PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject Page Thursday, 20 April 2006

PETITIONS ...... 1231 PAPERS ...... 1231 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1231 Water Supply ...... 1231 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1232 Solomon Islands ...... 1232 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1233 Cyclone Monica ...... 1233 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1233 Cyclone Larry, Operation Recovery Task Force ...... 1233 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1234 Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation Forum ...... 1234 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1234 Religious Education in Schools ...... 1234 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1234 Health Action Plan ...... 1234 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1239 Obesity Summit ...... 1239 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1241 Uranium Mining ...... 1241 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1242 Fibre Composites ...... 1242 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1243 Water Supply ...... 1243 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1244 Queensland Health ...... 1244 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1244 Department of Public Works ...... 1244 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1245 Cyclone Monica; Port of Brisbane ...... 1245

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2006 Table of Contents — Thursday, 20 April 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1246 Warwick, Electricity Supply ...... 1246 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1247 Sea Change Phenomenon ...... 1247 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1247 Cyclone Larry ...... 1247 STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS ...... 1248 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 1248 Productivity Commission Report on Health System ...... 1248 STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS ...... 1248 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 1249 Uranium Mining ...... 1249 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 1249 Police Move-On Powers ...... 1249 Voluntary Student Unionism ...... 1249 Beattie Government ...... 1250 University of Queensland ...... 1250 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1250 Wolffdene Dam ...... 1250 Wolffdene Dam ...... 1251 Public Service, Psychological Injuries ...... 1251 Wolffdene Dam ...... 1252 Smart State ...... 1253 Water Supply ...... 1253 Timber Industry ...... 1254 Garrett, Ms L ...... 1255 LiveScan ...... 1255 Water Supply ...... 1256 Health System ...... 1256 Toowoomba Hospital, Mental Health Unit ...... 1257 Water Conservation ...... 1258 Juror Safety ...... 1259 Inner Northern Busway ...... 1259 Religious Education in Schools ...... 1260 Smart State ...... 1260 Federal Industrial Relations Legislation ...... 1261 PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION REPORT ON HEALTH SYSTEM ...... 1261 CHILD SAFETY (CARERS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1272 Second Reading ...... 1272 FORESTRY PLANTATIONS QUEENSLAND BILL ...... 1275 Second Reading ...... 1275 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1284 Cyclone Larry, Operation Recovery Task Force ...... 1284 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 1285 FORESTRY PLANTATIONS QUEENSLAND BILL ...... 1285 Second Reading ...... 1285 URANIUM MINING ...... 1301 FORESTRY PLANTATIONS QUEENSLAND BILL ...... 1310 Second Reading ...... 1310 Consideration in Detail ...... 1319 Third Reading ...... 1329 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1329 Kholo Creek Quarry ...... 1329 Inner Wheel Club ...... 1330 Hyne and Sons ...... 1331 Mobile Phones ...... 1331 Kingaroy Cheese ...... 1332 Migrant and Refugee Employment Project ...... 1332 Carina, Emergency Services ...... 1333 Samford Valley Bus Service ...... 1334 Cyclone Larry ...... 1334 Red Shield Appeal ...... 1335 20 Apr 2006 Legislative Assembly 1231 THURSDAY, 20 APRIL 2006

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

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Free Hospital System Mr Caltabiano from 439 petitioners requesting the House to commit to maintain Queensland’s free hospital system and scrap plans for the implementation of levies and means testing for Queensland patients.

Rail Crossing, Tully Mr Rowell from 360 petitioners requesting the House to advise what steps will be taken by Queensland Rail to ensure the risk of a serious level crossing accident doesn’t occur at the Davidson Road Queensland Rail crossing south of Tully which badly needs warning lights.

Bus Service, Townsville-Mount Isa Mr Knuth from 388 petitioners requesting the House to investigate the possibility of subsidising a daytime bus service for the route between Townsville and Mt Isa.

PAPERS

The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas)— • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Miss Roberts from 229 petitioners regarding the Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Strategic Planning Study Minister for Health (Mr Robertson)— • Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to a paper petition presented by Mr Caltabiano from 59 petitioners regarding Queensland’s free hospital system Minister for Emergency Services (Mr Purcell)— • Response from the Minister for Emergency Services (Mr Purcell) to a paper petition presented by Mr Caltabiano from 5,000 petitioners regarding the construction of a fire station at Nerang

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Supply Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.32 am): The Queensland government, in partnership with the local councils of the state’s south-east, is implementing an agreed plan to secure the region’s future water supplies. The South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy is a blueprint for water security in this region. Federal parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has commended the Queensland government on its approach. Fellow federal parliamentary secretary for the environment, Greg Hunt, has congratulated Queensland on its performance on water conservation compared to other states saying, ‘Queensland’s water conservation is ahead of New South Wales and Victoria.’ The prolonged drought, climate change and our growing population have highlighted the need for a strong partnership— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, have some decency. Mr BEATTIE: The prolonged drought, climate change and our growing population have highlighted the need for a strong partnership on water. Unlike previous coalition governments, this government has a partnership with councils of the state’s south-east. We have a shared plan and a shared commitment to deliver greater water security. I can announce today that as part of the government’s commitment to the shared plan we have committed a further $127 million to water projects in this region. The funding will be allocated in the following way: $100 million for an initial order of pipes for the first stage of the western corridor recycled water scheme providing recycled water to Tarong and Swanbank power stations, freeing up to 110 megalitres per day; $14 million to support the investigation of the proposed expansion of the Gold Coast desalination plant at Tugun from 55 megalitres per day to 120 megalitres per day; and $1 million to redesign the southern regional pipeline to transfer 120 megalitres per day. 1232 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

I can also announce today that south-east Queensland’s councils will now be able to apply for an additional $12 million in funding to fix water main breaks and leaks. Water wastage and loss is a major issue in the south-east. The increase in funding for the program from $20 million to $32 million will help ensure councils move as quickly as possible to fix leaks and breakages which leads to the loss of thousands of litres of water each day. This investment will help secure some 300 megalitres per day, almost half the region’s current daily water use. The funding I am announcing today is in addition to the work we already have in train to develop the Cedar Grove Weir on the Logan River and the Mary River Weir on the Mary River. These weirs are estimated to cost $28 million to construct. The funding is also in addition to the $20 million we have committed at the weekend for residential and industry water efficiency programs—programs designed to help heavy water users, both families and businesses, to cut their usage. We will be working with the council of mayors and other stakeholders over coming weeks on the mechanism for the dispersal of the money. I look forward to making an announcement soon about home, residential and business water users and how they can apply for the funding. This program and the $32 million program for leaks and breakages are important in addressing the immediate issue of unaccounted for water. Unaccounted for water is water that is lost through distribution and inefficiencies. Last financial year Brisbane Water’s distribution network had more than 2,500 water main breaks. That is almost seven breaks each day. This is in addition to the $27 million commitment the government has made to subsidise the Wivenhoe Dam spillway upgrade that Executive Council will be asked to approve today. I must restate the importance of the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy. This is about us developing a water grid. Formation of the Water Commission is also part of the strategy. Legislation to deliver that will be introduced into this House this week. The opposition has agreed that the commission is a good idea. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane, the minister responsible for water and I are in agreement that this is the strategy to address short- and medium-term water supply issues which are essential for enabling our region to prosper. Big problems require vision and hard work to resolve. The multifaceted approach taken by my government, in cooperation with councils, will ensure south-east Queensland’s water supplies will continue to meet demand. I would hope that we can continue to get some bipartisan support on these issues. I thank the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane for his work. I would hope that there might even be some maturity in this place from those opposite instead of their usual whingeing, which they are very good at. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I would hope we would get some common sense from those opposite instead of the point scoring. A search of the Parliament of Queensland web site confirms the shallowness of the opposition’s arguments on water. The opposition does not have a shadow minister for water. Even a search of the National Party web site under the heading ‘Parliamentary team’ comes up dry as well. There is not even mention of water as an issue or a concern in their parliamentary profiles. I will table a list of the current shadow ministers from the Parliament of Queensland web site. There is no shadow minister for water. Those opposite could not care less about water. There is no shadow minister for water. I table a copy of the parliamentary team profiles from www.springborg.com. He does not care less about water. I just say, ‘Stop your whingeing and get on side and support these positive initiatives by the government.’

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Solomon Islands Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.39 am): Yesterday afternoon we were advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that it was facilitating the voluntary departure of both Australian nationals and approved foreign nationals from the Solomon Islands. It is believed that there are around 700 Australian citizens on the islands. At the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Queensland government is assisting with reception services for people departing the Solomon Islands and arriving in Australia. It is worth noting that planning for reception services usually takes place over four to seven days, but I am pleased to report that the reception for the first arrivals went smoothly. Fifty-one Australians and approved foreign nationals arrived in Townsville from the Solomon Islands at about midnight. As well as providing food and temporary accommodation to new arrivals, reception services will include the provision of consular advice and assistance and assistance with telephone, postal and banking facilities. We will also provide health assessment and medical treatment as well as travel advice and welfare services if required. 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1233

A large number of government and non-government agencies are involved, coordinated by the Department of Emergency Services. More flights are scheduled to arrive in Brisbane and Townsville later today. The situation in the Solomons is obviously cause for concern, but I am pleased that Queensland is playing its part by helping support the voluntary departures. We will continue to do that. We will provide any assistance that we can to our fellow Australians who are wanting to exit the Solomons.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Monica

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 am): Yesterday afternoon at 3 pm Tropical Cyclone Monica crossed the coast just south of Lockhart River with wind speeds of up to 200 kilometres per hour. Warnings were issued and evacuation centres were established. At this stage no injuries or loss of life have been reported. Tropical Cyclone Monica is now a category 2 cyclone and at 5 o’clock this morning was approximately 50 kilometres south-east of Aurukun. The weather bureau is predicting winds gusts of about 125 kilometres per hour north to Weipa and south to Pormpuraaw. Torrential rains are expected to continue and this will cause additional problems with roads and resupply efforts. Many of the roads are closed to all traffic and some are open only to four-wheel drive vehicles. Today, Emergency Services staff and volunteers will be checking on people in remote communities and stations. They will also focus their efforts on airports to guarantee that critical resupply and evacuation options are established. Ergon Energy has distributed generators to many of the local communities and it expects that power will be available in most centres later today. The mobile telephone network is still functioning and radio and TV reception is good. Queensland Rescue helicopters are on stand-by at Horn Island and Townsville and Emergency Services in Cairns has more than 2,000 tarpaulins available for deployment. Q-Build, the Department of Communities, the Queensland Police Service, Queensland Health and most other agencies have staff and resources on stand-by. Last night in Cairns the local disaster management group issued warnings to residents in low- lying areas that floodwaters were rising and that evacuations could be required. The situation will be monitored continually. Today, the Minister for Emergency Services, Pat Purcell, senior Counter Disaster and Rescue Services staff, and the member for Cook, Jason O’Brien, will fly to Lockhart River to inspect damage. Yesterday, I asked both Pat Purcell and Jason O’Brien to go to the area. They will keep me and the rest of the government fully informed. Overall, just as the response to Tropical Cyclone Larry was swift and effective, I think the response to Cyclone Monica is further confirmation that our emergency services are responding well in difficult circumstances. I want to publicly thank them for the work that they are doing.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry, Operation Recovery Task Force

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.42 am): This morning at Parliament House I will host a meeting of the Operation Recovery Task Force for Cyclone Larry. The task force, led by General Cosgrove, is working in partnership with the Queensland government, the Commonwealth government and local government to ensure that communities in the affected region are rebuilt as soon as possible. I am pleased to announce that from today the insurance industry will be represented on the task force. I have decided to appoint John Mulcahy, Managing Director of Suncorp Metway Ltd, to the task force. John Mulcahy is a member of the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Bankers Association Council. He has held executive roles at the Commonwealth Bank since 1995 and is regarded widely as one of the most experienced financial services executives in Australia. Among its activities the task force is providing advice on the needs of the affected communities, coordinating the actions of peak community and business organisations and undertaking recovery action, such as accommodation provision, financial assistance and volunteering. John’s expertise is a significant addition to the huge task because, as we all know, insurance and the lack thereof is going to be a critical issue for the long-term rebuilding of these communities. 1234 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation Forum Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.43 am): I am pleased to announce that there is a significant outcome from the inaugural meeting yesterday of the forum of senior officers from the Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation and members of the business community, which I referred to in parliament yesterday. They met to look at ways to assist businesses devastated by Cyclone Larry. I am happy to announce that up to $2 million will be made available to assist them. So we are doing everything that we can to support the recovery of this community. I seek leave to incorporate further details in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank General Cosgrove, Sandy Hollway, Terry Mackenroth and my Director General Ross Rolfe for the important job they are doing as part of the Operation Recovery Taskforce. I would like to also remind everyone that donations to assist victims of Cyclone Larry can be made through any branch of the Commonwealth Bank or by telephoning the appeal hotline on 1800 150 411. To date more than $16.5 million has been raised with more than 13,400 hotline calls and more than 39,700 branch donations. I thank the Australian community for their generosity but also ask them to keep giving to help us rebuild one of the most beautiful and vibrant communities in the nation.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Religious Education in Schools Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.44 am): Parents will have more say in the religious instruction to be provided to their children under new laws to be considered by parliament. The Education (General Provisions) Bill 2006, to be introduced this week by Rod Welford, the education minister, responds to requests from parents to change guidelines on how religious instruction is delivered in our state schools. Parents do not want their children taking part in religious instruction that they do not approve and the legislative changes reflect that. No child is going to have religious instruction that is not approved by parents/guardians and Education Queensland. Any suggestion that the new laws will open the floodgates to all sorts of groups to promote all sorts of messages is just plain wrong. In fact, quite the opposite will apply. Parents will have more say in their child’s religious instruction. The new administrative arrangements to be used by state schools will also not involve any additional workload on parents. As part of the enrolment process, parents will be asked whether they want their child to receive religious instruction and, if so, in which religious beliefs. If the state school is able to offer instruction in that religion, and it is an approved entity, then the student will be enrolled in those classes. If parents prefer to opt out of religious instruction, then that option will be available, as is currently the case. I want to underline that. In essence, the bill proposes new guidelines about who can and cannot be admitted to schools to talk to students about religion or other belief systems. As part of these guidelines, religious education providers will need to demonstrate to the director-general of the Department of Education and the Arts that they have an appropriate approach, written programs, instructors with blue cards to teach children and that they meet the good order and management requirements of the school.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Health Action Plan Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.46 am): This is an important day in the ongoing delivery of improved health services for all Queenslanders. It is now just about six months since, on 25 October 2005, my government responded to the reports of the commissions of inquiry and the five-month independent review of Queensland hospital systems with a very comprehensive, positive and fully funded health action plan. So it is appropriate for our progress on delivering the commitments that we gave in our $6.4 billion health action plan that they be comprehensively checked. The six-month mark actually occurs on Anzac Day, but providing this checklist today in parliament gives the opposition the opportunity to go through the list and ask questions about matters such as our ongoing recruitment drive, which has been so successful. Above all, Queenslanders can have confidence in Queensland Health because the health action plan is working—as they can see in the checklist. 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1235

The review of Queensland health systems found that there were major problems but also that ‘Overall, based on all available information, it is performing as well as any other health service in Australia’. Since October the health action plan has been fixing those problems. We are providing the improved support and funding that more than 40,000 dedicated full-time staff and thousands of other equally dedicated people deserve as they look after Queenslanders’ health. Every day they are looking after more than 7,000 patients in our hospitals and 24,000 outpatients. I thank each and every member of the Queensland Health staff and invite them to go through the checklist. It means that instead of being the equal of any health system in Australia, our determination is that Queensland Health will be the best. The health action plan set out to recruit an extra 500 nurses by April 2007. More than 1,000 have been recruited. The health action plan set out to recruit an extra 400 allied health staff by April 2007. More than 360 have already been recruited. The health action plan set out to recruit an extra 300 doctors by April 2007, despite the worldwide shortage. More than 230 have already been recruited. Peter Forster’s report also found that ‘it will be important that Queensland Health can demonstrate quickly to the community that it serves them well so that the adverse effect on its reputation can begin to be repaired’. I invite all Queenslanders to be the judge on the success of the health action plan. The AMAQ has been briefed on the checklist and is happy with the progress achieved to date. I seek leave to have the checklist incorporated in Hansard so that everyone can check on the progress of Queensland Health. Leave granted. SIX-MONTH HEALTH ACTION PLAN CHECKLIST PROMISED ACTION Immediate injection of funding by Queensland Government. $548 million extra this year including $42 million extra for elective surgery, $38 million extra for emergency departments and $31 million extra for intensive care units. More long-term funding by Queensland Government. $6.4 billion extra in just over five years. Matching funding from Federal Government. Not provided. If the Federal Government was required to match funding they would owe Queenslanders $1.6 billion over the life of the current health care agreement which expires in 2008. Tackle lifestyle diseases which burden hospitals. The $155 million Queensland Strategy for Chronic Disease 2005-2015 (QSCD) aims to prevent chronic diseases and their key risk factors, improving the quality of life for people with chronic diseases and reducing the level of avoidable hospital admissions. Recruitment is well underway for over 150 staff, including public health and community nutritionists, alcohol and drug prevention officers and the clinical staff required to support chronic disease initiatives across the State. Initiatives include: the Obesity Summit being held on May 3 and 4; launch of campaign to eat more fruit and vegetables; initiatives at North Lakes, Logan-Beaudesert and Innisfail focusing on delivering co-ordinated health care at the local level through public and private health partners working together. Sufficiently reward staff for their dedication and effort so that they will be attracted to working in the public health system. Industrial agreements have been or are close to being reached with all staff. These agreements make our pay and conditions more competitive with other states and the private sector. They included more than $1 billion in pay increases for doctors. An offer of around $1 billion is on the table for nurses. Recruit 300 extra doctors by December 2006. 236 extra doctors already appointed. Recruit 400 extra allied health staff by December 2006. 363 extra allied health staff already appointed. Recruit 500 extra nurses by December 2006. 1,065 extra nurses employed including 829 Registered Nurses (140 of these were base rate graduate nurses). Offering a job to all nurse graduates. A total of 742 nursing graduates have been employed into 2006 Queensland Health start of year programs. Funding 20 scholarships for nurse practitioners. 12 scholarships (7 in Central Area and 5 in Southern Area) awarded for commencement in Semester 1, 2006. Remaining 8 scholarships (6 in Northern Area and 2 in Central Area) are in the process of selection and due to commence in Semester 2, 2006. Funding 235 doctor training places at Griffith University. 35 students commenced at Griffith University on 6 February 2006 with both the students and Queensland Health signing the scholarship contract. Another 200 students will start over the next four years. Additional medical intern positions (training positions for new graduate doctors). Medical intern numbers are growing significantly as JCU students complete their courses. Further growth is anticipated in future as Griffith and Bond students also complete their courses. Additional specialist training registrar positions. 20 additional specialist training registrar positions have been allocated to Townsville, Cairns, Ipswich, Sunshine Coast, Royal Children’s Hospital, The Prince Charles Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital and QEII. Specialities include medicine, general surgery, orthopaedics, vascular surgery, maxillofacial surgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, ENT, paediatrics, radiology, obstetrics/gynaecology, cardiology and paediatric cardiology. A further 55 registrar positions are being allocated to hospitals. Invest in information systems. Work has commenced on Queensland Health’s e-health strategy to help deliver health reform and identify the priorities and options for the next 5-7 years to improve clinical care and operational processes. Queensland Health is improving internet access for doctors. Provision of internet access for doctors at Princess Alexandra and the Royal Children’s hospitals is 95% complete. The Royal Brisbane and Women’s, QEII and The Prince Charles hospitals have begun to collect their data and processing of internet access for these sites will begin shortly. Logan and Gold Coast hospitals have been contacted to begin their preparations. Rural and remote sites that can be included in Phase 1 have been identified and are currently being prioritised. Easier and more effective complaints process with a new $7.7 million Health Commission to monitor Queensland Health’s performance and report to public. Significant progress continues to be made in the establishment of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. An exposure draft of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill has now been developed. Consultation with key stakeholders will commence soon. The development of the Bill will ensure that the new commission is able 1236 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006 to commence operations on 1 July 2006. Other key issues being addressed are preparation of an operational plan for the new commission, securing additional accommodation, assessing additional staffing requirements and establishing necessary data linkages. More training places for doctors needed from Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth has funded an additional 240 medical student places and 1000 nursing student places across Australia, although it is still unclear at this point how many Qld will get. It will be far less then the number needed—325 extra places in Qld a year. They have also increased the cap on full-fee- paying domestic students in medicine from 15% to 25% but this is not likely to produce a major increase in numbers. Giving doctors more power by establishing Clinical Networks to improve results for patients. New Clinical Networks Policy and implementation guide published. 32 networks are operational across a range of disciplines in the Area Health Services including emergency departments, surgical services, cancer, maternity, orthopaedics and intensive care. Cutting 162 head office positions and moving 679 head office positions to take part in local delivery of health services. 168 head office positions abolished. 1,150 head office staff re-assigned to districts and areas. Revealing more information than ever before in a transparent process. New ‘Our Performance’ Related Reports on hospital activity (monthly) developed on Qld Health website; elective surgery waiting times (quarterly), emergency dept performance (daily), staffing (monthly) are now provided. Public Reporting Panel appointed to advise Minister on next steps. New leadership based on values of caring for people, integrity and respect. New Leadership Development Program starts next month; Climate and Culture questionnaire for 25% of Qld Health staff every 6 months (all staff over 2 years); 2 day residential workshop for 300 executives and clinicians being rolled out starting next month; 2 day non-residential workshops starting in September for 4,500 supervisors.

SIX-MONTH HEALTH ACTION PLAN CHECKLIST

PROMISE ACTION

Immediate injection of funding by Queensland Government $548 million extra this year including $42 million extra for elective surgery, $38 million extra for emergency departments and $31 million extra for intensive care units. More long-term funding by Queensland Government $6.4 billion extra in just over five years.

Matching funding from Federal Government Not provided. If the Federal Government was required to match funding they would owe Queenslanders $1.6 billion over the life of the current health care agreement which expires in 2008.

Tackle lifestyle diseases which burden hospitals The $155 million Queensland Strategy for Chronic Disease 2005-2015 (QSCD) aims to prevent chronic diseases and their key risk factors, improving the quality of life for people with chronic diseases and reducing the level of avoidable hospital admissions. Recruitment is well underway for over 150 staff, including public health and community nutritionists, alcohol and drug prevention officers and the clinical staff required to support chronic disease initiatives across the State. Initiatives include: the Obesity Summit being held on May 3 and 4; launch of campaign to eat more fruit and vegetables; initiatives at North Lakes, Logan-Beaudesert and Innisfail focussing on delivering co-ordinated health care at the local level through public and private health partners working together.

Sufficiently reward staff for their dedication and effort so that Industrial agreements have been or are close to being they will be attracted to working in the public health system reached with all staff. These agreements make our pay and conditions more competitive with other states and the private sector. They included more than $1 billion in pay increases for doctors. An offer of around $1 billion is on the table for nurses.

Recruit 300 extra doctors by December 2006 236 extra doctors already appointed.

Recruit 400 extra allied health staff by December 2006 363 extra allied health staff already appointed.

Recruit 500 extra nurses by December 2006 1,065 extra nurses employed including 829 Registered Nurses (140 of these were base rate graduate nurses).

Offering a job to all nurse graduates A total of 742 nursing graduates have been employed into 2006 Queensland Health start of year programs.

Funding 20 scholarships for nurse practitioners 12 scholarships (7 in Central Area and 5 in Southern Area) awarded for commencement in Semester 1, 2006. Remaining 8 scholarships (6 in Northern Area and 2 in Central Area) are in the process of selection and due to commence in Semester 2, 2006.

Funding 235 doctor training places at Griffith University 35 students commenced at Griffith University on 6 February 2006 with both the student and Queensland Health signing the scholarship contract. Another 200 students will start over the next four years. 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1237

Additional medical intern positions (training positions for new Medical intern numbers are growing significantly as JCU graduate doctors) students complete their courses. Further growth is anticipated in future as Griffith and Bond students also complete their courses. Additional specialist training registrar positions 20 additional specialist training registrar positions have been allocated to Townsville, Cairns, Ipswich, Sunshine Coast, Royal Children’s Hospital, The Prince Charles Hospital, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital and QEII. Specialties include medicine, general surgery, orthopaedics, vascular surgery, maxillofacial surgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, ENT, paediatrics, radiology, obstetrics/gynaecology, cardiology and paediatric cardiology. A further 55 registrar positions are being allocated to hospitals.

Invest in information systems Work has commenced on Queensland Health’s e-health strategy to help deliver health reform and identify the priorities and options for the next 5-7 years to improve clinical care and operational processes. Queensland Health is improving internet access for doctors. Provision of internet access for doctors at Princess Alexandra and the Royal Children’s hospitals is 95% complete. The Royal Brisbane and Women’s, QEII and The Prince Charles hospitals have begun to collect their data and processing of internet access for these sites will begin shortly. Logan and Gold Coast hospitals have been contacted to begin their preparations. Rural and remote sites that can be included in Phase 1 have been identified and are currently being prioritised.

Easier and more effective complaints process with a new Significant progress continues to be made in the $7.7 million Health Commission to monitor Queensland establishment of the Health Quality and Complaints Health’s performance and report to public Commission. An exposure draft of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill has now been developed. Consultation with key stakeholders will commence soon. The development of the Bill will ensure that the new commission is able to commence operations on 1 July 2006. Other key issues being addressed are preparation of an operational plan for the new commission, securing additional accommodation, assessing additional staffing requirements and establishing necessary data linkages.

More training places for doctors needed from Commonwealth The Commonwealth has funded an additional 240 medical Government student places and 1000 nursing student places across Australia although it is still unclear at this point how many Qld will get. It will be far less then the number needed—325 extra places in Qld a year. They have also increased the cap on full-fee-paying domestic students in medicine from 15% to 25% but this is not likely to produce a major increase in numbers.

Giving doctors more power by establishing Clinical Networks New Clinical Networks Policy and implementation guide to improve results for patients published. 32 networks are operational across a range of disciplines in the Area Health Services including emergency departments, surgical services, cancer, maternity, orthopaedics and intensive care.

Cutting 162 head office positions and moving 679 head office 168 head office positions abolished. 1,150 head office staff positions to take part in local delivery of health services re-assigned to districts and Areas.

Revealing more information than ever before in a transparent New ‘Our Performance’ Related Reports on hospital activity process (monthly) developed on Qld Health website; Elective surgery waiting times (quarterly), emergency dept performance (daily), staffing (monthly) are now provided. Public Reporting Panel appointed to advise Minister on next steps.

New leadership based on values of caring for people, integrity New Leadership Development Program starts next month; and respect Climate and Culture questionnaire for 25% of Qld Health staff every 6 months (all staff over 2 years); 2 day residential workshop for 300 executives and clinicians being rolled out starting next month; 2 day non-residential workshops starting in September for 4,500 supervisors.

New Code of Conduct with zero tolerance for bullying Was launched in February and is now in place for all staff, with requirement to be open about reporting mistakes—plus $3 million to improve workplace culture. 1238 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

Statewide Health Services Plan Development of the statewide health services plan is underway with preparation of discussion papers around key elements. Consultation will occur with both the clinical and general community as part of the development of the statewide health services plan. The public consultation is likely to occur in August 2006.

Examine opportunities to outsource elective surgery where Queensland Health is negotiating to use private facilities with the public system is at capacity a number of major hospitals this year.

Medical Excellence Taskforce to develop system to govern Ken Donald and has met six times since November 2005. It the recruitment, assessment, supervision, training and has presented 2 reports on the recruitment, assessment, support of doctors registration, training and support processes in relation to all medical practitioners to the Minister and drafted a new Area of Need policy. Cabinet will consider these reports and possible legislative changes in the near future. Establish a State-wide Patient Safety and Clinical Following the restructuring of Qld Health, the Reform and Improvement Service Development Division now includes two groups which together form this service: the Clinical Practice Improvement Centre and the Patient Safety Centre. The Division will also service a networked Patient Safety and Quality Board which will ensure a high priority is attached to these functions.

Introducing a new clinical governance system A Clinical Governance Framework Discussion Paper has been released for comment by stakeholders. Consultation is due to close on 19 May 2006.

IN ADDITION 99 new public hospital beds have been opened, with another 170 to come. 13 HEALTH 24-hour medical help hotline will open state-wide next week. $3 million program to implement solutions to access block to improve patient flow through hospitals. $40 million is being invested in new technology medical equipment for hospitals throughout Queensland, including Brisbane, Cairns, Rockhampton, Mackay Bundaberg, Toowoomba and Mareeba.

$178 million redevelopment of the Mater Hospital Complex, including the new Mater Mothers Hospital, is underway.

$84.5 million upgrade of The Prince Charles Hospital is underway.

$15.7 million upgrade of Wondai Hospital is underway.

Caboolture Hospital Emergency Department reopened 24- hours, seven days from 18 April 2006.

Four clinical CEO positions have been created and recruitment is underway for senior doctors to manage and coordinate medical services at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Rockhampton and Cairns Hospital.

Most of the patients of Jayant Patel who contacted the Bundaberg Hospital Patient Liaison Service have had their follow-up operations and surgical procedures completed. $1.8 million has been provided in ongoing treatment for Patel patients. While Queensland is progressing well, it is worth examining what is happening elsewhere. Queensland is not alone in facing problems, as these news clippings show. I table news clippings for other Australian health systems just from this year. I also table a list of stories about health system problems from around the world just for the month of April to put this whole issue of health in context. 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1239

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Obesity Summit Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.48 am): On 28 February I foreshadowed that my government will hold a summit on the very real problem of obesity. This summit will be held on 3 and 4 May 2006 at Parliament House. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the details of this summit as set out in my ministerial statement and the full program for the information of all members. I urge members to participate in the summit. Leave granted. We all know that unhealthy weights are a major contributor to chronic diseases such as diabetes, and that many of these chronic diseases are almost entirely preventable if we make better choices about balanced diets and appropriate exercise. The Queensland Government Obesity Summit is a multi-agency commitment by this Government to do everything we can to help Queenslanders improve their eating and exercise habits. Through the Summit, we will find ways for businesses, community organisations, families and individuals to work together with Government to achieve a healthier Queensland. Attending are a range of experts and stakeholders. I am delighted to announce that presenting the keynote address, titled “Obesity: A Call to Action”, will be Louise Baur—a member of the World Health Organisation International Obesity Consortium and Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Sydney. Professors and medical experts will be presenting on the key themes which are Children and the Early Years; Healthy Eating; Active Living, and; Managing the Problem of Obesity. Radio National’s Dr Norman Swan is facilitating the Summit, which also features panel discussions and break out groups so we can delve more deeply into the issues and also into the solutions. We will look at expanding initiatives that are proven to work, such as building on the ‘Eat well, be active—healthy kids for life’ initiative. We are also encouraging delegates to bring new and innovative ideas to the table. For example, how can we—as a community—help promote and adopt sustainable living? As I said earlier this year, tackling the problem of obesity is not going to be easy and there is no quick fix. But this health issue cannot be ignored, and my Government is being responsible in bringing the stakeholders together to address this very real and worrying community problem. The Queensland Summit on Obesity is squarely focused on one goal—to improve the health and life expectancy of the people of Queensland. I also encourage all Queenslanders to get involved and to have their say through the Obesity Summit consultation available through the Government website.

2006 Queensland Obesity Summit

3-4 May 2006

Green Chamber, Parliament House, Brisbane DAY 1, 3 May 2006

8.00—9.00 Summit Registration

9.00—9.05 Session 1—Welcome

Dr Norman Swan, Summit Facilitator

9.05—9.15 Official opening address to the Summit

The Honourable Peter Beattie MP, Premier of Queensland

9.15—9.30 Personal story [TBC]—interview by Dr Norman Swan

9.30—9.50 Keynote address on obesity: a call to action.

Prof Louise Baur 1240 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

9.50—10.50 Session 2—Early years Dr Norman Swan (facilitator).

