitlement to compensation. I will be undertaking consultation with the Premier and Treasurer and the Attorney-General as part of the process to make a reasonable decision whilst having regard for issues such as the extent and the nature of the loss. In relation to perceptions that restrictions should not apply to rainwater tanks even if they are connected to reticulated supply, this provision will ensure equitable application of water restrictions on the use of reticulated supply in times of drought. It is recognised that in times of drought when restrictions will apply, rainwater tanks are not likely to be full and garden watering would, therefore, quite rapidly deplete them and result in the drawing of water from the reticulated supply. I believe that is quite a sensible provision. Let us go through the benefits. Queensland water users will have confidence that the state may deal appropriately with water supply emergencies to ensure continuity of supply for essential water needs. In relation to water service providers, the state will consult with relevant service providers prior to making any directions to the service providers to deal with the water supply emergency. This allows the service provider to have input into the solution to the water supply emergency. In relation to investment certainty for water service providers who advance significant capital in the construction of works directed to be carried out under the water supply emergency direction, we may now restrict the volume of water taken by a customer or type of customer thus allowing application of equitable water restrictions to all types of customers. There are provisions for parties who suffer certain loss or damage as a result of actions taken under a water supply emergency declaration to make an application for compensation. In conclusion, I would like to thank stakeholders who provided comment on the draft bill, including the South East Queensland Water Corporation; SunWater; the Local Government Association of Queensland; the project management group of south-east Queensland drought strategy, which includes South East Queensland Water Corporation, customer councils, Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Competition Authority; officers of the department who have dealt with these water issues in order to prepare this bill for honourable members; officers in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation; Justice and Attorney-General; Queensland Treasury; Office of the Coordinator-General and the Environmental Protection Agency. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3997

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr SEENEY (8.03 pm): Clause 4 is essentially the clause that gives purpose to the whole bill. It is the reason the bill is before us. It is the clause that puts in place the provisions for the emergency response that I think all speakers in this debate tonight have agreed is necessary. It is worth while reiterating why it is necessary and, in so doing, refute some of the quite nonsensical claims that the minister made in his summation. The point that illustrates it more clearly than anything else is the one that I have made over and over again in this House and, as I indicated to the Minister for Energy, I will continue to make. Queensland has the same water infrastructure today that Queensland had when Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen left office in 1987. Successive Labor governments have lived off his legacy until they have come to the point at which a crisis has developed in so many rural communities. The list of infrastructure that the minister read out clearly illustrates that because, in his desperation to find infrastructure that had been built in the past 17 years, he went right down the list to one that stuck in my mind, which was the refurbishment of the Moura Weir. I am probably the only member in the House who has been to the Moura Weir. It is obvious that the minister has not been to the Moura Weir. If he had, he would know how absolutely absurd it is to claim that the refurbishment of the Moura Weir is a great success, that that is a great indicator of the commitment that the Beattie Labor government has to the provision of water infrastructure in Queensland. The minister demonstrates his own foolishness by such an absurd claim. I extend to him an invitation to come up to my electorate. I will take him out to the Moura Weir and show him what sort of a structure it is, which will indicate to him how stupid that is. At the head of that list were a couple of weirs on the Mackenzie River way up north of Emerald in the northern part of central Queensland. In themselves they are good structures, but they are very minor structures; they are small structures. They play an important role in that area, but to suggest that that is an indicator of the success of the Beattie Labor government in the provision of water infrastructure illustrates my point better than I can. Queensland has the same water infrastructure now that we had when Sir Joh left. All members should thank Sir Joh for the fact that he provided that infrastructure. Mr Mickel interjected. Mr SEENEY: That is what they cannot handle. That is what the Minister for Energy cannot handle. That is the record. He should be thanking Sir Joh every time he stands up here and talks about water infrastructure. He should be thanking Sir Joh, Neville Harper and those ministers who delivered that water infrastructure to Queensland. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SEENEY: When is the member for Southport going to stand up here and thank Russ Hinze for providing the infrastructure that has made the growth of the Gold Coast possible? When you do, my honourable friend, you will earn some respect from me because you will at least be getting close to the truth, which you never do. The point remains that the minister cannot blame the necessity for this bill on the drought, even though, as he indicated, Queensland is currently going through a period of drought. He said it was the worst in 100 years. The member for Ipswich said that there was no such thing as drought; it was just normal weather conditions. So there is a bit of a dichotomy there. Ms Nolan: In Australia we have variable weather conditions. Mr SEENEY: They are called droughts. When it does not rain they are called droughts, as the minister indicated. We have a range of weather conditions—extreme weather conditions—that cause impacts to all sorts of communities in Queensland. Ms Nolan interjected. Mr SEENEY: One day one of those weather phenomena will cause an impact on the community of Ipswich. It might be a flood, it might be a storm or it might be a drought. Then the member will be able to stand up here and recognise the fact that there was a drought, just as the minister did. At least the minister did indicate— Ms JARRATT: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule on the relevance of the honourable member’s contribution to the clause, clause 4. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Copeland): Order! The member will resume her seat. Clause 4 is a very broad clause referring to water supply emergencies, declaration of water supply emergencies and a range of other things. I was lenient earlier and I remain so during debate on this clause. 3998 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Mr SEENEY: I will be brief. I do not have much more to say. There are two other points I want to make. I started to make a point about the member for Ipswich claiming that there was not a drought. Ms Nolan: I look forward to you celebrating the good times. Mr SEENEY: I appreciate the interjections of the member for Ipswich. I was, however, a little concerned about her contribution. She seemed to suggest that her gender had something to do with the comments that I make about her. I assure her that that is not the case. I just want to put that on the record with a bit of leniency. I put on the record that the member is the member for Ipswich as far as I am concerned and her gender has nothing to do with it. I do enjoy taking the member’s interjections because I honestly believe that she, at least, is a member of this House who believes in something, unlike many of her fellow backbenchers. Terribly misguided though she may be, she, at least, believes in something. However, I suggest that she talk to the minister and he can explain to her what a drought is. Then she can come into the real world. Perhaps both the minister and I could demonstrate to the member for Ipswich what a drought is so that she may understand the necessity for this legislation and the necessity for this clause. However, the prize for the goofiest contribution to the debate on this bill certainly has to go to the member for Indooroopilly from the loopy, loony Left of the Labor Party. He suggested that we change our diet to reduce our water consumption and that we should move to a vegetarian diet. I think that the member for Indooroopilly should come into the real world, too. He could go on a diet of bread and meat because Queensland could probably provide all the bread and meat its population could eat without using any water. If we took up the suggestion that he put forward to the House this evening, we would actually use more water. It is a good demonstration of how goofy, loony Left philosophies really produce a worse outcome than the situation they seek to address. This is a broad clause. I commend the comments made by the minister about this clause. However, I suggest that he has some issues to raise with the loony Left who sit in the back corner of this House. I hope and pray that the member for Indooroopilly and the member for Ipswich never have a decision-making role in anything to do with natural resources. Queensland would be poorer for that. Mr PALASZCZUK: I have before me a Water Infrastructure Task Force final report of 28 February 1997. Category 1 is infrastructure that had to be built under the Borbidge government. The region central map reference is 150. The proposal is the Moura Weir refurbishment. The description states, ‘Refurbish the old timber Moura Weir located on the Dawson River. Concrete buttress walls and steel sheet piling are to be installed. Water use is for irrigation and mining. The proponent’s estimated cost is $1.5 million. The proponents are the DNR and the Dawson River Irrigators Association.’ The comment states, ‘Refurbishment will extend the life of the asset by 15 years.’ We did it. We did it. Mr Lawlor: How embarrassing. Mr SEENEY: How embarrassing for the minister. Government members interjected. Mr SEENEY: Absolutely—so they should have done it. Perhaps the minister could use his next opportunity to speak to read out all of the projects that are listed in that plan that the government did not do. They are all major projects that would have provided extra water to communities right across Queensland. Refurbishment of the Moura Weir would certainly have been done by the coalition government. However, it did not provide any more water. It is a tiny little piece of infrastructure that needed refurbishment. The point is that the minister has to stand in this House, 17 years later, and suggest that that is the crowning glory, the pinnacle of achievement of the Beattie Labor government in providing water infrastructure in Queensland. The minister does not realise the extent to which that embarrasses him. He should stand up and read out the rest of planned infrastructure that the coalition government would have delivered and will deliver in the future. The people of Queensland can be sure of that. Had we delivered that infrastructure—and when we deliver that infrastructure—the bill and the particular clause that we are considering at the moment would not be necessary. There would not be a requirement for the emergency intervention powers that are encapsulated in this clause had the document that the minister held up and waved around been delivered on. Of course, it was not. Here we are, 17 years down the track, in a situation where the minister has to find one tiny little project for an old wooden weir that is about eight feet high and stores a little bit of water for the town of Moura. Essentially, it provides an opportunity for an off-take storage. That is the pinnacle of the Labor government’s achievements. I think that the minister knows better than that. I look forward to the day when we can deliver on all of the projects in the document the minister waved around and then this legislation would not be necessary and would never have to be used. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I have three matters that I seek clarification on in relation to this clause. In instances where the allocation to a large contract holder—they used to be called take or pay contracts, but I am not sure of the right terminology now—is reduced because of a water supply emergency declaration, will those contract holders receive a pro rata reimbursement for the water they 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 3999 do not receive? Given that the nature of a take or pay contract is that if the allocation is not used they have to pay for the full allocation anyway, surely if they are unable to take their full allocation because of an emergency situation they should receive some reimbursement for the moneys they would otherwise be required to pay. The second matter is in relation to the question I asked in my speech on the second reading about paying for new infrastructure and, specifically, the Fitzroy River pipeline. I thank the minister for his reply in his summing-up. He said that the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy will be completed next year. On the basis of that information, the Queensland government will decide the future infrastructure needs particularly for the region and if the pipeline was built, the costs, in part, would be recouped by an annual increase in the water charge. I seek clarification from the minister whether that strategy of payment will apply to the large industries or will they be required to make an up-front contribution to this infrastructure and, more particularly, if the infrastructure is built during a water supply emergency declaration? I seek that very specific clarification as to how the large industries who have a significant take and whose allocation has to be protected, to a degree, for their industry, their process, to keep its integrity. They cannot completely lose their water allocation—and, indeed, the minister acknowledged that in his second- reading speech. I also seek clarification on the proposed new section 25S in clause 4 in relation to when compensation is not payable. The bill states— (1) Compensation is not payable to a person for— (a) loss or damage suffered because of a water restriction imposed under— (i) a direction under a water supply emergency declaration or water supply emergency regulation; or (ii) an approved water supply emergency response; or (b) costs or contributions mentioned in section 25O(1)— that is a contribution towards actions taken in an emergency declaration period to respond to that water need— (c) loss or damage to the extent that an amount for the loss or damage is recovered or recoverable by the person under a policy of insurance— and that is reasonable; there is no double-dipping— (d) costs that were recovered from the person by a service provider ... (2) Also, compensation is not payable to the person for loss or damage if the loss of damage would have happened irrespective of actions taken under this division. I have no problem with subsection (2). In relation to subsection (1), I seek clarification in relation to industries. Again, I am targeting the major industries operating in my electorate. If they had sufficient water starving, the process damage would be significant. I am not talking only about a couple of days when the process would be down; I am talking about potentially significant damage to their equipment and to their process. Is that type of impact excluded under proposed new section 25S? Mr PALASZCZUK: In relation to the contractors, the contract holders will be entitled to make an application for their losses. In relation to the second point of large businesses making up-front contributions, I believe that that is very unlikely. As far as the member’s third point is concerned, I will have to seek some advice. The officers are having a bit of difficulty in understanding the point that the member is trying to make. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My apologies. I will try to make my query shorter. New section 25S states— When compensation is not payable ‘(1) Compensation is not payable to a person for— and I am assuming that ‘a person’ can also be a company— (a) loss or damage suffered because of a water restriction imposed under— (i) a direction under a water supply emergency declaration or water supply emergency regulation; or (ii) an approved water supply emergency response ... Companies such as QAL and Boyne Smelter get warned when a cyclone is coming. They will stop liquor production and circulate a benign—usually water—slurry through their pipe network to keep them operating. If a cyclone did hit that plant, any discharge would be benign; it would not be toxic. However, if there is a sufficient reduction in the water supply to these companies—some are more susceptible than others because of their processes—the damage or loss suffered because of the water restriction could run into millions. Does this clause mean that, in that situation, companies will not have recourse to compensation when they have a significant production loss? Mr PALASZCZUK: I will do my best. My understanding is that people cannot recover compensation for losses incurred as a consequence of water restrictions being imposed, which is currently the case, or for losses incurred by a service provider as a consequence of complying with the direction where the costs of complying are recoverable from the customer. 4000 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