Short presentations followed by discussion. Prof Matt Sanders—Ante-natal and pre-school (10 mins max) Prof Doune MacDonald—Primary school years (10 mins max) Dr Michael Carr-Greg—Adolescence (10 mins max)

10.50—11.20 MORNING TEA

11.20—12.00 Parallel Group Discussion Parallel Group Discussion Parallel Group Discussion Ante-natal and pre-school Primary school years Adolescence

12.00—1.00 LUNCH

1.00—1.15 Group Reporting

The Honourable Desley Boyle MP, Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women

1.15—2.15 Session 3—Healthy Eating Dr Norman Swan (facilitator)

Short presentations followed by discussion Dr Rosemary Stanton—Keynote address on healthy eating (15 min max) Mr Patrick McKendry—Consumer choice (10 min max) [additional speaker on consumer information TBC]

2.15—2.50 Parallel Group Discussion Parallel Group Discussion Consumer information: media Consumer choice: availability and affordability and advertising

2.50—3.15 AFTERNOON TEA

3.20—3.40 Group Reporting

The Honourable Rod Welford MP, Minister for Education

3.40—4.40 Session 4—Active Living Dr Norman Swan (facilitator) Short presentations followed by group discussion: Prof Ian Lowe—Keynote address on active living (15 mins max) Assoc Prof Billie Giles-Corti—Physical environment (10 mins max TBC—Physical activity (10 mins max)

4.40—5.20 Parallel Group Discussion Parallel Group Discussion Physical environment: Physical activity: travel, sport and recreation infrastructure, services and urban planning

5.20 Close of Day 1, Dr Norman Swan

DAY 2, 4 May 2006

9.00—9.10 Introduction to Day 2

Dr Norman Swan

9.10—9.30 Group Reporting from Session 4

The Honourable Tom Barton MP, Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Sport 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1241

9.30—10.30 Session 5—Managing and treating the problem

Keynote address: Prof Ian Caterson (15 mins) Followed by panel discussion: Dr Norman Swan (facilitator) Prof Ian Caterson, Dr Maarten Kamp, Dr John Prins, Dr Beres Wenck

10.30—11.00 MORNING TEA

11.00—11.30 Case Studies of Community initiatives

Mayor Joan White, Inglewood Shire Council [additional speaker on community initiatives TBC]

11.30—11.45 Session 6—Reporting on Day 1 Issues and Outcomes

The Honourable Stephen Robertson MP, Minister for Health

11.45—12.00 Summit Overview and Closing

The Honourable Peter Beattie MP, Premier of Queensland

12.00—1.00 LUNCH

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Uranium Mining Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.49 am): I notice we have had some argy-bargy about uranium. I want to incorporate in Hansard my position in relation to this matter. In doing so, I also table for the information of the House some comments made by the member for Charters Towers, Mr Knuth, who is a member of the National Party, who has some opposition to uranium mining. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that our position on this matter is clear. I hope that we will not have any more silly nonsense and politics such as he has been pursuing. I seek leave to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. An article in the UK’s Prospect magazine by Dr David Fleming last year summed up the opposition to using uranium to produce nuclear power. It leaks low-level carcinogenic wastes into the air and water. It produces high-level radioactive waste, requiring standards of treatment and storage which are seldom met. It produces the materials for nuclear proliferation. Its accidents can potentially devastate continents. Nuclear power actually produces quite a lot of carbon dioxide: every stage in the process uses fossil fuels (oil and gas)—with the exception of fission itself. That is why uranium mining is contentious. The Queensland government, like successive governments in this state, has not issued any new mining leases for uranium. The Queensland Government’s policy on uranium mining has been clear—no uranium mining, no processing and no nuclear dump in Queensland. The coal industry is one of the mainstays of the Queensland economy and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. A quarter of our coal is exported for use in power generation overseas and I want to ensure that we don’t damage those exports which support so many Queensland jobs and contribute many millions of dollars to the Queensland economy. There is now a debate about whether uranium mining in Australia should be expanded. I have asked my department to investigate whether the export of uranium from Queensland would impact on our coal exports. It is important for me to have the results of this research prior to the National ALP conference next April. In any debate at the national conference on uranium I will vote according to the result of the research. If the Federal Labor Party changes its policy on uranium and if the research shows that our coal industry would not be adversely affected, the Government would be prepared to examine changing our policy. I note that the Nationals Leader has claimed that his party is united in its support for uranium mining and that only what he calls the loony left is in favour of leaving it in the ground. On Mr Springborg’s definition, his deputy, Jeff Seeney, is the leader of the Nationals’ loony left. Speaking on behalf of the Nationals’ loony left, Jeff Seeney told the ABC on March 10 that the Queensland Opposition has no plans to re-open Ben Lomond if the Nationals win power. 1242 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

The Springborg-dubbed loony says it is just scaremongering to suggest a National Party government would re-open the mine and that there are no plans to reactivate the mine. Another National Party MP whom Mr Springborg has consigned to the loonies is Shane Knuth who has told the Northern Miner that he would be unlikely to support the re-opening of Ben Lomond mine. He said his reasons were the threat to the coal industry and the impact on the environment.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Fibre Composites Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.49 am): When it comes to developing new technology the Smart State is a state of action. Today at an event at Parliament House I will be displaying more than 30 reasons why. Today the government is launching its fibre composites action plan, and this is exciting stuff. The plan puts Queensland at the cutting edge of new revolutions across a broad range of industries— including freight and mining. I say 30 reasons because at the launch I will be hosting at midday that is how many products made of fibre composites will be on display. We will see everything from surfboards to power pole cross-arms to, believe it or not, an electric violin. Without doubt, one of the most impressive of the fibre composite products we will see is a semitrailer, designed by Wagners of Toowoomba. This semitrailer is set to truly revolutionise the road freight industry, not least because it will not rust and is far easier to maintain than traditional semis. Its most outstanding feature is its weight—25 per cent less than the existing semis used around the world for long haul freight. Because of that, it is able to haul as much as two tonnes more each load. It is easy to see how that is going to transform this industry. Mr Johnson: You want to fix a few of the roads in Gregory. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: I am very disappointed that the opposition does not support this emerging industry in a place like Toowoomba. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I have warned you once. One more outburst and you are going for a walk. Ms BLIGH: Companies like Wagners and others including Buchanan Aviation and Australian Aerospace and LSM Advanced Composites deserve high praise for their forward thinking because fibre composite materials are clearly the Smart State’s future. The fibre composites action plan has been developed by the industry working conscientiously with government. It is vital to Queensland’s future because the manufacturing industry faces increasing competition from low-wage economies—our manufacturers must constantly seek ways to become more innovative. This plan, with its broad range of initiatives, will further put us on the global map by driving the sector forward. The action plan is already bearing fruit. Australian Aerospace has announced it will build a new facility in south-east Queensland in partnership with EADS, the French company with expertise in composite manufacturing and also a current supplier to Eurocopter. The facility will be the manufacturing site for cutting-edge fibre composite components for the Australian Defence Force’s Tiger and troop lift helicopters. This is a huge feather in the Smart State’s cap as it cements our reputation as a high-tech aerospace component manufacturer. The new facility will employ up to 63 high-tech staff and the predicted sales revenue is $12 million a year over the next decade. Along with playing an active industry role, the government wants to reward those who are already at the forefront of new development. So I am pleased today to be announcing more than $2.3 million in grants to fibre composite industry players and research institutes. Australian Aerospace will be awarded a total of more than $1 million for two projects under the Innovation Projects Fund. The company will work with the CRC for Advanced Composite Structures, which is a CRC based in Melbourne and is looking to establish a new presence in Queensland, and together will undertake high-tech R&D into cost-effective composite materials for the aerospace industry. CSIRO’s Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology will receive $335,000 to work with Mackay manufacturer AC Whalan to develop a new pipe jointing system for use by the mining industry. The University of Southern Queensland’s Centre for Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites will receive $900,000 for continued R&D, aiming to produce commercially viable fibre composite bridge beams to replace old timber beams in bridges. 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1243

Bridges constructed from fibre composite material are longer lasting but, importantly, will decrease reliance on hardwoods, which highlights just one of the environmental benefits of fibre composites. I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague the minister for transport, whose enthusiasm for fibre composites during his time as minister for innovation prompted government action in this area. I would also like to recognise the passionate support of the member for Toowoomba North for this emerging industry in his region around Toowoomba. Compared to the production of concrete and steel, fibre composites use less than half the energy, and generate fewer than half the emissions and wastes—and that is good news for the industry of today and the environment of the future. The Smart State is leading the way.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Supply

Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water) (9.54 am): The Premier’s announcement of a further $127 million in state government funding is a further investment to secure future water supplies for south-east Queensland. As the minister for water, these investments are in line with our commitments under the south-east Queensland regional water supply strategy.

Mr Seeney: Wolffdene dam would have been good, Henry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, I warn you under standing order 253.

Mr PALASZCZUK: The commitment of an initial $100 million for pipes for the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme will ensure we can fast-track this major project. The managers of this project, SEQWater, say it is the largest recycled water scheme in the Southern Hemisphere. The Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme will free up water from our dams by connecting power stations and industry with a new source of water—recycled water. The government committed $20 million to this project in its mini-budget last year.

The funding commitments for progressing the proposed desalination plant at Tugun and redesign of the southern region pipeline are investments in meeting our current and future water needs. The additional $12 million to help councils reduce water main breaks and leaks is very important. Yesterday, the opposition leader sadly said that the Wolffdene dam was the best dam site. Right?

Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr PALASZCZUK: Okay. Why then didn’t he or the member for Warrego utter the word ‘Wolffdene’ in parliament when they had responsibility for natural resources under the Borbidge government in the 1990s? Not once. The fact is that the Liberal Party was arguably a more strident opponent of the Wolffdene dam than Labor ever was. The Leader of the Liberal Party was elected in 1989 on that premise. The Liberal Party campaigned against the Wolffdene Dam. In 1989, the Liberal Party pledged to ‘not support, now or in the future, the building of a dam at Wolffdene’.

The opposition leader has also sought to criticise the government’s approach to land purchases for the proposed Wyaralong and Glendower dams. The fact is that this government’s position on land purchases for these dams could be described as: the land required for the proposed dams is being acquired on the basis of ‘as and when’ landowners wish to sell their properties. We are standing in the market.

I checked the policy of the South East Queensland Water Board when the member for Chatsworth served on its board under the Borbidge government and guess what I found? The board’s published policy was, and I quote, ‘The land required for the proposed dams is being acquired on the basis of “as and when” landowners wish to sell their properties.’ That sounds very much like the same approach.

I am sad to say that unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition cannot be believed on water. Let us go back to when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for natural resources. The most notable announcement he made then was in a media statement released on 7 May 1998. The statement says, ‘Comet Dam ruled out.’ That was his only statement on dams: ‘Comet Dam ruled out.’ And that is the damn truth. 1244 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Health Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.58 am): I join the Premier in embracing the new Queensland Health and the rebuilding of our public health system. The backbone of the many ambitious reforms we have undertaken during the past six months has been our massive restructure. The restructure is now complete with three area health services established and operating effectively as is Queensland Health’s new executive management team. As promised, we have abolished 168 corporate office positions. The majority were abolished last year with the last few cut during the past few weeks. This equates to savings of around $16 million a year which will be redirected to our health services. We have moved many more positions out of corporate office. We have finished transferring 1,150 positions to areas and districts. This is 471 more positions than recommended in the Queensland Health Systems Review. Another key feature of the new Queensland Health is the major shake-up of its workplace culture. From day one when I became health minister I made a commitment to transform the workplace culture within Queensland Health. This was well before Peter Forster published his observations in the Queensland Health Systems Review where he described reports of bullying and intimidation. Such a culture cripples an organisation, especially one as large as Queensland Health with over 55,000 employees. The $6.4 billion health action plan will come to nought if the people we are employing do not feel confident that their contribution to the organisation and care for the health of Queenslanders is not recognised or respected. I am pleased to report we are making significant progress. A new, more appropriate code of conduct for all Queensland Health staff has been in place for a month now and has received some very positive feedback. One-hour workshops will soon be held across the state informing staff about the new principles and values of the new code and how to treat and follow the code. An on-line learning tool about the code is also being developed for the Queensland Health internal website. We are making real inroads in establishing a new Workplace Culture and Leadership Centre with a $3 million investment over two years to kick it off. The centre will help build workplaces where our staff want to work, where they are treated with respect and are appropriately supported to undertake their valuable work. Research has shown that staff attitudes and behaviours also impact significantly on our patients and clients. The primary means of achieving better workplaces is through the leaders within our hospitals and facilities—the supervisors, managers, executives, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals who have such a strong impact on our workplace culture. So one of the centre’s first projects will be to run a leadership development program that will kick off next month for the top 300 senior Queensland Health staff. The centre will also commence a major roll-out of staff opinion surveys at the end of this month. Around a quarter of all staff will anonymously participate in the first round covering eight health service districts at Cairns, Mount Isa, Fraser Coast, Royal Brisbane, Bundaberg, Northern Downs, QEII and Roma. The information out of the surveys will be used to create better workplaces for our staff at all levels. All Queensland Health staff will have the opportunity to participate in the surveys over the next two years. All of these measures follow recommendations of the review because we are determined to make ours the best health system in Australia. Improving our workplace culture, either in a hospital or an office building, is crucial in achieving this objective.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Department of Public Works Mr. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (10.01 am): The Department of Public Works has a major responsibility in providing public infrastructure in Queensland and is currently managing the construction of more than $1 billion in capital works projects. This morning I would like to table a list of around 500 projects underway across Queensland ranging from a $14,000 upgrade to the Police Beat at Eagleby— Ms Keech: Hear, hear! Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection from the hard-working member—to the $291 million Millennium Arts Complex at South Brisbane. The latter landmark project is progressing well with concrete work, roof structure and sheeting now complete on the Gallery of Modern Art. Insulation, sheeting and fit-out of level 1 and level 3 is underway and the faced and external glazing is progressing 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1245 well. Currently work underway at the Millennium Library includes ceiling insulation and framing to the auditorium as well as partitioning and removing of scaffolding from level 5. Earthworks to the new internal road to the west of the site has now commenced. Another project in the CBD is the new $17.5 million Roma Street Fire and Ambulance Station. The site has been cleared and Adco Construction is carrying out site and footing works in preparation for the pouring of the ground slab. Meanwhile work on the new Southbank Education and Training Precinct, which is being developed as Queensland’s first public/private partnership, is ahead of schedule. Demolition work on two sites is complete and reinforced concrete column and slab framework is proceeding on two of the new main buildings. As part of the four-year $350 million rollout of the new preparatory year of schooling program in Queensland schools, Public Works is overseeing the provision of new and refurbished classrooms at 467 Queensland primary schools. Most of the facilities are being delivered through four main contracts. In south-east Queensland, Bovis Lend Lease has already delivered facilities at 39 schools and has started work on 150 schools required for 2007. In regional Queensland, the Department of Public Works has completed facilities at 23 schools. For the start of the 2007 school year, Project Services is project managing three new schools: the $17.5 million Redlynch Middle School near Cairns and the initial stages of two preparatory to year 7 schools at Rowley Road, Burpengary and Springfield Lakes. The Burpengary and Springfield Lakes projects will each cost $15.7 million. All three projects are expected to be completed by December this year. The first stage of the $84 million Prince Charles Hospital upgrade is on track for completion in December 2006. A Queensland firm and managing contractor, Baulderstone Hornibrook, is constructing stage 1 and design documentation is underway for stage 2 work. Meanwhile, the $45.3 million refurbishment of 63 George Street, the former Health and Welfare Building, which will see an extra 10,600 square metres of new office space, is progressing with Watpac appointed the preferred tenderer for stage 2. In Rockhampton, Greening Australia has begun vegetation works, including weeding and planting of new vegetation on both sides of the Fitzroy River as part of the $9.5 million Rockhampton riverbank redevelopment. The trade package for roadworks and car parking on the south side has now been let, and Q-Build is calling tenders for the package of Peace Park on the north side. Remaining works will be out to tender in coming weeks. In Townsville, 5,300 seats have been added as part of the $7.3 million redevelopment of Dairy Farmers Stadium, which should be completed in June and is being undertaken by Townsville firm Total Construction Services. I would also like to advise that plans are on track for work to start on the $160 million stadium at Robina within weeks ready for kick-off in the 2008 Rugby League season. The Queensland government continues to achieve some major milestones in its capital works program, generating thousands of jobs for Queenslanders and building the Smart State.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Monica; Port of Brisbane Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.06 am): Far-north Queensland has again been hit with heavy flooding, this time in the wake of Cyclone Monica. The Bruce Highway is closed at the Mulgrave River Bridge just south of Cairns. The Captain Cook Highway is closed just north of the city at Barron River. There is an alternative route for motorists via Redlynch. The Kuranda Range is also closed. RoadTek crews were there last night clearing debris and are hard at work again today trying to get the road cleared and open to traffic. Earlier this week, a large landslide forced the closure of the Cairns to Kuranda rail line. It is expected to be cleared by next Wednesday. The Rex Range Road from Mount Molloy to Mossman Road is closed due to flooding. The Gillies Highway between Gordonvale and Atherton is also closed due to slippages and trees down. It is expected to reopen by end of the day. The peninsula developmental road is closed in several places. The Mulligan Highway is closed at Little Annan. RoadTek crews have worked through the night, clearing fallen trees and putting up variable message signs across the network warning of closures and road damage. All available crews are currently working in the Cairns area, dealing with safety and emergency issues across the road network. RoadTek crews are also helping Johnstone Shire Council in the clean-up from Cyclone Larry. I thank them for their efforts and I urge motorists, as always, to take the utmost care on the roads and to be particularly careful of our wonderful workers who are making the road network usable for all. 1246 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006

Business at the Port of Brisbane is booming. It is now the country’s fastest growing container port. The port is recognised as a leader in a highly competitive market. It has grown from humble beginnings. Brisbane’s first exports were shipments of timber from local pine and cedar forests during the early days of European settlement. Today port facilities extend up river for about 15 kilometres and include bulk commodity and general cargo wharves, a cruise terminal and dockyard facilities, most of which is in my electorate. Each year, more than 2,300 ships exchange about 26 million tonnes of cargo over the port’s wharves. That produce is grown or dug up in many of the electorates of members opposite. As partners, it is sent out of the country in my electorate. This generates a hefty $770 million contribution to the state’s economy. The port continues to record strong growth. The Port of Brisbane Corporation is about to start work on a new 210-metre wharf at the mouth of the Brisbane River. The new $46 million berth will be built next to the port’s coal berth and will be used principally for bulk cargo. It will offer a new level of flexibility for port users with the capacity to load and unload a diverse range of cargo, including motor vehicles. As well as a new wharf, there will be a general purpose terminal. The Port of Brisbane Corporation will soon be seeking expressions of interest for an operator to run the new berth. Building is set to start next month and is expected to be completed early in 2008. The new wharf is the latest in a series of major infrastructure developments at the port. The challenge is to ensure that Brisbane’s port infrastructure keeps pace with trade growth. During the past 12 months a 28 hectare short-term car storage precinct and a dedicated container wharf were built at the port. Construction of another container wharf has also started. It is scheduled for completion early in 2008 and there are plans to build more. Business is indeed booming at the Port of Brisbane. Total trade through the port grew over the past five years from 23 to 26 million tonnes, remembering that this is predominantly a container port and not a bulk commodity port, although it does have bulk commodities. Last financial year, growth in container trade jumped 13.5 per cent to hit a new record, and for the third consecutive year container growth rate surpassed that of Sydney at 8.4 per cent and Melbourne at 11.1 per cent. This financial year, the Port of Brisbane Corporation is spending over $120 million in capital expenditure. During the past five years, the corporation has invested $442 million on capital works, more than Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle and Adelaide put together. One of the key commercial advantages that sets the Port of Brisbane ahead of the pack is the port’s capacity to expand to meet demand. There is significant land available at the port. Its future growth is guaranteed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Warwick, Electricity Supply Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.09 am): I would like to advise the House of some major upgrades to the electricity system at Warwick. Before doing so, I pay tribute to a long-term resident of Warwick, Mr Phil Doyle, who, sadly, recently passed away. Mr Doyle was previously the chair of the South West Regional Electricity Council. His assistance and wise advice over the years was genuinely very much appreciated by me. I extend my condolences to Mr Doyle’s family and his friends. During the savage storms which marked the onset of the storm season late last year, the Warwick region suffered particularly badly, with a number of outages occurring because of the damage to the electricity system. Many of the problems encountered were due to lightning strikes. During the storm season, the south west averaged over 100,000 lightning strikes per month. This created many headaches for crews that were trying to fix the problems. I understand that extra crews were assigned to the Warwick region to help combat the ongoing widespread damage. Nevertheless, it was clear that the excellent work of the Ergon Energy crews had to be supplemented with some extra reinforcement of the system itself. As part of the government’s commitment to provide a safe, reliable and secure power supply for all Queenslanders, Ergon Energy commissioned a team of experts from around the state to inspect the infrastructure around Warwick and to carry out a thorough review of the network. Subsequently, the review team made a number of recommendations to the Ergon Energy board. The board has agreed to them and they will now be implemented. I am pleased to advise the House that a $30 million plan has been put in place for a major upgrade of Warwick’s electricity supply network. This program is in addition to the $5 million in major capital works that are already planned or underway in the Warwick region this year. The $30 million plan maps out a program of capital works over the next 2½ years which will improve the reliability and flexibility of the equipment that provides the backbone to Warwick’s electricity network. It focuses on upgrading key pieces of infrastructure to ensure they provide a strong and secure foundation for the region. 20 Apr 2006 Ministerial Statement 1247

I am advised that the works will focus on upgrading the 110,000-volt lines that run from Middle Ridge to the Warwick bulk supply substation and on works to modernise the substation itself. The incoming 110,000-volt lines and the bulk supply substation in Warwick are the foundation that the area’s power network is built on. The works program is a comprehensive response to the needs identified in the region following the storm season outages late last year. Ergon Energy will now proceed with further detailed design of the projects to help determine any additional planning needs. Warwick’s power supply will be much more secure as a result of this program of improvements. I am advised that when these works are complete they will provide the capacity to cater for continued growth in Warwick over the next 25 years.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Sea Change Phenomenon Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (10.13 am): From 1 July 2006, we have $700 million in funding in a range of programs for Queensland’s councils to help them provide improved infrastructure and services. Today, I will release a new set of guidelines to help councils apply for this funding. The guidelines are now available to download from my department’s web site and they will be sent to each council in the coming weeks. We are encouraging councils to be innovative and to take on new technologies that not only will save money but also will be kinder to the environment. The Premier and I have already brought forward some of this $700 million to help councils reduce water consumption and loss and to help collaboration between councils. As expected, water and sewerage infrastructure programs feature prominently. However, for the first time we will fund research into areas such as stormwater management and the prevention of soil erosion. We have listened to local governments and retained funding for popular programs such as the Regional Centres Program, which provides for foreshore redevelopment and major community centres, and the smaller communities assistance program. I understand that the coalition has announced a sea change funding package that amounts to $2 million for each council over three years. It is clear from this policy that the coalition has no idea about local governments and their infrastructure needs. Since 1998 we have committed $621 million for infrastructure to the 30 sea change councils. Compare that to the coalition’s paltry offering of $30 million over three years. Our commitment to sea change councils makes a mockery of the coalition policy. Sea change means more people more quickly and, consequently, pressure on councils to provide more and better infrastructure. For instance, since 1998 we have committed $58 million to the Gold Coast City Council, $46 million to Cairns City Council, $43 million to Mackay City Council, $36 million to Townsville City Council and $28 million to Redland Shire Council. Further, these and other councils will share in the $700 million allocated for councils for infrastructure over the next five years. The coalition has demonstrated that it does not understand the pressures on sea change councils. It has shown local government, by this paltry announcement, that it has a lot of work to do if its policies are to be taken seriously.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (10.15 am): Today I want to report on how the government is addressing the jobs and training issues that are faced by people who lost their livelihoods in Cyclone Larry. I am pleased that this government’s $18.56 million Cyclone Larry Employment Assistance Package is beginning to bring benefits, even if it is in relatively small steps and at an early stage. This assistance package will help individuals who have lost their jobs and will serve to keep local workers in the area so that, ultimately, the communities can get back on its feet. It will enable up to 1,000 residents to be employed under the Community Jobs Plan for up to six months to help in the reconstruction of public infrastructure. The first of these jobs projects has already been approved. In the next 10 days nearly 300 people will be put to work. All seven shires are helping to prepare funding applications. Many government agencies are also involved. Most of the projects deal with cleaning up debris. Others involve reconstruction work, tarpaulin maintenance and mosquito control. One important project will help restore the area’s devastated national parks. My department of employment will provide more than $1.5 million, and $1.2 million from the Environmental Protection Agency will fund paid work for 100 people. In a lighter vein, a group of workers will shortly begin work to restore Mount Garnet racecourse so that locals can snatch some enjoyment at the annual race meeting in two weeks time. In all, 10 projects are expected to start by the end of next week. They involve around 290 workers and funding of $4.6 million. 1248 Standing and Sessional Orders 20 Apr 2006

My department has provided $240,000 to the Queensland Farmers Federation to employ four cyclone disaster relief coordinators for at least six months. They will liaise with producers and state and federal government agencies to endeavour to keep workers in the affected area until the crops are ready. In relation to training, around 800 displaced workers from non-primary industries have been made eligible for up to $5,000 worth of assistance under our Worker Assistance Program. These funds are available for job preparation, training and wages subsidies. Recently, a phone hotline was set up to link cyclone affected workers with local jobs and training opportunities. By Tuesday of this week, around 90 callers had registered for jobs or training assistance. All of them will be given priority for the jobs projects that I have mentioned. I am pleased to inform the House that the free training courses introduced by Tropical North Queensland TAFE have been very much in demand. Already, 80 local people have completed short courses in chainsaw operation, first aid or construction blue card, with another 40 midway through training. A bobcat operation course started this week. Soon, a roofing course will commence. I urge any resident who has lost their job through Cyclone Larry to contact the employment assistance hotline on 1800031921. People who want information about the free TAFE training courses should contact the Innisfail campus on (07)40438642.

STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.20 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in standing and sessional orders the honourable member for Gaven be allowed to make his first speech at 2.30 pm during the debate on the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill. Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Productivity Commission Report on Health System Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (10.20 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this Parliament notes that— • The Productivity Commission stated in its January report on Australia’s health workforce that Australia is experiencing workforce shortages across a number of health professions and that the federal government is responsible for funding university based education and training of health workers; • The Prime Minister put his name to the February communiqué of the Council of Australian Governments which recognised the urgency of addressing the national health workforce shortage and required senior officials to provide COAG in June 2006 with detailed information on the number of additional Commonwealth student places required; • Those senior officials compiled that detailed information which included 955 extra medical places and 6,430 extra places for nurses; and • The analysis suggested that Queensland requires an additional 325 medical places, 800 nursing places, 10 dentistry places, and 200 allied health professionals starting from 2007. Deplores the fact that the Prime Minister has, without any explanation of his methodology, withdrawn from the process and continued to restrict the number of Australian trained doctors and nurses by unilaterally offering only 400 extra medical places— 160 of which have been earmarked for Victoria—and 1,000 extra nursing places for the whole of Australia; And calls on the Prime Minister to honour the Council of Australian Governments agreement by funding the required 955 extra medical places and 6,430 extra places for nurses, which includes 325 extra medical places and 1,000 extra nursing places for Queensland. Mr Caltabiano: Is this information or an essay? You should rule it out, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: I have counted the words; it does not exceed 250.

STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.22 am), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in standing and sessional orders the Premier be permitted to move at 11.30 am today the motion of which he has given notice this morning with time limits for speeches and debate as follows— Premier—10 minutes Leader of the Opposition (or nominee)—10 minutes All other members—five minutes Total debate time before the question is put—one hour. Motion agreed to. 20 Apr 2006 Private Members’ Statements 1249

NOTICE OF MOTION

Uranium Mining Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this parliament supports the diversification of the Queensland economy and believes in the development of new job opportunities for Queenslanders and gives in principle support to— 1. the mining of uranium with appropriate environmental safeguards; and 2. the export of uranium to countries appropriately vetted by the Commonwealth government.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Police Move-On Powers Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 am): Yesterday I spoke about the growing and significant divisions within the Labor Party on a number of major policy areas. One of those that I mentioned was the issue of police move-on powers. One really has to wonder what this government has against giving police appropriate move-on powers so that they can keep our community safe. We have already seen reports that the member for Cook broke ranks from the government in the last couple of days and has expressed concern about this government’s intentions to extend move-on powers. It has also been reported that at least five other government backbenchers hold similar views. I was privileged to receive by way of my fax machine a letter which has been sent from the President of Young Labor to a Labor Party MP outlining its concerns and opposition to any extension of police move-on powers. The President of Young Labor goes on to say that any extension would be against the Labor Party platform. I tried to find out what was in the Labor Party platform but, surprise, surprise, nowhere on teambeattie.com could I find it. Thanks to a few of our good friends on the other side, my fax machine whirred into action. On page 111 of the Labor Party platform Justice and Governance it talks about the repeal of section 4 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act in relation to move-on powers. We have a government which is hopelessly divided. We have a government which does not want to give the police the powers to be able to do their job. This is a government which is divided on the issue of giving police the powers to be able to move on gatecrashers who are causing so many problems in our communities around Queensland. I simply say to the Premier: if he cannot control his own party, if he cannot govern himself, then, frankly, he cannot govern Queensland. Voluntary Student Unionism Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (10.25 am): The impacts of the federal government’s voluntary student union legislation show how out of touch the National Party is with the needs of its own constituency. Last year when the Liberal Party pursued its ideological targeting of student organisations the National Party jumped on board. Notwithstanding speaker after speaker warning them that young people from rural and regional areas would be most hurt, they supported the Howard government. In fact, the only National who saw through the Liberals was Barnaby Joyce, and what did he get for his brave approach? Bucketloads of vilification from his own side. Today I revisit the issue as we begin to see the impacts of the legislation on students in Queensland. I have spoken with Rebecca Leeks and Dan Doran, two active young people who are working hard to provide essential services to students at QUT in a very tough environment. They tell me that many of the students arriving at QUT from regional areas really struggle. They have had to leave home to study, they struggle to survive on low incomes and they need all the assistance they can get to make ends meet. Two key services that people on low incomes and students from regional areas have relied on in the past are under serious threat. Firstly, the emergency food voucher scheme, a non-commercial service, has had to be slashed. This scheme provided help to young people and families struggling to afford food from week to week. The scheme is means tested to ensure that those most in need can access it, but the Liberal and National plan is for no-one to have access to it. Similarly, the textbook bursaries program has also been slashed. This scheme provided support to those most in need who cannot afford to buy textbooks, which in many cases can cost up to $150 each. We have all heard the Liberals’ rhetoric about voluntary student unionism and that it was about making student services commercially viable, ensuring that people do not pay a fee for services they do not access. I would expect that from the Liberals. But what the National Party has effectively said to the kids from their constituencies is, ‘Go off to university; you won’t have to pay a services fee and we’ll get rid of the support services that help you along the way because that’s what the Liberal city boys want.’ 1250 Questions Without Notice 20 Apr 2006

Beattie Government Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.28 am): Yesterday in the House in a ministerial statement on employment, or unemployment, the Premier said— We are a government that has delivered. He was too modest. He should have listed the other achievements he has delivered such as the worst traffic chaos in south-east Queensland in the history of this state; underexpenditure on road infrastructure to such an extent that we now see a Premier who is desperate to stand beside the Liberal Lord Mayor of this state to get his photograph taken when the Lord Mayor makes announcements about tunnels and so on. What else is on the Premier’s list of achievements? People travel from the Gold Coast to Brisbane daily on the ‘Bombay Express’—another great achievement of this government—and overcrowded trains on the Citytrain network. Why? Again because of underinvestment. What about water shortages in the south-east corner? There are no new dams and we are in desperate strife in terms of long-term water supplies in this state. The Premier also failed to mention any achievements in the health area. There are 500 fewer hospital beds over the past eight years. That is a crowning achievement of this government. There has been an exodus of doctors from the hospital system—2,462 doctors leaving the system over the last three years—and the members opposite complain about a shortage of doctors. Well, there is only one reason why: doctors do not want to work with this mob. What does all this lead to, having fewer hospital beds and doctors leaving the system? Only one thing: longer waiting lists in the hospital system. That is another great achievement of this government. All of this at a time when the state budget has increased by some $10 billion over the past eight years— from $16 billion to $26 billion—and all the time services are going backwards. University of Queensland Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (10.29 am): The great thing about representing a university such as the University of Queensland is that it gives me an opportunity to meet regularly with people who are interested in ideas, thinking and creativity. Whenever I visit UQ I am always impressed by the thoughtfulness and enthusiasm of the students. The Leader of the Opposition could learn a great deal from them. These are people who see healthy debate as an important part of learning and an important part of society. They do not see healthy debate as something that should be crushed. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me. Member for Currumbin, if you want to make a contribution, put your name on the list. Mr LEE: I always feel a little bit more thoughtful when I visit UQ, and it is probably no surprise that last night I was pondering, while lying in bed, just why it is that the Liberals and Nationals hate university students. I have spoken in this place before about the effects of voluntary student unionism. However, it is much worse than even I thought. It is not just full-time students who are going to lose out with no clubs and societies; it is also part-time students. The University of Queensland Union is preparing for voluntary student unionism and it is having to cut things back. One of the first things to go will be the refectory. The refectory at the University of Queensland is unfortunately now closing at—wait for it—4.30 in the afternoon. The people who lose out are not full-time arts students. They are not people like me when I was studying full-time at uni; they are mums and dads who work full-time in the workforce. They are trying to get ahead. They are studying part-time at night. They are turning up at the University of Queensland to study a degree that will take them five, six, seven or eight years part-time to complete. They want to eat a quick meal when they are on campus but, because of the Liberals’ and the Nationals’ policy on voluntary student unionism, they are not going to be able to do that. I am not quite sure why it is that the Libs and Nats hate students, but I have worked out why it is that students hate them.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Wolffdene Dam Mr SPRINGBORG (10.31 am): My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. As the minister is the architect of south-east Queensland’s current water crisis, I remind him of his dissenting report on the Wolffdene dam in 1989 and, in particular, his statement on page 5, which I table. It states— Brisbane City is not expected to increase at all. 20 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1251

I also refer the minister to his conclusion that no new dam will be required until at least 2051. Since then, has the minister actually looked outside his car window and noticed any anecdotal evidence that he may have got it disastrously wrong? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question because it gives me the opportunity to put on the record of this parliament the history of the Wolffdene dam. Mr Hobbs: Don’t rewrite history. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego! Mr PALASZCZUK: The proposal for the Wolffdene dam has been around since the early thirties. In 1971 the then government of the day decided that it would proceed with the site at Wolffdene for a dam. Even though the government of the day decided to proceed with the Wolffdene site as the site for the dam, what happened? Land was subdivided and lots were sold. The Public Works Committee in 1989 criticised the then government for subdividing and selling because it then had to resume 999 properties. That is the history of the Wolffdene dam. That Public Works Committee did not make a recommendation to proceed with the Wolffdene dam. Its recommendation was that a dam could be needed somewhere between the years 2000 and 2050. Mr Springborg: You said that. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is right. Part of the expert advice that was given to the committee was— Mr Rickuss: You need the water. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Lockyer, I warn you under 253. Mr PALASZCZUK: Part of the advice was that there would be population growth, but the advice was that the population growth would not be in Brisbane. That is what I quoted. To say that somehow I and the then member for Salisbury—two humble backbenchers on the opposition side—torpedoed the Wolffdene dam is a nonsense. If the National Party government in 1989 was serious about the Wolffdene dam it would have said, through the Public Works Committee, ‘Yes, we will build that dam.’ But what did it say? It said no. It criticised the government of the day because that government allowed that area to be subdivided and they had to resume 999 properties. I stand by everything I said in that dissenting report to the report of the Public Works Committee. This government is now doing some of those things I mentioned such as desalination and recycling water. This government is doing that right now. I stand by that dissenting report. Wolffdene Dam Mr SPRINGBORG: My further question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. I refer the minister, as the architect of south-east Queensland’s current water crisis and the Goss Labor government’s decision to scrap the Wolffdene dam in 1990, to the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and to references made to production of water supplies by the desalination of sea water. What are the estimated power requirements for a desalination plant necessary to produce 120 megalitres of clean water per day? Is there sufficient power available on the Queensland grid to power such plants? Will the minister provide the House with any assessments that have been done indicating the power demand for such a plant? Mr PALASZCZUK: The Premier announced today an additional $14 million to the Gold Coast City Council to assist in the further feasibility study into a desalination plant on the Gold Coast. That is on top of the $10 million we gave to the Gold Coast City Council previously. There is a feasibility study underway and we are going to make a decision—a firm decision— based on that feasibility study. Not only power but also inlets and outlets need to be looked at. That is currently being done by the Gold Coast City Council. In relation to the issue of power, I have spoken to the Minister for Energy, who assures me that on the Gold Coast the answer to that question is, yes, we would have adequate power. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I am obviously missing the funny side of this debate. All I know is that to me the issue is rather important. I give a final warning now. A number of members have already been warned under 253. If they continue this behaviour, people will be leaving this chamber. Public Service, Psychological Injuries Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Can the Premier update the House on the psychological wellbeing of Queensland’s public servants compared with that of their counterparts in other jurisdictions such as, say, New South Wales? 1252 Questions Without Notice 20 Apr 2006