Mrs MENKENS: As we know, the Burdekin area is watered by the Burdekin Dam. That dam supplies a large amount of water to the farming area in two ways: the BRIA and also in the underground water, which is supplied through the two water boards. It is probably fair to say that currently in Queensland the Burdekin Dam has the best capacity of all of the water storages. It is certainly a very fine water storage. Also in the Burdekin electorate is the Bowen Broken Water Supply Scheme, which currently is watered from the which, as we know, has suffered desperately in the past couple of years. Today the member for Warrego outlined very strongly the case for the Urannah Dam. I will not go over that issue. Of course, the pipeline is not yet built, but it is certainly being developed to go from the Burdekin Dam. That is a concern because of the cost involved. It is also a concern because it will impact on existing water supplies; it will not create a new water supply. However, so be it. That has been the decision. It will supply some of those areas. I had the privilege to visit the Gatton Off-Stream Storage while it was being built. I understand that construction has finished and water is being pumped into it. That storage supplies water to the Collinsville coalmines. It also, very luckily, will supply water to the residents of Collinsville. The situation of the water supply for the domestic users at Collinsville was getting particularly serious. The Gatton Off- Stream Storage also supplies the coal-fired powerhouse. GOSS—the Gatton Off-Stream Storage, which is an interesting acronym—supplies the water to those areas. It does not supply the irrigators lower down. Those irrigators have suffered quite a lot through water shortages and lack of water. Currently, luckily there has been some rain recently. That has improved their situation slightly, but they are still suffering a great deal. The Gatton Off-Stream Storage and the pipeline will not have any effect or assist irrigators in the area lower down. The explanatory notes state— The water supply emergency declaration or regulation will not displace, but may rather complement, the exercise of other emergency powers that exist in other legislation. Could the minister clarify or comment further on that—that is, it will complement but will not displace? Mr PALASZCZUK: This legislation does not override any other legislation. For instance, if the natural disaster act had to be evoked, as this legislation is essential legislation, the powers that the government will have will not displace the natural disaster provisions of that act. That is just an example of other legislation. That is basically it. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr SEENEY (8.27 pm): As many members on this side of the House indicated in their contributions to the second-reading debate, clause 16 is unacceptable to this side of the House. It is certainly unacceptable to the opposition. Broadly, the rest of the legislation received support from almost all members of the House. The extent to which members of the House took an opportunity to contribute on this aspect to that debate indicates how important they regard the whole issue. It is also important that we understand how repugnant clause 16 is. In terms of acceptability, it is the exact opposite to the rest of the bill. In my contribution to the second-reading debate I made the point that I considered very seriously opposing the whole bill simply because this clause has been attached to this bill. I say that this clause has been attached to the bill because it does not really have any great affinity with the other provisions of the bill. This clause has been attached to this bill for the sake of expediency. Clause 16 is an amendment that is essentially designed to get the state government out of trouble in a court case that it knows it is likely to lose. It is an appalling amendment that is akin to something that we would see in an African dictatorship, not in a democracy where there is meant to be a separation of powers between the parliament and the court. In the explanatory notes, which accompanied the bill when it was introduced into this House, the state government has been forced to admit that this clause breaches fundamental legislative principles. I ask every member of this House to consider the significance of that: the government and this minister introduce a bill into the House and its explanatory notes admit that this clause of the bill breaches fundamental legislative principles. The explanatory notes state— In relation to the amendment to validate the Rural Water Pricing Direction Notice gazetted on 6 October 2000, will impact on legal proceedings currently in the Supreme Court to which the State and the Minister and Treasurer have been joined. It is relevant that the House should understand the detail of this and I appreciate that some of the detail will be lost on many of the urban members who occupy the backbench of the government. But it is important that the detail is put on the record. The Burdekin was the only region in Queensland to be charged a rate of return on water prices set by SunWater. Burdekin irrigators have been challenging the validity of the charges for the past five years. Those irrigators resorted to withholding payment on the rate of return. They paid all of the other costs—all of the operating and maintenance costs—but withheld the element that represented the rate of return on capital that had long since been invested. So far, they have withheld about $5 million from their SunWater payments. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 4001

SunWater have taken the Burdekin River Irrigation Area chairman, Russell McNee, to the Supreme Court on this issue, essentially as a test case. Until 27 June 2005, the principal thrust of his case against SunWater was that the water charges included a rate of return in breach of the contract he had with SunWater and that therefore he was not liable for any such amount. Following leave granted by the Supreme Court on 27 June 2005, the defence and counterclaim was amended substantially to join the state of Queensland and SunWater’s shareholding ministers as defendants to Mr McNee’s counterclaim in the action. The thrust of this change was to challenge the validity of the Rural Water Pricing Direction Notice No. 1 of 2000 and the subsequent notices. The amended counterclaim alleges that the proxy notices were unlawful because the ministers had not discharged their obligations under section 1120 of the Water Act. Further, the counterclaim alleges that the ministers failed to take into account relevant considerations and did not afford the opportunity to be heard before the circulation of the notices and that the prices charged were unreasonable. Additionally, Mr McNee’s counterclaim alleges that the notices were unlawful because, pursuant to section 1120 of the Water Act, SunWater could only levy those rates and charges prescribed by section 1118 of the Water Act and the amounts being sued for were not included in those charges. The counterclaim further alleges that section 1120 required the determination notified in the pricing notices to be given to Mr McNee by the ministers personally and that that never occurred. I understand that Mr McNee’s legal representatives have written to him to advise that it is quite clear that through this amendment the Beattie government intends to ‘negate the effect of your allegations in the amended defence and counterclaim by validating the relevant pricing notices retrospectively and making them binding on all persons from their gazettal’. This will then allow the state government and the ministers to never need to respond directly to the issues in the court. Even the bipartisan Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was concerned about this legislation and in particular this clause, because of its retrospective nature. I quote what that committee had to say— It appears possible that the validation will adversely affect a number of consumers as the rates and charges set in the regulation may be have been lower than those in the notice. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, a committee of this parliament, has long been careful to criticise legislation of a retrospective nature, and it is well that they have criticised this legislation on those grounds. Essentially, this clause is about denying a Queenslander the right to have his day in court, and that cannot be justified. It cannot be justified by any outcome that the government may be seeking. All the government is seeking to do is to get a bill paid which those who were required to pay it thought was unjust and unlawful, taking their claim before the court to prove that. The government has been unable to defend the justness and lawfulness of its claims against those irrigators in the courts of this state. It has been unable to do that. So the members of the government have come here to the parliament tonight to effectively change the law and to make those changes operate retrospectively to ensure that they do not lose the case. That is an intolerable situation. It is an unjustifiable situation, and it should not be supported by any member of this House. It is one thing to come to this parliament, as the government has done in the past, and seek to validate sections of legislation or regulations that have been called into question. We have done that and we have actually supported the government on a number of occasions when it has sought to do that, because it is in everyone’s interest that the statutes are clear and there is no ambiguity or confusion. But the members of the government cannot come into this parliament justly and seek to do that in the middle of a court case. They cannot enter into a Supreme Court case with individuals who seek to have their grievance decided by the courts of this land and then, halfway through that court case or at some point when it becomes evident that the government is not going to be able to win—it is not going to be able to sustain its claims or its arguments in the court—come down here to the parliament and attach a clause such as this one to a piece of legislation so that they can change the law retrospectively. It is an obnoxious clause. It is something that should not be countenanced by any member of this House. If the government wants to change the law or validate this particular piece of legislation, then it should do it from this point forward. It should make it operate from this point forward, and it has got the right to do that. It is the elected government of the state. The members of the government can come in here and they can do that. They can change the law and make it operate from this point forward, but they have no moral right, no justification, to come into this parliament and change the law retrospectively so that they can win a court case that they would not have been able to win otherwise. It is a repugnant clause and it should be defeated. Mrs MENKENS: The Burdekin River Irrigation Area was commissioned in the 1950s but the recent farms that we are looking at are those that have been developed since the Burdekin Falls Dam was actually built. As I said earlier, there are nearly 300 irrigators there. These are new farmers. Most of them have had to put a lot of infrastructure in. They have had to develop the land. This is an area that was developed at a time when the cane prices were good. I think we all know how volatile the sugar industry is. It is totally reliant on the world sugar price and it is probably the most volatile industry in Australia. These people bought in at a time when prices were good. Then we have gone through some very, very serious downturns in the industry and these have been getting worse and worse. 4002 Water Amendment Bill 10 Nov 2005