Mr BEATTIE: I am quite happy to do this because I know that the member for Stafford shares my support for the Queensland Public Service which, frankly, does a brilliant job. Every day public servants work hard for the people of Queensland. When there are opportunities for us to explain their level of performance, I think it is worthwhile doing. A recent report in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph newspaper stated that New South Wales public servants had lodged 2,558 claims for psychological injury. More than $77 million a year was being spent to help public servants in that state with mental health issues. The period to which the New South Wales data relates is not clear, but it is relevant to point to data from Q-Comp in Queensland which shows that the number of accepted psychological claims by public servants in the state for the 2004-05 financial year was 530. The Daily Telegraph goes on to report that the New South Wales claims represent one per cent of the New South Wales public sector workforce. Queensland numbers represent less than 0.3 per cent of the public sector workforce. Over the past two years there has been a net decrease in the incidence of accepted psychological claims in the Queensland public sector—a decrease. This has occurred for two reasons. Firstly, in 2003-04 the incidence of claims lodged fell two per cent to 2.98 per 1,000 workers from the peak of 3.04 per 1,000 workers in 2002-03. In 2004-05 the incidence fell a further 8.1 per cent to 2.74 per 1,000 workers. Secondly, the number of psychological claims accepted has fallen from 65 per cent in 2000-01 to 50 per cent in 2004-05. This downward trend is expected to continue in 2005-06. Not only is the incidence of public sector claims coming down; so is the percentage of claims that are accepted, and at a faster rate. In support of my government’s work to ensure that we minimise the incidence of these claims, a specialist advisory service was established in 2002 in the Department of Industrial Relations—Minister Barton’s department. The aim of this advisory service is to assist public sector agencies better prevent, monitor and manage psychological injuries. The results speak for themselves. In other words, this has worked. The Smart State is delivering best practice solutions for the modern public service. That is something that I would hope all members would support. Frankly, it shows that the strategy we put in place is working and that we have a healthier public service. Again, I want to pay tribute to the work those in the Public Service do every day in serving Queenslanders. When we see results such as this it is appropriate that the government of the day praises its workforce for the work it does. After Cyclone Larry I saw public servants on the ground serving this state and doing it with distinction. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Leader of the Liberal Party, I welcome into the public gallery teachers and students from Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School in the electorate of Mount Gravatt which is represented in this parliament by the Hon. Judy Spence. Wolffdene Dam Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. I refer to the regional drought strategy contingency options which outline 13 projects to be completed over the next two years and tough new water restrictions which, taken together, will still not meet the current water needs of the south-east corner. What guarantee can the minister give that all of the projects outlined in the plan will be delivered on time? What water rationing strategy has the government developed to progressively turn off the taps for business and residents in the south-east corner? Mr PALASZCZUK: I have opened up the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy document to answer the honourable member’s question. Yes, we do have a contingency plan. Based on this plan, the additional benefits in megalitres per day will in 2006 be 60, in 2007 be 330 and in 2008 be 550. What are we doing? In the first instance, we have a partnership with the councils in our region. This is chaired by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. In relation to water restrictions we talk about levels 1, 2, 3 and 4. The lead agencies there are local governments and South East Queensland Water. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: My word, it is the answer to the question. The Brisbane City Council has recommissioned Lake Manchester and Enoggera Dam. That will save us an estimated 30 to 40 megalitres per day. Regional pressure reduction and leakage management will save us 50 to 75 megalitres per day. That is done by local government with state government financial support. The Premier announced further funding for that. Stage 1 of the recycled water substitution to industry projects will save up to 110 megalitres of water per day. Members have to understand that the contract has been let. SEQWater is the main proponent. Planning is well underway there. The Brisbane City Council is currently undertaking the minor aquifer program which will give us around 20 megalitres. There is the intercatchment water distribution. The Gold Coast off take, the southern regional pipeline, the North Stradbroke augmentation and the possible Redlands interconnection could give around 35 to 60 megalitres. 20 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1253

Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chatsworth, I warn you under 253. Mr PALASZCZUK: Indoor water efficiency is extremely important. That will give around 10 to 15 megalitres. This is a strategy that has been devised between local government and the state government. I stand by this strategy. To the best of my knowledge the projects are being rolled out in time to be able to effect those savings.

Smart State Mr REEVES: My question without notice is to the Premier. For nearly eight years the state government has been changing Queensland into the Smart State. Can the Premier give an example to the House of how Smart State strategies are being applied to one of our traditional industries? Mr BEATTIE: I certainly can. I will not talk about public transport today because I know that that is one of the member’s passions and he knows what we have delivered in that area in the Smart State— that is, busways and various other things. I will not go on about that. I will talk about the National Livestock Identification Scheme. I am happy to provide another example of Smart State experience being copied around the world. The mandatory national livestock identification system has now been operating successfully in Queensland for more than eight months. It uses electronic tags either on the ear or the stomach. This individually identifies and traces cattle. By using this method individual animal movements can be recorded on a central database enabling fast and accurate tracking of cattle movements for disease purposes. Because it is both electronic and permanent, individual animals can be traced faster and more accurately than with the tail tag and the waybill system. The system also allows for the rapid removal of suspected infected or contaminated animals. The cattle industry’s response to the introduction of the National Livestock Identification Scheme has been very positive, with compliance levels for tagging at saleyards and abattoirs since July last year at more than 98 per cent. Remember we had all the whingers, including those opposite, out there attacking it. We were right about this. Let me tell members why we were right about this. It has been previously speculated that both the United States and Brazil would either implement or plan to implement enhanced traceability systems. In the case of the US that now appears to be moving closer to reality. I refer to an article in the Queensland Country Life earlier this month headed ‘US confirms NLIS market advantage’. It states that the US department of agriculture will consider regulations to mandate the system if rates of voluntary uptake threatens the 2009 deadline of full producer involvement. AgForce cattle president, Greg Brown, goes on to state that it is proof that Australia’s National Livestock Identification Scheme has given beef producers a serious advantage. How did that come about? Because my government had the vision and the foresight to actually bring it in and make certain that it was used. That is why we got an advantage. That is the sort of leadership my government has provided. As Australia’s main producer and exporter of beef— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite all opposed it and whinged about it. They would win gold medals for whingeing. All they do is whinge and moan about everything. We brought it in and it works. Typical, we work and they whinge; they smirk, we work. It is the same thing. As Australia’s main producer and exporter of beef it is absolutely crucial that Queensland’s reputation is maintained. Every year Queensland exports more than $3 billion in high-quality beef products. It would appear the United States has learnt a harsh lesson for its inability to swiftly trace the origins of cases of diseases such as mad cow and the subsequent loss of access to markets. Queensland has no desire to learn that same lesson and that is why we remain committed to the National Livestock Identification Scheme.

Water Supply Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. Yesterday the minister indicated in answer to a question I asked that he was planning two new water storage projects to address south-east Queensland’s critical water shortage. Can the minister confirm that the two projects that he was talking about were the Cedar Grove Weir, which will produce 10 megalitres per day, and the Mary River Weir, which will produce 15 megalitres per day? The average water consumption from the Wivenhoe system runs between 700 and 1,000 megalitres per day. Can the minister confirm that these two tiny projects are the minister’s solution to the water crisis in south-east Queensland? Rather than being remembered as the minister who builds dams, the minister will be damned as the minister who did not. 1254 Questions Without Notice 20 Apr 2006

Mr PALASZCZUK: I will not respond to the last part of the question. I am above all that. However, let us have a look at the opposition’s solution to south-east Queensland’s water problems. The Leader of the Opposition announced yesterday that its solution is to build the Wyaralong Dam next year. Isn’t that great; building the Wyaralong Dam next year. Do those opposite support the south-east Queensland regional supply strategy? Do they support this document? Mr Hobbs: We asked you the question. Mr PALASZCZUK: Do they support this document? Mr Springborg: I thank the minister for the question. I am more than happy to outline— Mr SPEAKER: Take your seat. Can I please have some order in this place. I suggest to members on that side of the House that they take note of the comments in today’s media from their newest member. Mr PALASZCZUK: The only reason I was asking that question was to find out or establish whether the honourable members opposite had read this document. Have they read the document? No. For the benefit of the member for Callide, I point out that on page 7, relating to water planning and management in south-east Queensland, there are some red oblong circles— Mr Messenger: A bedtime story. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, you have already been warned under 253. One more comment and you will be out. Mr PALASZCZUK: In those red oblong circles, there are to be determined proposals: the Amamoor Creek Dam site, the Mary River Weir site, the Glendower Dam site, the Wyaralong Dam site and the Cedar Grove Weir site. All the members opposite have to do is to pick up this document, have a read and then make up their minds as to whether they are supporting the state government and the councils that have put this document together. Do they support this document or do they not support this document? This is the blueprint to assist south-east Queensland get over the current crisis rather than for a dam to be built next year. Timber Industry Mr McNAMARA: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Can she advise the House of the progress in the Queensland government’s commitment to move to a sustainable timber industry in Queensland? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. He understands, as do others on this side of the House, the importance of maintaining a sustainable timber industry and the commitment of this government to do so. These are not easy issues but we have shown a willingness to tackle them head-on. Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I advise that there is a bill before the House on this same topic. Mr SPEAKER: Just be careful. Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker, I can assure you that this is a completely different matter. Commencing with the South East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement in 1999, we began moving the industry towards a sustainable footing. The next stage in this process began in 2004 with the Premier’s commitment to protect one million hectares of the western hardwoods forest and a 20-year transition to an industry based on plantations. This plan requires the current crown allocations of western hardwood timber to sawmills to be reduced by 25 per cent. This morning I am pleased to advise the House that the government has now delivered on that commitment. The government has approved the purchase of the hardwood timber division of Hyne and Sons Pty Ltd. This will see a buyback of Hyne’s western hardwoods crown allocation of 11,343 cubic metres. We have also purchased the Emerald Sawmilling Co.—two other smaller western hardwood crown allocations—and have reached an in principle agreement to purchase the hardwood operations of NK Collins Industries. In total, we have bought back about 30 per cent of the total western hardwood crown allocations. Therefore, we have not only met the Premier’s commitment to reduce the western hardwood allocation by 25 per cent; we have surpassed our original commitment. Mr Hobbs: ‘Dumb State’ stuff. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Warrego, you will be ‘Dumb State’ stuff. One more outburst and you will be outside. Ms BLIGH: This is a big win for conservation and a big win for the industry. It will see the protection of one million hectares of western hardwoods forest and it will put the timber industry on a sustainable footing for the future. 20 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1255

At the existing rate of logging in the region we could not meet demand, meaning an uncertain future for the timber industry and its workers. We have now reduced demand for that timber and are moving to a sustainable industry based primarily on plantations. The government will onsell Hyne’s hardwood processing and facilities as going concerns at Maryborough and Dingo. Hyne’s Monto and Mundubbera sawmills will reduce their production levels, leading to an estimated 30 job losses. However, the government has been working with Hyne and Laminex Industries to offset these jobs. In return for the government providing greater security of supply for softwood timber, Hyne and Laminex have agreed to a new investment of a combined $66 million to expand production at their Tuan and Gympie operations. It is estimated that this investment will create up to 80 new jobs in the Maryborough-Gympie area. The Environmental Protection Agency also has funds made available to them to employ up to 50— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Nicklin, I welcome into the public gallery teachers and students of the Shailer Park State High School in the electorate of Springwood, which is represented in this parliament by Ms Barbara Stone. Garrett, Ms L Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women. I am informed that in 1988 Linda Garrett donated 44½ hectares of rainforest land to the state government to be used as a conservation park. She had earlier purchased the land from a development company to protect the land from future development. At the time of the handover in 1988 the land was valued at over $600,000. Why has the minister’s department chosen to ignore the local council’s recommendations and the owner’s request for the park to continue to be known as the Linda Garrett Conservation Park, choosing instead to identify all of the land now as the Delicia Road Conservation Park in numerous publications and limiting recognition of this wonderful gift to the naming of a walking track as the Linda Garrett Track and a small recognition notice on the site? I table a copy of the Sunshine Coast Hinterland Great Walk information brochure for the information of the minister and all members. I also inform the minister that Mrs Garrett was present at the recent opening of the Sunshine Coast Hinterland Great Walk. Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for his question. This is a matter that has not been brought to my attention. I thank him for raising it with me. It is a very important matter indeed that properly requires recognition—and permanent recognition, I might say—when residents are so generous as to give land for national park purposes or other public purposes. So in principle, I absolutely join him in his outrage, if indeed it does turn out that his information is correct and Ms Garrett’s contribution is not being recognised properly. Today I undertake to investigate that matter, which has not been brought to my attention. My first information gives us some hope that we can remedy the situation in that no gazettal has taken place. So the opportunity to confirm the appropriate names for the area may well come to my desk in the near future. Of course, I will get back to the member and to Ms Garrett directly to let her know what is going on as I am able to get some further answers. I thank the member indeed for his mention of the launch of the Sunshine Coast Hinterland Great Walk. It was a great celebration. He and many others in the local community, and also the member for Glass House, deserve tremendous credit for pulling off this project that has been long awaited. There were many hundreds there to enjoy the launch on that day. The member for Nicklin has also worked with us on the horse-riding trails in the south-east Queensland hinterland. That project is going very well, not only in the Sunshine Coast hinterland but also all the way down the coast and through to Springbrook and the Nerang area. That reminds me of the new member for Gaven, who already in the Gold Coast Bulletin has signalled his interest in recreational areas in the hinterland associated with the Gaven electorate and nearby for the residents of his electorate as well as for others on the Gold Coast. I welcome him to the House. Unfortunately, he has a difficult job ahead of him. I hope he will join me in working towards achieving good recreational opportunities and good national parks in the Gold Coast hinterland and in his electorate. Unfortunately, his colleague in the National Party Councillor Ted Shepherd on the Gold Coast City Council does not share our views. He has been very troublesome—and not only, I might say, on the matter of national parks and recreation areas. He is the National Party’s candidate for Mudgeeraba. What has he done? He led the vote in the Gold Coast City Council to prosecute the new member for Gaven’s wife, who is also a member of the National Party. The National Party on the Gold Coast is absolutely in chaos. Disunity is death, but this is way beyond disunity. LiveScan Mr LAWLOR: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Last month the minister launched futuristic new fingerprinting technology for Queensland police to use. How is this helping police solve crimes? Has it had any impact since it was introduced? 1256 Questions Without Notice 20 Apr 2006

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Southport for the question. I look forward to joining him in a couple of months when we officially open the new Southport Police Station and look at the LiveScan technology which has already been established in the watch-house at Southport. One of the Beattie government’s objectives is to keep the community safe. We are doing that by acknowledging that one of the things we have to do is pay attention to police numbers. We have done that. We also believe it is important to give police the powers to enable them to do their job. I am looking forward to introducing new legislation to further that aim this afternoon. We also believe it is important to give police the tools and the technology to enable them to do their job. One of the things we have done this year is spend $5 million on purchasing 15 LiveScan machines that are now established in watch-houses and police stations around the state. The new LiveScan fingerprinting technology replaces the old wet ink based technology. This computer and laser technology means that police will be able to link into the national database a lot faster than they have in the past. In the past it took six to 10 days to get the information back from the CrimTrac agency in Canberra where 2.7 million fingerprints are stored nationally. LiveScan technology means that the information will come back from this national database within 15 minutes. Police will then be able to identify whether someone is a person of interest or whether there are any outstanding warrants against them anywhere in Australia or even by Interpol and keep them in custody rather than release them. This is important technology and it will mean that it will be much harder for criminals to get away with crimes in the future. I would like to give the House an example of how this technology has enabled the police to catch an offender. Last month police were conducting an intelligence operation which led them to a house in Auchenflower in Brisbane’s inner west. At that house they located an offender who provided his particulars to police and he was then transported to the Brisbane city watch-house. Using the new fingerprint technology, police quickly realised that he had given them false names and details. The LiveScan unit immediately matched his prints to someone who had been on the run for almost four years. This man was a convicted armed robber. He had absconded from a community based release order in July 2002 and there was a warrant out for his arrest and return to secure custody. Police arrested him and he was returned to jail. Meanwhile the man was also further charged with the offences of armed robbery, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, breaking and entering a premises, trespass, contravening requirements, breach of bail and failure to appear. Time expired. Water Supply Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. As the minister has clearly failed to plan to provide an ongoing water supply to south-east Queensland, what plans, if any, does the minister have to divert water from the Sunshine Coast region to Brisbane and other areas? What public consultation will the minister undertake on the Sunshine Coast before implementing such plans? Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the honourable member to an organisation called Aquagen on the Sunshine Coast. Has the member heard of them? Has the member heard of the Caloundra-Maroochy Water Supply Board? I would strongly suggest that the honourable member have a read of their reports. The honourable member should find out the reasons why Aquagen is making those reports. It is up to him to find out. Mr McArdle interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Caloundra, you have asked the question. Allow the minister to answer. Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable members opposite are too lazy to read the documents. The Mary River draft plan was released last November. It makes recommendations for a dam on the Mary River. All they have to do is check with Aquagen, check with the two councils, check with the councillors and they will find out. Health System Mr HOOLIHAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the coalition’s attack on Labor policy in this chamber yesterday. Does the opposition have any practical policies to meet Queensland’s future health challenges? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. As I was hearing the Leader of the Opposition yesterday criticise members on this side about policies I got to thinking about what the opposition proposes to do in the portfolio of Health. What is the opposition offering as an alternative government to improve our health system? Firstly, and we heard it again yesterday, the opposition wants to get rid of deemed specialists. In fact, late last year the member for Moggill wanted to push through an amendment which would have stopped overseas trained specialists from treating 20 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1257

Queenslanders. That is nearly 100 specialists gone from our hospitals at a time of chronic national shortage of doctors. The member for Moggill would have us sentence our hospitals to utter chaos and dysfunction. A closer look at the opposition’s policy on health shows how off the planet the opposition really is. The opposition says that it has a plan to fix public hospitals by cutting two whole layers of bureaucracy— both health areas and health districts—and cut some 2,000 administrative staff. This is another proposal that would cripple our health system. Putting aside the fact that last time those opposite were in government they had a policy of cutting 200 bureaucrats from Health when in fact bureaucrats increased by 1,200 over the time they were in government, the question is: where is the member for Moggill going to cut staff? Who would go? What would happen if, for example, administrative staff were not there to support our clinicians? For a start, nurses would need to attend to the hospital front counters and check patients into appointments, update patient details and answer every phone call among hundreds of other clerical tasks on top of their regular duties. As patients arrive at clinics, doctors and nurses would need to retrieve medical records, find the right forms for patient charts, right down to tasks such as fixing up the toner cartridges in the printers. Let us not forget that the health system review found that doctors had already highlighted an administrative burden in their work. The opposition wants to add to that burden. What about if they cut all the bureaucrats at central office? Say goodbye to our ability to negotiate funding with the Commonwealth, develop legislation and long-term planning, and provide pathology services. But that is not all. The opposition wants to replace health districts and areas with hospital boards. Never mind the fact that the boards left behind a $313 million debt for Queensland’s taxpayers before Labor rightly dumped them in the early 1990s. If boards are looking after hospitals, who is looking after the many other services Queensland Health provides? If there are no districts or zones, who is running our community health centres? Who is running our BreastScreening clinics, or any cancer screening for that matter? There would be no strategy and no coordination in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Furthermore, there would be no base from which to run any of our statewide activities such as public health. There would be absolutely no activity on prevention and early detection and all of their resources would be channelled into acute treatment. More Queenslanders would get sick and the queues for our hospitals would get longer and longer. Through their populist but short-sighted policies, the opposition would single-handedly destroy any semblance of order, coordination and productivity in our hospitals and health services in our communities. Time expired. Toowoomba Hospital, Mental Health Unit Mr HORAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. After months of bungling by Queensland Health, the number of psychiatrists at the acute mental health unit at Toowoomba Hospital now stands at one full-time specialist for a 57-bed unit which services south-west Queensland and Toowoomba and should be staffed by up to eight specialists. A crisis meeting held yesterday has installed a 24-hour triage system to restrict admission of all rural and regional patients and divert them to Brisbane. If no additional psychiatrists are obtained within three weeks, 31 beds will be closed, reducing this major mental health unit from 57 beds to only one ward of 18 beds and eight high dependency beds. What will the minister do to immediately fix this crisis before Toowoomba, like Caboolture, has a shut down of a critical hospital service? Mr ROBERTSON: As a former health minister, the honourable member would know exactly what the difficulties are in terms of recruiting, in this case, psychiatrists to Toowoomba. As we have said all along, the simple reason is that in Australia there are insufficient doctors coming through our medical schools to fulfil the needs not just in places like Toowoomba but throughout Australia. Let us put to bed this populist nonsense and the stunt that the member for Toowoomba South is trying on. He knows that day in, day out we have been trying to recruit psychiatrists to Toowoomba. Recruitment activities have been and continue to be pursued utilising both Queensland Health and medical recruitment agency strategies. Three psychiatrist appointments had been made and were nearing finalisation of the registration processes. Unfortunately, late last week two of those psychiatrists indicated that they will not be taking up the appointments scheduled to commence in the near future. As the member for Toowoomba South well knows, we had recruited additional psychiatrists for Toowoomba to fill those positions, but last week two of the three who had indicated that they would be coming on board changed their minds. Unfortunately, we cannot do much about that apart from redouble our efforts to recruit new psychiatrists to Toowoomba. However, those issues were not of our making. We cannot control psychiatrists who change their minds about whether they want to take up positions. I am also informed that one full-time psychiatrist is on extended leave. This has necessitated the youth in-patient unit to be temporarily closed from January and in-patient admissions remain on bypass to Brisbane services. 1258 Questions Without Notice 20 Apr 2006

Service strategies have been put in place to best utilise available specialist time. For example, outpatient scheduled clinics have been rearranged and some rural service provision undertaken by the greater youth video conference facilities. This minimises travel times for psychiatrists. The service has also engaged available VMOs from Brisbane to assist with rural service provision, video conference facilities and some VMO hours to assist with service provision in Toowoomba for adult, child and youth mental health services, and additional nursing and allied health resources have been allocated. I have just recalled that this issue does in fact have some history. One of the reasons for the vacancies in Toowoomba is that the member for Toowoomba South drove psychiatrists out of Toowoomba by making personal attacks on a senior psychiatrist to the point where he forced his resignation. Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks offensive and untrue. I ask them to be withdrawn because— Mr SPEAKER: Minister, will you withdraw? Mr ROBERTSON: The record shows the personal attack— Mr SPEAKER: Will you withdraw the comments? Mr ROBERTSON: I will withdraw, but the record shows— Mr SPEAKER: Will you withdraw the comments? Mr ROBERTSON: I have withdrawn, but the record shows— Mr SPEAKER: The minister will take his seat. Water Conservation Ms BARRY: My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women. Today, the Premier announced $32 million to help south-east Queensland councils to save water by stopping leaks. Can the minister provide the House with more details on this project and the anticipated water savings? Ms BOYLE: Water savings are just as important as water supply. All Australians, particularly those who live in drought areas, have realised that we have wasted water and we can address that issue further. There is time left. I thank the member for the question because this is an important element in tackling the drought. As the premier announced, we will provide funding totalling $32 million to assist the councils of south-east Queensland to deliver a water pressure and leakage management program. Across south- east Queensland, water leakage accounts for around half of all water lost through the water network. It is estimated that across the region this project will save between 60 million and 90 million litres a day. The proposed Wyralong Dam will have the capacity to supply 70 million litres a day so each day this project will save as much water as a small dam supplies. I have put a couple of provisos on this funding package. The first and foremost proviso is that the funding is dependent on the 18 councils of south-east Queensland signing up to the project and agreeing to collectively address water leakage. This is not a matter on which individual councils can take their own position. A united response is required. This project will not work unless all 18 councils sign up and the entire region is looked at as a whole. I am pleased to say that already I have received letters of support from Brisbane and the Gold Coast city councils. The second proviso is the need for speed. I expect this project to be completed within three years. We cannot afford to let this project drag out. To assist councils address this issue of immediate action, I will be waiving some of the usual administrative requirements that go with a funding package of this nature. In essence, I have asked my department to remove any red tape so that the major portion of the money can be paid to councils immediately. The project will be managed and coordinated across the region by local government infrastructure services. This project involves redesigning the water pipe network into zones. This means that if a pipe bursts it can be isolated immediately, thereby saving water. It involves installing better technology to monitor water pressure in those zones. This means that if water pressure suddenly drops, which would happen if a pipe burst, the system will automatically isolate the zone. It also involves reducing water pressure through infrastructure upgrades. The anticipated savings of 60 to 90 million litres every day is the equivalent of 60 to 90 Olympic sized swimming pools or approximately the equivalent of daily water usage in 50,000 homes. That saving every day multiplied by 365 days a year demonstrates the importance of this project. Mr SPEAKER: I welcome into the public gallery teachers and staff from the Logan Institute of TAFE and the Community Service Department, which is in the electorate of Waterford, represented in this parliament by the Hon. Tom Barton. 20 Apr 2006 Questions Without Notice 1259

Juror Safety Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I refer the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to a matter involving a lady from my electorate who was recently a juror in a high-profile rape case. She claims that names were called out whilst the jurors were being selected and then again prior to the verdict being announced. She believes that this could endanger jurors as anyone in court could look up their names in the phone book. What are the minister’s comments on the security risk this represents, as apparently in the USA jurors are not allowed to be named for this very reason? Mrs LAVARCH: I thank the honourable member for the question. In relation to the details of that matter, I am happy to speak to the member. I will obtain further details and get back to him. In relation to jurors generally, in recent years there has been an overhaul of our Jury Act to ensure the confidentiality of jurors and to improve security for jurors. Jurors undertake a very important role in the justice system. I wish to thank all those people who undertake jury duty. The role that the jurors play in the system is supported through legislation. Every attempt is made to ensure that they are kept safe and secure, and that they will not come to any harm because of the role that they have played and the work that they have done.

Inner Northern Busway Ms LIDDY CLARK: Can the Minister for Transport and Main Roads tell the House when construction will commence on the next stage of the Inner Northern Busway? Mr LUCAS: Before I answer the question, I also welcome the people from Logan TAFE. I say to them, ‘Study hard. You are doing a great job and we are all here with you. It will be wonderful to see you succeed in your chosen careers’. I am delighted to answer the question from the honourable member, who is very distinguished in her strong support for public transport. She sees the benefits of public transport for south-east Queensland and, indeed, the rest of the state. The Queen Street and Roma Street section of the busway will be a 1.3 kilometre section, and probably the most important section in the entire busway network. The $333 million project will link the busway network from north to south. Bus passengers will be able to travel from Herston in the north to Eight Mile Plains in the south without leaving the busway network. Time savings for bus passengers will be up to 20 minutes during peak times. It will also mean better pedestrian access in the inner city. At the moment the buses enter the tunnel at Albert street and that will be eliminated. Part of the project will include a new CBD cycle centre with showers and bike storage facilities. Patronage across the TransLink network is already growing. Between July and December 2005, there were more than 74 million trips on a TransLink network, and there was a 12.9 per cent increase over the same period in 2004. That is not just in Brisbane, but it covers Ipswich, Logan, Redlands and other areas. The Inner Northern Busway will make it even easier to catch buses. Why does that matter to all of us? Obviously, those who choose to catch buses are not using cars. Many people need to use cars on the network and have very important reasons for doing so. This way, the network is less congested for them. This project will have a significant impact on the CBD on a temporary basis. Construction will be completed in stages. Tomorrow, the first step is a delicate, environmental operation to remove two mature fig trees out of the way of construction. There will be traffic changes from 2 May. Albert Street will be closed to vehicles between Turbot and Ann Streets, but pedestrians will still have access. Numerous city bus stops will be relocated from 29 May. Affected bus services will be directed to other inner city stops. Adelaide Street will be reduced to two lanes of traffic from June 2006 to September 2007. Turbot Street will undergo works between June and August, mostly at night to avoid peak hour traffic. Ann Street will undergo works between June and July at night, and will be reduced by one lane near the construction site until January 2007. We have an extensive communication policy in relation to these matters. I apologise for the disruption that it will cause to people. However, this is about long-term, better solutions; for example, less buses on Adelaide Street as more will be able to travel through our busway network and more ability to be pedestrian friendly in the city. I thank the Brisbane City Council for its cooperation on this project. The ability to have dedicated cycle places with showers in King George Square—all of these are win-win situations. We make no apology for supporting an improved road network. We make no apology for— Time expired. 1260 Questions Without Notice 20 Apr 2006

Religious Education in Schools Mr COPELAND: My question is to the Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts. I refer to the government’s proposal to fundamentally change the way in which religious education is delivered in Queensland schools, with parents having to request that their children opt in rather than opt out of religious education classes— Mr Beattie: No, that is not true. You didn’t listen to what I said. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Beattie: You didn’t listen. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cunningham? Mr COPELAND: The Premier will not get warned, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER: Pardon? Mr COPELAND: The Premier does not get warned? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Cunningham, continue your question. Mr COPELAND: I will start again. I refer to the government’s proposal to fundamentally change the way in which religious education is delivered in Queensland schools, with parents having to request that their children opt in rather than opt out of religious education classes and opening the door for other programs, such as the atheist syllabus already developed by the Humanist Society, to be taught in place of religious education. Is this not just a continuation of the government’s opposition to faith based teaching and the teaching of values in Queensland schools? Mr WELFORD: The premise of the honourable member’s question is fundamentally mistaken. He suggests that a substantial change will occur to the way in which religious education is delivered in state schools. That is not so. Religious education will continue to be available in state schools as it is now. In fact, I expect very little change in the practical delivery of religious education in state schools. There is some change. Previously, there was effectively no regulation of how people became accredited to provide that education or of who would come into schools. I will not go into detail about the new education bill now because it will come into the parliament and the honourable member will have plenty of opportunity to peruse it for himself. Simply, it will provide a more clear and structured basis on which any entity seeks to obtain approval to provide religious instruction in schools. An entity may provide religious instruction on behalf of a number of religious entities, as is currently the case where ecumenical religious education is provided. However, we also want to ensure that there are clear guidelines for principals to follow where parents want to exercise some choice, as indeed they currently do, as the Premier indicated in his ministerial statement. Parents who want to elect that their children not be provided with religious education of a particular kind will have that choice. Simply, we will put into law the practical circumstances that already operate in schools. The attempt by the honourable member and his associates in recent days to represent our actions as anything different from allowing parents the options that are currently available is not only misleading and false but also mischievious. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Springwood, I welcome to the public gallery staff, teachers and students of the Shailer Park State High School in the electorate of Springwood, which is represented in this parliament by Ms Barbara Stone. Smart State Ms STONE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs. I acknowledge the delivery of high-quality IT education at Shailer Park State High School. Queensland’s Smart State policy is often questioned by members opposite. Can the minister inform members how that policy is delivering results for Queensland taxpayers? Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for her question. We all must acknowledge that she is keenly interested in Smart State strategies. I commend her for her work within the electorate to promote information and communication technology, particularly her support for women in business. I sincerely encourage the females who are present in the public gallery today to consider a career not only in business but also in information technology. It is very important. We need more women in both communication technology and small business. Queensland leads the nation in commercialising its intellectual property. More than a dozen new contracts are underway or completed with IT companies to license intellectual property that has been developed within Queensland Health. We have agreements on intellectual property from the Department of Communities, the Department of Corrective Services and the Queensland Museum. These generate about $1 million in up-front licence fees, about $240,000 per year in royalty payments and $5.75 million in cost savings through agency sharing arrangements. This is creating approximately 30 new jobs across Queensland. 20 Apr 2006 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 1261