As we said earlier, the Burdekin is the only region in Queensland to have been charged a rate of return on water prices set by SunWater. These farmers have naturally felt very unfairly put upon by this. This has been hanging over their heads for five years. They have discussed it, they have argued it, they have negotiated and, as we have now seen, it has ended up in court. It is a terrible situation. They are under a great deal of stress. I know these people. I know the stress they are under. I know exactly what it is doing to them. I do understand how people who live in the city feel about water. They focus on what they see as farmers using a lot of water. Our farmers are growing food. We need to produce food. We need to generate export industries. This a very important part of Australia’s economy—of Queensland’s economy. However, the effect on those people will be absolutely unbelievable. They have been under absolutely enormous emotional and financial stress as a result of the water charges. The farmers have been in an unviable situation for several years. I know that because they come and tell me. Therefore, it is absolutely unbelievable to have this retrospective impost put on them, which will take everything away and knock their feet from under them. As I understand it, the rates were stipulated in a regulation of 1992, which has now become law and been totally changed. What was a regulation is now a demand of law. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I am not familiar with the Burdekin scheme at all, but I have listened to the members for Callide and Burdekin as they have outlined the situation that the farmers face. I also note the 1998 legislation that the minister referred to in his reply. I certainly would have been involved in the passing of that legislation. If it is a situation similar to the one that has been outlined here, in that the legislation was used without any other attaching reasons to circumvent a decision of the Supreme Court, certainly in 1998 I did the wrong thing. I do not believe that we are here to interrupt or override people’s legal rights in those circumstances when a landowner is endeavouring to show, through the judicial system, the rightness or wrongness of a decision of either a local authority or a state government or, indeed, any other instrumentality. The court process is supposed to be independent, fair and just in its administration of the law. I refer to the two instances where this parliament voted to overturn a decision that was made by the Supreme Court retrospectively when the applicant won. I think one involved the Gold Coast City Council and the other certainly involved the state government, because it related to the tunnels at South Bank. A cooking shop was going to be moved from a very viable position near the TAFE to one that was less attractive. To use this parliament to circumvent people’s rights, particularly when those actions are on foot, is not something that I can easily support. As I said, if that is what I did in 1998 I will admit that it was the wrong thing to do. I certainly will not be supporting it tonight. Mr SEENEY: The minister has chosen not to respond or try to justify this clause. He has chosen not to try to explain why this clause is before the House. The minister has been put in that position through acute embarrassment. I feel for him, because I know he is new in the portfolio. Unfortunately, he has inherited a department that all too often has misused the legal process in a whole range of ways, and I have spoken about them in the parliament before. Another example is certainly before us tonight. Undoubtedly, the department has misused the legal process in attaching this clause to the bill being considered tonight. It cannot be justified. I do not blame the minister for sitting mute, because this clause cannot be justified. Essentially, through silence the minister is saying to the people of Queensland that the Beattie Labor government will use it 63-seat majority to force this clause through the parliament without justification and without explanation, because it cannot be justified. Essentially, if one tries to distil this down to its shortest version, it is about a group of farmers who challenged the right of SunWater to charge them a particular component of their annual payment. They challenged the right of SunWater to charge them a rate of return on capital that had been invested many years ago. They took that case to the Supreme Court. Obviously, it has now become apparent to the government that the farmers in the Burdekin are right. Under the current laws of this state, the government does not have the right to charge them a rate of return on capital that has long since been invested. Obviously the Supreme Court was going to rule that those farmers are right, otherwise this clause would not be before the House tonight. The clause would not be attached to the bill because it has no other relevance to the bill. What the department of natural resources has done—and I say the department, because I know it is not the minister but the department that he has inherited—is to say, ‘Oh dear! We will not be able to win this argument. We will get the minister to attach this to the bill, take it into parliament, change the law and make it act retrospectively so that we can win.’ That is an intolerable situation. If it is the intent of the law to apply these charges, then one could justify coming in here, changing the law and making it operate from this point forward. However, there is no justification for coming in here and making it operate retrospectively, denying those people the victory that they should have had in the Supreme Court. This clause will deny them the justice that they would have had from the Supreme Court of Queensland had the department not sent the unwilling minister into the parliament with this clause attached to the bill. The minister’s silence needs to be seen in that context. It is an unjustifiable position and it will be an unjustifiable decision if this parliament passes the clause into law tonight. 10 Nov 2005 Water Amendment Bill 4003

I ask every member of this House, especially those who from time to time stand in here and talk about justice and claim some credibility because they have a background in the legal profession, to think very seriously before they support the inclusion of this clause in the legislation before us tonight. For those people who claim to have a legal background and some understanding and motivation based on social justice and justice for all Queenslanders, it would be an absolute abhorrence to deny the farmers of the Burdekin Valley the justice that they would have achieved had the Supreme Court been allowed to rule in their favour. Mrs MENKENS: This will impact hugely on the farmers in the Burdekin. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has said that it appears possible that the validation will adversely affect a number of consumers as the rates and charges set in the regulation may have been lower than those in the notice. That is very fairly put, because that is exactly what it will do. It will impact hugely on those farmers. I have no doubt that some of them may go to the wall as a result. Would the minister care to make any comment on the impact it will have on human lives? Mr PALASZCZUK: I believe that in my summation on the second-reading speeches I put the position of the government perfectly clearly. Honourable members opposite are certainly making a lot of mileage out of the retrospectivity of this legislation. However, they do not understand how hypocritical they are when we consider that in 1998 their government did exactly the same thing. How dare they come in here this evening and act like the purest opposition that the world has ever seen. There is the legislation from 1998. It is absolutely no different whatsoever from what the government is introducing here now. I will clarify this clause one more time for honourable members opposite. They are all worried about the issue of the Supreme Court. It is necessary for clarity and certainty for the government to take this step now to confirm the validity of the rural water pricing directions. The pricing directions were given in the year 2000 by the then minister of the department and by the Treasurer. What the pricing system does is underpin rural water pricing for all of the water supply schemes throughout the state. I say to the member for Burdekin that the pricing directions have been in place since the year 2000. What this amendment does is remove any doubt about the application of the pricing directions and the pricing of the supply of rural water, and it provides certainty to both SunWater and its customers. The validation of the pricing notices therefore removes any doubt about the existing pricing arrangements and provides certainty as to how pricing arrangements applied in the past and will continue to apply in the future. This will give certainty to rural pricing. One more time: don’t be so hypocritical. Those opposite when in government back in 1998 did exactly the same thing. So don’t come in here and preach to me about the morality of the amendment that we have moved. It is no different from what they have done. Mr SEENEY: I am not aware of the piece of legislation that the minister is waving around over there. Mr Palaszczuk: Would you like to read it? Mr SEENEY: If the minister is fair dinkum, he can stand up and illustrate why it is the same rather than wave it around like he did with the list of infrastructure. He claimed that Moura Weir was some sort of great achievement. I would not take the minister’s word as to what is in the piece of legislation that he is waving around over there, and I do not think any member of the parliament should. We should consider what is being proposed in this House tonight on its merits. But, even giving the minister the benefit of the doubt and accepting whatever it was that was done in 1998, I was not here then. Most of the people in this House were not here then. Whatever was done in 1998 does not justify what the government is trying to do tonight, even if, as it says, it is exactly the same thing, which I very much doubt, because if it were the minister would have stood up and gone through it and explained it rather than just waving it around and saying that this is the same thing. Of course it is not the same thing. We all know it is not the same thing, but it is the only straw that the minister can grab for as he tries to justify the unjustifiable here in the House tonight. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that he should identify the staff member who wrote that briefing note that he read out a moment ago and find them something else to do. If that is the best advice that his advisers can provide him with on that issue, then he really should get better advisers— Mr PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. I believe what the honourable member is doing here this evening is disgraceful. He is attacking departmental officers. Now he is also attacking the staff of a minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Copeland): Order! There is no point of order. The minister will resume his seat. Mr SEENEY: I am suggesting quite openly and quite deliberately that the advice which the minister has been given with regard to this issue is bad advice. It is bad advice and it is incomplete advice. I went through it in a lot of detail in my first contribution to the consideration of this clause. I then summed it up for the minister in very simple language. The best that the minister could do was stand up in this House and read a briefing note that repeated the word ‘security’ or something over and over again. 4004 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 10 Nov 2005

The only people who will get security from the passage of this clause are the department of natural resources’ officers who otherwise would have lost the case. They will have the security of knowing that they can impose this charge even though it was an unlawful one, even though they have been trying to impose it unlawfully for the last five years. They will now have the security of knowing that they can impose it retrospectively over those five years and that they can impose it into the future. That is the only security that the passage of this clause will deliver tonight. It is unfair and unjust security for people who do not deserve it. More importantly, perhaps, it will give the department that the minister now administers the security of knowing that its officers can do this type of thing without fear of retribution and without fear of contradiction. They can trample over the rights of Queenslanders as they have done in so many other instances where they have taken Queenslanders to court, have been unsuccessful and have had to use all sorts of methods to try to get their way. That is probably the most important impact of the passage of this clause tonight. It will provide security to those people so that they can continue to do this type of thing and deny the Queenslanders who they are supposed to serve the justice that they deserve. This clause is terribly unjust. It denies those people in the Burdekin Valley who had the courage to put forward their own money to pursue their own argument the chance to do so in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Those members opposite are tonight going to intervene and deny them the opportunity to have their case decided upon as it should have been. Time expired. Question—That clause 16, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the House divided— AYES, 42—Attwood, Barton, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, Croft, Cummins, Fenlon, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 16—Caltabiano, E Cunningham, Flegg, Johnson, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