The benefits to our taxpayers include revenue from royalties when the commercialisation partner sells the product in the market, licence fees from other governments, exports from international sales and, of course, new jobs. Further benefits to Queenslanders are access to improvements in the intellectual property by the industry partner, better service delivery through interjurisdiction integration and estimated savings of between $20 million and $40 million annually from interagency sharing. Other states and the Commonwealth lag behind Queensland because of the Beattie government’s strategic planning and implementation of the Smart State Strategy. We are working with our universities and industry to ensure that we do not waste our intellectual capital. The opposition should be very careful when it criticises the Beattie government’s Smart State Strategy. It saves money and it makes money for our taxpayers. We would like the opposition to take their federal counterparts to task about another critical issue. Time and time again we have spoken in this House about broadband. Small businesses in Queensland are calling for better broadband. That lies at the feet of Telstra and the federal government. This mob opposite wanted to sell Telstra. Time expired. Federal Industrial Relations Legislation Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the minister for industrial relations. In relation to the WorkChoices legislation, what specific incidents have occurred in Queensland which highlight the inequities of sections of that legislation and, in particular, the unfair dismissal laws? Mr SPEAKER: Two minutes. Mr BARTON: I thank the member for her question. In fact, yesterday morning in a ministerial statement I gave a number of examples. I refer the member to my ministerial statement in yesterday’s Hansard, which contains a number of examples. They demonstrate the very real problems being experienced as a result of WorkChoices. We are receiving many calls, both on the hotline that my department established late last year—it has really come into its own in the last few weeks since the WorkChoices legislation came into force— and on the Wageline, our regular system which advises people, whether they be workers or employers, of their benefits and conditions. Both of those services are receiving literally dozens and dozens of indications of abuses that are coming about because WorkChoices has been put into place in Queensland. Yesterday I mentioned the example of an apprentice who was threatened with the sack if he did not extend his hours. He was working unpaid overtime both during the week and also on Saturdays. I gave the example of a motel manager in north Queensland who was threatened with the sack if she did not do all of the maintenance work after the maintenance person left. I gave the example of a person who was sacked after almost 10 years service, just before she qualified, I believe, for pro rata long service leave for supposed misconduct. When information about the misconduct was asked for, it was incredibly flimsy indeed. Very sadly, I have to say that the indications that we have seen in the southern press, such as the Cowra incident and a number of others, are being replicated here in Queensland already. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION REPORT ON HEALTH SYSTEM Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (11.30 am): I move— That this Parliament notes that— • The Productivity Commission stated in its January report on Australia’s health workforce that Australia is experiencing workforce shortages across a number of health professions and that the federal government is responsible for funding university based education and training of health workers; • The Prime Minister put his name to the February communiqué of the Council of Australian Governments which recognised the urgency of addressing the national health workforce shortage and required senior officials to provide COAG in June 2006 with detailed information on the number of additional Commonwealth student places required; • Those senior officials compiled that detailed information which included 955 extra medical places and 6,430 extra places for nurses; and • The analysis suggested that Queensland requires an additional 325 medical places, 800 nursing places, 10 dentistry places, and 200 allied health professionals starting from 2007. Deplores the fact that the Prime Minister has, without any explanation of his methodology, withdrawn from the process and continued to restrict the number of Australian trained doctors and nurses by unilaterally offering only 400 extra medical places— 160 of which have been earmarked for Victoria—and 1,000 extra nursing places for the whole of Australia; 1262 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 20 Apr 2006

And calls on the Prime Minister to honour the Council of Australian Governments agreement by funding the required 955 extra medical places and 6,430 extra places for nurses, which includes 325 extra medical places and 1,000 extra nursing places for Queensland. It is a fact that there is a global shortage of doctors and nurses. The World Health Organisation said this month that around the world the health workforce is in crisis, a crisis to which no country is entirely immune. It says that the results are evident: clinics with no health workers, hospitals that cannot recruit or keep key staff. The World Health Organisation says there is a chronic global shortage of health workers as a result of decades of underinvestment in education, training, salaries, working environment and management. This has led to a severe lack of key skills, rising levels of career switching and early retirement, as well as national and international migration. Does it sound familiar? This is what is happening in Australia. The World Health Organisation says four million health workers are needed to combat the chronic shortage around the world. For example, it is estimated that the United Kingdom will experience a shortage of 35,000 nurses by 2008 and Finland will be short of 112,000 nurses by 2010. The World Health Organisation states that 57 countries have a serious shortage of health workers affecting children’s vaccinations, pregnancy care and access to treatment. The World Health Organisation statistics for 2006—and this is absolutely crucial—show that Australia, with 2.47 physicians for every 1,000 people, lags behind Argentina with 3.01, Armenia with 3.59, Austria with 3.38 and Azerbaijan with 3.55. Let us talk about Azerbaijan. It is a tiny landlocked republic, it is semi-arid, it is involved in conflicts with its neighbours, it is coping with a massive refugee problem and, with 49 per cent of its population living under the poverty line, still it has more doctors per head of population than Australia. What a disgrace; what an international embarrassment Australia is that we cannot train more doctors than Azerbaijan. What an extraordinary state of affairs. This says it all. It does not matter how one looks at the World Health Organisation’s figures, and I table the full list so everybody can have a look at it, one understands how embarrassing it is that Australia does not train more doctors than it does now. It does not matter how much nonsense there is from the Liberal’s opposite who are just playing stupid politics— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not want to see Australia train more doctors. What the Liberal Party is trying to do is undermine our campaign to train more Australians as doctors. Why? For cheap political reasons. Let us come back to Azerbaijan. Imagine this tiny landlocked republic, semi-arid, as I said, with 49 per cent of its population living under the poverty line and still it trains more doctors than us. That says it all. Those countries I have listed are just those at the top of the alphabet. Communist Cuba has double the ratio of doctors, with 5.91 for every 1,000 people. The World Health Organisation report states that western countries such as Australia should stop poaching healthcare staff from poorer countries and train its own. The World Health Organisation says action must be taken now for results to show in the coming years. That is what Queensland wants the federal government to do. One would have thought that we would have bipartisan support for this. One would have thought that we would have had the Liberal Party and National Party out there saying train Australians to look after Australians. But, no, they are only interested in politics; they are only interested in trying to win votes. They are not interested in serious issues on these matters. The Productivity Commission confirmed in January that Australia is experiencing workforce shortages across a number of health professions despite a significant growing reliance on overseas trained health workers. The Productivity Commission confirmed—this is a federal body, nothing to do with us—that it is the federal government that is responsible for determining the amount of Australian government financial support that is available for university based education and training of health workers. The Productivity Commission suggested the answer would involve a commitment by the Australian government to provide an agreed number of university places in individual health disciplines to each jurisdiction. The Queensland government succeeded in placing the problem of the national shortage of doctors, nurses and allied health workers on the agenda of the February meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. We did that because we want to see Australians trained as doctors to look after Australians. In its February communique the council said it recognised the urgency of addressing the national health workforce shortage and required senior officials to provide COAG in June 2006 with detailed information on the number of additional Commonwealth student places required. What do we have? We have the World Health Organisation saying we should train more doctors; we have an international assessment that says that we train fewer doctors than a number of Third World countries; we have the Prime Minister accepting at COAG that we should train more Australian doctors. There is no argument about it. The Productivity Commission said the federal government is responsible. All the ducks have lined up for the federal government to take responsibility, but what happened? 20 Apr 2006 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 1263

I will go on to the number of places first. The initial analysis suggested that Queensland requires an additional 325 medical places, 800 nursing places, 10 dentistry places and 200 allied health professional places starting from 2007. The senior officials compiled the detailed information on the number of additional Commonwealth student places required by all states and territories using this formula which included 955 extra medical places and 6,430 places for nurses. This information was sent to the Prime Minister as part of the council process on the evening of Friday, 7 April. We know this because Queensland was chairing the subcommittee. On Saturday, 8 April the Prime Minister, without any explanation of his methodology, continued to restrict the number of Australian trained doctors and nurses by unilaterally offering only 400 extra medical places and 1,000 extra nursing places for the whole of Australia. To make matters worse for Queensland, the Prime Minister awarded 160 of the 400 extra medical places to Victoria and said Victoria would also share with other states and territories in the remaining 240 places. Mr Howard said the reason for Victoria receiving so many places was because Victoria has the lowest number of doctors per head of population in Australia. That is not true. The latest available Commonwealth figures on doctor numbers published in Medical Labour Force 2003, which is produced by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Canberra, do not support the Prime Minister. The figures show that Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania all have less medical practitioners per 100,000 population than Victoria, with 241, 287, 241, 280 and 301 respectively. There is no argument about this. What the Prime Minister did was to go to Victoria and look after the Victorian Liberal Party in the lead-up to a state election campaign. There is no other way that this could possibly be justified. The health minister Tony Abbott admitted last Thursday that there were certainly fewer doctors— Opposition members interjected. Mr Cummins interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for small business, order! Members on my left, order! Mr BEATTIE: The health minister Tony Abbott admitted last Thursday there were ‘certainly fewer doctors coming out of Queensland universities than we would have liked for many years’. Hallelujah! What do you think I have been saying? Mr Abbott claimed the problem had been substantially addressed but admitted he did not believe Queensland had enough doctors. The federal minister agrees with us, the Prime Minister agrees with us, the World Health Organisation in effect agrees with us. The only people who do not agree with us is the Liberal Party here who is playing party politics. We do not believe that problem has been addressed, but we certainly agree with the federal minister Tony Abbott that Queensland does not have enough doctors. I wrote to the Prime Minister about my strong disappointment with his announcement. I told him that his decision falls short of the expectations of the states and territories and the broader Australian community in terms of what is necessary to adequately address the health needs of Australians. I said that the pressures that all Australian healthcare providers, both public and private, are currently experiencing are the legacy of decades of underfunding by the Commonwealth of our universities to train doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. The current problems are likely to continue to grow as we enter an era when an ageing population, confronted with a diverse range of lifestyle diseases, draws increasingly heavily on the nation’s healthcare system. I told the Prime Minister that the number of extra places needed by Queensland reflects the lower base from which we are starting, the geographical distribution of our medical workforce and the high population growth rate that we are experiencing which significantly exceeds the national average. All these factors necessitate a higher number of students places than currently on offer by his government. I also complained that this announcement appears to undermine the legitimate COAG process. That is why we are asking all members here today to unanimously support this call on the Prime Minister to honour the Council of Australian Governments’ agreement by funding those extra places. I have also written to all federal members, and I table a copy of that letter. The choice today is whether members are prepared to stand up for Queensland or not. Anybody who opposes this motion opposes Queensland’s interests. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (11.40 am): I second the motion moved by the Premier. Despite all the talk from all corners in the health debate, the only people who are still in denial about a doctor shortage are those opposite. On a daily basis we hear reports of towns and cities running out of doctors. To make it abundantly clear to the opposition and, indeed, to all Queenslanders and because this might be the only way we can get our message across, I table a large collection of press clippings from around the country from the past month alone that report on the lack of medical professionals not just here in Queensland but in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. It is obvious to anyone that Queensland is not alone. This shortage is already having a devastating impact on communities right across the country. This is why we urgently need the Howard government to lift its game now. Four hundred extra university places for the whole country is simply not 1264 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 20 Apr 2006 enough. Concerns expressed by the AMA in recent days regarding intern positions to cater for more graduates are also not lost on me. Putting aside the fact that it was actually the AMA that called on the then federal government to restrict medical places in the mid-1990s, nevertheless, AMAQ president elect, Dr Zelle Hodge, said this week— The important issue in April 2006 which will become the critical political issue in 2009 in health care is how to find appropriate intern positions for the 560 plus medical graduates ... I share those concerns. Our government well understands that there is more to training doctors than creating extra training places in universities. This government is acutely aware of the challenges of providing training places for graduate doctors in our hospitals. I want it to be crystal clear that if John Howard is prepared to live up to his responsibilities and put an appropriate number of medical students into Queensland’s universities, this government will do whatever it takes to ensure that these young doctors get the training and experience they need. That is why this morning I announced that as a priority I will establish a special education and training task force of expert stakeholders, including president elect Dr Zelle Hodge, to thoroughly examine this issue and to make urgent recommendations to government on the future training needs of young doctors in our hospitals. We have already been addressing this issue. Professor Ken Donald, head of the University of Queensland Medical School, whom I appointed to examine issues around recruitment and standards of international medical graduates, identified a need for coordination and support for clinical training generally. So certainly progress has been made. We are now training students in hospitals and health services where we have not previously done so, such as in many rural and regional areas. We are also increasingly training students in community settings where much of the health care is provided. We are also using new approaches to training, such as the state-of-the-art training centre established at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. Queensland Health is working hard to accommodate expected increases in interns into our hospitals in the coming year. There were around 270 medical graduates in Queensland in 2005. This number is expected to increase to around 310 in 2006, around 400 in 2008 and around 530 in 2009. Queensland Health data shows that around 280 interns were appointed up to 12 March this year as well as around 150 second- year interns or junior house officers. Planning for the 2006 graduations requires an additional 40 intern positions to be created with a further 20 in 2007. We, of course, are confident of meeting these targets and these demands. But more must be done. Yes, this is challenge, but it is a challenge with solutions so long as everyone who is a participant in this debate, including the AMA, is prepared to sit around the table with government and with me and work through these issues to find solutions to that increasing demand if we get these additional positions. The AMA knows this is a challenge. The universities and colleges know it and so do we. However, we are not going to shirk our responsibilities. We will tackle this issue head on because we want enough doctors in Queensland to treat Queenslanders. I stress that all of this is academic if the Prime Minister does not fulfil his obligations to provide enough doctor training places in our universities. Thus far he has not delivered and we will pressure and pressure and pressure him until he does. The new education and training task force that I announced today will be vital to Queensland’s future. It will examine the overall level of support for clinical training compared nationally and internationally. It will look at specific issues such as the shortage of clinical academics; assess the number and type of clinical placements; and review different ways that clinical training and education can be funded and delivered. I will be moving as quickly as possible to finalise the members of the task force, and I will consult with universities, the AMA and professional colleges to identify appropriate representation. It is my intention to take a submission to cabinet in the next few weeks so that this task force can get on with a very important job. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (11.45 am): What a Cinderella performance we see today. We have seen the Premier stand here and attack the opposition for playing politics with this motion on health. Before we have even had a chance to speak on it, he stands at the beginning of question time to move a motion to hold a debate on health at the end of question time. Then he and the Minister for Health stand to deliver prepared speeches that somebody has written for them. He is not interested in any sort of genuine debate here in health. If he was— Mr Quinn interjected. Dr FLEGG: Yes, they are not even here to listen to their own debate. It is a transparent stunt and it is a stunt aimed at shifting blame to the federal government for the failings that belong with the Queensland government. We have seen it time and time again. The people of Queensland are sick and alarmed at seeing inquiry after inquiry. Every inquiry pinpointed the failings in the Queensland health system. The blame rests right at the feet of this government, not the federal government. Here we see this political stunt to try to shift that blame. 20 Apr 2006 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 1265

In the short time we have had, I have had a read of this lengthy motion. If there is one thing I have learnt about this government since I have been in this House it is that the important thing is not what they say; it is what they do not say. In the short time available I gained a bit of information and the same applies again: it is what they did not tell us that was important. Firstly, I refer to the Productivity Commission comments on the workforce. The Productivity Commission did not make any specific recommendations in relation to the workforce. The whole underlying tenet of this motion is a deception that has deliberately left out the vital facts because the facts would get in the way of this government’s political stunt and its political blame shifting. They also ignored facts in relation to COAG. The agreement of all the states, including Queensland, in dealing with the workforce issues, was that the governments would increase their collaborative effort in regard to the retention of health staff. So we see a motion here about training some people in universities, but it ignores the agreement of this government at the same meeting to collaborate on retaining its health staff. It should be no surprise to anyone that this government does not want to talk about retaining its health staff. There are 800 doctors every year walking out of Queensland Health. Mr Livingstone: How many came in? Dr FLEGG: Two hundred and twenty came in and they managed to lose 800. As medical school places are increased, honourable members can imagine how many doctors will be walking out. The wording of the motion again is a deception. We see the government is saying that the Commonwealth government is responsible for the funding of university places. If it is going to be truthful in this place it has to tell the whole story. The whole story is that the state government is responsible for the clinical training of doctors. The health minister told this parliament that he cannot even guarantee internship places for the medical students who are already at university in this state. While he is attacking the federal government and demanding more places, he is unable to stand up in this place and even say that the doctors in university now will even be able to finish their study and practise as doctors. We see this nonsense about the methodology in this ridiculous stunt motion. We saw those on the other side standing in here with badges with ‘325’ written on them. They cannot get up and talk about methodology when they pulled a stunt like having a badge pinned to themselves with ‘325’ on it when every year 800 doctors are walking out of the public hospital system. By the government’s own admission— Mr Cummins interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! The minister for small business is interjecting. I will warn him shortly. Dr FLEGG: By the government’s own admission and the findings of three inquiries, they are walking out because of the way they are treated by this government in Queensland Health. Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. That is untrue and misleading. I ask him to withdraw that allegation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Did you mention the Minister for Health? Dr FLEGG: I did not mention the minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat. You cannot get up and defend the government during another member’s speech. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You have had your time. Resume your seat. Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr ROBERTSON: The honourable member accused me of not standing in this place and saying that training positions for existing medical students could be guaranteed. That is untrue and I ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, you were not in the chamber at that time. Resume your seat. Dr FLEGG: Let us have a look at the realities of what is happening in Queensland hospitals and with the training of doctors in this state. The reality that not one person on the other side wants to talk about is that doctors do not learn their trade in a university setting; they learn it in a hospital under the training and supervision of senior, experienced clinicians. That is why this exodus of senior doctors from our system is crippling this state’s capacity to train even those who are at medical school today. Mr Robertson: You lied again, Bruce. 1266 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 20 Apr 2006

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The word ‘lie’ is unparliamentary. I think that the two speakers from the government side were heard in reasonable silence. I suggest we give the same courtesy to both sides of the chamber. Dr FLEGG: The other fact that those opposite are not keen about is the huge ratchetting up of medical school places. Everybody in medical circles agrees that it is at a pace that is exceeding the ability of the public hospital system to train the doctors who graduate. There is nothing more unfair than to take a young Queenslander into university, promise him he is going to be a doctor and then at the end of his university time have him not complete his training because those clinical training positions are not available. There is a precedent in New South Wales, where the university intake was ramped up suddenly one year. It had catastrophic effects— Mr Robertson: What year? Dr FLEGG: In 1978. It had catastrophic effects on the training of those doctors, many of whom ended up leaving the medical profession. The Premier in this stunt motion has continued on what he has been doing all along, and that is trying to pretend that the crisis that grips Queensland’s public hospitals is a crisis of university places. What a load of nonsense! By the time a person is about to fill any of the senior positions in an emergency department, an anaesthetic department, an intensive care department or any other department we are looking at about 15 years. Those opposite cannot blame the situation on university places. The even more distasteful deception of the people of Queensland is to pretend that putting some people into first year at university is somehow going to be a solution to the appalling state that this government has got our hospital system into. I move the following amendment— Delete all words after the word ‘that’ and insert— • On Mr Beattie’s own figures, if 2462 doctors had not walked away from Queensland health over the last 3 years, then Queensland would now have surplus of 2137 Doctors working in Queensland. • Notes that the Federal Government is not responsible for work-place bullying and intimidation and recognises the exodus of doctors and nurses from Queensland Health has occurred under the Beattie Government; and the Ministers statement to this house that • Notes that the clinical training of Doctors in the Public Hospital System is the responsibility of the Beattie government who does not have sufficient training and internship places to training existing medical student numbers • Calls on the State Government to re-open the 500 hospital beds closed by the State Government to complement the federal Government’s increase in medical training places for Queensland. Dr FLEGG: The other area that has crippled our ability to clinically train young Queenslanders as doctors is the loss of 500 beds out of our health system. No wonder our elective surgery numbers are spiralling downwards. Our bed numbers have spiralled downwards. Our senior staff, in particular, have exited the system at an alarming rate. The only response of this government is to blame the federal government for a lack of university places when it has just increased them from around 220 to over 600. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.56 am): I rise to second the amendment moved by the shadow minister for health, the member for Moggill. As the member said in his contribution, this is nothing but a stunt motion which is typical of this Labor government and its entire approach to health in Queensland. The approach of this government is one of public relations. As we now know, the approach of this government—and we have had numerous inquiries which have indicated such a thing—is to blame shift, fit up, bully and intimidate those people within the system to the point that we see so many medical professionals exiting the system because of the way the government treats them. In our amendment we specifically mention the 2,462 doctors who, by this government’s own admission, have left the public hospital system in Queensland over the past three years. This is 2,462 doctors out of an entire medical workforce of around 4,000. Nailing down the entire medical workforce number in Queensland is somewhat difficult because we get different answers from the Premier and the health minister in Queensland. If this government had not driven those people out of the system, if this government had not intimidated and bullied those people out of the system, then there would be a surplus of 2,137 doctors in the Queensland public health system. If this government retained even half of those doctors instead of blame shifting, making excuses and refusing to accept responsibility for its maladministration of the health system then we would have no health crisis in Queensland. The reasons those doctors have left the system are well and truly documented. They have been bullied out. There is a process of active and deliberate intimidation. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the member for Chatsworth said, we saw the extraordinary attack on nurses by former health minister Wendy Edmond when she said that nurses would not go near a chunder bucket. That is the sort of approach we have seen from this government towards doctors and nurses. If the government had retained some of those people we would not have this problem. 20 Apr 2006 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 1267

What have we had? We have had an elaborate process whereby this government invents terms to explain away the problem. It is not a situation now of not having enough beds; we have something called ‘bed block’. It is lairy way of saying that the government has closed 500 beds since it came into office. When a person cannot find a bed in hospital, we have what is called ‘ramping up’. This means that the ambulances are ramping up outside the hospitals. The patients are on trolleys in ambulances outside the hospital. When there is something else they want to explain, it is a ‘capacity alert’. This is when there is a serious ramping up problem or bed block problem. What sort of lunatic situation have we got under this Queensland government? If it reopened the 500 beds which we specifically outlined in the amendment and did something about retaining at least half of the doctors it is bullying, maligning, marginalising and driving out of the system then we would not have a problem. As the Productivity Commission said a few weeks ago when the Premier launched his stunt and created his one-man protest against himself by wearing badges on his lapel— Mr Caltabiano: A stuntman— Mr SPRINGBORG: He was a stuntman with yellow ribbons. That was an insult to the people of Caboolture for the problems that he caused. The Productivity Commission said, ‘Even if you could find these extra university places’—which we hope the government can—‘you cannot train them.’ So under the Beattie Labor government we are going to have a brand-new, innovative process of self-training. Our interns, on going into our hospitals, will have to train themselves because we do not have the experience in our major tertiary training hospitals and in our regional hospitals to train them. The senior VMOs have left the system. The senior staff specialists have left the system. So those interns cannot be trained in the skills that are necessary to give them the capacity to solve the problems in the system, such as reducing the waiting lists for elective surgery. We know that this government cannot guarantee training places beyond 2007. So the government should fix the fundamentals. It should accept some responsibility. It should accept the fact that, even if it can get extra university training places—and we hope it can—it cannot train them. If those interns cannot be trained, they are not worth anything to anyone. If the government gets the extra training places in place, if it retains the doctors who want to leave the hospital system, if it restores the number of beds in hospitals, it will fix its health crisis. This government does not believe it is responsible for anything. It is always someone else’s fault. It is the man in the moon, it is the Boer War or it is something else; it is never this government’s responsibility. It is never the fault of this government’s maladministration. Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (12.01 pm): It gives me great pleasure to support the Premier’s motion. I am extremely happy that this place will consider this well-thought-out motion as for a number of months I have been campaigning in my electorate and in north Queensland generally for a doubling of medical training places at Townsville’s James Cook University. It is a simple fact that the federal government does not train enough doctors—not only here in Queensland but also right across Australia. How else can one account for the fact that since the Howard government won power in 1996 the number of international doctors working in Australia has more than doubled? Indeed, only last week I had to take— Mr Messenger interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Member for Burnett, you will get your time in a couple of minutes. Mr WALLACE: Indeed, only last week I had to take my little girl to my local GP, who had for many years worked in the public system and who was now working as a private GP. I asked him, ‘Why are we having these problems in Queensland and across Australia?’ He said to me, ‘Quite simply, there are not enough doctors. We need to train more doctors.’ Those words came from the mouth of my GP. Surely, he knows more than that mob over there. I began my local campaign after the grandmother of a former Kelso State High School student came to me after her granddaughter was refused admission to James Cook University medical school even though she scored an OP1—the highest score. But JSU has only about 80 places. So competition for training spots is very strong. Indeed, I am informed that there were over 1,183 applicants for those 80 spots. The head of the school confirmed on ABC Radio that the number of HECS funded places could easily be doubled and called for that to take place. It is obvious that north Queensland locals want more training places. And why not? We know that graduates from JCU want to stay in regional Queensland and work in our public hospitals. They want to play their part in making Queensland’s public hospitals the healthiest in this nation. By God, they do a bloody good job! That is why I enlisted Thuringowa’s 20,000 householders in my fight to double the number of training places at the James Cook University medical school. Recently, I sent out 20,000 postcards to householders in my electorate. Residents were asked to show their support for more medical training places by ticking the card and sending it back. This morning I checked with my office and was told that 1268 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 20 Apr 2006 some of the cards are still coming back. So far, over 1,400 locals have supported my call for more training places. Surely, this indicates to the federal government that it has to take some action and train more Australian doctors. This is not playing the blame game when it comes to getting more local doctors; this is about getting the Commonwealth to meet its obligations and not provide the bandaid solution that the Prime Minister announced the other week, when he effectively tore up the COAG agreement. The Commonwealth seems very reluctant to meet those obligations. Despite sitting on a $14 billion surplus, it will not commit to training more doctors in Queensland. Indeed, the federal Liberal and National members have once again sold out Queenslanders by bowing to the dictates of their political masters in Canberra. On 4 February in the Townsville Bulletin the federal member for Herbert, Mr Peter Lindsay, stated that my calls to increase medical training places at James Cook University were unreasonable—that is right, unreasonable. What a disgrace! The local federal member will not support more medical training places at his local university. I agree with the Premier’s assertion this morning that those opposite do not want to train more Australian doctors. But I was willing to let bygones be bygones for the good of our community. On 12 February I wrote to Mr Lindsay asking him to put behind our earlier differences and lobby for a large increase in doctor training positions locally. Honourable members, guess what his response was. Not a cracker! Nothing! He has not even had the decency to acknowledge my letter. I know things may move slowly on the other side, but that is absurd. After the Prime Minister let down Queenslanders the other week I got really cranky, especially when his own federal member showed that he did not care for the people of Herbert. Like the Premier, I wrote to the Prime Minister expressing my disappointment at his decision to sell out Queenslanders. I also pointed out that Peter Lindsay did not even have the common courtesy to respond to my calls for a united front to fight for more HECS places at the James Cook University medical school. I am not holding my breath. When it comes to the people of Thuringowa and their health needs, Mr Lindsay and the Prime Minister have a track record of ignoring them. When I was elected I ran a major campaign for a Medicare office to be situated in my city. Thuringowa, which has a population of over 60,000 people, had no Medicare office. As with my fight for more locally trained doctors, thousands joined my push. Again, Mr Lindsay pooh-poohed the idea and said that the Medicare office was not needed. Again, I wrote to the Prime Minister. Guess what? I received no response—not even an acknowledgement. They have let Queensland down. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (12.06 pm): In this debate so far the most telling comment has been the one made by the Premier this morning when he compared the doctor to population ratio of Queensland with that of Cuba and Azerbaijan. That is the level of desperation that this Premier has stooped to. Anyone who knows anything about medical training in Cuba, Azerbaijan and other communist countries knows that they have the lowest levels of medical training standards in the world. In these two countries, medical training barely gets above, if ever, the standard to which we would train our nurses in this country. That is the level of desperation that the Premier is exhibiting. It is no wonder, when we consider the way in which this government treats doctors in this state. We have had two reports into Queensland Health: one by Davies and before that Morris, and one by Forster. Both of those reports laid the blame for what is going on within Queensland Health squarely at the feet of this government. Ever since, all this government has tried to do is shift the blame somewhere else—either to the Queensland public by saying that they are too sick and use the hospitals too often or to the Commonwealth government in terms of the number of medical training places that it offers to students in this state. But this government will not take on board the messages that have come out of these two inquiries. When in three years 2,462 doctors leave the Queensland hospital system, we know that something is dreadfully wrong with the system. But instead of trying to fix the system, what does the government want to do? It wants to blame everyone else for it. We received confirmation of what is wrong with the system from the recent comments by the Minister for Health. He was asked a question about the medical salaries for the doctors at Caboolture Hospital under the Aspen contract. We have been saying that those doctors were offered salaries way in excess of what was being offered by Queensland Health. But what did the minister say? He said, ‘No, the salaries being offered by Aspen for doctors to come in and staff the accident and emergency section at Caboolture Hospital are in line with those offered by Queensland Health.’ One has to ask: if those doctors will work for Aspen, why will they not work for Queensland Health? Those doctors quit Queensland Health but came back to work for Aspen on, as the minister says, the same money. That just defies logic. The real problem is that this government does not like doctors. It does everything it can to denigrate doctors either in this House or in the public arena. Then when the government cannot get the doctors to work in its health system and instead work in the private sector, the government says, ‘We pay them the same amount of money as Aspen.’ 20 Apr 2006 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 1269

The real problem here is the fact that this government will not take on board the messages from those two inquiries. It continues to shift the blame to someone else. Again, the Premier comes in here and performs another stunt this morning—a bit more spinning and grinning, trying to get out of the government’s responsibility to fix the system. As the member for Moggill said, even if there were more doctor training places at universities, this government does not have in place a plan to train those doctors once they graduate. Without training places in the hospital system, we will have a backlog of students coming through the universities not being able to get through the training gate. This government has got it firmly slammed in their faces. That is the problem in this state. We have experienced medical specialists leaving our public hospital system and who are not willing to train doctor graduates from university and this government is doing nothing about it. In fact, it is going in the opposite direction. For every one of those ads the government placed in the newspapers, blaming the Commonwealth for not allocating enough doctor training places at Queensland universities, we could actually train a graduate doctor in the hospital system. So by advertising that the government is blaming someone else, the government is reducing the opportunities for graduates to train in our hospitals. That is the absolute cynicism and mismanagement that is going on here. This is all about politics. It is just rank hypocrisy for the Premier to stand up and say that he wants bipartisan support and that we should take the politics out of it. That is from the person who is putting the politics into it. He is into it up to his neck. This is all about politics. It is not about fixing the system. It is not about making sure that we have doctors in our hospitals. It is about the politics of survival, and it is crude and it is base. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (12.11 pm): Would not Queensland be in deep and diabolical trouble if those opposite in the coalition ever held the Treasury benches in Queensland? That is evident from what has come from the mouths of those opposite today. What this debate is really about is how the opposition, the Liberal Party and the National Party, is really intent on genuflecting at the altar of Mr Howard’s federal Liberal government. This is about conceding to whatever Mr Howard says and denying the fundamental reality, as the member for Moggill has already denied today in this debate, of the history of this matter. He has denied the premise of this motion where it states, ‘Australia is experiencing workforce shortages across a number of health professions.’ Where does that statement come from? The Australian government Productivity Commission report says—and I am happy to table it—‘Australia is experiencing workforce shortages across a number of health professions.’ He also denies the second part of that first paragraph where it states that ‘the federal government is responsible for funding university based education and training of health workers.’ I refer to the Productivity Commission report on health workforce issues entitled Australia’s health workforce. On page XXXVIII the report states— The Department of Education, Science and Training (in consultation with the Department of Health and Ageing) would remain responsible for determining the total quantum of funding for university-based health education and training and for negotiations ... That is the reality. Yet the opposition today is denying those fundamentals. That is how Australia works. Those opposite would rather genuflect at the altar of Mr Howard and kowtow to him. We would be in diabolical trouble if we had that situation in Queensland. We need the continuation of a strong Labor government in this state that will stand up to Howard, that will stand up and fight for more doctor training places at Queensland universities. We wonder how this has happened. My constituents ask me: how has this happened? Is it like the frog in the boiling water that gradually turned up? It has not happened overnight; it has happened over a number of years. It has been well orchestrated. If Howard has not woken up to it by now, something is very wrong. So we have had this knee-jerk reaction, but it has happened too late. The horse has already bolted. The allocation is inadequate for Queensland. We need a lot more places. As this motion states, we need 325 medical places and 800 nursing places. It is worth looking at the background as to why these doctor training places are so important. The federal government, which has had the responsibility for them, has taken its eye completely off the ball. It has not even looked at the fundamental structural changes that we have seen across the whole health system. The nature of the work has changed. It is far more intensive. We cannot compare the level of work, nursing beds et cetera today to what it was even 10, 15 or 20 years ago. What is occurring in the medical workplace today is far more intensive, far more technologically focused and expertise focused. It is far more intensive in the sense that domiciliary work in the community has intensified. This is also exacerbated by the fact that patients have shorter hospital stays and so what occurs when people are in hospital is far more invasive, intensive et cetera. The whole focus has shifted and that highlights the fact that we do need highly skilled people in the workplace, highly skilled doctors and nurses. I am pleased to see from the materials tabled by the Premier today that we have moved a long way already to achieving the action plan to fix these problems. Time expired. 1270 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 20 Apr 2006

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (12.16 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Premier’s health motion. Nothing has changed. We have not learnt the lessons of the royal commissions, lessons from Toni Hoffman, lessons from Patel victims and their families—lessons that they have given in blood. The same corrupt system which hired Patel, covered up for Patel, flew him out of the country business class and has failed to bring him back is still in control of Queensland. Nothing has changed. Amongst all the human misery that we have as a result of the continued and comprehensive mismanagement of Queensland Health from 1998, eight years, it is ironic that the only reason we are debating this health motion is that there is one life, one political life, that is looking a bit crook. It has caught a disease. In fact, the diagnosis given by the people of Queensland in the last three by-elections is that the political life of this Premier and this Labor government— Mr Caltabiano: Is terminal. Mr MESSENGER: It is terminal. I thank the member for Chatsworth. The Premier is an electoral liability and this is a pathetic, disgusting attempt— Mr Caltabiano: And the backbench know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! The member for Chatsworth and the member for Burnett, both of you should not talk to each other in the chamber right now. Mr MESSENGER: The Premier is an electoral liability and this is a pathetic attempt to shift blame and spin his way back to political health. It is a contagious disease. I can see at least 15 to 20 Labor backbenchers who have caught the same disease. I have not yet put a name to it, but I am sure someone will come up with one. This disease is terminal for a number of very good reasons. This is the Premier, according to the Morris and Davies royal commissions, who created a health system which killed at least 87 patients at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. This is the Premier who created a health system which allowed ‘Dr Death’ to carve a trail of misery and torture which has affected more than 2,000 families in the Bundaberg and Burnett region. In fact, all over Queensland the imprint of ‘Dr Death’ is felt. This is the Premier who created a health system built on fear—a health system which, through all-powerful CEOs, made bullying an art form. And it came from the master—the Premier. It is a system where all staff, clinicians and non-clinicians were and still are scared witless to speak out because they have seen how this Premier’s system has destroyed and trashed professional careers. Dr Flegg: The Premier is not even here. Mr MESSENGER: He is not even here to listen to this debate. Even after Toni Hoffman’s letter was tabled in the parliament on the Tuesday, this Premier allowed ‘Dr Death’ to continue operating on, maiming and torturing my constituents. He was allowed to continue working on the Tuesday, the following Wednesday and the following Thursday. This is the Premier who, through his health department, bought ‘Dr Death’ a business class air ticket and flew him to America. Dr Flegg: Never to be seen again. Mr MESSENGER: Never to be seen again, and still he has not got him back. After ‘Dr Death’ was safely out of the way, this Premier started the biggest cover-up and propaganda campaign that we have seen since World War II. This is the Premier who would have destroyed Toni Hoffman if it were not for Hedley Thomas’s Google search and thorough investigative journalism. This is the Premier who had to be forced by the public, the media and people on this side of parliament to establish a royal commission. That royal commission proved that this Premier’s health system put budget bottom lines before people’s lives. This is the Premier who has already made loud public statements that we have the best health system in the world. I would like to believe him, but he has told us that before. In 2003 the Premier was using the same lines. In 2003 he was singing from the same song sheet. Time expired. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (12.21 pm): This morning the Leader of the Liberal Party said, ‘Doctors do not want to work for this mob.’ Of course he was referring to the government. That is a deliberate deception presented by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I am indebted to Sue Lappeman for her article in yesterday’s Gold Coast Bulletin. In reference to the Victorian AMA she stated— They are warning that doctors are leaving that state in droves because Queensland and New South Wales doctors are paid 50 per cent more as a result of government initiatives to attract doctors to work in public hospitals. The article goes on to state— ‘As the chasm of conditions and pay increases, because Premiers Peter Beattie and Morris Iemma value their doctors more, we are going to find it increasingly difficult to maintain a good public hospital system in Victoria,’ the spokesman said. Of course, the opposition conveniently forgets that as it is a great disappointment to them that the Beattie government’s strategy to address Queensland health issues is working. That is why this week in question time they have moved off the health issue. The flavour of the week is water. I suggest that they have water on the brain. 20 Apr 2006 Productivity Commission Report on Health System 1271

Mr Cummins: Give them a tap on the head. Mr LAWLOR: That is a very good idea. A tap on the head would be very appropriate. This morning the minister mentioned that all Australian states have a doctor, nurse and allied health worker shortage. That was also mentioned by the Premier. I assure both those gentlemen that it goes further than that. Over Christmas I went to the UK and Ireland to visit my daughters. With any paper that I picked up, if I deleted the names of the paper, the minister and the hospital I could believe that I was reading another story about a health issue in Australia. However, it was happening in Ireland or the UK. I am told that a similar situation exists in Europe. Of course, things are far worse in America. In the United States they practically die on the streets if they do not have health insurance. The Premier mentioned getting doctors from Third World countries. What does it say about the Australian system that it cannot train sufficient doctors for our own purposes? Several months ago Dr Hambleton, the Queensland President of the AMA, said that when he graduated in 1984—and I am not certain of the exact figures, but these are fairly accurate—230 medical students graduated in Queensland. Last year there was basically the same number of graduates. After 22 years, during which I would suggest the population of Queensland has trebled, the number of graduates is essentially the same. Unfortunately the new member for Gaven, Dr Douglas, cannot speak in this debate and I certainly do not want to speak on his behalf. I can assure members that he, too, is having difficulty finding people to fill his position. Last year this government released the health action plan, which set a target of recruiting an extra 300 doctors, 500 nurses and 400 allied health professionals in the 18 months to December this year. We are on the road to achieving those targets. We have an extra 236 doctors on the Queensland Health payroll. That leads me back to the distortion presented by the opposition about 800 Queensland Health workers leaving their jobs. The fact of the matter is that they go through that process each and every year. They go through the training internship and so on, and they go into private practice and other places. They go overseas, just as Dr Flegg and Dr Douglas did. That is what happens. That is a normal process. Of course, at every opportunity the member for Moggill conveniently neglects to mention that the current number of doctors has increased from 4,552 to 4,788, which is an increase of 236. Apparently he wants to circumvent the COAG process. There is a COAG agreement requesting funding for 955 extra medical places and 6,430 extra places for nurses. Of those 955 extra medical places, 325 are required for Queensland. There is also a recruiting program for nurses. In June we had 21,911 nurses and that number has increased to 22,975, which is an extra 1,064 nurses. That program has been extremely successful. I support the motion moved by the Premier. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.27 pm): I rise to contribute to this debate on the Premier’s motion. The crisis now crippling the provision of health services has been coming for decades. In Hansard there are warnings in debates in this House going back almost 20 years, especially in relation to the lack of doctors and other medical specialists in rural and regional areas. There is no doubt that the Productivity Commission was correct in finding that the federal government is responsible for funding university based education and training places for health workers. Instead of funding additional training places, it has deliberately chosen to sit back and let health services collapse. As we all know, it takes many years to train a doctor. It takes upwards of a decade to train a doctor to a level where they are able to work in a hospital. With warnings stretching back into the 1980s, there has been more than enough time to get extra places into our universities. There has been more than enough time to train young Australians and Queenslanders to meet this need. Senior COAG officials have identified that nationally we need 955 extra medical places and some 6,430 extra nurse training places. What do we get from those in the pampered halls of federal power? A promise of less than half the necessary number of doctor places and less than one-sixth the necessary nurse numbers. That is a total betrayal of every Australian and Queenslander on hospital waiting lists and a total betrayal of every Australian and Queenslander in a regional or rural area who has to travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometres for medical attention. It is a total betrayal of mothers who are forced to give birth on the side of the road as they struggle to reach a distant maternity ward in time. They stand condemned for their arrogant disregard of the people of this nation in failing to ensure enough doctors and nurses are trained right here in Queensland. However, the health crisis is a complex issue. While the federal government has failed to train enough health workers, there is also a large measure of fault at the state level. After all, the state government is responsible for our public hospital system. It is the state government—and for most of the past two decades in Queensland that has meant an ALP government—that manages that vital service. It is the state that is solely responsible for having created a work environment so bad that hundreds and hundreds of doctors and nurses have left year after year. Surely, as obvious as the need to train more doctors might have been, so, too, was it blindingly obviously that we needed to keep those doctors and nurses that we were lucky enough to already have. 1272 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 20 Apr 2006

It was entirely the responsibility of this state government. We all heard ad nauseam, after the Patel debacle, about how this government would inject a massive amount of funding into Queensland Health. Over and over again, we heard how this ALP government would fund an extra 236 training places for doctors over five years—off its own bat. Over and over again, we heard how Queensland Health would be significantly restructured. Over and over again, we have heard how doctors’ wages have been increased. We did not hear how all of this became necessary only because of decades of neglect by this same government. We did not hear how, under the stewardship of this government, in only 10 years half the maternity wards across Queensland have closed down. We did not hear any explanation for the years of empty promises that were shovelled out to us that everything was okay in Queensland Health. We have heard nothing to convince us that we should suddenly trust the assurances of the same government that insisted for years that our public hospital system was just fine, thank you very much. Much more needs to be done. This motion recognises that responsibility for creating university places lies with an uncaring federal coalition but that, significantly, the other part lies with this ALP state government. They all need to get real. In Queensland, doctors’ wages have recently increased. However, we need to consider the signing of contracts that are longer than 12 months. That is simply not long enough. The university trained nurse program is not giving us nurses who stay in the system. We need to revisit the hands-on, practical training that gave us generations of dedicated and skilled carers. We need to ensure that nurses in areas such as aged care facilities, prisons and so on are not left behind. We need to realise that the health of our constituents is the first and primary responsibility of every level of government. When it comes to health, both federal and state governments desperately need to do only one thing—stop the politics and just get real. Question—That Dr Flegg’s amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 24—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Douglas, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone NOES, 48—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, E Cunningham, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lee Long, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 20—Caltabiano, Copeland, Douglas, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative.

CHILD SAFETY (CARERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 19 April (see p. 1225). Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (12.42 pm), in reply: I rise to speak on the Child Safety (Carers) Amendment bill, which builds on the key recommendations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s report provided in January 2004 on its inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. I thank all of the members who have spoken in this second reading debate for their contributions. I will now be answering a number of the questions that were put to me during the debate in parliament last night. In August 2005 the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2005 was passed. It was the third stage of the government’s legislative reform agenda as set out in the blueprint delivered by Peter Forster on 22 March 2004 and endorsed by government. One of the important aspects of that act was amendments to the Child Protection Act 1999 to regulate all carers caring for children in the chief executive’s custody and guardianship. It included amendments to provisions for approving, renewing, amending, suspending and cancelling care authorities and additional powers to the chief executive to screen carers and certain related people for criminal histories. This important bill before the House contains additional amendments to the Child Protection Act 1999 and the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2005 to strengthen the approval processes of the Department of Child Safety by requiring all foster- and kinship-carers, adult members of their households and nominees, directors and certain employees of licensed care services to have positive 20 Apr 2006 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 1273 prescribed notices known as blue cards issued by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. The bill also amends the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 to facilitate the requirement and to address other urgent miscellaneous amendments to that act. Before going into any further specific details about these provisions I would like to refute a number of misconceptions that have been held by the opposition. With regard to the concerns from the member for Burdekin about resourcing, I can assure the member that the information she quoted from the explanatory notes refers solely to the miscellaneous amendments relating to the commission’s act, not the major amendments regarding the transferring of criminal history screening to the commission. The member for Burdekin specifically raised concerns regarding the resources which will be allocated to ensuring that neither the approval of carers nor the blue card process is adversely affected by these changes. This government has more than doubled the budget for the child safety system this term and I am confident that the government will again deliver a record budget to cement the world- leading reforms that we have undertaken over the past two years. Likewise, the commission is committed to streamlining the process of blue card applications to improve the efficiency of the system. They have recently conducted an organisational review and as a result are increasing staffing levels and implementing improvements to their business systems. In response to the member’s concerns about the establishment of a central screening unit in my department, let me thoroughly assure the House and the member for Burdekin that this unit will not impact on the numbers of child safety staff or staff working in child safety service centres. Indeed, I found it very confusing when the member for Burdekin asked why the government is spending money on improved office accommodation for our hardworking child safety officers. I have a very simple explanation for the member: when the government increased child safety staff numbers from approximately 1,500 to 2,000 we needed to provide those staff with somewhere to work. We needed to get ourselves out of the sixties and seventies and provide the appropriate accommodation for foster- carers who may be coming into the department and for children who may be in the department’s child safety service centre, and that is exactly what we are doing. The record child safety capital works program currently being rolled out will achieve exactly this and should be seen as a core component of the government’s commitment to increase the numbers of staff. Indeed, while we have increased the numbers of staff and will continue in terms of that objective, beside that is the necessary accommodation that is required. The program is designed to give child safety officers right around Queensland the tools and infrastructure that they need to better protect children and young people. The government will continue to forge ahead with the rollout of new child safety service centres and zonal offices because we are absolutely committed to providing child safety staff with the best possible facilities to undertake their essential but incredibly traumatic work. The member for Burdekin has asked me to ensure that the process for appeals to the Children Services Tribunal for matters other than the holding of a blue card is a prompt and responsive service. This is an assurance that I cannot give the member. The Children Services Tribunal is independent of the Department of Child Safety and of my portfolio. The tribunal sits with the justice portfolio. It must be this way if the tribunal is to be an effective review mechanism for decisions made by officers of the department. Indeed, it would be highly inappropriate for me to try to influence the processes or the response of that body. The member for Burdekin also made note of the two-month transitional provision for relative carers who are currently approved administratively to become approved kinship-carers under the act. The member suggested that this is an acknowledgement of the practical time taken to undertake screening. Can I say today that the member has misconstrued this two-month transitional period. It does not relate to the screening time for carers but is a technical amendment that allows a two-month gap before these previously approved relative carer approvals start to expire which allows them some time in which to apply for renewal. The member for Burdekin questioned me on the finalisation of the ICMS project. In 2004 the government embarked on a very ambitious—indeed, the first of its type—three-year agenda of reform in the child protection system. In terms of the integrated client management system, we are going to adopt for the first time in Australia a unique system that has not been tried or tested anywhere else in Australia. We are on track to complete this reform program, with 92 of the 110 CMC recommendations implemented. The implementation of ICMS involves the introduction of major business process and system changes. It is being undertaken in staged modules to effectively manage the impact on service delivery provided by child safety service centres. This approach will deliver the balance of child protection system functions, including assessment tools and case and client management functions. The scheduling of staff training is designed to minimise adverse operational impacts. This lengthens the amount of time taken to progressively roll out the modules and enhancements. However, it does ensure—and quite properly so—that child safety service centres will be able to continue to operate effectively as the modules are released. 1274 Child Safety (Carers) Amendment Bill 20 Apr 2006

The member fails to realise that the reform blueprint is a very dynamic document. As Minister for Child Safety, I am very proud of the Department of Child Safety and all of the staff and those who have worked with us in implementing 92 of the 110 recommendations when the department has been operational for something like 20 months. As I have previously informed the House, we have brought forward some areas of reform and held back others as required for effective implementation. We want to make sure the job is done properly. I make no apologies, as Minister for Child Safety, for altering the implementation schedule to ensure the best possible outcomes for vulnerable children and young people in Queensland. Honourable members of the opposition have raised concerns regarding the guidelines for the interpretation of child protection, domestic violence and traffic history. Let me say that I cannot provide a blanket answer to this question because every application is considered on a case-by-case basis and all our decisions are made in the very best interests of children. We do not look at any one area of a person’s history in isolation from another. As a department, we endeavour to find out all relevant information about a person’s past before placing a vulnerable child in their care. Traffic infringement history is an important piece of information because carers will be driving children in their cars on a regular basis. With regard to this, over the past year there have been reports in the media of families who have been speeding in a very dangerous way with kids in their car and we have later found out that they are foster-carers. I assure honourable members that they have not been foster-carers for much longer if they have put those children in danger. That traffic history can be extraordinarily important. I recognise that no system is entirely infallible. That is why we have built into this process an efficient and robust appeals mechanism as well. I find it fascinating that the members of the opposition seem to think that it is only when something is tabled in parliament that it can be trusted. This undervalues the excellent work of foster-carers, non- government organisations and organisations such as PeakCare, Foster Care Queensland and Create. The development of allowance schedules by the director-general of the Department of Child Safety is a very open and transparent process involving the department and key stakeholders. I am happy to personally provide the honourable member for Burdekin with a copy of the policies covering these allowances. The members for Burdekin and Gregory raised the issue of the accuracy of data. I assure the honourable members that staff of the Department of Child Safety take the issue of accuracy of data as seriously as they do. They take it very seriously. They are committed to dealing with children and families in a respectful and confidential manner, and they take every care when recording information in the departmental information systems. The department also has data quality processes in place. In fact, as part of the ICMS rollout, a major data cleansing program has been undertaken right across the department to check the data to ensure that it is of the highest quality and accuracy. To ensure accurate and systemic record systems, the Department of Child Safety has also employed records management officers and business support officers in every one of the child safety service centres during this reform process. Another important issue that members need to understand is that child protection notifications requiring the attention of the department do not all arrive on the same day. Assessing notifications is a constant work in process, with the department receiving an average of 3½ thousand notification reports every month. At any point it is normal for child safety assessments to be in various stages of completion. The assessment of the notification is not something that simply happens overnight. It is often a complex process that may take weeks to finalise. Having said that, the shortest response time frame is allocated to those cases where the information indicates that there is a serious current or imminent danger to the child. These types of cases demand a response within 24 hours. It is very important to point out that none of the notifications which are not yet finalised involve 24-hour assessments. The allocation of investigations is not static, and inaccurate interpretations of a backlog seem to ignore this. The Department of Child Safety is now responding to 31 per cent more notifications and is finalising 42 per cent more investigations than in 2002-03. This is a direct result of the government’s increased resources for Child Safety. In September 2004 I launched the foster-carer recruitment campaign to meet the care and protection needs of children out of home care. Since this time the Department of Child Safety has received over 1,500 inquiries, and enhanced assessment and training activities are being commenced to approve these carers as soon as possible. The honourable members of the opposition have asked me a number of questions about the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, the commission’s processing of blue card applications and the impact this legislation has on the commission. Let me say, firstly, that I am not the minister responsible for the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. That is because the commission monitors and oversights the work of the Department of Child Safety and must be very independent of my portfolio. However, I can indicate today on behalf of the Premier, who is the responsible minister, that the commission has worked very closely with my department in preparing this bill that is before the House. With advice from the commission, I am able to provide the following information in response. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1275

Turning to the concerns of the member for Burdekin regarding the time limits of the blue card system, I can advise that the average turnaround time for issuing a blue card in the period July 2005 to March 2006 where the applicant submitted a complete application form and had no criminal history was 34 days. In addition, the commission’s 2004-05 client satisfaction survey found that 85 per cent of respondents were satisfied with the time taken to process their applications. It is not anticipated that the screening of carers by the commission will impact adversely on the processing times for blue cards. The department estimates that these changes will result in approximately an additional 10,000 annual blue card applications and, in the first year only, 10,000 applications for existing carers. The commission has already processed over 145,000 blue card applications this financial year. The commission’s existing processes and recent improvements to its business processes mean that the commission is prepared for the additional screening resulting from this bill. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Debate, on motion of Mr Lucas, adjourned.

FORESTRY PLANTATIONS QUEENSLAND BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 7 March (see p. 580). Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Gaven. I remind all honourable members that this is the member’s maiden speech. Obviously, I expect courtesy to be extended to him. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—NPA) (2.30 pm): I am very honoured and humbled to stand before this parliament today as the newly elected member for Gaven. It is a privilege to be supported by so many people in the Gold Coast Hinterland community and to represent them. I would like to thank my family and friends for believing in me and for their unerring support. As I stand before this House I am reminded of the maiden speech by Dame Annabelle Rankin. She was a National Party member and the first female member of parliament to be elected to the Senate. In her maiden speech she highlighted the fact that every time she cast a vote it was like a ripple on the surface of a pond and like that ripple the effect would spread through the community. Like Dame Annabelle, I will take the responsibility for each vote, weigh it in my conscience and consider its ramifications for the community at large. The seat is named after the long-serving Queensland MLA from the Gold Coast Eric John Gaven, a Country Party member. He represented the seats of Southport and South Coast from 1950 to 1966. Gaven is an area of five interlinked communities, separated by a forest, bordered by two major rivers— the Coomera and the Nerang. It is a truly beautiful area. Nerang is the gateway to the hinterland and is an historic community, one of the foundation communities of Queensland, and dates back to 1820. Oxenford, Helensvale, Maudsland and the Gaven Way are very important key communities built around major families who have contributed so much to Queensland and Australia’s heritage. I intend to commit myself to representing all of the people of the electorate of Gaven. I will undertake to listen to the community. I will be their voice in parliament. We as a community have been neglected in Gaven despite it being the fastest growing area in Australia. Our needs are great and our current resources are few. Under my representation I intend to change this situation through effective and positive representation. I am committed to restoring health services, better roads and transport, ensuring a safer community, creating opportunities for our children, improving our overall way of life and providing a strong commitment to serving the Gaven electorate. I intend to build Gaven as a total community, spiritually as well as physically, and, at the same time, recognise the individuality of each community in the electorate. I am both a traditionalist and a realist. My motive for joining parliament was quite simple. I had experienced enough of talking, negotiation, being blocked, being fed a diet of motherhood statements and being told to patiently wait for change. My main concern was that my patients and their families were being increasingly denied services they needed because the current Labor government has failed to understand and listen to their needs. I felt that I was compelled to act and go through the democratic electoral process so that I could advocate for change for the community. I am the principal of a group family general practice and have been in Nerang for 19 years looking after the needs of the wider Gaven area and surrounding districts. There are many new families who have come into the area. At some stage I would have had contact with the majority of them. I believe that I am very aware of their deepest concerns and needs. I was educated in Brisbane at St Joseph’s College, Gregory Terrace, and completed six years of undergraduate medicine at the University of Queensland. I did nine years of postgraduate study and 1276 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 have worked for Queensland Health for 25 years in a variety of positions in hospitals, prisons and public health. I have either been a full-time or part-time visiting medical officer for Queensland Health in that time. I have represented general practice in all sorts of associations, divisions and faculty groupings at all levels. I have taught students from undergraduates to postgraduates. I have been a GP accreditation review doctor since the inception of accreditation. I have a deep understanding of health—its systems, manpower needs, training and standards of practice. I feel it strongly needs to be said that if someone such as me enters parliament driven by the continuing current crisis in health then this Labor government is denying reality and it is denying the people of Queensland open and accountable government if it does not realise the legitimacy of their voice. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was introduced by Mrs Roosevelt in 1948, included the following provision— The State has a duty to maintain, or to ensure that there are maintained, comprehensive arrangements for the promotion of health, for the prevention of sickness and accident, and for the provision of medical care and for compensation for loss of livelihood. This Labor government has failed to meet this very basic human rights obligation and it has constantly failed to address the needs of the wider community and the individuals at large. The current Labor government proposes to address problems that it has had eight years to supposedly fix and involving proposed grand schemes that will take five to 10 years. They may be proven to be of little or no benefit to the immediate needs of Gaven and the state of Queensland. Overwhelmingly families in Gaven need to be assured that our regional Gold Coast Hospital remains a place of first and last refuge. The hospital needs be resourced appropriately. It needs to be allowed to pursue excellence. All staff need to be equally rewarded, not politicised nor bullied nor demoralised. The people of Gaven have asked for a person to champion their concerns, particularly on this issue. I believe Condoleezza Rice has a simple statement on her desk that says, ‘Blame no-one, say something, do something.’ There will always be excuses for avoiding controversy and neglecting issues that will upset some people. I intend to be never one of these people who just offers excuses and apologises. My family has had a strong tradition of public service in Queensland over the last 150 years. We believe in standing up and taking positions that are often at odds with the views of the prevailing government. My great-grandfather was John Douglas MLA, who was Premier from 1877 to 1879. My grandfather, Henry Douglas MLA, was the member for Cook from 1907 to 1915. My great-grandfather, TC Beirne, was a leading businessman in Queensland. The two families interlinked have provided Queensland with many judges, doctors, teachers and politicians. My mother’s two brothers were senior surgeons and major hospital superintendents for Queensland Health for many many years. My uncle, Dr Michael O’Rourke, is the former chair of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. My parents, Alex and Morna, had five sons. I am the third son. They instilled in us a strong commitment to public service and a willingness to stand up for what is right. My own children Caroline, Alexander, John and Helen have the same values. I thank them for their support. They are here today with my parents. I have no expectations other than for them to be happy. They should love one another, set a good example and teach others to contribute equally to society. These are values I believe the people of Gaven share and want imparted to their own children. To my wife, Susie Douglas, councillor for Surfers Paradise—and who is currently weathering significant challenges—I would like to thank you so much for your support and wisdom. To my extended family, I would also like to thank you for your support. I now turn to the campaign committee. I would also like to thank the following individuals: the chair of our committee, Gordon French; Bruce and Muriel Duncan; Geoff Green; Brad Henderson; the National Party chairs, Bruce Scott, who is here today, and Warwick Parer. A coalition campaign to wrest a Labor seat on the Gold Coast over to our side is an historic event and reflects a terrific team effort. To all those who volunteered huge amounts of their personal time and contributed to assisting in the menial tasks that come with every campaign, I would like to say thank you. To the magnificent blue team who assisted on polling day, I thank each and every one of you very dearly. My electoral success and, ultimately, the success of and the benefit for the people of Gaven were greatly assisted by all of those people. Our campaign in Gaven mirrored both the needs and concerns of the electorate and spoke to the values that I believe in and which many individuals within the electorate asked me to pursue. Those values included largely avoiding any negative criticism and addressing the problems, and proposing solutions to those problems, that face the people in Gaven. The Labor government reacted to the values that I espoused and promised $55 million to the community of Gaven in direct moneys for schools, school resources, roads and a new—beyond the $55 million—$1 billion hospital which I believe, based on current costings, is a 500-bed hospital. This Labor government promised my electorate, as part of its campaign, a new ambulance station for Nerang. I intend to hold the government to its promise. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1277

My electorate also desperately needs a new fire station. I intend to deliver on this need by advocating for it to the government and holding it accountable. The police in the Gaven electorate are desperately understaffed and underresourced. My electorate urgently needs a new 24-hour police station in Helensvale. Again, I am committed to ensuring that these essential, basic community service needs are met. A major road noise issue exists in the Helensvale/Studio Village to Nerang section of the motorway. It is a health hazard. It needs to be corrected urgently. Local residents are suffering from Labor government inaction and sound protective resurfacing and fencing of a new type is required for the motorway. Again, I intend to see that this need is met and addressed by this Labor government. The forest that separates the five communities in the Gaven electorate is precious to all. I am concerned that this Labor government has not sought to act in a proactive manner to deal with access to the forest in the future. Statements by the minister for the environment have only compounded these concerns and have not allayed any of my electorate’s fears. The proposal to build a shipping terminal on public open space on the Gold Coast Spit is viewed with horror by the majority of people in my community. I undertake to give a commitment to actively discourage any development on it whatsoever. People will often state that they believe in democracy, but in reality they do not practise it. They say that they believe that everyone deserves to have their say, but deny that they heard the sentiments that they do not personally share. It is these same people who say they value the individual, but they reward only those who share that similar view. I have had the great privilege to listen to people and patients one-on-one throughout my career. That has taught me to listen carefully. Often the answers that you seek to your deepest problems can be found by organising those seemingly unrelated pieces of information. Exclude the noise and the diagnosis appears. The message that the Gaven electorate has delivered to this Labor government is: criticise us and you make us stronger. Do not listen to us and you sow the seeds of your own destruction. It is with humble pride that I take my place as the member for Gaven on behalf of a diverse and rapidly expanding electorate. I sincerely thank my constituents for their trust in me. I solemnly swear that I will not betray them. I will strive to serve them and proudly represent them. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (2.45 pm): This is a very important, historic bill. I say it is historic because it will bring about a very significant change to the way in which forestry is operated in Queensland. For generations we have had a forestry department within Queensland DPI. At times it has been a stand-alone department. This bill creates a corporation that will be the commercial manager of state owned plantations. It is also worth noting that tacked on to the end of this bill are some matters relating to the parliamentary superannuation scheme and clarification as to whether or not members of parliament can receive one additional salary only. Since the beginning of European settlement, and especially in many regional areas, the Queensland forest industry has played a vital role in Queensland life. If members look at the lists of forestry plantations, native forests and forestry offices throughout the state they would realise that the forest industry is one of the most decentralised industries. Importantly, it has been a magnificent industry for the many communities throughout the state that know and understand timber. Many families involved in the timber industry have been involved in that industry for generations. They understand the forests, they understand the bush, they understand the ways of maintaining our forests as sustainable forest industries, because those people inherited that knowledge from their families and they are passing on their knowledge and understanding of our forests to the generations that follow them. Today throughout Queensland, particularly in terms of western hardwoods, much of that corporate knowledge and family knowledge is being wrecked. Queensland has a total forest estate of about 56 million hectares. Queensland has the largest forested areas of all the states of Australia. About 80 per cent of Queensland’s forests are publicly owned. The forest industry comprises 2,200 businesses. It employs directly more than 19,000 people and has a turnover of $2.7 billion. The forest industry also generates a number of environmental benefits for the community through the retention or establishment of forests for the production of commercial forest products. These benefits may include reduced soil salinity levels, improved water quality of streams and rivers and increased biodiversity. Obviously, the government plays a key role in setting the regulatory framework for the forest industry as well as overseeing the management and establishment of state owned forest resources. Currently, DPI Forestry, which operates as a commercial business unit within the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, is the state’s principal forest grower. Throughout that time DPI Forestry has been managing the state owned production forests, that is, plantations and native forests. DPI Forestry’s plantation estates cover more than 190,000 hectares—nearly 90 per cent of Queensland’s 1278 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 total plantation estate—with the majority of these plantations in south-east Queensland located in the Beerburrum to Maryborough area. There are also plantation estates throughout central Queensland in the Byfield area and in north Queensland in areas such as Cardwell, Tully and a little further inland towards the tablelands. DPI Forestry has paid an estimated $182 million in dividends to the Queensland government since it became a commercial business unit in 1995, with the dividend of $8.6 million payable to the government in 2005-06. In July 2004 the state government nominated DPI Forestry as a candidate of a government owned corporation of Queensland Treasury to head a committee of senior officers to undertake a public benefit test and prepare a draft corporatisation charter. The government has stated that the reason behind this change and this investigation is to improve the competitiveness of the timber plantation industry by ensuring the state owned supplier has a more commercial structure. In the briefing I received from departmental officials—and I thank them for their courtesy, their knowledge and detail—it was stated that while DPI Forestry has been a commercial business unit for a decade it is still tied to many public service requirements and is still very bureaucratic. That has limited its capacity to meet industry demands. I understand there was a stakeholder reference group formed to discuss the proposed corporatisation of DPI Forestry. That group included the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, the Plywood Association, the Queensland Beekeepers Association, Timber Queensland, Cedar Hill Flowers and Foliage and the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation. In October last year the Premier stated that the government did not intend to pursue a corporatisation agenda for DPI Forestry at this time. However, he stated that the government would implement a commercial reform framework and ensure that DPI Forestry staff continue to be employed under the same state legislation and under the same terms and conditions. The bill we are debating here today establishes Forestry Plantations Queensland, or FPQ, as a corporation sole as opposed to a government owned corporation. In this regard, it is virtually the same as the corporation sole that was put in place for the Australian agricultural colleges which covered the agricultural colleges at Dalby, Emerald, Longreach and the Burdekin. Forestry Plantations Queensland will be answerable to two shareholding ministers, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, who have the power to issue ministerial directions. The bill provides Forestry Plantations Queensland with the property rights and powers needed to undertake commercial management of the plantations by giving it the right to deal with natural resource products in state plantation forests and the assets and liabilities relevant to DPI Forestry’s plantation business. I understand that DPI Forestry’s current staffing levels are around 750 to 800 staff. About 650 will be working for Forestry Plantations Queensland with the employees remaining as public servants and employed by the state of Queensland. The management of the native forests, such as hardwoods and cypress, as well as the management of quarry materials on state land will be undertaken by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, with about 130 DPIF staff transferring to this department. Included in that number are staff members of DPI Forestry who are currently in the headquarters in Brisbane and who will go to different levels of the particular building, with approximately two-thirds continuing to work for Forestry Plantations Queensland and the balance for DNRMW. The bill provides for Forestry Plantations Queensland to develop an annual operational plan which has to be agreed with the responsible ministers, prescribes a commercial mandate for FPQ and enables the government to appoint a commercial advisory board to oversee strategic planning and development of the operational plan. It will be important for that advisory board to have not only business knowledge but also a very deep understanding of forestry industries and forestry plantation industries. The operational plan is to provide details about, amongst other things, Forestry Plantations Queensland planned activities, its performance milestones, a range of financial details and information about third-party access, including for recreational users. The Treasury briefing note provided to the opposition states that the reforms in this bill are ‘not opposed by unions and other stakeholders’, which is a very carefully worded statement. It is certainly not the same as saying that these reforms are supported by all stakeholders. I want to turn now to the concerns of recreational users. The Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation prepared a detailed submission and wrote several letters to the state government expressing its concern about unexpected and unpredictable threats to recreation access that may flow from this reform of government forestry functions. The Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation is the peak body representing the interests of the outdoor community in Queensland. Its members include groups such as the Queensland Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs, the Queensland Endurance Riders Association, the Queensland Camping Association, as well as non-profit organisations such as the Scouts and Guides. In its submission, QORF noted that the former primary industries minister, Mr Palaszczuk, did not even make mention of recreation as an important function of the plantations or native forests when he announced the possible reform of government forestry functions in July 2004. The Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation noted that early on in the stakeholder reference group meetings it was stated that there was an intention that the current access and usage rights would change for third parties. However, 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1279 it claims that past experience with unexpected and possibly unintended changes to recreation access to what were previously publicly accessible state government lands means that this issue will remain of central interest to recreational communities. We remember all too well when the regional forest agreements were put in place in south-east Queensland and the debate about the problems that those who want to go horse riding, those who want to use the forests for recreation, beekeepers and those who want to go camping and bushwalking now face in using those magnificent areas for recreation. I think there is a very strong and sound feeling and belief within the community that if you have areas that are locked up for the benefit of society and the benefit of the environment then you should be able to have reasonable and managed access to those areas so that people can appreciate them, so that families can learn, experience and understand what the bush and the forests are about, and so that people can enjoy them because that is what they are there for, in part—for all to live in harmony in those particular areas. Some of the ideas that have come out since, particularly for riding, have been crazy. Tracks have been provided beside railway lines for family groups to go riding. That is one of the most dangerous things they could possibly do. Those who go riding are people who love the open air. They love to experience the environment and the bush. It is a chance for them and their children and members of their clubs to undertake that particular activity. Likewise, beekeeping is probably one of the most useful and helpful primary industry occupations within the forest itself. Very often the beekeepers will have their bees for part of the year in a farmland area like the Mary Valley where they allow the bees to strengthen up on the clover and then they take the bees up into the forest and the bush, into ironbark areas or different forest areas, to get the particular flavour of the honey. Along the way those bees do a wonderful job of pollination, be it in the farmland area or within the native forests. I think one of the most obvious examples of why recreational users are sceptical is the way they were treated with regard to the Queensland regional forest agreements. As I said, recreational use was not even considered by the Beattie Labor government. The then minister for environment, Mr Rod Welford, told recreational users that they would suffer, in his words, ‘no net loss in access’. However, in a recent letter to the Queensland Endurance Riders Association, a senior policy adviser to the current environment minister tried to claim that ‘no net loss’ was actually taken to mean no loss of opportunity, no net loss of area or no change. The government’s policy adviser goes on to state that the so-called alternative trails network being developed—where horse riders are expected to ride next to busy roads and train lines—would meet the government’s ‘no net loss’ commitment. In its submission on the reform of forestry functions, the QORF also stated that it was concerned that under various corporatised business models the continuing provision of recreation might not be specified or regarded as either a core or peripheral function of the entity. Further, the QORF is worried that under alternative business models, subsequent operations could contrast strongly with the present style of management in which it is obvious that recreation is currently regarded as a legitimate and key function of both the native and plantation estates within state forests, with many of the managers having had training and experience in this regard. I acknowledge the Deputy Premier’s statement in her second reading speech that— Nothing in the bill is intended to limit the right of people to access state plantation forests for legitimate recreational pursuits such as horse riding. In addition, the bill states the operational plan must provide FPQ’s policies and strategies about providing the services in state plantation forests that were available to recreational users of the forests immediately before this action commenced, unless otherwise agreed by the responsible ministers. I also understand that the Under Treasurer wrote to the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation on 6 May 2005, stating— As there is no clear understanding at present of these levels of third party usage, it is proposed that any corporation would be mandated to undertake baseline studies to define existing usage and prepare a visitor usage strategy within 12 months of corporatisation. While these words are welcome, recreational users are naturally sceptical of the actions to come, and they have every right to be, given the way in which the Beattie Labor government has treated horse riders and others who want access to state forests. Horse riders and other recreational users have heard it all before only to find that, when it comes to the crunch, the reality does not match the rhetoric. That is something that we will watch very, very carefully. In its submission, the QORF stated that there is widespread concern throughout the recreational and general communities about the general trend of incremental withdrawal of existing access and closure of established and publicised recreational facilities, even under existing management arrangements. These include, for example, the loss in 2004 of picnic facilities at Murrumba viewing area on the Kilcoy-Jimna Road, and the closure of both the Jimna fire tower and the adjacent picnic facilities of the Jimna day use area. 1280 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Further, the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation went on to state that general recreation has always been one of the key multiple uses or functions of forestry estate lands and such losses have not been foreshadowed in government policies. Where such reductions in the standards of service also impact on tourism potential—even in the form of daytrippers—in rural areas, the local communities and local authorities fear a further burden. The QORF concluded its point by noting— These current trends can only give rise to greater levels of concern under other business orientated models of management for the state forests generally and for the plantations and associated native forests, in particular. In a letter to the Premier in April 2005, the QORF also highlighted the Victorian recreation group’s recent loss of access to certain plantation forest areas that were previously owned by the state and now managed by a private organisation. In a letter to the four-wheel drivers’ association, Four Wheel Drive Victoria, the Hancock Victorian Plantations Estate Ballarat district manager stated— When state owned, public access was virtually unrestricted. However, HVP has now developed a public access policy that restricts certain activities and ensures greater control over who and when the public use our plantations. While I acknowledge that the situation is different in Queensland because we are talking about corporatisation rather than privatisation, the concerns remain the same and I certainly understand the recreational users’ nervousness about the future. With these changes and the changes that the Labor government has previously made, I cannot stress too strongly our concerns about recreational uses in Queensland. People know all too well that their use of these wonderful environmental areas has become restricted as the government moves to its extreme Green edge and locks people out of state forests. I do not think that it goes beyond the pale to realise that it could well do the same in some of these plantation areas. As south-east Queensland’s population grows and as we need the lungs of our environment— that is, the national parks, the native forests and the plantation areas—for recreation away from our busy lifestyles and ever-increasing city environment, more and more often we are facing restrictions. The common thought of the average, sensible person is that we lock up areas, we have environmental areas, we have forests, so that we—who also walk on the planet with the birds and the animals—can share and enjoy them. It is of extreme concern to everybody in south-east Queensland that this government goes to such extreme levels and locks out people who only want to take their families into these areas to enjoy a good weekend hobby such as horse riding or beekeeping or bushwalking or camping and so forth, and who are denied that, over and over again, by the zealots in this government. In this House we seem to be regularly confronted with legislative changes or new laws that appear, on the surface, to be well-intentioned and are unlikely to have adverse impacts. But it is in the months after a bill is passed, when the new guidelines, codes of practice or regulations are released, that the real day-to-day impact becomes clearer. Again, the real test of this legislation will be how Forestry Plantations Queensland’s operational plan deals with recreational access to state plantation forests and how or whether this plan changes from year to year. Very often, the reality does not match the rhetoric espoused by ministers during parliamentary debates. I hope that that will not be the case after Forestry Plantations Queensland is established. I turn now to the issue of western hardwoods. Forestry Plantations Queensland will manage the plantations proposed by the Beattie Government. The western hardwoods planning process began in 2002. In December 2004, the Premier announced a proposal on the future of the western hardwoods timber industry. This industry includes 14 sawmills in western Queensland, stretching from near Charters Towers in the north to the New South Wales border, and a number of other smaller sawmills that operate in that area. The western hardwoods timber industry supports about 500 jobs—good working-class, small business jobs—in regional towns such as Jandowae, Wandoan, Monto, Mundubbera, Eidsvold and Theodore, and injects about $50 million per year into Queensland’s economy. The government’s plan proposes to lock up a million hectares as forestry reserves and to have a 20-year transition to plantation timber. In his media release of 14 December 2004, the Premier claimed that this would involve continued logging of state forests for seven years, with mills to then log private land for the next 13 years. The ridiculousness of the Beattie government’s position on western hardwoods and the internal wrangling between cabinet ministers and the Premier’s office on this issue was exposed in a series of articles in Crikey email newsletters in 2004. They were anonymously penned by someone high up within the Beattie Labor government under the pseudonym of one of Wayne Goss’s koalas. In one Crikey article, the writer noted that the Premier thinks there is still seven years’ worth of timber left over in the state forests, and another 13 years on private land. But it all sounds pretty iffy to industry players. If all that private wood they think is there was available, would it not be getting used right now? He needs to find the wood and quickly or the plan collapses and the 20,000 hectares of new hardwoods plantations will be little more than a living monument to job losses and bad number crunching. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1281