HEALTH SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL; HEALTH PRACTITIONERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill Resumed from 5 October (see p. 3227). Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (9.03 pm): I rise to speak to the Health Services Amendment Bill and the Health Practitioners Amendment Bill. The first of these two cognate bills is the Health Services Amendment Bill 2005. This bill arises out of the government’s commitment to support recommendations in the Forster report. In particular, this bill gives effect to Forster’s recommendation that there be three area health services created replacing the current three health zones—the southern, central and northern health zones. The bill creates a general manager position for each of the area health services. I understand that these positions have already been advertised in the Australian, the Courier-Mail, online and in the government Gazette. Essentially, the hierarchy of the Queensland Health bureaucracy would be changed little with district health managers reporting to general managers of the area health service who, in turn, would report to the director-general. I find this course of action, arising from the findings of the Forster report, incomprehensible because in many regards Forster has accurately described serious problems at the core of Queensland Health but then has failed to make the appropriate recommendations to respond to these issues. Let me read part of what Mr Forster has to say about this new structure that the bill is seeking to introduce— The proposed structure will be designed to support the provision of health services having regard to community need and internal service capabilities. Such a structure will be flatter with accountability and decision making devolved to a lower level. Let me repeat that— Such a structure will be flatter with accountability and decision making devolved to a lower level. Mr Barton: Yes. Good idea, isn’t it? 10 Nov 2005 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 4005

Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection. It would be a very good idea if that is, in fact, what he and the government had done, but they have not done that. He goes on to say— This will be a significant cultural shift for the organisation which has been characterised by central control for decades except for a five year period of regionalisation in the early nineties. In his second-reading speech the minister made this rather amazing observation of the Forster review— The review found that Queensland Health has a bureaucratic, mechanistic structure with a highly centralised formal authority and hierarchical layers of decision making that do not support a responsive, integrated and efficient health system. I could not agree more. In fact, this is exactly what has been shown not just by the Forster inquiry but by one scandal and tragedy after another that were unveiled firstly before Commissioner Morris and subsequently before Commissioner Davies. So why are we here enacting a bill that essentially enshrines the excessive layers of management, and the bureaucratic and mechanistic structure that has been condemned vigorously by Mr Forster? We are abolishing three zones and replacing them with three area health services. My understanding is that the three area health services, which sit below the director-general, will assume some of the roles currently performed by the health districts. Currently funding is directed to the health districts, but under the new arrangements the funding will go to the three area general managers. With the health districts sitting underneath these new health areas, the funding and the enormous influence in decision making that goes with it will, in fact, be moved further away from the doctors and nurses who provide health care in our hospitals. It will be moved further away from the administration of those hospitals. It will be moved further away from the health districts that sit on top of those hospital structures. So what we see here is actually a centralisation of decision making, particularly in the vital area of who controls funding. This is an extraordinary outcome and a totally illogical conclusion to come from what Mr Forster has found. On page 70 of his report, Mr Forster went on to say— While arguments could be made for major changes to both district and zonal boundaries, it is considered that a major restructuring of the districts would result in minimal savings and would divert attention away from patient-centred improvement and the effort required for the implementation of the major reform agenda to change the direction of Queensland Health. While some amendments have been recommended to zonal and district boundaries ... to align with other boundaries, they are minor and will enable more consistent management and data collection for improved planning and reporting purposes. It is really all pretty extraordinary. There is Forster recommending a flatter management structure. He wants to reduce bureaucracy. He talks about the problems of not being able to obtain anything more than minimal cost savings, yet he has gone on to enshrine in recommendation and now in legislation the same sort of inefficient, costly, ineffective bureaucracy that has been so unresponsive to the clinical needs of patients in Queensland and has left us pretty much back where we started. After discussing these essentially minor and technical issues that Mr Forster mentioned in relation to reform, a number of principles were laid down by Mr Forster, and they are very interesting principles. The first of Mr Forster’s principles is increased community engagement and influence over policy development, yet the government has continued to pillory suggestions that local communities could have a direct say in their hospital by the creation of a hospital board—absolutely pilloried this suggestion that is in line with, and in the spirit of, Mr Forster’s recommendation of increased community engagement. That is the first of the principles of reform laid down by Mr Forster that has been absolutely disregarded and thrown out the window by the government in the adoption of these measures. Mr Forster’s second principle is that decision making regarding patient services and care should be made or strongly influenced by clinicians, yet nothing in this bill empowers clinicians to take over the clinical decision making currently done by bureaucrats and administrators. A lot of the issues taken up in this bill, particularly the increased powers given to these remote health areas, are moving the seat of decision making and the control of budgets and funding even further away so that patients, clinicians, doctors and nurses never get anywhere near the process that makes decisions or allocates budgets. The government has not only disregarded this recommendation of Mr Forster’s; it has deliberately gone against it and gone the other way. The third of Mr Forster’s principles that he laid down to measure reform proposals by is that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level close to patients—that is his quote—with devolved budgets. What has this bill set up? It sets up health areas miles away from any patient, any doctor, any nurse. What does it do with budgets? It takes greater control of the budget out of the health district and gives it to a further layer further up the chain further away from any patient, nurse or doctor. The clinicians and the clinical services in this state will need a telescope to see where the decisions are made and where the budget control is—absolutely contradictory to the principles laid down by Mr Forster that the minister should devolve this decision making closer to patients. The minister has left all of this decision making in the most remote aggregation of health services, has changed the name from zones to areas and is moving budgets and decision making further away in defiance of the principles laid down by Peter Forster. 4006 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 10 Nov 2005

There was to be greater openness and transparency in key decision making throughout the organisation, yet we have just as many layers of bureaucracy and a similarly opaque decision-making process. In fact, not one person to whom I have spoken on the clinical side of Queensland Health thinks that the changes recommended and being enacted in this bill will make any difference to the transparency of decision making. I want to include some details on how maladministration within the bureaucratic structure of Queensland Health has led to chaos within an entire hospital unit, severely damaging professional morale and adding dramatically to the difficulty of providing quality care and retaining quality staff. Unfortunately, the so-called reforms in this bill will do nothing to fix these damaging and grossly excessive layers of bureaucracy and opaque bureaucratic way of making decisions. Senior clinical appointments within the public hospital system should be conducted according to basic principles of the Public Service—that is, they should be conducted on merit, there should be transparency in the process and there should be due process, including appropriate action and documentation by an appropriate selection panel with appropriate reference checking for the person’s clinical skills. Mr Robertson: Hear, hear! Dr FLEGG: I note the minister saying, ‘Hear, hear!’ I am pleased to hear it. By ‘An appropriate selection panel’, I would expect clinical staff would be represented on the panel for clinical appointments. One would have thought that this is basic in Queensland Health after the tragedies of improper handling of the employment of clinicians that we have seen in this state. An appointment was made at the Prince Charles Hospital for the Program Director of Nursing in Geriatric Medicine and Rehabilitation. This is a senior clinical nursing appointment. A selection panel was chaired by the Director of Nursing and an appointment was made. When complaints began to arise from a wide range of nursing and medical staff about the clinical and interpersonal skills of the appointee, the senior clinical staff approached senior levels of Queensland Health, including the now Deputy Director-General, Gloria Wallace, for details about how the appointee’s clinical skills were assessed. The senior clinical staff, who were concerned for the welfare of their patients, were simply told that the appointment was made on the basis of glowing references. It is notable as well as regrettable that no clinician was involved in the appointment panel despite this being a clinical appointment. The concerns of clinical staff were so severe that the senior medical officer of the unit felt a duty to inquire further into the matter and, upon inquiring the previous employer of the appointee in Tasmania, was informed that the appointee had been removed from a patient care position—a very similar position, although possibly a less responsible position than the one currently held—due to a lack of clinical skills and because of interpersonal issues. The previous employer confirmed that they had not been approached for a reference check when the appointment was made by Queensland Health. On further pressing the then district manager, Gloria Wallace, confirmation was given to medical staff that all records relating to this appointment had been shredded, including the CV, the references and all copies of these so that no detail of any of them—not even the names of the referees—could be reconstructed. Compounding this obvious obfuscation, no effort was made to assess the potential clinical problems for patients and to manage this appointment appropriately. Eighteen of the medical, nursing and allied health staff of the Geriatric Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit referred the matter to the Morris royal commission. It received the complaint but it had not been heard in evidence prior to the closure of the commission. The matter was then referred to Commissioner Davies upon his appointment. Commissioner Davies confirmed in a letter dated 19 October 2005, ‘I agree with you. The matters are of considerable concern.’ Of course, when almost an entire professional staff expresses concern for the welfare of their patients, indeed, the matter should be of considerable concern to everyone—except, it seems in this case, to Queensland Health. However, Commissioner Davies repeatedly affirmed that because of the Beattie government’s unwillingness to apply appropriate terms of reference, he was unable to deal with the matter, even though it had been received by Commissioner Morris and was substantive. Queensland Health’s response, which seems to have been coordinated by now Deputy Director- General Gloria Wallace, was to initially accept a recommendation from the senior clinician that an independent team investigate the potential risks to patients. Terms of reference for the inquiry were prepared with Ms Wallace’s knowledge and a team comprising highly respected and clearly independent members was proposed. They were Professor Len Gray, Professor of Geriatrics at the University of Queensland; Joy Vicker Staff, a previous director of nursing at the Prince Charles Hospital and a member of the Nursing Council; and Tony Williams, a previous district manager at the Prince Charles Hospital. However, the inquiry was never allowed to proceed. Initially, it was stalled by a grievance being issued against the senior clinician, although this was subsequently dismissed. The senior clinician, who was attempting to fulfil his responsibility to the nursing and medical staff, as well as to patients, was refused whistleblower protection. Ironically, he was subjected to disciplinary action to be heard by Queensland Health officials who were, themselves, involved in this overall incident. Disciplinary action 10 Nov 2005 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 4007 was threatened because he had the temerity to check the references with the previous employer in Tasmania—a job that should have been done, as a matter of course, by the previous appointment panel. We have a major hospital unit in a tertiary hospital in turmoil and the most senior clinical staff, with responsibility for patients, are excluded from the royal commission process and, in fact, are excluded from any reasonable independent process for determining an issue that threatens patient care and the stability of the unit, when the bulk of the clinical staff were so concerned for their patients that they were prepared to go to the commission of inquiry. The issues surrounding the appointment of nurse Virginia Hancl, like the earlier appointment of Dr Patel in Bundaberg, show failures at every level. Yet the behaviour of Queensland Health has been aimed at obstructing doctors and nurses who are trying to defend their patients. Amazingly—in the light of events in Bundaberg—the disciplinary action was aimed at the clinical staff who were trying to take care of their patients. I table the submission from the clinical staff that was sent to Commissioner Tony Morris. The next principle laid down by Mr Forster was improved responsiveness to better meet the health needs of Queenslanders. They certainly need the improved responsiveness. Yet this bill persists with the same failed multiple layers of bureaucracy that clinical staff in this state have been struggling to deal with—unsuccessfully—for years. We saw it at the Prince Charles, we saw it at Bundaberg, we saw it at Hervey Bay and we have seen it across the state—the same bureaucratic structure, the same layers of management so that nothing ever gets through to anybody. Tonight, we are debating a bill to actually enshrine it in legislation. The features of the structure recommended by Mr Forster and implemented by this bill are even harder to understand. ‘Establish three area health services based on the boundaries of the existing zones.’ That is no change at all. ‘A general manager to head each of the area health services.’ What is the first action taken? Advertise for more highly paid bureaucrats. Further, on page 71 of the Forster report, his principle is to ensure the leadership, management, policy, planning and performance monitoring; capacity of area health services is such that it coincides with the greater budgetary responsibilities of accountability and decision-making authority. He has said there that all of these areas of responsibility—leadership, management, policy, planning and performance management—reside, and are increased, with the area health services, which is the most remote aggregation of health services, apart from head office, of Queensland Health. Mr Forster makes it very clear—as does the government—that increased budgetary responsibility will rest with the area health services, which is as far away as one can be from hospitals, doctors, patients and local communities. This is an extraordinary recommendation in the light of this principle revealed by Mr Forster, in that area health services are as remote as one can be without putting all of these functions back into the head office. Here is Mr Forster recommending—urging, in fact—greater budgetary responsibility, accountability and decision-making authority to be at a more remote level. The government has unquestioningly pursued this recommendation into legislation and practice. The next feature he recommended was greater responsibility, authority and budgetary discretion within the context of a performance agreement between health districts and the new area health services. It is all over the place, is it not? Here is a recommendation for more layers of management talking to each other, bouncing things around, nowhere near a hospital, nowhere near a patient, nowhere near a nurse or a doctor. Let us put all this responsibility on distant levels of management and make sure that they do a lot of talking to each other. On page 72, Mr Forster goes on to define central office relationships with the area health services and the health service districts and the role of a number of executive positions in the bureaucracy. Again, nowhere are hospitals or the care of patients even remotely involved. Of particular note, the Chief Health Officer, under the recommendation—unquestioningly adopted by the government—is to continue as a subordinate role, reporting to the director-general along with a whole raft of other executive appointments. The Chief Health Officer is ranked alongside positions such as the executive director (corporate services), executive director (performance), executive director (policy planning and resources), et cetera. This means that the clinical patient care aspects of the position are given neither the influence nor the independence that this position ought to hold. It symbolises the failure of this bill, this government and the recommendations it is unquestioningly following to actually shift the focus back onto issues relating to the medical care of patients. I ask members to remember all the talk about focusing health care on clinical services and patients. Yet here we have with the Chief Health Officer no increase in his independence, no increase in his seniority; he is just one of a whole raft of administrators sitting under the director-general. There is no increased emphasis on patients, there is no increased emphasis on clinical services; we have an emphasis on bureaucracy—thousands of bureaucrats, layers of bureaucracy—meeting together, holding conferences together, talking together and having nothing at all to do with patients and clinical services. 4008 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 10 Nov 2005