The article in Crikey went on to state what a delightful twist it is for vegetation management policy observers to now watch the Queensland Premier pushing more logging by private land-holders in rural Queensland. That just about sums up the Beattie Labor government’s approach to forest and vegetation policy. It is all about politics and nothing to do with sustainable management. For the past 15 months, the Beattie government has been trying to develop a heads of agreement to be signed by Timber Queensland on behalf of the timber industry, the Australian rainforest conservation industry on behalf of the environmental movement, and the Australian Workers Union on behalf of workers. On 25 February 2005, the Premier issued a media release claiming that they had made substantial progress towards finalising the agreement. We are now in April 2006 and there is still no sign of this agreement that the Premier said was almost finalised more than a year ago. This is hardly a surprise though, as why would Timber Queensland and the AWU sign off on a plan that would cripple their industry and cost hundreds of jobs. As a result of the Beattie Labor government’s refusal to admit its plan is flawed, sawmill operators and timberworkers have been left in limbo with no certainty for the future with the Beattie government only providing short term wood supply agreements. A major hole was shot in the Premier’s plans in August 2005 when all DPI Forestry managed native and plantation forests were awarded a world leading certification for sustainable forestry management. The Australian Forestry Standard, AFS, sets criteria for sustainable forest management from an economic, social, environmental and cultural perspective. It has been endorsed by every minister with responsibility for forestry from the Commonwealth, states and territories. When announcing the achievement, former Labor primary industries minister Mr Gordon Nuttall said— DPI Forestry’s certification to the AFS will give the Queensland timber industry a vital trading edge to capture the growing market for environmentally certified products. One really has to wonder about the priorities of this Beattie Labor government when it wants to shut down an industry that has been recognised internationally for sustainable forest management. We are still yet to hear anything from the Deputy Premier or anyone else in the Beattie government to explain the apparent contradiction in their plans to shut the timber industry out of state forests in the western hardwoods area and the awarding of the AFS certification for this same land. Any government or community with any semblance of environmental responsibility would like to think timber came from an area like the western hardwoods region which is so well managed and so sustainable that it receives the certification of this internationally recognised standard. It is not timber that is coming from the clear felled areas of Indonesia or Malaysia or elsewhere which is going to have to be imported into Queensland and Australia to meet the needs of Australia, but timber from an area which is only gone into every so many years, sometimes up to 40 years. The trees in those blocks are marked by the foresters. Only particular large mature trees can be taken. That allows the adolescent trees to reach up to the light and continue the life cycle of the trees. They are not able to take the trees with the big hollow limbs that have the birds in them and so forth; there is a very careful selection program. When they go into one of these blocks, it could be only once in every 40 years, it amounts to something like two or three trees per three football fields. That is why this is so sustainable. It is one of the most environmentally sustainable, sensible, logical and practical systems in the world. At a time when all over the world people talk about the ozone layer and global warming and trying to have environmentally sustainable industries, here is something that grows and is replaced and is managed by expert professional foresters and at the same time enables the forest to grow stronger— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr HORAN: It allows the adolescent trees to grow up. It is managed by people with— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Copeland): Order! Member for Southport! Mr HORAN: I hear the member for Southport who lives on the sand beside the ocean sprouting his knowledge about trees. This system is so sustainable and so sensible it is just crazy what the government is doing. At the same time they are locking out so many people from this industry, working people with generations of knowledge. We heard today from the Deputy Premier about the buy out of some of the sawmills and the logging in the area, just simply taking it away out of those areas. Where is the timber going to come from? Are we going to import it from Malaysia, from all these places where the forests of the world are raped, from where, as we see on the TV at night, they clear fell? Why can we not have something so sensible, so environmentally sustainable that it has stood the challenge of time? What we are going to do is lock it up and we will have the biggest fires ever seen in Queensland. If members think the Ash Wednesday fires and some of those fires in Victoria were bad, wait until they see a fire through this area. When all the tracks are gone, when all the systems of management and access are gone, there will be a fire through there and millions of birds, animals and insects will be wiped out and destroyed because the system of careful environmental management, of careful professional forest management, the system of laneways and fire control and looking after those areas has gone. It is locked out; it has been shut down forever. 1282 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

I also want to talk about the impact on the cypress timber industry. This Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill and the issue of western hardwoods impacts on the cypress industry. It will cover hoop pine plantations and in some cases cypress plantations. The cypress that is harvested in Queensland is native cypress and very, very important to much of this state. The Premier’s proposed lockup of state forests in the western hardwoods region could also have a very significant impact, as I have said, on the cypress pine industry which produces timber for flooring, cladding, decking, fence material, roof trusses, wall frames and so forth. Cypress has the added advantage of being termite proof. The cypress pine industry is a major employer in several south-west Queensland towns such as Inglewood, Chinchilla and Injune. The closure of key cypress forests would have a devastating financial and social impact on local communities. I know that within the electorate of the Deputy Speaker, in the town of Millmerran, there is a large workforce employed and there are actually some 92 people employed in Toowoomba in the cypress industry. A recent independent study by KPMG found that the cypress timber industry supports more than 600 jobs and is worth $45 million a year to the state’s economy. In a recent media release Timber Queensland CEO Rod McInnes said that the socioeconomic survey of 21 timber mills showed that not only was the cypress industry supporting the state’s huge growth but also it was crucial to the survival of many rural and regional communities. Mr McInnes went on to state— If you look at a shire like Millmerran, southwest of Toowoomba, you have four mills providing work for 59 people—which is a huge part of that region’s economy. And in Toowoomba city alone, you have 92 people working in the cypress mill industry. This is an industry that is next on the state government’s hit list under the statewide forests process but, more importantly, could be affected by the western hardwoods negotiations. We saw today the issue of the Hyne sell off which was mentioned on the ABC on 28 February and up to today there had not been any formal announcement of those negotiations. Today we heard of the buy out of mills and log buying capacity throughout much of the western hardwoods area of Hyne, of the Emerald sawmill and of mills in the Monto and Mundubbera areas. Workers are going to lose their jobs and a most wonderfully maintained, environmentally sustainable resource will be locked up forever by the extremists in this government who pander to the extreme greens in the crass chase of votes in south-east Queensland to the detriment of good governance, to the detriment of looking after the workers in this state who work in the mills and on the various harvesting equipment. There are concerns in the timber industry about western hardwoods. In the 21 March edition of Western Watch the timber industry’s frustration is evident, with the representative group Timber Queensland stating— Our patience has been worn too with respect to the continued procrastination on the western hardwoods process. In this newsletter Timber Queensland also wrote about the difficulties they are encountering avoiding the conservation movement’s 2.2 million hectare wish list in the western hardwoods region. Timber Queensland states that the industry has had enough and that it will need to bring the relevant issues into the public arena in order to expose this 2.2 million hectare reservation for which no scientific case has been brought with respect to the impact of logging on conservation values. It needs to be brought to the attention of the public of Queensland as it is no more than a misappropriation of land that would make the Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe proud. These are not my words; these are the words of the stakeholder group that has been trying to negotiate with the Beattie Labor government. One would think that the Beattie government would have learnt from the experience of former Labor leader Mark Latham’s disastrous forestry policies which cost Labor seats in Tasmania because Labor had forgotten about the workers and was instead more interested in dancing to the tune of the extreme greens. In relation to cypress, it is important to give a clear picture of the industry itself and the number of employees involved in it. In Roma, there are 44 direct employees; Toowoomba city, 92; Inglewood shire, 22; Warwick shire, one; Chinchilla shire, 24; Dalby town, three; Tambo shire, 14; Bungil shire, 53; Murilla shire, nine; Warroo, nine; Millmerran, 46; Wambo, five; Murweh shire, 11; Booringa shire, 31; Bendemere shire, three; and Waggamba shire, five. That demonstrates quite clearly the spread of workers in the cypress industry alone and the concerns that they have with this whole issue of western hardwoods. Some of the native cypress forests are spread throughout that area; they are not stand- alone cypress forests in some instances. In many instances they are going to be captured by that western hardwoods area. That is a real concern to people because they need security. Cypress pine comes up like hair on a cat’s back as it is harvested and used. The stuff just comes up everywhere, given a reasonable season in that country to which it is naturally attuned. The Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill provides for the business unit that was Queensland Forestry to be split into two. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the staff will go to Forestry Plantations Queensland. It will be a corporation sole and, as such, the person in charge will be the corporation. In this case it will be the Under Treasurer, Mr Gerard Bradley, who will be the corporation sole. It is similar to the corporation sole for the Australian agricultural colleges where the director-general of the Department of Employment and Training is the corporation sole. It will have, as I said, an advisory board, but it will only be an advisory board; it will not have any teeth or any management positions. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1283

At the same time, the balance of the staff of DPI Forestry will go to DNRMW, where they will be responsible for the logging that still occurs on the native forests. Logging on native forests will be looked after by those employees in DNRMW who previously worked for the department of forestry. They will also look after the quarrying and other products that come from those areas. Forestry Plantations Queensland will be looking after the actual plantations across the state such as plantations of hoop pine, exotic pines and the hardwood plantations that are developing in south-east Queensland as a result of the regional forest agreement. I have had the opportunity to look at a number of those plantations. I understand that the area that was intended to go under the trees has been achieved. I have to congratulate those people in DPI Forestry and others who have worked very carefully with landholders to establish these plantations for their professionalism. As a result, an industry has developed whereby a number of farmers who had the plantations have moved into contracting and so forth. In some areas there has been some very good growth as a result of the management of these species, particularly Gympie messmate and spotted gum. The thinning process and management of them has brought about some good growth. Now, with the locking up of the western hardwoods area, lands have to be acquired to provide for plantations of more hardwood species that will no longer be available from that wonderful resource of the western hardwoods. Some of this acquisition has already commenced. A number of negotiations are underway around the Pittsworth and Felton area of the Darling Downs. One of the issues in endeavouring to replace western hardwoods is that the further they are from the coast the longer it takes to grow a tree because the seasons and the rainfall are more variable. In the time for the actual close-down of the western hardwoods, it is highly unlikely that there will be enough hardwood available through these systems of plantations. No doubt that is why the Deputy Premier came in today and announced the complete buyout and shutdown of a number of mills— because that simply reduces the demand of mills which are buying the hardwood to process it. As she said this morning, the reduction will be something in the order of 25 per cent. However, there is still a need for the wood because those mills were selling that wood. As I said, we will end up importing from those parts of the world that clear-fell. It is a tragedy to see such a sustainable industry being unnecessarily closed down. That will be the structure. There are reasons for it being a corporation sole rather than a government owned corporation. Firstly, they wanted to keep the staff out of a government owned corporation because the government owned corporation would have employed staff under its particular arrangements. Under this arrangement, the staff will be part of a separate office of Forestry Plantations Queensland so that they remain covered by the industrial system under which they now work. I understand that that is the desire of the staff. We do not have any particular issue with that whatsoever. Secondly, if it was a government owned corporation there would be problems with native title. Being a corporation sole will resolve particular problems in relation to property rights, access to the plantations that will be under its control and native title issues. One of the important aspects of the property rights contained within this particular bill relates to security of supply. ‘Profit a prendre’ basically means ‘a right to take’, and that right to take is in this legislation. So people going into the business of growing these plantations—either private operators or this corporation—are able to take that wood in the future and have some real security in relation to that particular resource. It is a dramatic change. One of the reasons given for making it a corporation sole is to enable Forest Plantations Queensland to compete with private enterprise. The bill talks about unshackling them from the bureaucratic limitations they may have been subjected to. Of course, they will be tied to the Public Service industrial system. We certainly hope that they will not lose some of their talented staff who might be enticed by private foresters who have a more flexible system that pays bonuses or provides more flexible hours or something that is more attractive to people. That is the reason for the change to a corporation sole. The basic task of this organisation will be the plantations only. Those plantations, as I said, will cover softwood, hardwood and any other resources that might be on those plantations. It does seem strange that at the end of a bill that is all about trees issues are raised to do with superannuation and parliamentarians’ salaries. Some might say, ‘You can’t see the wood for the trees.’ This amendment relates to members of parliament who came to this place after the 2004 election. They come under a different superannuation scheme from those who were elected before 2004. As a result they do suffer some disadvantage. This bill gives them the similar rights to other public servants of being able to salary sacrifice. Under the superannuation scheme that relates to members elected prior to 2004, members of parliament are not able to salary sacrifice. However, those members elected subsequent to that—those elected at the three by-elections as well as future members elected in the next election—will be able to salary sacrifice in a similar way to other public servants, up to 100 per cent. The other issue that is clarified in this part of the legislation, which I think has always been understood, is that members of parliament cannot receive more than one salary in addition to their base salary. For example, if a backbencher is a member of two committees they cannot get two additional 1284 Ministerial Statement 20 Apr 2006 salaries. As I understand it, it does not apply to allowances. They are seen in a different light. It only relates to a second salary. It would apply to the likes of whips, the opposition leader and ministers. This is a very different part of the bill. We have seen about six different government departments involved in forestry policy in recent times. It makes it so difficult for the forestry industry to operate. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, the Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation, Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water and even some people in the Premier’s department all have some input or involvement in forestry policy. It makes the timber industry feel like it is a political football. It is being kicked around by the various players. It is not being treated as a very important industry. It should come under the principles and protections provided by the EPA but work in its own professional way. This industry needs to run without too many cooks trying to mix up the broth. We have seen as a result partial and full policy paralysis. One of the things that we would do in government is ensure a single forestry policy unit so that everyone knows exactly where they are going. I want to wind up my contribution to this debate by thanking the staff of both Treasury and DPI Forestry for the briefings that they have provided us. I once again state my admiration for the work that is being done by many of the field staff of forestry in developing plantations and developing new species and new systems for growing plantations and for the consulting work that they are doing with private landholders, particularly throughout the South Burnett area. We certainly face a challenge in the future to have enough timber, and suitable timber, to be able to be self-sufficient. I do not think anyone in Queensland would want us to import timber from those parts of the world where the forests are being ripped apart and razed to the ground. We would far prefer to see timber sustainably and environmentally produced by the professional foresters in the public and private forestry sectors of Queensland who are so good at their jobs and who are world leaders. We can see this from the accreditation and certification that they have received. In general, we are going to support this commercial reform of the government’s forestry function. It has been operating as a commercial business unit for some time and providing a return to DPI. We remain extremely concerned about how recreational users will be treated by the plantation manager and Forestry Plantations Queensland. We do not want to continue to see the forest industry of Queensland treated like a political football by the Beattie Labor government. We in the coalition want to see a vibrant, robust and self-sufficient forest industry in Queensland that works under the very best of environmental guidelines, that does good for our environment, that does good for our workers, that does good for our small businesses, and that provides a wonderful product for the construction industry in this state. Debate, on motion of Mr Schwarten, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry, Operation Recovery Task Force Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (3.34 pm), by leave: The Operation Recovery Task Force met at Parliament House today. I joined them for part of their meeting. I want to report to the House on the outcome of the work of the Operation Recovery Task Force for Cyclone Larry. At the meeting the task force turned its attention to the farm sector and how to accelerate the huge clean-up job. The key is rehabilitation of properties so that farming families can look at getting their land back into production where possible. That is what the task force identified. This will of course involve the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries as well as the Department of Employment and Training. These departments will be working closely with the task force to fast-track the on-farm assistance and rehabilitation phase. Significantly, it will enable farmers to obtain access to workers and give renewed impetus to the recovery of the rural economies in these areas. Another major priority for the task force today was the next critical issue in the recovery—that is, both public and private housing to those who have lost their homes. The insurance industry and the Department of Public Works and the Department of Housing will be working together to look at ways to provide accommodation to workers as well as those families who have been separated as a result of their losses. I thank the Leader of the House as the minister responsible for his support. This will be coordinated across government agencies and industry. The task force today also welcomed John Mulcahy, the managing director and chief executive of Suncorp-Metway, who joins the team as an industry representative as insurance is a key issue in this reconstruction phase. Importantly, the work of the task force is progressing. While there is much still to be done, it is pleasing to learn that people and communities are rebuilding. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1285

There was a report on the number of houses that were damaged as well as those that were affected by insurance. There was also a report on the areas where the funds collected from the community, business, unions and others will be donated. All I can say to the House is that things are progressing well. I want to thank General Cosgrove and his task force for the work that is being done. I do not think anyone could have worked any harder than they have. They continue to warn that it is still a long road. A lot of work and rebuilding needs to be done, but they are tackling it head-on.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (3.37 pm): I move— That government business order of the day No. 1 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

FORESTRY PLANTATIONS QUEENSLAND BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 1284. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.37 pm): I rise speak in the debate on the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. This ostensibly relates to plantations but there are other components woven into it. I refer to the minister’s second reading speech, which states that the bill includes proposed amendments to the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 which give effect to changes to salary sacrifice amendments for members of parliamentary elected after December 2004. I think this is probably a little out of kilter. I expect that the government is wanting to introduce this provision so it has put it into this bill. This bill proposes major changes as far as Queensland forests are concerned. From what I can understand, the bill creates a corporation sole to be known as Forestry Plantations Queensland. The bill will provide Forestry Plantations Queensland with the property rights and powers needed to undertake the commercial management of plantations, including plantations on state forests, the right to deal with natural resources and products and the assets and liabilities relevant to the DPI plantation businesses. It will in essence provide an accountability framework requiring FPQ to develop and agree on an annual operational plan with responsible ministers—the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries—and to comply with both the operational plan and ministerial direction. The bill prescribes a commercial mandate for FPQ. It enables the Queensland government to appoint a commercial advisory body to which the responsibility for strategic planning, the development of an operational plan and performance reporting and review can be delegated. The bill also requires FPQ to comply with the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. That is the basis of this legislation. I would like to move on to outline the practical workings of a plantation forest. A major plantation forest is located in the Cardwell area. It covers 11,000 hectares. Unfortunately, at this point that plantation is not quite large enough to support a commercially viable mill. The plantation contains Caribbean pine which, when it is milled, has to be dried, which entails a major cost. If the wood is not dried it tends to twist. In a wet tropical climate, the process of drying this timber is quite costly. Also, over a period in this region a limited amount of hardwood trials have been carried out. To this point the trials have been reasonably successful, but the limited area available in which to carry out these trials has created problems. The first plantings of the Caribbean pine were undertaken in 1967 in the Kennedy area. Unfortunately, because of the lack of knowledge at the time the plantings were placed too close to each other. Inevitably, the trees grew up and became very spindly. Therefore, they did not have the resilience and the strength of subsequent plantings that were placed further apart and produced very good timber. These plantings were located in the very favourable rainfall areas of Cardwell, Broadwater and Clemant Forest and in odd patches along the highway heading towards Cardwell itself. Originally in the Clemant Forest area, because the soil was fairly impoverished, growers undertook some micro element trials to see if that area could be utilised for forestry. My observations of those trials were that they were not particularly good. Some trees grew to a reasonable height but they were not of a type that would be suitable for a commercial operation. Over a period, better clones of the Caribbean pine were developed. Those clones were planted and those plantation forests are now aged between 16 and 20 years. Those clones of Caribbean pine have been planted in a number of other areas throughout the state. Also, I know some nurseries in Queensland have taken these clones. One of the big issues with forestry plantations in the Herbert River and up towards Tully is its competition with areas used for cane growing. But the Vegetation Management Act has posed real problems in terms of further expansions of plantation forests to create a sustainable industry. Quite a 1286 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 number of areas could have been cleared for these plantations as well as for sugarcane growing, which would have been very beneficial. Unfortunately, access to those areas has been denied because of the ramifications of the Vegetation Management Act. Sales have commenced of those earlier plantings in the Kennedy Valley and to some extent the Broadwater area. There was some delay in getting suitable people to handle the sales. Eventually, a Victorian group called Pentarch Forest Products Pty Ltd, which from my observation is a very professional operation, was the successful tenderer for the handling of those sales. As a result, some of the earlier plantings of that Caribbean pine have been harvested. A range of contractors have been employed. Those contractors have some very specific harvesting equipment, which has been brought up from Victoria. It is a smallish sort of an excavator that has a chainsaw on the boom. That machinery has the ability to cut off the tree and control it. As the machine cuts off the tree and controls it, it also has the ability to run the tree laterally through the machine, stripping the branches and also docking the logs at suitable lengths. That length has been predetermined by the type of log that is being processed at the time of harvesting. Those logs are then run through the harvesting mechanism and, inevitably, certain sizes, lengths and varieties of trees are placed into bundles and then stored ready for transport down to Townsville. The transportation of these logs is carried out by a local contractor, which takes them 150 to 180 kilometres down to the port in Townsville, where the logs are stored awaiting shipment. At this point there is no sawmilling operation except for pallet timber, which sells to operations in Townsville. I was a little amused by the fact that at one stage this operation was curtailed because there was some prospect of a tsunami coming through. A wire fence had to be constructed around the area to ensure that if the sea levels rose the logs that were stored at the Townsville port would not get washed away. We should be very careful about what we are doing. I suppose that was the intent in terms of the prospect of a tsunami coming. It is interesting to note that as harvesting is progressing replanting is taking place. Basically, the plantings will be undertaken on a 25-year cycle, which is the time in which it is expected that the trees will grow from plantings to maturity. In this area in question, owing to its good rainfall and warm climate growth it is highly likely that the 25-year cycle will be achieved. Throughout the north growers have tried growing other types of plantation forests—some of them very valuable softwoods and some of them hardwoods. Unfortunately, those growers, particularly towards the Babinda area, saw the whole of their plantations absolutely flattened by Cyclone Larry. Fortunately for the forests in the Hinchinbrook and in the Cardwell shire, no massive damage occurred. Pine forests are very vulnerable in their early stages. The timber can bend. When that happens, compression rings occur, which makes the timber unsuitable for logging. Very often a salvage operation has to take place. The timber has to be cut and taken away to recoup some of its value. As I said, the harvesting of these plantations has been underway for a couple of years. There have been further sales to Pentarch. That company seems to be operating quite well and doing the right thing. But that company can only take a log to a certain size. Once a log is less in size, it is no longer suitable for milling. Then that log is just left on the ground. I think that creates some excellent prospects for a woodchipping operation. I have taken people from Pentarch up to the Mourilyan Harbour area, which has an excellent port. There are some good prospects of using the sugar conveyor at that port to load bulk-carrying ships with woodchips. Should this occur—and I know the Ports Corporation is looking at this very closely—we may have a dual purpose and some additional income can be achieved in relation to using the sugar conveyor. One of the major problems we face is that woodchips are very voluminous and it is a very hard to accumulate weight. So you have to have a silo ship to get enough weight into the ship. Certainly Mourilyan Harbour can cope with the requirements of these ships. The turning area is big enough—the draft of the harbour is about 10 metres at present. The Ports Corporation and the Mourilyan Harbour area and Pentarch will inevitably have something that is quite valuable. This is all from a state forest. This forest is too small to have a sawmilling operation. Had we been able to acquire more land we could have had a sawmilling operation, with its driers and all that sort of thing, building timber frames and so on for the north Queensland trade. I would like to raise a very significant issue in relation to the forestry plantations as far as the councils are concerned. The necessity to harvest year round requires semitrailers that are loaded with logs to go along council roads. I would expect that if we are going to set up a plantation corporation that corporation should responsibly pay some rates to the councils. I think it is totally unfair and unreasonable that the ratepayers of a shire such as Cardwell—which has something like 65 per cent to 70 per cent of its area covered by World Heritage, national parks—have to provide roads for forest products to be transported out to a mill within the region—which I hope inevitably will happen within this region—or to be transported as export trade. The minister and the people who are involved in this corporatisation process should be very mindful of their responsibilities to pay rates to facilitate the trucking out of the logs. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1287

As I said, it does happen regardless of the weather patterns throughout the year. You do not just stop because it is raining. The nature of the Cardwell and Tully regions is that it does rain quite substantially. In fact, Tully would have a rainfall of something like four metres a year. It is interesting to note that in April Innisfail has had about 1.35 metres to date. That gives members some idea of the dimension of the structures that are needed to move this timber under fairly wet conditions, irrespective of whether it is wet season. Unfortunately, the minister responsible is not here at present. But I am sure the Minister for Energy, who is here, will take on board that we also need a contribution from the government as far as the roads are concerned. This is absolutely critical. I think it is beyond the expectation of shires such as Hinchinbrook and Cardwell to maintain roads and build them in some cases to cope with forestry requirements. The shadow minister raised the issue of horse riders. I would like to talk about the Dual Sports Motorcycle Riders Association, which involves people who ride motorbikes from Townsville, Ingham and right around north Queensland. Over a period of time they have been very responsible in acquiring QPWS group permits to go for rides. The Cardwell school had a fundraiser and that association made a financial contribution to the school. The P&C at the school provided sandwiches and that sort of thing and the school received additional funds. Organisations and schools could be the beneficiaries of having recreation rides in a forestry area. It could certainly assist the local community. I can only say from my experience that this group has been very responsible. I know in the past QPWS had some issues about motorbike riding in certain areas where it would cause erosion. We dealt with that over a period of time. Agreement has been reached on what needs to be done to ensure that erosion problems do not occur along the tracks. There is also the prospect of a motorcycle search and rescue group being formed. That has been talked about in New South Wales. This particular group could be very beneficial if a rescue situation arises. The group consists of very resilient young people for the most part, although some are elderly. But they have the capacity to undertake a rescue or retrieve a person from a tenuous situation. I think their ability to perform these rescue tasks could be of great benefit to all of us. I have been to the Tuan operation of Hyne and Sons near Gympie. To see how that sawmilling operation has developed over a period of time is something to behold. They size the logs. They bring them in and debark them and they then put them into groups. They bring them through in stages in the mill. They saw them at very rapid speeds. They go through a stress test. What they end up with is a very sound product. This is one of the costly aspects of milling this type of timber. It certainly costs a lot of money to set something up similar to what Hyne has produced at Tuan. The operation is of a nature where not a lot of hands touch the timber. The timber is stacked in piles that are suited to studs or frames or whatever. I think it is of great benefit. This is all because of a plantation forest that has been developed over the last 30 to 40 years at the southern end of the state. It is of great benefit to Queensland that we have them. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (3.57 pm): I rise to speak to the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. There is no doubt that this corporatisation is a change in direction for the forestry industry in Queensland. We will now have two ministers responsible for forestry, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I was alarmed to hear the minister’s comments this morning about the government buying back some of the hardwood industries throughout Queensland. In answer to a question, the minister mentioned 30 per cent. We have seen what has happened to the sawmilling industry on the north coast of Queensland generally. A few years ago the harvesting of timbers was closed down indefinitely in that area because of World Heritage listing. Jobs were thrown into chaos. People lost jobs and a lot of assets because of that World Heritage listing. But that area of Queensland had been harvested three or four times. It kept growing back because the resource was managed properly. That is no different from what is happening with the hardwood and cypress industries in Queensland. One of my constituents, Adam Gleeson, worked at the local sawmill in Emerald which is now no longer there—it was bought back by the government. Adam has moved into value adding. He saw productivity increase probably tenfold as a result of value adding. Short cuts were utilised by manufacturing them into beautiful hardwood furniture for export. That particular industry, as I saw it, was certainly one that enhanced the productivity of the industry in question. Also, it showed the resourcefulness of the people within the industry. It showed that they were fair-minded and open- minded about getting productivity to work profitably and about making certain that the resource was not wasted. As a result, we had a genuine outcome. I ask the minister today: where will Queensland’s building industry draw its timber from? Will we source it from Indonesia? Will we source it from Malaya? Where will it come from? I know that some of the mills on the coast that have been closed down are considering alternatives, and some of their timber will probably come from as far away as Tasmania. We are having a population explosion here. At the same time, we must have proper management strategies for managing this resource. This legislation that the minister has brought before the House, as she has said, will equip Forestry Plantations Queensland with property rights, assets, an appropriate 1288 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 accountability framework and clearly defined objectives that are required to operate in a commercial manner. Within that framework or the objectives in question, there are requirements for it to adhere to an annual operational plan, to outline key strategies, activities and targets, to meet performance criteria and to meet operational policy guidelines. For God’s sake, I believe that the industry already does that in its planning. There are a lot of question marks over this industry in Queensland—not only the hardwood industry but also the cypress industry. My electorate has two cypress mills, one at Augathella and one at Tambo operated by MK Collins. They have been big operators and big suppliers of cypress timber in Queensland for many, many years. I hate to think how those people must feel at this very moment, wondering what the government’s determination will be on the cypress industry. The minister for natural resources, who was once the minister for primary industries and forests, made the comment a few years ago that there would be no interference with the cypress industry. However, if one reads today’s Queensland Country Life, one finds that there are certainly concerned growers out there. They fear that the state government plans to bow to pressure from green groups and cut the cypress allocations after the next state election, if the Labor government is successful. Again, this seems to be a game of wedge politics with the conservative forces in the government. I must say that I do not believe that any member of this parliament is vehemently out to destroy forests for maximum gain through poor management practices. The people in the cypress industry have been cutting cypress for generations, as have those cutting hardwood and those in far-north Queensland who have been cutting heavy timber for three and four generations. However, it has grown back and it will continue to grow back if it is properly managed. The thinning process, the management strategies and the replanting are a part of its management for the future. It is about new stock, old stock and the stock that is currently at hand. I hope that this new structure will not be another monster of government looking over the shoulder of industry and telling them how to do it. This provision refers to certain assets presently controlled by DPI Forestry, access to state plantation forests and the rights to deal with natural resource products, compliance with financial administration principles, the quarterly reporting of responsible ministers on the targets and performance criteria and the publication of an annual report. The busiest business in town will probably be the government printing office. It can print more reports and produce more glossy brochures about what is happening and how it is happening, along with the Premier’s photo or some other minister’s photo. However, how much consultation has occurred with industry? The real people, the people who count, I do not think have even been consulted. One of those people is quoted in today’s Queensland Country Life stating that if a process is to be put in place, then do so. The uncertainty that now surrounds the western hardwood process and the effects on the cypress allocations mean that many Queensland cypress mill owners cannot plan for the future. The essence of this argument is that these people cannot plan. They cannot plan. If they are elderly operators and want to sell, the business is not marketable with such a question mark hanging over it. The minister and this government must come clean about their policy direction. Will it be a ‘green’ policy? Will there be a total shutdown mentality? Will it be a policy of production, growth and prosperity for an industry that has certainly been very valuable to Queensland over a period of 150 years? We are having a population explosion in Queensland. The minister spoke in the House this morning about all the new technology that is available for building, such as prestressed materials for bridges and trailers et cetera. That is all very good, but timber is a very important part of the building industry in this state. Queensland’s usage of timber far outweighs its production. We must now find ways and means of supplying the shortfall in question. The only thing I can see is that this government has a policy on shutdown of the industry. These mills—regardless of whether they are softwood, woodchip, hardwood or cypress mills— must have a log allocation. A timber mill cannot operate without a log allocation. That is the real issue that we are arguing about today. What is the future? We can set up all the structures in the world—we can corporatise, we can make a government owned corporation, we can do whatever we like—but, at the end of the day, more bureaucrats will manage the process and they will say which way to do things. We have seen what happens to natural resources and the environment in relation to clearing of land and such things. Time and time again, my side of politics has been branded an environmental vandal. The environmental vandals are probably the ones who have not even been brought to justice or brought before the courts. The cowboy element, which probably represents less than half a per cent of the industry, are totally disregarded. The good, honest people in the industry are hurt because of those people. Really, the government is going about this in the wrong way. I have reservations about this legislation. Some 6,000 jobs depend on this industry. I am concerned about the future of this industry. Day in and day out we read about this in the papers and hear it through the media. We are leading up to an election. What will be the government’s stand in relation to the Greens and environmentalists at the next election? I can see what will happen. This government will 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1289 bow to pressure from green groups and shut down this industry in Queensland. Where will the timber for buildings in this state come from then? Consider the productivity that comes out of the industry and the towns that depend on that industry. One has only to drive up through the top of the Nanango electorate, back into Callide and back out to Warrego and back up into the inner north coast in Madam Deputy Speaker’s own electorate and further along the north coast to realise that there are many mills along there. The one at Proserpine comes to mind straightaway. Members should consider the importance of those mills and that product to the region and to the gross state product and, for that matter, the country, and the way that timber has been produced there over a period of time. I am gravely concerned about the future of this industry and the cypress industry. I would like the government—whether it is from the minister for primary industries or the Deputy Premier—to comment on the future of the cypress industry in Queensland. These people have to plan. They have to know. They have a right to know about what the future of their industry is. Instead we have this uncertainty. We read in the paper today about how much homework has been done by the government and by environmental groups and it is said that the government has an agenda behind the scene. If it has an agenda on the cypress industry or any other part of the industry, it should bring it out into the open. Do not be gutless about it. Tell the people of Queensland what the intention of the government is. That is what it is all about. The Premier has proselytised in this place time and time again about honest, open and transparent government. It is not honest, open and transparent government if it will not tell the people in certain industries exactly and precisely what the future is for their industry—if they have a future, if their asset will be worth anything, if it is worth them borrowing another half a million dollars or a million dollars to upgrade their equipment with modern technology so that they can generate productivity and carry on the business they have done for generations. Are they going to find out at the eleventh hour that they do not have a resource to mill in their mills because it has been shut down by a government that did not come clean? This is what it is all about. It is all very well to introduce this legislation to corporatise the industry, but it is very important that the people in the industry are told the cold, hard facts in relation to the future of the industry, regardless of whether it is the hardwood industry or whether it is the cypress industry in this state. I do not want to see what happened to the Wet Tropics timber industry—which was shut down—happen to the rest of the timber industry in this state. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.10 pm): I rise to contribute to the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. Forestry has long been an issue close to my heart and the heart of the people of the Tablelands electorate. We well remember the external powers used by Bob Hawke to declare World Heritage to override the Tasmanian government over the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam issue in the early eighties. Then he declared World Heritage over large sections of native forest in my Tablelands electorate and other parts of far-north Queensland in 1987. This caused a huge amount of anger which persists today and which has resulted in the closure of most sawmills in the north and the loss of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. There is now only one major mill north of Mackay. To make themselves look better at the time the government created temporary, dead-end schemes such as the CRAP scheme to blur the unemployment figures, but the public saw this for what it was: a wicked waste of taxpayers’ money. This bill comes about after the recent split of the native forest section of Forestry from the plantation section which became effective from 1 April 2006. The native forest section is no longer part of Forestry and is now owned and controlled by DNRMW. This action reduces the original mighty forestry department to just plantations. Of course, we see the continued whittling away of the importance of the primary industries portfolio. Atherton was once the proud centre for a large and efficient forestry department which employed hundreds of workers. Over a period of nearly 20 years it has been continually hacked back until today there are only about nine people presently employed there—enough, as they say, to make an old man cry. The plantations are a state owned asset presently managed by DPI Forestry under a commercialised business unit. This bill is all about corporatising the commercial utilisation of these state plantations by establishing the position of chief plantation forestry officer and creating a corporation sole with supporting amendments to allow this new structure to come into effect. We already have many corporatised structures in place for the operation of many of the state’s assets, from energy and water supply to the operation of rail services and the management of ports. These are controlled under Corporations Law. But this will not be the case with this new structure of Forestry Plantations Queensland, which will be a corporation sole and will have the corporation vested in a single person, being the chief plantation officer—a very powerful position one would have to say. Being a corporation sole will exempt it not only from Corporations Law but also from the Ombudsman’s Act 2001 which will mean that not even the Ombudsman can look into its commercial operations. Transparency will be a thing of the past. 1290 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Corporatisation of government departments is becoming very commonplace these days, with governments putting themselves at arm’s length from departments that they were traditionally responsible for. We are well on the way to being looked after from the cradle to the grave by corporations, and if we follow the federal government’s example it will not be long before they are all sold off to the highest bidder, most probably foreigners. The claim that the current forestry commercialised business unit is too restrictive to compete in the current marketplace has opened the way to create the corporation sole to be known as Forestry Plantations Queensland. It will be headed by a single person in the position of chief plantation forestry officer who will be appointed by the Governor in Council and will be answerable to the two shareholding ministers, the Treasurer and the minister for DPIF. The new board comprising five members will be appointed by the minister and the members will serve three-year terms. With the splitting of the two identities, that is native forests and plantations, so also have the assets and liabilities been split and divided up. It is interesting to note that 50 per cent of any profits that Forestry Plantations Queensland makes will have to be paid to Queensland Treasury each year as is the current practice. The argument for all of this is to make the operation commercially more competitive, but it comes with a built-in money grab by Treasury. However, one of the positives to come out of all of this is that Forestry Plantations Queensland will continue to provide access to other users of state plantation forests, including horse riders. Forestry has been on the receiving end of too much uncertainty for too long. It has been run down to a disgraceful degree because of a lack of direction and leadership. It is now staring down the barrel of corporatisation without even the protection of Corporations Law or any public transparency. As I said earlier, in my region we had nearly a century of extremely successful forestry, mostly under the very skilled direction of government public servants in the forestry department. The management methods used were very sophisticated and enormously efficient. Under the old methods timber mills and their support industries such as loggers, transport operators and so on were a mainstay of many centres such as Mareeba, Millaa Millaa, Herberton, Kairi, Ravenshoe and so on. At the same time, the forests being logged were so carefully looked after by the department that come the introduction of World Heritage listing in 1987 large areas of timber that had been harvested for more than 100 years were considered to be in pristine condition. I spoke about this in my maiden speech in 2001, just a year after we celebrated the Century of Forestry in Queensland. For most of that first 100 years forestry made significant contributions to the economy and development of Queensland and was a major source of employment in regional areas. A practical management system for state forests recognised the diversity of public demand and provided a balance of environmental conservation, production and public recreation. Queensland built up a core of highly skilled forest managers and developed sustainable native forests and harvesting practices that were internationally recognised as world’s best practice. But all that counted for nought in 1987 when they were determined to close it down and we can see that will happen in the southern part of this state and has already begun. In a way, the old forestry hands did too good a job of looking after the resource because it is now locked up and locked away in northern Queensland. As I said, it will not be long before the same thing will be happening in the southern part of this state. This locking up has led to the almost total destruction of one of the north’s most important traditional industries and many of the pristine native forests are now havens for vermin and considered to be among the worst of neighbours. We will be seeing more and more of the same happening in southern Queensland, as I said, in particular in the south-western regions. As we heard this morning, it is planned to close about 25 per cent of existing timber mills in the near future. Recently Cyclone Larry tore down a massive number of trees in our native forests which brings a very strong argument to reintroduce sustainable selective logging to these areas once again, especially with new methods including helicopter transport which is already used in countries such as Canada. Methods like this would make no impact on the forest while returning an important industry to Queensland and eliminating the need to import timber from other countries which brings with it new pests and diseases. Borers are now found in a lot of imported furniture. Such purchases from Brisbane stores have been reported to DPIF yet nothing has been done about it. I have been told personally about furniture bought in Brisbane stores that has been returned to the place of purchase where they were told the item would simply be sprayed with a pressure pack and put back on the floor for sale. A number of items, I have been told, have been returned to the stores by this particular person. This bill is all about corporatising yet another public utility. This government wants us to believe that it is to make our plantation operations more commercially efficient, but the requirement for half of all the profits to go straight to Treasury tells us where the real interest lies. While we all know that money does not grow on trees, it seems that this government believes it only grows on plantation trees. Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (4.19 pm): Madam Deputy Speaker— Ms Bligh: A voice of sense and reason. Mr WALLACE: I say to the Deputy Premier that I hope I do bring some sense and reason to the debate. First of all, I indicate my support for the bill and thank the Deputy Premier for arranging a full and 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1291 thorough briefing at her caucus committee. I appreciate that. I am speaking a bit out of my field of expertise because I was born and grew up in the lower Burdekin. The only plantations we saw down there were sugarcane on the flat lands. There were very few trees. So members will have to excuse me if I do make a few technical errors. The market value of state owed plantations is some $650 million, and about 6,000 Queenslanders and their families find their jobs through this wonderful industry. That is why it is very important that we as a government do everything in our power to make sure that these plantations are able to operate in a commercial and viable manner. That is what this bill seeks to do. Plantations are a key industry in Queensland, with sales of about $3 billion. Clearly, this is a major industry to Queensland. That is why the Beattie government, through these particular bills, is ensuring that our plantations are protected and that they do have that strong commercial focus. I note that there is very strong competition in the plantation sector, with the state forests having to compete with commercial operations and, dare I say, imported timber. A number of honourable members have alluded to this in their speeches this afternoon. Madam Deputy Speaker Barry, I welcome you to the chair. I wish you all the best of health and good luck in the chair this afternoon. My apologies for digressing from the bill. We as a government need to equip our plantations with the means of focusing commercially on future growth. Currently, demand is outstripping supply. That is why we need to make sure that our focus is competitive and that our plantations are able to grow. My wife and I are building a new house at the moment. There is some wood involved in that particular construction. Unfortunately, my wife wants a bit more wood, which is costing me and the bank balance an arm and a leg. Being the considerate husband that I am, I have given in to my wife’s every whim and we are going for that extra wood. Over the past six months that we have been building the house I have seen the price of wood rise. I can see that demand is outstripping supply— Mr Messenger: Wood is the best building material. Mr WALLACE: Wood is the best building material. Having grown up in a cyclone area, I know that wood is probably the best material to withstand a cyclone because it has some give and take when the big winds come through. I certainly concur with that interjection; wood is a wonderful building material. It really is testament to our forebears that these wonderful state plantations were planted years ago in Queensland. We are now reaping the rewards. This bill makes sure that we get our just reward for the hard work that was undertaken by our predecessors. It makes sure that we as a state protect those wonderful resources that our forebears put in place and that Queenslanders are able to enjoy these days. This bill separates the native forest business from the plantation business so that a plantation manager can be appointed who can develop the required commercial structures that that plantation requires. It corrects custodial anomalies which currently give responsibility for plantation forests to the EPA. That is important because it frees up the decision-making process. The bill creates Forestry Plantations Queensland, or FPQ, as a corporation sole responsible for the commercial management of state owned plantations. The bill also identifies parts of state forests that are to be used for plantation production. These reforms will give FPQ a clear commercial mandate and the authority to focus resources on meeting the challenges faced by the plantation sector. It will enhance the financial performance of the state’s plantation assets, leading to a greater return for the state of Queensland. It is important that we as a state maximise our investment in these forests, because the state has nurtured and funded the growth of those forests. Now it is time to take our share of that particular growth that our forebears provided for. This bill ensures we can maximise that return to Queensland taxpayers. The bill will also enhance the financial performance of the state’s plantation assets, leading to a greater return for the state. Importantly, the bill will protect the jobs of workers in state owned plantations. I note that, apart from the many groups that were consulted on this legislation, the Australian Workers Union was consulted and has given its support to this particular piece of legislation. I know that the Australian Workers Union would be greatly concerned about the future of its workers and can see that this bill certainly makes sense. It has given me some comfort in knowing that that wonderful union has given its support to this particular piece of legislation. The bill also clarifies management and policy responsibilities within our state forests and ensures that existing levels of third-party access are guaranteed. I note that a few members spoke about beekeepers, horse riders et cetera. There is certainly great demand on our native forests and plantation forests. This bill goes some way to ensuring that those existing third-party access mechanisms are guaranteed. FPQ will be responsible to two ministers—the Treasurer and the minister for primary industries. I know that our current Treasurer and current minister for primary industries are very competent ministers who will do everything in their power to see that our state forests are not only protected but also able to 1292 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 be used to their maximum capacity. All in all, I heartily concur with the clauses contained in this bill. They certainly make common sense. It is another common-sense bill brought in by this government to keep Queensland moving in the 21st century, to give our forests a competitive edge and to bring them up to date. One of the other matters mentioned in this particular bill is that of parliamentary superannuation. I think I am the last member on the roll who will receive the old superannuation entitlements. I certainly concur that we should be looking after the newer members who are elected to ensure they have some rights to salary sacrifice. I know that there are many talented members in this place, not only on my side but also on the opposition side, who would be making a damn sight more money if they were not in this place. However, they have given up their time—and we do spend a lot of time on our parliamentary duties—to serve the people of Queensland. I support those clauses contained in this bill. I congratulate the Treasurer on bringing this piece of legislation to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.26 pm): Madam Deputy Speaker Barry, it is great to see you in the chair. You have our best wishes for a speedy recovery. The shadow minister, the member for Toowoomba South, has covered in detail the opposition’s response to the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. He covered a whole range of areas and I do not want to go through all those again. However, I will refer to some specific areas. There has been a lot of uncertainty in the forestry industry in Queensland—there is no doubt about that—particularly over the time of this Beattie Labor government. There have been significant changes. I have to say that not all of those changes have been for the good—certainly not for the economic good—of the industry. It is an industry that has been filled with uncertainty. It has been very difficult for organisations and companies to survive. More importantly, it has been very difficult for them to plan for the future because they simply have not known what is going to happen in the future, what investment they could reliably put in and what stock or product is available to them. The western hardwoods decision has been surrounded by controversy, particularly because of the very long lead time that is required to establish hardwood plantations. As the shadow minister said, if the product was there it would be being used now. However, there is a very long lead time before those plantations become economically viable, to sustain an economically viable milling industry. The announcement this morning by the Deputy Premier regarding the buyout and the closure of timber mills in places like Monto is absolutely appalling. It is an absolute indictment on this government. It will be devastating for a town like Monto to lose that number of jobs—and I know Monto well. The western hardwoods decision has also created a whole lot of uncertainty for the cypress pine industry. That is probably my particular area of interest because there is a significant cypress pine industry in my electorate. I know firsthand how successful that industry has been, how successful it can be and what a contribution it makes not only to our local economy but also to the state and even the Australian economies. Timber Queensland Ltd commissioned a cypress industry preliminary socioeconomic survey which was compiled by KPMG in March 2006. It gives us some very useful information on just how important that industry is to Queensland and how important it is that that industry has access to logs in state owned forests. For example, one of the figures quoted is that in 2004-05, 84 per cent of log inputs for respondents—and that is respondents to the survey included in this document—came from state owned forests with the remaining 15 per cent coming from private forests. A huge proportion is coming from state owned forests. In comparison, the five-year average log input from state forests was 88 per cent versus 12 per cent from private forests. In my electorate the Millmerran shire and the township of Cecil Plains have four mills that were covered by this report. The western part of my electorate, the Millmerran shire, has significant areas of state forest and significant reserves of cypress pine. I have spoken extensively and on numerous occasions in the parliament about how important the cypress pine industry is, how sustainable it is and how we need to have an announcement from the government to ensure certainty of access to that product for millers in those communities. It would be absolutely crazy to cut down access for the cypress pine industry. It is one of the most sustainable timbers that we will ever see. I know that the minister for the environment, when speaking on an environment bill, said that she had visited Injune. Similar circumstances as those in Cecil Plains surround the township of Injune and the cypress industry around Injune. It is a timber that grows very quickly and very densely. It is a timber that can be easily milled. It has unique properties. I think it is a very attractive timber for flooring. That certainly has been the experience of the millers in my electorate. They have really diversified and value added. They are exporting significant quantities of timber for flooring to Japan, Asia, North America and South America. They are exporting it in pallet loads so that it can go up in the lifts in the high-rises in New York. It is a very attractive timber. As the shadow minister said, it is termite resistant. Given the reduction in the sorts of treatments available for termites in the building process, it is even more important that the cypress industry is allowed to develop what is a very strong market. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1293

The report compiled by KPMG details the numbers of people employed in the industry in a whole range of areas. I will mention only two areas in my electorate that are directly affected. One is Toowoomba city, where there are 92 direct employees in the cypress industry. They work in one mill. More significantly is that in the Millmerran shire, in the towns of Millmerran and Cecil Plains, there are 46 direct employees, 13 contractors and four mills. That is a very significant economic driver of those communities, particularly in Cecil Plains. We need to make sure that the people who are running those mills have certainty for their industry and can continue to invest, continue to expand the sorts of products that they are able to mill and continue to be able to earn export income for Australia. If so, they will be able to continue to employ people. They are the direct numbers of employees. If we were take such a substantial number of jobs out of a place like Cecil Plains then the indirect losses would be great as well. That is what the announcement about Monto this morning brings home to me. The effect on that community is going to be horrendous. I know the effect it would have on a community like Cecil Plains, which is in my electorate. I think it is such a shame that this government has not had the confidence in the industry to help support it. The former minister for primary industries boasted about it having world’s best practice in terms of forestry management. That is what we have. We have world’s best practice across all of the different types of timbers that we manage in both plantations and native forest. Yet we are closing down more and more of that industry while the demand remains. While the demand remains, the only thing we can do is import those timbers—import them from places that do not have the same sort of management practices that we do and that do not have the same sort of environmental credentials that we have in our forestry industry. We are willing to sacrifice our jobs and our economy on the basis of good environmental credentials. It does not add up. It is a stupid way to go when we quite rightly have been recognised as the world’s best when it comes to these industries. The value of this industry to Queensland is noted in this report. One of the other statistics highlighted in the KPMG report is the value-added sales. I think this is important. We need to look at the value-added sales. That really is of great economic benefit to the state. The value-added sales accounted for 59 per cent of total sales—that is a significant amount—of the respondent mills in 2004- 05. Export markets accounted for 40 per cent. That is direct export income that is being earned by these millers from Queensland. A further 35 per cent went interstate, 15 per cent to south-east Queensland, nine per cent to regional Queensland and the remaining one per cent of revenue was generated for central and north Queensland. This is a very important industry. It has been operating under a cloud for a long time. We need to support it because it is such a good industry. I urge anyone who has not seen what a cypress forest is like and what cypress timber is like to have a look, because the government will be making decisions about the future of the cypress industry and many members will not have any idea what sort of timber it is. I think that would be travesty. Mr Malone: It grows like a pest. Mr COPELAND: It does grow like a pest. I have said previously that I was talking to a very senior member of the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water and we were discussing the fact that we probably should classify this timber as a noxious weed because it almost is. It grows that quickly. I will not name that person because it probably would be a bit embarrassing for him. It is an important industry to my electorate. I certainly will do everything I can to try to support the continuation of it. I visited the Cecil Plains High School earlier this year to talk to the year 10 class about politics and how politicians do things that relate to their everyday lives. We were discussing the sorts of issues that we were dealing with in parliament such as driver’s licences, schools and those sorts of things. I said that one of the important things that we talk about for this area is the future of the cypress pine industry. Two of the families of the students in that admittedly very small class are directly employed in the cypress industry. Take those families out of that town, close that industry down and we would close down the high school and make the primary school struggle. That high school is struggling to get enough numbers as it is to remain open to year 10. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr COPELAND: It is scaring school kids. School kids are worried about this because they know the uncertainty that is facing their families. They know the uncertainty surrounding their parents’ jobs because they work in the cypress mill in town. They do not know how long those jobs are going to remain there. That is just a silly comment from the member for Southport. It is something that school students are concerned about because it is something that affects their everyday lives, affects their community and directly affects their school. One of the other issues that the shadow minister examined in detail was the recreational use of forests. We have seen time and time again that this government simply does not care about those recreational users, whether it is horse riders or beekeepers. We have had the debate over and over 1294 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 again. I hope that those people who do want to use state forests for recreational purposes remember that there is only one side of this chamber that will support their access, no matter what sorts of platitudes are given by various ministers of this government. The other area that is tacked on at the end of this bill relates to superannuation for parliamentarians. The member for Thuringowa mentioned it as well. It is an area that is going to be challenging given the changes that have happened in parliaments right around Australia. I think all states have enacted the same legislation regarding superannuation. Politicians are always going to get criticised no matter what money is paid. A real challenge is going to emerge in attracting into parliament people who would otherwise earn significantly higher amounts outside of parliament. I think that is something that will challenge parliaments right around the country. It not going to be easy to address. There is a perception out there, and it is only a perception, that politicians are paid too much. As members on all sides of this chamber know, that is simply not the case. The shadow minister has covered in detail the opposition’s stance on this bill. I urge the government to do everything it can to support the continuation of the cypress pine industry. In fact, I think the industry can be expanded once that certainty is provided. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (4.39 pm): The provisions of the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006 have been covered amply by the shadow minister. However, I wish to briefly outline some issues. Currently, the state owned plantation assets are managed by DPI Forestry. From my observations, they have been handled very well. For many years those plantations have been a commercialised business unit within the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Plantation sawlogs, round wood and pulpwood products produced by those plantations support a significant commercial investment by the Queensland government, and particularly the processing sector directly, and indirectly support something like 6,400 jobs across the state. The DPI Forestry commercialised business unit is limited. Obviously, the government is looking to expand that business on a more commercial base. Of course, when that occurs other issues arise that are of significant interest and concern to shires throughout the state, as has been outlined by the member for Hinchinbrook. Currently, as I understand it, state owned lands do not attract rates. Certainly, in terms of the harvesting of timber, particularly in areas where there is a significant rainfall, the maintenance of roads, and council roads particularly, is a real cost to councils. So if this new forestry unit is going to be operated as a commercial concern that will return a considerable amount of money, I would imagine, back to Treasury, it is obviously beholden on the government to make sure that it contributes in a significant way towards the infrastructure that it uses which is maintained by local councils. I urge the minister to take note of that. I am sure plenty of councils throughout Queensland will be making submissions to the government in respect to this matter, as they have done in relation to other areas, such as the mining industry and primary industries when an extra amount of road traffic, particularly during adverse weather conditions, impacts on roads and infrastructure. The closure of the western hardwood forests is also of great concern to me. As a man of the land and someone who has had a keen interest in timber all my life, quite frankly it amazes me that we are closing down a renewable forestry industry throughout Queensland, particularly in the western hardwood areas. Effectively, what is happening is that we are saying that timber can no longer be harvested out of those areas and that the forests will grow to maturity. The consequence is that in 10, 15 or 25 years time we will have a mature forest that contributes nothing towards the sequestration of CO2, will be a net emitter of CO2 into the atmosphere and, therefore, increases greenhouse gas. Supposedly, that is the reason we are closing the forest in the first place. Basically, the sequestration and the locking up of carbon dioxide relies on growing timber. The best way we can lock up carbon forever is to saw it up and put it into a house. The only time that carbon will be released is if that timber is burnt and returned to carbon. So in terms of the whole debate of closing up a forest supposedly for the good of mankind and the environment, we are doing exactly the opposite. On top of all of that, we will have a mature forest that has been locked up for 10 or 15 years without a fire through it to reduce the amount of dry fuel in it. Without doubt, sooner or later a wildfire will occur in that forestry area. Such a fire would be almost impossible to put out because of the amount of dry fuel in the forest. On top of that, the animals and supposedly what we are trying to save, which is the biodiversity of the forest, will be totally ruined. Most of the animals will be killed because of the heat created by the fire. Not only that, the fire will destroy the diversity of the flora in the forests. The smaller trees in the forest will be destroyed as well as some of the bigger trees. Today we heard in the parliament that the government will buy out the commercial operations of the hardwood industry—and people earn a living out of that industry—and close them down. I think that is a crying shame. I wonder whether this government has the common sense and the managerial expertise to develop this country and prosper from it. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1295

As the previous speaker on this side said, the harvesting of cypress pine is a significant industry right across Queensland. I hope that common sense will prevail and we will not lock up our cypress forests. As I interjected on the member for Cunningham, basically, cypress timber grows like a weed. It is totally renewable. It grows very quickly and is a sought-after timber. There is a huge market world wide for this timber. It would seem to be totally irresponsible for a government to even think of closing down the cypress forest, as it is doing with the hardwood forests. The sustainability of our renewable hardwood and cypress forests has to be seen to be believed. There are generations of people who have lived with the timber for all of their lives. They have been able to sustainably harvest renewable timber not only out of rainforests but also out of cypress pine areas. It just beggars belief that we are trying to lock up those areas. A big issue in my area on the central coast of Queensland is that currently a Western Australian company called Integrated Tree Cropping is buying up huge tracts of arable land and then planting that area with mostly woodchip type trees. That company is buying up thousands of acres. Indeed, their operations are encroaching on the cane farming areas to the south of Mackay and even closer to Mackay. Recently, two properties located in close proximity to mine which grow in the vicinity of 100,000 tonnes of cane have been bought. The cane has been sprayed with Roundup and that land is being replanted with trees that will not be used for sawlogging but, I understand, paper pulp. It is a huge investment. I just hope that, at the end of the day, this industry is sustainable. I hope that this company is not a fly-by-nighter. I understand that the money that is used to buy the land comes from unit holders. Some less-than-upright companies throughout Australia have used unit holders’ funds to make some dodgy deals. Obviously, the properties have been bought and paid for. I just hope that, at the end of the day, the unit holders who have invested their hard-earned money in these companies get a significant return on their investment. This company is tying up some very good, arable land that I believe could be better used to contribute to a more viable sugar industry that, hopefully, in the next few years would also be a significant contributor to the ethanol renewable fuel program. There are issues in respect of that. In north Queensland in the Babinda area there is an individual by the name of Errol Wiles, who has been a lifelong advocate of planting trees. He has put his money where his mouth is and over the last 20 years has developed significant rainforest timbers—cabinet timbers et cetera—on his property. Unfortunately, with Cyclone Larry almost all of that investment over the last 20 years has been destroyed by the cyclone. So a lifetime’s work and income that hopefully he would have been able to recoup in the near future has been destroyed and he has to start again. That is the other side of the timber industry that nobody talks about to any great extent. When we have significant events such as cyclones, fires and floods, the timber industry, particularly in those areas that are susceptible to them, really cops it. The other issue is that as we close our hardwood industry down and we move into a plantation industry—which is normally a pine industry—we also take away the strength and integrity of our homes. Pine is only about one quarter the strength of hardwood. All the older homes that have been built out of hardwood, particularly those in north Queensland, are able to stand up to a cyclone far better than the pine trussed buildings we have nowadays. This morning as I listened to the minister indicating the closure of the hardwood sawmills, I wondered how much more timber we have to import into Australia before we realise that we have a sustainable home-grown industry that can be renewably harvested for the rest of our lives and for future generations, without the need to import timber from overseas—from places such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Importing timber is already happening quite extensively. I am aware of sawmills that are importing a significant number of logs from overseas at a very cheap rate, sawing them and selling them on to the Australian market. I do not believe that is the way we should be doing things. Those people who have an environmental intent should be looking at where that timber is coming from and the impacts of the clear-felling harvesting that is occurring in other parts of the world to sustain our thirst and hunger for timber products in Australia. The issues in the bill that relate to parliamentary salaries really have to be thought about in the longer term. The member for Cunningham made a viable comment: if we intend to get the very best people into parliament in the future we have to think about their remuneration in terms of the competitive nature of the business community. There are many good businesspeople throughout Queensland who would certainly not work the number of hours that a member of parliament does for the remuneration they get. Unfortunately, the fact is that we are inclined to pander to the lowest common denominator. We have difficulty encouraging good, strong parliamentarians into this place simply because there is better remuneration out there in the broader business community. With those few words, I support the bill. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (4.53 pm): The Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006 covers two broad areas or issues, as stated in the parliamentary explanatory notes. Firstly, legislation is required to establish the statutory position of the chief plantation forestry officer to create a corporation and confer property rights onto that corporation. Secondly, amendment of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is required to change salary sacrifice arrangements for members of parliament and to clarify salary entitlements of members holding certain offices. It is to the first issue, the commercial management of the state owned plantation assets, that I will direct my comments. 1296 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

I note that in respect of consistency with fundamental legislative principles six clauses in this bill may be regarded by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee as an inappropriate delegation of legislative power, otherwise known as the Henry VIII clause. From my understanding of the Henry VIII clause, it is a clause that allows a government regulation to change an act. So fundamentally the public scrutiny and accountability of the government of the day’s decision-making process is decreased. As a broad principle this is not a good thing, and I will be very interested to hear the minister’s comments in relation to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s assessment. I note that in the recent Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Alert Digest of 19 April clause 38 of this bill exempts the operations of Forestry Plantations Queensland, or FPQ, from the provisions of the Ombudsman Act 2001. The committee states in relation to clause 38 ‘the question of whether, in the circumstances, this lessening of the generally available rights of citizens to seek investigation and review of government decisions was appropriate.’ I have read the minister’s reply, but essentially her logic says that because we are commercialising state forestry plantations in Queensland we need less public scrutiny. I would have thought that the reverse logic would have applied—we need more public scrutiny. Remember that this is commercialisation, not privatisation. This means that public moneys will still be used. My office has been in contact with the CEO of Timber Queensland, Rod McInnes. Timber Queensland, as the peak industry body, is funded by the forest and timber industries and represents most segments of the industry—including sawmills, loggers, treaters, fabricators and wholesalers. A key role of Timber Queensland is to support and encourage the development and expansion of the forestry industry as a means of securing the long-term business viability of its members. Mr McInnes would like to see the ongoing activity observed closely to make sure it works properly. In principle, he thinks the ‘concept is a good thing’ but the ‘proof of the pudding will be in the eating’. Although he believes that the bill is a good thing, he has not seen the final form. Mr McInnes believes that it takes away departmental structural issues that have made certain things difficult in the past. Mr McInnes says that Timber Queensland will not have the bureaucracy to deal with as it did in the past. I sense from that there will be a streamlining of bureaucracy. Mr McInnes says that it will be far more commercially viable and commercially directed than in the past and that it has the potential to be efficient economically but Timber Queensland is ‘a bit nervous about how it will be delivered’ and it will be keen to keep the pressure on the government to ensure that it goes according to plan. My office recently spoke to Dr Aila Keto, the President of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society. Dr Aila Keto said that the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society is very supportive of the plantation industry and very supportive of making the plantation industry stronger and economical but, at the same time, socially acceptable and environmentally sound. Dr Aila Keto believes it will be a move for the better and will be of great benefit to the dynamic industry as long as the oversight management is still transparent. It would be interesting to question Dr Keto on the move by the government to stop the ombudsperson being able to inquire into this organisation. Dr Aila Keto also hopes that it will be monitored. It has been a long process over many years of discussion on the best way to go about this. She believes that it has been evaluated pretty broadly to ensure that it is economically, socially and environmentally friendly—that triple bottom line. She believes that it is a smart industry where economic planning is crucial to the success of the industry. Many different groups are affected by the forestry plantations legislation. One of those is the horse-riding fraternity. I will share with members some correspondence that I have received from Anne Barlow from the Queensland Endurance Riders Association. She is a state committee member. Anne has written to me stating— As concerned horse riders we would like a lot more information regarding the bill to be introduced into Parliament this week namely the Forest Plantations Bill 2006. To date whenever answers have been sought by horse riders regarding the likely impact of this on our riding access we have not received an answer. In fact at Kawana Community Parliament last year, Premier Beattie completely side stepped answering our question on whether this was likely to happen, muttering something about a pile of paper in the corner of his office that he could not even jump over. We have not been consulted at all on the issue and there are many questions being raised by concerned riders at the moment, such as: As it is we operate under a permit system from the EPA (QP&WS), what will the privatisation— she has actually written ‘privatisation’ instead of ‘corporatisation’— of the pine plantation forests mean for us? Will we be dealing with a third party? A corporate entity? How will this work for access and what will be required? Will we be required to supply insurance details to gain riding access? Riders are dependent on safe riding access in the plantation areas, especially since the native areas are to be taken away and protected into national park tenure. I would appreciate some of these matters being brought to the attention of the parliament if you are able. Many thanks, Anne Barlow 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1297