The bill goes on to recommend the formation of a number of independent bodies, all of which would appear to be setting up new bureaucracies: an independent health commission to fulfil roles that ought to be fulfilled by an independent Chief Health Officer and two boards, one an advisory board of health-care professionals—that was the recommendation; I have not seen anything on that as yet—and the other a business services board. Queensland Health might not have enough resources to treat patients and it might not be able to get surgical cases in by the required time, but I will tell members one thing Queensland Health will not lack: it will not lack an awful lot of advice. We have now an advisory board for the director-general, we have an advisory board for the reform and development wing, we have advisory boards for the health areas and we have advisory boards for the health districts. The hospitals and the patients do not get a look in, because these are all remote, safely away from patients and doctors. To date I have not heard announced in this House any clinical appointments in relation to these positions. By and large, they are non-clinical appointments. We are just going around and around in circles, where Queensland Health has been for years. In fact, the around and around in circles is a downward spiral, because it is eating up the resources that should have ended up treating patients. In recommendation 5.1 Forster urges that general managers be recruited promptly. Therefore, it strikes me as very ironic that the government’s first act is to recruit more highly paid bureaucrats. The government has duly followed through. Forster sees the three area general managers as being the drivers of reform. It is disappointing that reform is to be driven by general managers who are remote from the coalface of health and who are not principally clinically focused. Recommendation 5.2 retains a wide range of functions within the central office. Recommendation 5.3 establishes the new boards and commissions. That is it for structural reform for Queensland Health. If those opposite understand from what I have said that I do not believe that the Forster recommendations that are hereby being adopted by the government are adequate to structurally reform Queensland Health, they are absolutely correct. There is nothing in this legislation or following on from these recommendations that would change a thing. Despite all of those very painful lessons that the people of Queensland, and particularly the patients of Queensland, have learned out of Morris, Davies and Forster—and Forster describes a lot of what is happening in Queensland Health—the government has not learned a thing and has not changed a thing. That is very disappointing to patients. There are nothing but token changes and, as a result of this legislation and these recommendations carried through in their entirety, we may well see more bureaucracy in Queensland Health. It is a fiddling around the edges of a failed structure. Mr Forster describes correctly the culture and the problems confronting Queensland Health, but then the reforms recommended and implemented by the government are in many cases contradictory to the problems that have been described. At the very best, they will amount to insignificant changes that will not improve what we see in the health system. The Liberals and the Nationals have put up an alternative reform policy for the structure of Queensland Health. In fact, the policy that we have released is just that: our reform policy for Queensland Health. It is our version of what should be contained in this bill. We have advocated putting into effect the natural conclusions that should have flowed from Mr Forster’s description of the problems in Queensland Health. Queensland Health is overly bureaucratic. We want to abolish two layers of bureaucracy. There is no need to establish the health areas contained in this bill to replace the current health zones. We would like to see them abolished altogether and, along with that, the abolition of the health districts. That is consistent with the principles and conclusions drawn from Mr Forster’s description of what is happening in Queensland Health. We have taken Mr Forster seriously in his recommendations to allow communities more input into their local hospitals by establishing hospital boards. Under this bill, there will be no role for communities to have involvement in their local hospitals. In fact, under the Forster reforms being implemented through this bill, we are actually setting up more bureaucracies and we have continued to ignore the role of clinical input. The director-general’s advisory body contains no visiting medical officer. In fact, the minister told this House that recruitment to that body is being done internally in Queensland Health. This advisory body will deal with issues relating to the workplace. I think the visiting medical officers should be absolutely horrified that they are being told that they are not part of Queensland Health, that they are excluded from the internal processes or consideration of what might happen in the workplaces in Queensland Health. Is it any wonder that we have lost nearly half of all of the visiting medical officers, the visiting specialists, in this state if this is the way they are treated? They have no say, they are excluded, they are not even considered to be part of the organisation. They are not regarded as being good enough to even give the director-general advice. The government has set up a new division, the Reform and Development Unit, with 25 staff and an advisory council headed by Professor Stephen Duckett. The government has made a lot about the Forster recommendation to remove 160-odd head office positions, yet it has not addressed the issue of new positions being created. These are new positions that have been created in the Reform and Development Unit. On the one hand the government wants a pat on the back for removing a very small number of head office positions, yet at the same time it is bringing everybody back in through the back door by creating a whole raft of other bureaucracies. 10 Nov 2005 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 4009

Here we have the creation of yet another little bureaucracy, at considerable taxpayer expense, headed by Professor Duckett, who has a long history of working for Labor governments and who was one of the architects of the failed Medicare Gold. Yet at this stage there is no confirmation at all that medical staff would be represented even on the Reform and Development Unit’s advisory council. It is hardly a case of reducing bureaucracy and it is hardly a case of moving control back towards patients. Our view is very clear. We should have a flat management structure to make Queensland Health more responsive. A huge amount of resources are taken up with the various levels of bureaucracy dealing with one another as well as the inefficiencies inherent in a system that has too many layers of bureaucracy. No private company would operate under the layers of bureaucracy that Queensland Health operates under. In fact, were a private company to try to operate under the sort of layers of bureaucracy that Queensland Health has inflicted on itself, it would not be in business for very long. The company would be suffering huge overhead costs for its administration and it would be suffering huge costs for its policy paralysis—exactly the huge costs that Queensland Health has been paying for years under its present failed structure. The Liberals and the Nationals will be opposing these aspects of the Health Services Amendment Bill. I note that the government has circulated amendments to this bill and I intend to discuss those at the appropriate time, which, I think, is later on. This bill is being debated cognate with the Health Practitioners Legislation Amendment Bill. The Health Practitioners Legislation Amendment Bill comes out of the first Morris inquiry interim report, which correctly identified the conflict of interest—this tragic conflict of interest between the minister and Queensland Health operating the hospitals, employing the doctors, being responsible for filling the positions and being responsible for paying the wages, and, on the other hand, in direct conflict of interest, the minister and Queensland Health also having this awesome power, in a clinical sense, to declare particular hospitals and areas around the state as areas of need. When they are able to declare that area of need, they are then able to employ doctors who would not normally be qualified to work in those positions. They are able to bring doctors from overseas who are captive—who cannot work anywhere else in the medical system. The doctors cannot work anywhere except in the hospital they are employed to work in. All too often, that has proven to be just too big a temptation for Queensland Health and for the Minister for Health. We have seen the effects of what essentially amounts to the abuse of area of need declarations and the fact that widespread across Queensland Health was the belief that, because they always had the option of declaring areas of need, and did not hesitate to do so, doctors were disposable. They were often treated as such and, consequently, large numbers deserted the hospital system in droves with a department and ministers who, frankly, did not care, because it was all too easy. It was so easy—simply declare an area of need and put in somebody who was not qualified under normal conditions to work in that job. In fact, the situation got to be so ridiculous that area of need basically covered every hospital and every corner of the state. Even hospitals such as the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, a major tertiary teaching hospital, contained area of need provisions and still, to this day, utilises deemed specialists who are not qualified in the normal sense to work as specialists. Whilst it has been a popular pastime for the government to blame doctor shortages for many of their problems in Queensland, the reality is that it was a doctor exodus that created many of the problems and, as a result, Queensland had far greater dependence than any other state in Australia on area of need declaration. Most of the temporary entry overseas trained doctors entering Australia came to Queensland because of the ease of obtaining positions here in this state with Queensland Health, often with no scrutiny whatsoever of the doctor’s medical ability. It is important to note that it did not have to be this way. The minister and the department always had the power to require scrutiny of the area of need doctors’ medical skills and, in fact, this was done in New South Wales. Queensland Health, as the employer, had the option of requiring area of need doctors to work under supervision but, frequently, because they were captive, because they had to work wherever they were sent, because they could not resign as they could not go and work anywhere else under the provisions of their area of need, they were pushed out into small, isolated roles where supervision was at a minimum—the very places in Queensland where we would have and should have had people of much greater experience. It was so easy to push powerless area of need doctors out to areas where supervision was minimal or, in some cases, nonexistent. Nor was the abuse of area of need and the huge problems of diminished quality of care that were associated with that abuse only revealed by the Morris Royal Commission and the events in Bundaberg. In fact, medical organisations warned this government for years before Bundaberg that it was a disaster waiting to happen. I, in fact, raised the issue and did media on it almost 12 months before the tragic events in Bundaberg were uncovered. The reality is, it was a very convenient way to cheaply run Queensland Health without the need to ensure the retention of its fully qualified and expert medical staff. It did not matter if senior specialists and other doctors were bullied and intimidated until they left the system. You could always declare area of need and put in somebody who was not qualified and that is exactly what happened in many cases. 4010 Health Services Amendment Bill; Health Practitioners Legislation A’ment Bill 10 Nov 2005

In terms of the changes envisaged by the Health Practitioners Legislation Amendment Bill, it removes from the minister and Queensland Health the power under section 135 of the Health Practitioners Registration Act 2001 to declare area of need and delegates that power to the executive officer of the Office of Health Practitioners Registration Boards. So, essentially, this bill will take away the opportunity for Queensland Health to directly declare area of need and we on this side of the House do see this as a positive step forward given the sad history of this issue. It does remain to be seen how the Medical Board will view area of need and what criteria it will use to replace the present politically expedient decision making on what should be declared area of need. The Medical Board is to be given $330,000 per annum in recurrent funding and although clearly the government through its appointment roles and so forth has substantial influence over the Medical Board, I trust and I hope that the Medical Board will use very objective measures in the declaration of area of need and will no longer simply toe the government’s line when they refuse to appoint local visiting medical officers and when they effectively force fully qualified staff out of the system. It should not be automatic that those factors lead to a declaration of area of need. For a number of reasons it is a sad reflection that we need to use these provisions at all, but morally we are taking doctors from a range of Third World countries that are far worse off than ourselves. In their home countries many of those doctors earn as little as a few dollars a day, so clearly coming to work in Australia is an enormous attraction. Invariably there is nobody to replace them in their country of origin. Australia should face up to the responsibility that we have in this area. Whilst I would very much like to say that all doctors working in Queensland should be fully qualified doctors, the reality is that over 20 per cent of Queensland Health’s doctor staff are employed under some special provision. At this point, to simply eliminate area of need would appear to be unworkable in terms of the manpower requirements of our hospitals. Reluctantly—and it is somewhat reluctantly—we on this side of the House will support provisions of the bill rather than move for the total abolition of area of need provisions, despite our fundamental believe that total abolition at least should be a long-term goal. One of the provisions relating to area of need is that of deeming specialists in areas where there is a specialist work force shortage or specialist areas of need. We do not believe that this practice is applicable in Queensland. It is our belief that specialists should be holding down specialist jobs in the public health system and that the specialists holding those jobs ought to be fully Australian qualified. Should we get the opportunity, it will be our policy to abolish as soon as possible any deeming provisions for specialists. An amendment to this bill has been circulated in my name to give effect to that policy position. I will debate the issues surrounding that at the appropriate time. I will not sum up. I will be here for another 12 minutes if I do. We have begun debating these two bills in cognate. Areas of the bills have our support. However, I want to make it very clear that we do not support the establishment of health areas. We see the legislation and provisions associated with that as being a backward step. They fail to address the problems that have been identified in the various inquiries. After describing the problems in Queensland Health, laying down a series of principles as to how we could successfully empower clinicians to have decision-making influence, and outlining how bureaucracies should be flatter and decision making should be closer to where doctors and nurses treat patients, we find it inexplicable that the outcome of all of those recommendations and principles actually goes in the reverse direction. We are moving power, budgetary control and a whole range of other influences even further away from where health care is delivered to patients. I note the comments that I made in relation to area of need and reluctantly accept the necessity that those provisions continue for a time. Certainly, it is my strong contention that they should not apply to specialist positions. The area of need provision that allow specialists to be deemed despite not being normally qualified are not acceptable in this state. They will be opposed by this side of the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (9.54 pm): I rise to speak on the two cognate bills, the Health Services Amendment Bill 2005 and the Health Practitioners Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. At the outset, I must say that I am disappointed by the Health Services Amendment Bill 2005. It is the Beattie government’s shallow attempt to solve a deep-seated problem within a health department that is too centralised. The trouble is that this legislation will create a more bureaucratic health department in the process. In his report, Mr Forster spoke about the new structure that the legislation will bring, claiming it would have regard for community need and internal service capabilities. It is quite important that, in terms of funding and health directions, decision making should be brought down to a lower level in Queensland’s hospitals. In his second-reading speech, the health minister, who walks both sides of the street on the issue of water fluoridation, read an excerpt from Mr Forster’s report which labelled the structure of Queensland Health as bureaucratic and mechanistic. It also reported that Queensland Health had a highly centralised formal authority and hierarchical layers of decision making. That is quite an indictment that has prompted the government to act, but I do not believe that the solution to this problem lies in bringing in more bureaucrats in the form of three new area health services. 10 Nov 2005 Adjournment 4011

In fact, let us see how the bill might change the minister’s second-reading speech if it were introduced after the establishment of the three area health services. In the minister’s second-reading speech, the 11th sentence states— The review found that Queensland Health has a bureaucratic, mechanistic structure with a highly centralised formal authority and hierarchical layers of decision making which does not support a responsive, integrated and efficient health system. To my mind the establishment of three area health services would change that sentence to read: ‘The review found that Queensland Health has a bureaucratic, mechanistic structure with a slightly less centralised formal authority and hierarchical layers of decision making which does not support a responsive, integrated and efficient health system.’ I think the people of Queensland are expecting more as a result of Morris, Forster and Davies and the revelations of their inquiries, reviews and commissions than a change from ‘highly centralised’ to ‘slightly less centralised’. When, as a result of poor management and a lack of funding by government, people lose faith in an institution, as they have with Queensland Health, they need to feel that their concerns are being heard. That is why the coalition’s public health section of the health policy—and I stress that that is all that has been announced so far by the shadow health minister, and it was announced in October— would see independent local hospital boards established to give local residents a say in how their hospital is run and the services that it offers. This bill offers no say for the people who will utilise the hospital. It does not allow local communities to offer input, but merely offers the same centralist position of, ‘We make the decisions and you accept them.’ In the wake of the Dr Death scandal that has enveloped Queensland Health, a policy that will allow Queenslanders to voice their concerns and recommendations at a community level would do much to restore confidence in our health system and assure people that Queensland Health is on the ball and is responsive to their needs. The policy of the Liberal and National parties will also cut 2,000 bureaucrats over two years through natural attrition and get Queensland Health back on track to deal with the public waiting lists that are spiralling out of control under this government. My colleague the member for Moggill deserves credit for working tirelessly with stakeholders, patients, and his Liberal and National colleagues to produce the coalition’s public hospital section of health policy, a policy that will go a long way to fixing Queensland’s sick system. The new advisory council to be led by Professor Duckett concerns me somewhat. This new bureaucracy is to be headed by one of the architects of Medicare Gold, which contributed to the Labor Party’s catastrophic loss in the 2004 federal election and which was subsequently described as a turkey by senior Labor figure Barry Jones. The health minister spoke of the recruitment of Professor Duckett as bringing some intellectual grunt to Queensland Health. If the intellectual grunt that we are to expect from Queensland Health is of the calibre of Medicare Gold, I think the health crisis in Queensland has the potential to worsen. The Premier and the health minister have told us continually that they are changing the culture of Queensland Health, but the truth is that they are just blowing more health dollars on hiring bureaucrats instead of health professionals to get our sick system working. The bill that is being debated cognately with the Health Services Amendment Bill is the Health Practitioners Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned.

PAPER

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (Mr Palaszczuk)— • SunWater—Statement of Corporate Intent 2004–05

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.00 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 22 November 2005. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.00 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. 4012 Adjournment 10 Nov 2005

Elder Abuse Prevention Unit Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.00 pm): Tonight I want to talk quickly about two issues: elder abuse and elder law. The Queensland Elder Abuse Prevention Unit, a unit funded by the Department of Communities, has recorded financial abuse totalling $8.2 million between November 2002 and June 2005. That body is now calling for a specialist legal service to be established for people aged 60 years and over in Queensland. That, in my opinion, has particular significance in this state. We are an increasingly older population and this state is taking in some 200 people per week within its boundaries. Issues of a legal nature that did not exist 30- to 40-odd years ago for the simple reason that we did not live as long as we do now are now going to be of common concern to all people in Queensland. The call for a specialist legal service does have significant merit. It is an initiative that I believe we must look at very closely. It is a matter that, as a state, given the debt we owe to those who came before us, we need to consider. If there is merit or a benefit to those who could use it, then that needs to be considered. It would provide specialist advice on an ongoing basis, on a one-stop shop basis approach. It is, as I said, something that we need to be aware of. It will also provide ongoing advice for people who will need it on a more and more frequent basis. We should never forget that it was due to the work and efforts of those men and women who are now 60 years of age and older that we have a society and a community that we enjoy today. Recent figures with regard to elder abuse are shocking, in my opinion. They show that psychological abuse accounted for 42.4 per cent of all recorded matters, that financial abuse accounted for 32.9 per cent and that physical abuse accounted for 12.2 per cent. I accept that those figures are based on a small sample, but the fact that the figures exist at all is a major concern. In my opinion, our path is clear. We are under an obligation to put in place legislation and protection for older people so that they may live their lives in comfort, not in terror, from some form of elder abuse. This form of legal advice would cover issues such as guardianship, estate planning, trusts, the rights of the elderly and disabled, powers of attorney, wills, and social security to name just a few. We need to put together legislation to protect people who are no longer able to do so due to circumstances or financial restraint. In about March 2003 there was a change to the domestic violence legislation. Figures between 2002-03 and 2003-04 on the Sunshine Coast show that the number of orders issued by the court jumped from 962 to 1,294—an increase of 300. A significant number of those related to elder— Time expired.

Queensland Country Women’s Association Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (10.03 pm): I wish to advise the parliament that I recently had the pleasure of being a guest at the annual general meeting of the Queensland Country Women’s Association’s Capricornia division. My colleague the member for Keppel, Paul Hoolihan, and Fitzroy shire councillor Sandra O’Brien were also there to enjoy the warm hospitality of the QCWA members and to hear of the good work being undertaken by women volunteers of the organisation. Of the two dozen or so CWA branches within the Capricornia division, more than 50 per cent are within the Fitzroy electorate, so I know many of the women who are members. In fact, I use a number of CWA halls as places for meeting constituents when I do community office hours across the electorate. We all know that the QCWA is a disciplined and respected lobby group which takes up the challenge for country women, their families and their communities in which they live. In her report to the meeting, Capricornia division president, Sue-Ellen Tappenden, said that the members contributed 76,961 volunteer hours working for the CWA. That is just amazing: busy women finding time to help others in their community. A glance at branch reports to the annual general meeting shows a wide variety of activities undertaken for the purpose of raising funds—everything from raffles, market days, street stalls, bingo and Tupperware parties. The Kalapa branch caters for Horse Sports Day, a popular event on the local calendar. Moura CWA caters for the fortnightly cattle sales, district bull sales and clearance sales, and many march and help out on Anzac Day. There are visits to nursing homes. The Gracemere branch provides a trolley service once a week to the residents of Gracemere Gardens. The Ridgelands branch sends plum puddings to Sunset Lodge, a local nursing home, for Christmas lunch. Duaringa hosts a luncheon once a month for the town’s senior residents. That is a great event. Local schools, charities and individuals benefit from the wonderful, selfless commitment of CWA women. There is no doubt that public liability premiums and other insurance costs for many hundreds of halls across the state are a huge burden for the CWA members to carry. It is really about time that insurance companies reassessed the formula used for determining the level at which premiums should be set. There is no doubt in my mind that insurance premiums are forcing many organisations like the CWA out of business. 10 Nov 2005 Adjournment 4013

Unfortunately, other issues of concern are the lack of interest being shown by younger women in this great organisation. We live in a changing world. Work and family are taking up much of our time. That is the way it is, but we should not allow the QCWA to wither and fade into history. As an organisation it has contributed so much to improve the quality of life for country women and their families and the communities in which they live. I therefore urge young women looking for friendship and a sense of enjoyment through giving to others to join the QCWA and carry forward the achievements and credibility of those women who have contributed so much. Asbestos in Schools, Chatsworth Electorate Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (10.06 pm): On 4 October I asked the Minister for Education a question on notice regarding the appalling state of asbestos in state schools in the Chatsworth electorate. I asked him about the number of asbestos roofs and the number of other buildings containing asbestos in these schools. I also asked about the condition of asbestos roofs, when they were last inspected and the replacement program details for each school in Chatsworth. Despite asking the minister very specific questions, the answers that he gave me were vague and did not answer the actual questions that I asked. Moreover, he did not refer to each school specifically, as I had requested, so the general answers that he did give me, not specifying those schools, are largely irrelevant as it is unknown which schools he is referring to. The minister in his response said that there were four schools in the Chatsworth electorate with 18 roofs between them that have asbestos in them and that each of these roofs is in a relatively good condition. The minister has demonstrated through that response alone regarding the condition and assessment of the health risks that there is no such condition as relatively good. It is just a fudge. What this government is trying to cover up by not giving parents, teachers and students of Chatsworth some truthful answers is an unknown quantity. What does the minister mean by saying that asbestos is in a relatively good condition? Does this mean that asbestos is relatively safe or relatively unsafe? I now turn to the issue of the number of schools. As I said, the minister in his response said that there were four schools with 18 roofs and that they were inspected in September. Yet the Department of Public Works published a list of schools in April this year saying that in the electorate of Chatsworth there were five schools and 16 roofs that had asbestos in them. So between April this year and September this year there is one fewer school with an asbestos roof but there are two more roofs with asbestos. I did not think we were installing asbestos roofs in schools anymore, and I am sure that there is not one fewer school that now has asbestos that did not have before. There is clearly on behalf of the minister for education a miscommunication with the Department of Public Works. Again, I would stress to the minister for education that this is not a matter to be taken lightly. If the minister has said, as he did in his reply, that all schools were inspected in September, what happened to the missing school and why are there now two extra roofs that concern the parents, students and teachers in the electorate of Chatsworth? Were the numbers given in April correct or were the numbers given to me last week correct? It is illogical that, following government checks of all schools to identify the exact number of asbestos roofs, now there could be more roofs with asbestos in them, that in April there were fewer schools— Time expired. Queensland Health Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.09 pm): The National and Liberal parties have been running down the reputation of Queensland Health for many months now. Whilst there are significant problems, the government is addressing these with the reforms that have been announced in the recent past. The Patel tragedy has been acknowledged by the government and a comprehensive response, including fast-tracked compensation, has been instituted to assist the unfortunate victims. The National and Liberal parties would have people believe that the whole health system is comprehensively failing all Queenslanders throughout the state. So imagine my surprise when, over recent weeks while out and about in the community, as all Labor members are, various constituents have volunteered to me their positive and complimentary experiences while receiving expert and professional medical care from Queensland Health. Cheryl, a middle-aged mother, recently spent six days in RBH after successfully undergoing major surgery. She has nothing but praise for the medical and nursing staff. Staff were prompt, very thorough and provided excellent care. Pat, in her early seventies, is now undergoing extensive radiation therapy after a mastectomy. She attended the RBH almost every day for treatment and will continue to do so for a month or so. She says that the oncology staff were brilliant and could not be more understanding and helpful. This approach has been vital to reinforce Pat’s very positive attitude to overcoming her experience of breast cancer. 4014 Adjournment 10 Nov 2005

Sam is in his eighties. Over the last 10 years or so Sam has had a quadruple bypass at Prince Charles Hospital, removal of his prostate at RBH, including a stint in intensive care, and later he had an operation to remove gallstones. All operations were successful, as was another operation he had at Greenslopes Hospital. He told me that he is very proud of what Queensland Health has done for him, especially considering he is a pensioner. The personal experiences of many Queenslanders put the lie to the exaggerated distortions of the opposition. Those who want to improve the medical services that Queenslanders have a right to expect will recognise the excellent work done by Queensland Health staff and get behind the government’s reform. I want to congratulate the North-West News, a Quest newspaper circulating in my area, and its editor Steve Zeppa. Since Steve took over several years ago, the paper has become far more relevant to local residents and businesses. A recent community survey by the paper elicited opinions on a wide range of issues. In this week’s paper local residents record their very positive experiences of Queensland Health. Those views are widespread and prove the high regard in which hospitals, doctors and nurses in Queensland Health are held throughout the community. Wet Tropics Management Authority Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (10.12 pm): It is important that the Wet Tropics Management Authority preserves and rehabilitates Queensland’s Wet Tropics area and abides by Queensland’s responsibility under World Heritage Area conventions. Tonight I condemn the minister for the environment for her blatant disregard of the state government’s responsibilities to this fragile area. The Queensland government has denounced the federal government for reviewing the amount of funding that was directed towards the authority’s administrative work. Given the Premier’s recent statements regarding the need to cut unnecessary bureaucracy and improve front-line services, I would have thought that the Beattie government would have welcomed these reforms. Did the state increase its commitment to front-line services on the ground management? No. This government has instead engaged in what appears to be a deliberate cost-shifting exercise. There is considerable community concern that the Beattie government is providing the Wet Tropics Management Authority with funding and then claiming that funding back to complete the necessary programs. Many of the authority staff are seconded from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. While they do a wonderful job under enormously difficult conditions and appalling underresourcing, unfortunately, staff are too scared to publicly voice their concerns about the Beattie government’s appalling lack of priorities in the Wet Tropics area for fear of retribution and retaliation from their employer. It is a story that I have also heard in relation to Queensland Health. I understand that this situation has now become so dire that the Wet Tropics Management Authority Consultative Committee moved a unanimous motion of no confidence on the ground management currently undertaken by the Queensland government’s agency. The next generation of Queenslanders will suffer as a result of this government’s deliberate neglect of our World Heritage areas. Turning to another issue, this morning I was proud to sponsor a petition tabled in this parliament which speaks out about this Beattie Labor government’s discrimination against age pensioners who live in leasehold retirement villages and consequently miss out on the Queensland state government pensioner rate rebate. The petition contained 2,404 angry signatures from residents of retirement villages all round Queensland. This is a petition that the Premier and members opposite should pay attention to and act on. Pensioners who live in leasehold retirement villages should be allowed to claim the $180 a year rate rebate. The bottom line is that these Queensland pensioners need to save every cent that they can. This state Labor government is cheating them out of $180 a year. The final word should be left to Mr Barry Stick who says— Thank you for all you are doing for us and in particular the single pensioners in Queensland who are finding things hard at the moment. I do not know how Dell and I would survive without the little private super fund. This, however, is running out fast. Muir, Mr J; Sparkles Auto Care Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.15 pm): Last Thursday I joined with the Hon. Chris Cummins, Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs, and Mr Jim Muir to attend the official opening of Sparkles Auto Care at Arndale Shopping Centre, Springwood. Sparkles was established in 1997 at Westfield Shoppingtown, Indooroopilly. I notice that the member for Indooroopilly is here tonight. Mr Lee: Hear, hear! They do a great job. Ms STONE: They do a fantastic job. Sparkles has grown to include Springwood, its eighth store. Another six stores are planned within the next six months. Sparkles cares for many of the car 10 Nov 2005 Adjournment 4015 dealerships around Brisbane including Jaguar, Volvo and a number of Mazda, Holden and Ford dealerships. Sparkles Springwood wants to build close ties with local community services in the form of sponsorship and donations and by employing local staff. Sparkles will also work with local schools to arrange work experience for students. At the official ribbon cutting ceremony, Mr Muir announced that Sparkles will be donating 10 per cent of the day’s takings to the Logan East Community Neighbourhood Centre. I also want to recognise Mr Muir’s work with Ronald McDonald House. He had one day off in something like 21 days. On his first day off, instead of enjoying himself, he went up to Ronald McDonald House, spoke to families from the country and asked if he could take their car and clean it. He then took it back to them, nicely presented, while they were staying at Ronald McDonald House. He has a heart of gold. I look forward to working with him in the community. The minister also took the time to visit the State Development Centre at Springwood. He met with the staff. They are very excited about the water efficiency program that they are soon going to be running for small businesses and business managers in the area. When we talk about water issues in the House we tend to forget that that there are small businesses and other businesses that need to take heed of our water restrictions. We must be try to help them with their water efficiency. Last week was very busy. The Minister for Emergency Services, Pat Purcell, also came to the electorate. We took a tour of the new Springwood Ambulance Station. The former station was constructed in 1977. Due to growth in the area, it was no longer sufficient to accommodate the existing and future requirements for crew and vehicles. The replacement station will provide a single plant room facility to house all the fleet at the station. It will improve the security of the vehicles and the response capability of the fleet. This is a great facility for our paramedics. They will continue to provide the community with an excellent service. We also took the time to say thanks to SES officers at the Logan East headquarters at Daisy Hill. The SES allowed the ambulance workers to stay at their headquarters while the new station was being built. I have been told they have been fantastic, and the QAS thanks them very much The SES volunteers helped on the Gold Coast cleaning up after severe storms, so we thanked them. Next week I will be joining them at schoolies. I look forward to reporting to the House about my time at schoolies with the SES officers. Remembrance Day Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.18 pm): Tomorrow at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month we pause to remember the cessation some 87 years ago of the Great War—the war it was thought would be the war to end all wars. We now know that that has not been the case. Sadly, civilisations across this world have not learned those tragic lessons of conflict. Within 20 years our service men and women were again called to fight, first in the cause of freedom and decency and then in the desperate defence of our own land at Milne Bay and Kokoda where, for the first time, the tide turned because of the bravery of our diggers. In war there are no winners. Am I grateful for the sacrifice of our men and women in World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaysia, other theatres of war and more recently peacekeeping endeavours? Of course I am. Their self-sacrifice has given my children, my family and I the freedoms that we now enjoy; the freedoms we must tenderly yet vigorously defend. However, the tragedy of the Great War for our nation did not end with the silence of the guns. Young lives remained destroyed, cut short so dramatically, their dreams unfulfilled. The wounded returned home as broken men to families so far removed from the reality of their father’s, husband’s or son’s experience that to understand these lost and bewildered veterans was impossible. To give them love and support was itself a dedication. The Great War continues to define the Australian tradition of mateship. Gallipoli, Simpson and his donkey, the charge of the Lighthorse at Beersheba—all of these reinforce the narrative of mateship, endurance and courage which dominates the way we explain our Australian culture and our journey. The soldier poet Siegfried Sassoon said, ‘Look down and swear by the slain of the war that you’ll never forget.’ So at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month since 1919, the first anniversary of the armistice, our nation stops to remember. We remember the price of war and the cost of freedom. Lest we forget. Anti-Terrorism Legislation Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (10.20 pm): It is with a sad heart that I rise in the House today and put on record my views about the Howard government’s supposed anti-terrorism legislation. I want to say today on the parliamentary record that I reject totally not just the legislation that the Howard government has rushed through the federal parliament with scant opportunity for public debate but also my utter rejection for the philosophical underpinnings of this legislation. 4016 Adjournment 10 Nov 2005

Howard’s laws will limit our freedom not just of speech and of expression; they will limit our freedom of association. They will also dramatically curtail the way of life that Australians have come to know and to love. Howard’s laws will not make our community in any way safer. They will turn Australia into a quasi and, ultimately, a total security state. This is legislation that has been introduced at a time when I believe a situation has been created in the public mind because of the war in Iraq and people feel they are at a greater risk of terrorist threat today than they were perhaps 10 years ago. I do not believe this to be case. There have always been lunatics in this world who want to do terrible things to people. At the moment the greatest opportunity we have to reject terrorism is to create a modest society where people live with freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of movement and, quite frankly, with what we would call genuine liberty. Today I reject this legislation on the basis that the Howard government has not provided it to Australia’s members of parliament, yet it is asking every state and territory to introduce legislation on the basis of what I believe to be a bogus security threat. It talks about the fact that people should trust their politicians. The federal government and Prime Minister John Howard do not trust members of this parliament enough to actually trust us with the information that he has supposedly received about a credible terrorist threat. If he trusts the elected representatives, he would brief us on this matter. If he cannot trust the elected representatives it is an indication that he does not trust the Australian public. In northern Ireland in the 1960s the British government introduced legislation to detain people indefinitely without trial. The legislation led to people marching in the streets and ultimately led to an absolutely outrageous over-reaction by Britain’s security forces. People will remember this as the Bloody Sunday massacre. People were peacefully marching in Derry against legislation that was unfair and the security forces over-reacted totally and massacred people. The net result was the birth of terrorism in Northern Ireland. These laws are counterproductive. Remembrance Day Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (10.23 pm): At 11 am on 11 November the nation will pause to reflect on the time when the armistice became effective and ended the four years of conflict and it will remember the sacrifices that Australia made in World War I. I would like to note that this Friday I will be attending a Remembrance Day ceremony at Anzac Park in Redcliffe to present a wreath in memory of those valiant soldiers who served our country and died in the process. Few Australian families are untouched by the events of what some call the Great War. Many lost their fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and friends during the hostilities of World War I, which took the lives of more than 60,000 Australians. Remembrance Day marks the end of four years of hostilities in World War I. It is a time to honour the dead and reflect on the significant moment of resolution, which occurred in 1918. The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month marks the anniversary of the armistice when fighting ceased between the Germans and western allies. In the lead-up to Remembrance Day the RSL sells poppies to assist the organisation’s funding in order to carry out their welfare work. Poppies were first sold in England on Remembrance Day in 1921 to raise money for those who had been incapacitated by the war. The poppy serves as a visual reminder of those Australians who have died in war—a tribute which has continued for the last 85 years. The poppy’s relevance to World War I began in May 1915 when Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps was working in a field dressing station on the front line and wrote the poem In Flanders Fields. It states— In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. In Flanders Fields is one of the most memorable war poems ever written. The date 17 October 2005 marked the death of our last Australian veteran, William Evan Allan. Allan enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy when he was only 14 years old. 10 Nov 2005 Adjournment 4017

A central element of Remembrance Day ceremonies is the period of silence. The two minutes of silence was first observed in 1919 on the first anniversary of armistice when King George V called for, ‘All locomotion should cease so that in perfect stillness the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead.’ Then and now it is the time when Australians stand together in silence to reflect and pay tribute to the men and women who died on battlefields of World War I in the Middle East, Gallipoli and Europe. So when the Australian flag is lowered to half-mast this Friday, our Remembrance Day, we will use this time to remember our valiant soldiers who have passed and reflect on the significance of this day to all Australians. Liberal Party Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (10.26 pm): This weekend the Liberal Party will hold its state convention. The convention will see an all-out, undemocratic and possibly illegal attack on the rights of the rank and file Liberal Party members by the ruling faction led by the member for Chatsworth. I notice that he is not in the chamber tonight. He is probably out there plotting and planning as we speak. Mr Wallace interjected. Mr LAWLOR: That is right; he will be trying to do the numbers. The illegality may well come in the form of the breach of the state Electoral Act relating to the preselection of candidates for seats at the next state election. The rights of the Liberal Party members to seek and stand for public office and for rank and file party members to vote for the candidates of their choice are to be severely curtailed. Incredibly, the state council, a body of around 40 people totally dominated by the ruling faction, is to be given the unqualified right to rule out candidates for preselection on the broad grounds of unsuitability. Party rank and file are not to be trusted to determine whether candidates are suitable, as occurs in the Labor Party, National Party and other parties. The state council is to be given the right to exercise total control over who can even stand for preselection. I understand there will be no appeals against this decision. It will not be required to give reasons for excluding potential candidates. Mr Wallace: Rort. Mr LAWLOR: It is a rort. The Beattie government amended the Electoral Act to require transparent and fair preselection processes in all political parties. The Electoral Commission has already made adverse findings on the conduct of Liberal Party preselections in the seats of Indooroopilly and Robina prior to the last state election. In total contempt of the provisions of the act, provisions the member for Robina supported, the Liberal Party now proposes to weaken the rights of grassroots members to judge potential candidates for preselection by giving unprecedented powers to the state council. The hard-won, even if modest, reforms achieved by the member for Robina in 2002 are being eroded bit by bit by the dominant faction hell-bent on stacking the candidate list with the favoured nominees. If it cannot do so through branch stacking and through the use of the state executive numbers in preselections, it will do so by knocking out potential candidates even before rank and file members get to judge them. Liberal Party members on the Gold Coast are fed up with having their rights being taken away by ruthless factional powerbrokers. They are being treated with contempt. This is hardly surprising given the way the member for Chatsworth treated the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, the most successful Liberal in Queensland, in the recent Clayfield preselection. Because there was a fear the lord mayor would vote against their chosen candidate, councillor Tim Nicholls, he and the federal minister for fisheries senator Ian Macdonald were voted off the executive list to take part in the preselection. If that is how they treat the lord mayor, is it any wonder the rights of the rank and file members are to be eroded this weekend. The sad part about this move is that the member for Robina and the member for Moggill are today powerless to do anything about it. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.29 pm.

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2005