I trust that in her reply the minister will address Mrs Barlow’s concerns and the concerns of horse riders. When it comes to horse riding in state forests, this government has not used much common sense. A recent media article described some of the silliness that this Labor government has carried on with. An article by Melanie Pilling, entitled ‘Revised horse trails described as accident waiting to happen’, states— Gold Coast riders say it won’t be long until someone is seriously hurt, describing the State Government’s revised horse trails as ‘impossibly dangerous’. They say the new trails threaten the future of the $67 million industry and the Gold Coast’s long horse heritage. Earlier this year, riders were locked out of forests while a government-appointed consultant found alternative routes for them to ride. The lock-out, prompted by the Government’s decision to convert 150,000ha of state forest into national park, outraged the horseriding community. Queensland President of the Gold Coast-based Australian Horse Riders Association Graeme Sleeman said the latest announcement was ‘madness’. He said the trails were designed without consultation with the 6300-strong Gold Coast riding community and were ‘illogical’. ‘We can’t believe how ad hoc the trail designs are and how dangerous they are for horse, rider and road users,’ he said. ‘There are some shocking spots along the Beaudesert-Canungra and Maudsland roads and on the Albert River Bridge where horses, cars and heavy vehicles share the roadway. ‘They didn’t even consult us. ‘Horses and cars don’t mix. ‘It is only going to be a matter of time before someone gets hurt, someone who doesn’t know their horse and doesn’t know what can scare it.’ Mr Sleeman said another concern was for riders who relied on horses to earn a living. ‘It is a serious threat to the $6.4 billion Australian industry,’ he said. ‘The Gold Coast has the largest per capita horse ownership in Australia—four times the national average—and the horse industry is worth a staggering $67 million a year to the Gold Coast. ‘Horse riding is our heritage. I mean, if someone said we are going to stop playing rugby league there would be total uproar.’ Mr Sleeman said the old trails riders used through state forests were existing trails used by rural firefighters and caused no damage. ‘We would go out riding on the fire trails and come back and tell the rural firefighters whether the trails were littered with debris or fallen trees that would hinder firefighting efforts,’ he said. I have met with many horse riders and I have a brother who is a farrier. They are some of the most environmentally aware people in this country. They are environmentalists in the true sense of the word. They enjoy being outdoors. They enjoy being in the space of our horse-riding trails in our state forests. They love simple things such as being able to breathe clean air and having time to think and get rid of all the stresses that life builds up. Horse riding is a great activity for our young folk. In this day and age, we hear the horrific statistics of youth suicide and all of the other problems associated with growing up in this ever-changing society. Horse riding is a wholesome activity that is great for our children. We do not want to limit our children’s opportunities to go horse riding, and that includes everyone. You do not have to grow up in the bush to enjoy horse riding. There are plenty of kids in the city who ride horses. I wish to touch on the issue of pest and weed management. I am concerned about protecting the biodiversity of Queensland’s native flora and fauna. State forestry plantations have become breeding grounds for feral animals and noxious plants and weeds. They cause millions of dollars of damage to the environment. I do not think any studies into this have been conducted, so I say ‘millions’. It could quite possibly be billions, depending on how it is costed. Recently, I spoke to members of the Wilderness Society who estimate that there are approximately five million feral pigs in Queensland’s Cape York district. The size of the problem with feral pigs alone beggars belief. There are millions of feral pigs in state forests. I want to know what the minister and the government will do about that. Will the CEO of Forestry Plantations Queensland have a plan to rid the plantations of feral pests and weeds? I will briefly comment on the talk of closing the cypress forests. I find it incomprehensible that this government is thinking of locking up cypress pine forests. Do the Premier or other members of the Labor Party think that individual trees cry out in pain when they are cut down? Do they think that the trees have a consciousness that is almost the same as humans and other living beings? Cypress pine is one of the most wonderful building materials. I built my house out of it. I have my fingers crossed, but they say that it is impervious to attack by white ants. One of the great things about cypress to build a house is that, by putting the house on stumps and using cypress floorboards and walls, there is automatic strength against high wind or cyclones. It is stronger than brick in its sideways movement. Also, it is environmentally friendly in that you do not have to air-condition your home. You can design a home of cypress pine with plenty of flow-through ventilation. If you situate the house with the right aspect, you do not have to worry about spending lots of money and creating the resultant CO2 gases. 1298 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Many people now use the ‘esky’ approach to house building—insulate and air-condition. We need to open up our thinking—think about where we live and construct our houses to match the environment. I urge all Queenslanders to think about the ‘tent’ approach to houses building. It allows plenty of flow- through ventilation, it is easy on the electricity account and, of course, it is much more environmentally friendly. Before I close, I will comment on the amendment to the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 to change salary sacrifice arrangements for members of parliament and to clarify the salary entitlements of members who hold certain offices. When you go to a party and you want to stop the conversation mid- sentence, talk about politicians and how much they earn. A general perception exists that members of this place are paid too much. I make the observation that many of my constituents remarked to me during the time of the royal commission and Patel inquiry that they would love to have Commissioner Tony Morris in this place, representing them. They did not care which side of politics he would be on— Labor or Liberal. They just wanted a man with that integrity, character, wit and intelligence. They all said that he would make a great member of parliament. I replied, ‘Why would Tony Morris want to come into this House and take’—I am making an estimate now—‘a 1,000 per cent pay cut?’ I merely make that point. How many times have we seen a bright, shiny new Labor Party plan which looks great on paper but in practice runs like a two-bob watch? In closing, I echo the words of the CEO of Timber Queensland, Rod McInnes: this legislation has the potential to be efficient economically, but they are ‘a bit nervous about how it will be delivered’ and they will be keen to keep the pressure on the government to ensure it goes according to plan. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (5.10 pm): I am pleased today to speak to the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. In the objectives of the explanatory notes of this bill it states— In order to achieve the policy objectives, this Bill creates the appropriate structure and governance arrangements for the commercial management of the State-owned plantation assets by: clarifying property rights for the plantation manager, confer certain State-owned plantation related assets on the plantation manager and provide the plantation manager with the rights to deal with natural resource products from State-owned plantations established on State Forest; enhancing the commercial capacity and capability of the plantation manager; and providing an appropriate accountability and governance framework for the commercial manager with a reporting framework to two responsible Ministers, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. That is more on the administrative side. It goes on— Following an evaluation of a range of structural reform options for the State-owned plantation manager, it was determined that, if properly designed and established, a Corporation Sole structure supported by a public service office (pursuant to the Public Service Act 1996) would best provide the plantation manager with the reforms needed to underpin the ongoing value of the plantation asset and to support a sustainable competitive processing industry. It creates also a corporate sole to be known as Forestry Plantations Queensland. All this sounds quite good, except for the fact that at the end of the day it does not eventuate. The problem that we have is there seems to be a belief by the state government that, when in doubt, lock everything up. I cite as an example this morning when the Deputy Premier rose to her feet in answer to a question in relation to the timber industry. The minister first thanked the honourable member for the question and went on to say— He understands, as do others on this side of the House ... meaning the Labor side— ... the importance of maintaining a sustainable timber industry. Locking everything up does not necessarily mean you have a sustainable industry. I do not doubt that there has to be some supervision and monitoring of our forests, and at times in certain forests there has to be some reduction of logging and maybe there can even be increased areas where timber can be taken from. But there seems to be a clear decision by the government to lock up our own resources and import them from those unsustainable forests overseas in Malaysia and Indonesia. That is what is happening. It seems to be okay when one cannot see it, but there is no future in that. Especially when there is no need, with proper silviculture, to lock up as much of the land that is being locked up here in Queensland. The minister also went on in her answer to say, ‘the Premier’s commitment to protect one million hectares of the western hardwoods forest.’ That is the Premier’s commitment to the conservation group, the Greens; it is not a commitment to the rest of Queensland. He made a promise to the Greens that he would lock up this country and that is what he has done. It is not a commitment to Queenslanders overall; it is a commitment to an individual group. She goes on to talk about the 20-year transition to an industry based on plantations. We have no problem with plantations. We should be looking to increase plantations. We support the government getting more plantations up. I do not think the government will meet its target—it will be nowhere near what is needed—but we are all in favour of that approach. The forests that we already have are managed to an Australian forestry standard and are recognised internationally as sustainably managed by the program for the endorsement of forest accreditation. The forests we have now, our hardwood and cypress forests, are being sustainably managed. Why do we have to lock up more of them? That is the extraordinary thing. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1299

The minister also said in her answer, ‘The government has approved the purchase of the hardwood timber division of Hyne and Sons Pty Ltd.’ Sure, we can buy back some if we want to make them sustainable but at the end of the day is it not a waste of money? That money should be put into health and more police. I do not doubt that we must look after our forests, but at the end of the day we are putting money out and I question the priorities. The minister also said that they have bought back 30 per cent of the coastal western hardwood and this surpassed the original commitment of 25 per cent. Big deal! At the end of the day, it is making it worse. I do know some of those mills are being sold off later on. The minister goes on to say that this is a big win for conservation. It sure is a big win for the conservationists, those that make up five, six, seven per cent of the votes at elections. They are the ones getting the benefit of this; it is not necessarily the remaining 95 per cent of Queenslanders. The government will onsell Hyne’s hardwood processing and facilities as going concerns at Maryborough and Dingo. Hyne’s Monto and Mundubbera sawmills will reduce their production levels, leading to an estimated 30 job losses. But do not worry, the EPA is going to make funds available to employ up to 50 people. The EPA should be putting money into managing the national parks it has around the state. Are those people from Monto going to go to Charleville or somewhere else to do the work in the national parks that should be done? I am sure they will not. The EPA will come out with the usual program of painting rocks. That is unfortunately what will happen. There does not seem to be much thought gone into this. It is the same old thing. It is so predictable—from the South East Queensland Comprehensive Regional Assessment outcome to the western hardwoods. The review into forestry that will be done next by the state government, if unfortunately this Labor government is in power when that is done, will have the same result. Unfortunately, we know the outcome. The hardest part to deal with is that we have a lot of good people out there who will suffer because of it. There is a lot more that could have been done in relation to the western hardwoods. It is unfortunate that we have reached this stage where those mills are going to be reduced. There has already been a report done in relation to the sustainable cypress industry and that showed quite clearly that there is sufficient cypress pine out there. Cypress pine is a vigorously growing timber. In some areas it is a nuisance. It is very much an encroaching tree which takes over country. If it is left unchecked—locked up—it will get so thick that it does not grow properly and we will end up with a more degraded area than we had at the beginning and even birds will not live there. Mr Lawlor: What about the orange-bellied parrot? Mr HOBBS: There are a few parrots up here. I think someone said that he is one pink feather short of a proper galah. That is an old one. I take it back. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Do you want it expunged from Hansard, do you? Mr HOBBS: I think I had better. The cypress industry is an important one. KPMG conducted an assessment. The shadow minister actually did some work on it as well and explained it to the chamber. I want to expand a bit more on it because it involves my area. This assessment received replies from 21 mills out of a possible 26 mills. The survey provides an understanding of the key social and economic features of the cypress industry in Queensland and was conducted by KPMG. Only five mills did not respond, as stated at the very beginning of the assessment. The survey contains a couple of interesting statistics. In 2004-05, 85 per cent of log inputs from respondents came from state owned forests with the remaining 15 per cent contributed by private forests. In comparison, the five-year average of log inputs from state forests was 88 per cent versus 12 per cent contributed by private forests. Overall, the respondent mills employ a total of 372 employees and 113 contractors divided into 254 permanent full- time employees and 75 permanent full-time contractors. There are 18 permanent part-time employees and 38 permanent part-time contractors and 100 casual employees working directly for the mills. When we go through the table that contains an overview of the number of employees broken down into local government areas we see that in Warrego alone there are 134 direct employees, 65 contractors, nine towns involved and nine mills. So it is a significant employer in my area and one that is very important to us. On the issue of cypress pine, a very active group in my area has been put together to, once again, convince the state government that their industry is sustainable, that the work that they are doing is sustainable and to convey the importance of the fact that the cypress industry is very much a renewable industry. I am concerned that, come hell or high water—and we will see this happen; mark my words—the Barcoola State Forest will be locked up by this state government if it remains in power. Aila Keto wants it to happen and the Premier wants it to happen. It is going to happen. It is totally wrong when we consider that that particular forest has been logged for a long time and it is still a very good forest. Honourable members can go out there and look at it—and I have been out there look talking to a lot of people as well—and see that it is a forest that is responding to management and silviculture. It will be disgraceful if it is locked up. Certainly the impact on Chinchilla will be significant. I give notice to the government that it will have one of the biggest fights that it has ever seen on its hands from that area if it tries to lock it up. 1300 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

The member for Burnett also mentioned the issue of horse riding. I notice that, in her second reading speech, the minister mentioned it as well. She stated— I want to put on record the fact that nothing in the bill is intended to limit the right of people to access state plantation forests for legitimate recreational pursuits, such as horse riding. This access is, of course, subject to operational requirements ... The reality is that the government cannot tell the truth all the time. We might read that and think, ‘That should be right,’ but the reality is that it has been so hard to get legitimate horse trails back in action after it was wound back previously. There have been numerous occasions when previous ministers have said, ‘Yes, we are going to fix it up. We will meet and we will talk with the horse riders and we will get things fixed up.’ Then the next thing they know, the big news comes out that there is a new route and we find that it is down beside a railway line or a road. It is ridiculous. The government does not have to do that. It does not have to be mean and tricky all the time. If it wants to be seen to be fair, it has to do it. But that does not happen. I do not know why it wants to alienate these people all the time. They do not do a lot of harm. In fact, it is far better to have people on watch in a lot of these areas and they will look after them. They are not going to go out and damage the environment. It has to be managed, of course. We have to make sure that not too many people visit, but that can be done with a management structure. The government should not just lock up these areas and throw away the key and tell people, ‘You cannot go in there.’ We want people to be able to see these areas. The issue of beekeepers has been talked about for so long. It is totally ridiculous. There is no reason why beekeepers cannot be allowed to operate within those state forests. Finally, cypress is a good industry. It is a good product. It is sought all over the world. As the member for Burnett spoke about, it is a great product because white ants do not like it. It is a wonderful building product and it is an industry that we are very proud of. We do not want to see and we take a very dim view of people coming out and trying to close it down. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (5.26 pm): I rise this evening to speak briefly on the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. The bill creates a structure and governance model for the commercial management of state owned plantation assets. A corporation sole structure, as mentioned by the shadow minister, supported by a Public Service office has been suggested as the best structure to provide reforms needed to maintain the value of these plantation assets. This structure will allow resources to be managed in accordance with existing legislation, namely, the Forestry Act 1959 and Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993. I rise today, however, to draw attention to an intention of the bill noted by the minister in her second reading speech. The minister commendably noted that— ... state plantation forests are an important multiple use resource. In addition to underpinning very significant commercial investment, these plantations give rise to a range of other landscape, conservation, grazing, beekeeping and recreation opportunities. The minister emphasised the following— ... nothing in the bill is intended to limit the right of people to access state plantation forests for legitimate recreational pursuits, such as horse riding. This access is, of course, subject to operational requirements and other restrictions on access when, for example, fire management and safety concerns require. Unfortunately, it seems that the bill has not clarified the responsibilities for managing and delivering this broader suite of services. I note with interest the consultation that was conducted in relation to the bill and I note that other members—the honourable members for Warrego and Burnett— have mentioned concerns about recreational users. The explanatory notes list the following key stakeholders: eight government departments, a general trade union dot point and timber industry participants. One could say that is a brief consultation list. Recreational users of state forests did not appear in the list in the explanatory notes. I was recently contacted by one group who would have liked to have been consulted, the Queensland Endurance Riders Association. They contacted me out of frustration saying that at the Kawana community cabinet last year Premier Beattie completely sidestepped answering their question about whether the bill would have an impact on horse riders’ access. Apparently the only response the Premier could muster was muttering about a pile of paper in the corner of his office that he could not even jump over. It seems that this group has not had its questions sufficiently clarified. The group has many questions it would like answered, seeing as though it was not consulted. As it currently operates under a permit system from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, what will the privatisation of the pine plantation forests mean for it? Will it be dealing with a third-party corporate entity? How will this work in terms of access and what will be required? Will it be required to supply insurance details to gain riding access? The riders of Queensland are dependent on safe riding access in plantation areas, especially since native areas are protected under national park tenure. They deserve to be told how these changes to the structure of the department will affect their recreational use—a matter to which sufficient time has not been given. I would like these concerns of inadequate consultation noted. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned. 20 Apr 2006 Uranium Mining 1301

URANIUM MINING Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.30 pm): I move— That this parliament supports the diversification of the Queensland economy and believes in the development of new job opportunities for Queenslanders and gives in principle support to— 1. the mining of uranium with appropriate environmental safeguards; and 2. the export of uranium to countries appropriately vetted by the Commonwealth government. The reason we move this motion tonight is to make sure this parliament establishes a very clear position on uranium mining in Queensland. We have seen a significant flip-flop on this issue from the Labor Party in recent days and weeks. The Premier of South Australia is actually prepared to come out and say that it is time for the Australian Labor Party to revisit, review and cast aside its silly three mines uranium policy. The Premier of Queensland is flip-flopping on the issue. It is time that this parliament took a stand on this very important issue. The policy which is holding back the development of the uranium industry in Australia is frankly a 19th century policy. It is a policy which has been widely repudiated by significant members of the state Labor Party caucus, and I commend those members for that. What we are talking about are people who have a vision and people who have an understanding that uranium and nuclear energy in the late 20th and 21st centuries has a significant and very valuable place in the energy market as the energy requirements of the world continue to grow. There is no reason why some loony left approach of the Labor Party should hold back the development of the uranium industry in Queensland. We do have significant reserves of uranium in this state. Mr Speaker, in your electorate there are significant reserves of uranium which in my mind should be mined. Mr Speaker, as the member for Mount Isa you would be very aware of the significance of the Mary Kathleen uranium mine and the contribution that it has made to your electorate over a long period. Other reserves have been discovered there in more recent years. There is not a sensible basis for this Labor government to hold back on the letting of uranium mining leases in this Queensland so that this very valuable and very sought after resource can be dug up and appropriately exported to countries throughout the world. Our motion is a balanced motion. It is a motion that recognises that there are opportunities for us to diversify the economy of Queensland. It also recognises that we have significant known uranium reserves in this state—over 50,000 tonnes—and that there are job opportunities, royalties opportunities and other benefits that would flow to Queensland taxpayers as a consequence. It also importantly recognises the caveats and protocols that should be put in place if that uranium is to be dug up and exported out of this state. Importantly, the modern protocols for the development of any mine set down by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water and the EPA in Queensland ensure that the environmental experiences that we may have seen in some places in Queensland in the past will be avoided in the future. We all know that the way copper, zinc, coal and a whole range of mineral resources were mined 50, 40 or even 30 years ago was somewhat different to the expectations placed on the miners today when they set about receiving approval to mine a particular resource. That has to have as a paramount consideration a certain number of environmental protocols and the restoration and the rehabilitation of those areas once those areas have been depleted. That is something which is quite clearly addressed by this motion before this parliament. I believe it seeks to reinforce what we know is the situation with regard to mining permits in this state. Not only that, it also recognises and reassures people that if uranium were to be mined in Queensland and were to be exported it would be exported under the specific protocols that govern the export of uranium from Australian shores from our existing three mines. Those protocols are laid down very strongly and very significantly in Australia’s uranium export policy, which is on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade web site under the heading ‘Nuclear non-proliferation and arms control: nuclear exports and safeguards’. When members see that policy they will understand that the Australian government has taken all reasonable steps—and it does not matter which manifestation since first exporting uranium in 1977 and its various modifications—to ensure that that nuclear fuel source is exported to a country which is a signatory to international protocols and is strictly bound by the very significant tracing mechanisms which have been put in place by the Australian government. Each gram of that nuclear fuel is tracked, traced and accounted for. The consequence for any nation that may choose to divert any form of that nuclear energy source to military purposes is that it loses the opportunity to have traded with them further nuclear fuels. As far as I am aware, there have not been any breaches of the protocol that has been in existence of 30 years. We have to have faith in the process that has been laid down and has been followed to date. Let us look at what the Queensland Resources Council says regarding uranium mining in Queensland. It states— In a structural sense, uranium exports offer Queensland a valuable financial hedge—both for royalty and export revenues ... It also goes on to state— The QRC believes there is no justification for excluding Queensland uranium from the global energy mix. This position is supported by a March 2005 Roy Morgan research survey, which found that 61 percent of people support Australia developing and exporting uranium for peaceful purposes. 1302 Uranium Mining 20 Apr 2006

I understand that that has been borne out in recent days by a new survey conducted by Newspoll. It goes on to state about issues— The majority of Australia’s uranium reserves were discovered before 1975. Since then only four new deposits have been added to the list of 50 or so previously identified. Further it states— Price increases in the order of 300 percent have focused minds on the opportunity cost of leaving uranium un-mined, unexported and untaxed. Queensland’s known uranium deposits include ... It goes on to talk about many of those which I outlined in parliament yesterday. It further states— The QRC believes that any proposal to mine Queensland’s uranium deposits should be considered on the objective merits of a full economic and environmental appraisal. We have an absolutely silly position in Queensland at the moment whereby the Labor Party’s policy says that we cannot mine uranium while it is running around releasing exploration permits for companies looking for uranium. It is not good enough for the Premier not to have a position on this. One moment the Premier said that he is going to have his bureaucrats look at it and the next moment he said that it is a matter for the federal party and there is reason the state party should have to get involved in this. The state Labor Party’s own platform clearly is that it is against uranium mining in Queensland, and that reflects the federal policy. My challenge to the Premier is to expunge that offensive section from the state Labor platform to clear the way and to give a clear direction to the federal party that it can move to untangle this absolutely stupid, irrational three uranium mines policy which has been put in place by the loopy left of the Labor Party. Let us look at Geoserve, the geoscience information newsletter of the Queensland government’s natural resources and mines department. I think it puts paid to the stupid argument that the government does not know and is not sanctioning the exploration of uranium in Queensland. Page 2 of the October- December 2004 edition states— Companies have carried out exploration for gold, base metals ... dolomite and uranium. They were not accidental discoveries; they were deliberate discoveries by way of sanctioned exploration by this government. Page 1 of the January-March 2004 edition of Geoserve states— Company exploration has focussed mainly on the copper, gold, base metals and uranium potential— of certain rock stratum. Let us have none of this 18th century nonsense from the Labor Party. Let us bring Queensland into the 21st century. Let us open up Queensland for proper uranium mining within proper environmental guidelines while also considering the international protocols that would ensure that this energy source is used for what most people reasonably think it should be used for in the 21st century. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (5.40 pm): It gives me great pleasure to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This morning the Premier stated, ‘I notice we have had some argy-bargy about uranium.’ The Premier did not make clear that the argy-bargy is all occurring on his side of the House. No, Premier— Government members interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: The members opposite will hear from the member for Charters Towers later. The Premier’s position is not clear: his party’s position is not clear and his personal position is not clear. This morning the Premier may have entered into Hansard the position that the Queensland government’s policy is no uranium mining, no processing and no nuclear dump in Queensland. But this position has changed, has been played around with, has been made subject to the federal ALP. Consequently, the Premier’s position has been unclear ever since uranium mining was put back on the political agenda. This ever-changing position has developed as a result of Labor’s internal argy-bargy. The only thing this position has not been is in the interests of the state of Queensland. This position has been developed without proper consideration of the potential growth of the Queensland economy. This position has not been developed in the consideration of the future employment opportunities that it would create. Before the Premier justifies his party’s position by suggesting that uranium mining may affect our coal industry, how about he waits until his department gets back to him as to whether that would, in fact, occur. Why does the Labor Party believe that uranium mining and coalmining in this state have to be mutually exclusive industries? Just because one is operating does not mean the death of the other. I refer to the article by the member for Hervey Bay, Andrew McNamara, which appeared in the Courier- Mail on 13 April. It states— QRC— which is the Queensland Mining Council— chief executive, Michael Roche said recently that Queensland’s coal miners could see no justification for excluding Queensland uranium from the global energy mix. 20 Apr 2006 Uranium Mining 1303

Instead of trying to instigate fear in and about the coal industry, the government should get its position straight. As I have said, any observer of the Labor Party is completely confused as to whether the party is for or against uranium mining or whether it is for or against new jobs in this state. The continued changing of position in the last couple of months by the government means that any observer could not possibly accept that the position stated by the Premier this morning will not necessarily change tomorrow, or next week, or when the federal ALP finally makes a decision on where it stands. Here is what members of the Labor Party have said over the past few months and why the coalition and anyone who observes politics is confused as to the stance of the ALP. I will start with the Premier. Throughout 2005, Premier Beattie stated that it is not in this state’s interests to be supporting the development of a nuclear industry and that this position is based on sound economic assessment. As late as 28 March 2006 in the Age he stated— We have a good relationship with the Chinese, they are ... big buyers of our coal and I want to make sure that they continue to be big purchasers of our coal ... but are we going to have any more uranium mines? From the Queensland Government’s point of view—no. The Labor member for Indooroopilly, Ronan Lee, has come out and said that his view is to leave it in the ground—‘Don’t dig it up, I would like to close the three mines that are already open in other states and I will fight tooth and nail in the caucus to make sure there are no changes to the policy.’ Then the federal ALP and the ALP in other states started changing their minds. The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, along with federal Labor politicians from that state have called on their Canberra colleagues to rethink the 20-year-old Labor policy that bans new uranium mines. Then federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, and his resource spokesman have both said that they agree in principle with the export of uranium. That is against what Premier Beattie and Ronan Lee are saying. But knowing that, the Queensland Labor Party decided to alter its position. The member for Mount Isa has come out and said, ‘I am firmly committed to uranium mining and will do everything I can within the party to bring about change.’ A firmly committed McGrady up against Lee, who is going to fight tooth and nail in the caucus: this is Labor argy-bargy at its best. I cannot wait to see who would win that fight, but I have a feeling I know who will. Labor’s Andrew McNamara has also insisted that energy hungry countries may consider Queensland’s anti-uranium stance as selfish and could cause diplomatic tension. A government member interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: That is what the member said in the Courier-Mail on 13 April. Only last week the Courier-Mail reported that Andrew McNamara’s comments have further divided the government on this contentious issue. In light of this argy-bargy and in light of the changing federal Labor position, Premier Beattie decided to start altering his original hardline stance. On 4 April he said— I don’t want to do anything that’s going to undermine the coal industry, but the future of uranium’s in the hands of the national ALP conference. On 5 April the Premier told the Courier-Mail— I’ll be asking my department to do some work on that prior to the ALP conference and my position on the floor ... will be determined on the outcome of that. This is why the Premier’s position remains unclear. It has changed. How can we expect that it will not change again? Furthermore, and what is inexcusable, is that the Premier will not develop his position in the interests of Queensland but in accordance with what the federal ALP tells him to do. This morning the Premier acknowledged that fact after he made the claim that his position was clear. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (5.45 pm): I move the following amendment— Delete all words after the word ‘Queenslanders’ and insert— And further that this parliament notes— 1. The Premier’s statement that any decision on uranium mining in Queensland must take into account the results of research on whether it would impact adversely on the state’s coal industry; 2. That the community would need to be satisfied about environmental safeguards; 3. That the National Party leader and Liberal Party leader made no attempt to develop uranium mining when they were part of the coalition government in 1998; 4. Over recent years both sides of politics have maintained a policy of granting no new mining leases for uranium; and 5. That the ALP’s next national conference will debate the uranium issue. The opposition leader had an opportunity when he was the minister for natural resources in 1998 to push for the mining of uranium. If he firmly believes that we should mine uranium, why did he do nothing about it when he was a minister? The truth is that both sides of politics have maintained a policy of granting no new licences for uranium. 1304 Uranium Mining 20 Apr 2006

It was not until the National Party leader decided that he could try to make some political capital out of an issue that he was prompted to make one of his very few policy decisions. Unfortunately for Queenslanders, the policy has nothing to do with their benefit but only the political benefit that might accrue to the National Party. When the current opposition leader was a minister in the coalition government, that government’s record on uranium was no mining leases granted for uranium mining. A search has showed that then mines minister Gilmore—a National Party minister—did not mention the ‘U’ word in parliament. We should all remember that many people are genuinely concerned about the consequences of uranium mining. I repeat what I said this morning. An article in the UK’s Prospect magazine by Dr David Fleming last year summed up the opposition to using uranium to produce nuclear power. That article stated that it leaks low-level carcinogenic wastes into the air and water; it produces high-level radioactive waste, requiring standards of treatment and storage that are seldom met; it produces the materials for nuclear proliferation; and accidents can potentially devastate continents. Nuclear power produces quite a lot of carbon dioxide. Every stage in the process uses fossil fuels—oil and gas—with the exception of fission itself. That is why uranium mining is contentious. That is why there are people with differing views. The opposition leader is running around and attacking some of my members who at least have a brain and have a right to have a policy view. I have no difficulty with that. The opposition leader has his own member for Charters Towers opposing uranium mining. Frankly, that shows that the coalition does not have a consistent view. That shows that uranium mining is a complex and difficult issue that needs to be debated properly and fully. I am not afraid of having a policy debate here or anywhere else. The Queensland government, like successive governments in this state, has not issued any new mining leases for uranium. The Queensland government’s policy on uranium mining has been clear: no uranium mining, no processing and no nuclear dump in Queensland. The coal industry is one of the mainstays of the Queensland economy and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. A quarter of our coal is exported for use in power generation overseas. I want to ensure that we do not damage those exports that support so many Queensland jobs and contribute many millions of dollars to the Queensland economy. There is now a debate about whether uranium mining in Australia should be expanded. I have asked my department to investigate whether the export of uranium from Queensland would impact on our coal exports. It is important for me to have the results of this research prior to the national ALP conference in April next year. In any debate at the national conference on uranium I will obviously be influenced by the result of this research. If the federal Labor Party changes its policy on uranium and if the research shows that our coal industry would not be adversely affected, the government would be prepared to examine changing our policy. As I said this morning, I note that the Nationals leader has claimed that his party is united in its support for uranium mining and that only what he calls the loony left is in favour of leaving it in the ground. I do not know why he wants to call the member for Charters Towers the loony left, but I will leave that up to him. Let me be really clear about our position. The Queensland government position is consistent with what the last National-Liberal Party government did. It did not issue any more uranium leases. When the opposition leader was a minister, he did not issue any uranium mining leases, either. That was because there were concerns about it. I was at a national conference of the Labor Party which, in fact, voted for the three mines policy. I was one of the delegates who voted for it. So I understand this issue of uranium mining. I am making my government’s position clear. We are sticking to where we are. We will do more research, we will examine our position and we will have a view that we will express at the national ALP conference. Last year when I was in Italy I sat down with the coal importers and they were making a choice between coal and uranium. I do not care who argues to the contrary on this. I have actually sat down with the people in the industry in Italy who are importing coal. They were making a decision about whether they would go nuclear or whether they would use our coal. It is a choice. If anybody thinks we are going to simply continue to see the expansion of coal exports if there is uranium in competition in markets like Italy, they are wrong. The only argument the Resources Council puts forward is that because of the size of the Chinese and Indian markets there will be continued expansion. The issue is for how long. Time expired. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (5.50 pm): I rise to second the amendment put forward by the Premier. There are few topics in Australian contemporary life as controversial as uranium mining. For decades, passionate views have been put forward in support of it and in opposition to it. It has been the subject of large campaigns in its favour by the mining sector and other groups in the community. It has equally led to large campaigns against it by the environment movement and their supporters. But I think 20 Apr 2006 Uranium Mining 1305 we would all agree that it has gone beyond those sectoral interests. It is one of those issues that has stretched into the community at large and on which many people have a view and have genuine concerns. It is not surprising then that we would see divergent views being found within each major political party—the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party—not only here in Queensland but also in Australia. There is good reason for that difference of opinion. And, like the Premier, I am unconcerned to find difference of opinion about it in my own party. It is a complex issue, concerning a substance which potentially offers large economic gains and a possible answer to the problems of climate change but which the entire world can agree can have hazardous side effects and which can be used for dangerous and lethal ends. Given the issue’s complexity and the huge divergence of views residing in the community, it is entirely appropriate that it be the subject—and it should be the subject—of a comprehensive debate in the community at large. Given the potential ramifications of increased uranium mining, it would be wrong of us to adopt a simplistic position like that proposed by the opposition. It is some 20 years since the three-mine policy was put in place. It is, in my view, timely to revisit that policy. But in doing so we have to ask ourselves some tough questions. There is no point considering this unless we can convince ourselves that we have the technology to overcome the concerns that drove the policy in the first place and that we can convince ourselves that the community has changed its view. I remain unconvinced of either of those. But there are some very strongly put arguments in support of uranium mining. The most obvious arguments in favour are the potential employment and financial gains that would arise. It has been estimated, for example, that more uranium mines in Australia could generate hundreds of extra jobs and billions of dollars in export revenue. Anything providing an economic benefit to Queensland and Australia obviously cannot be lightly dismissed. It is also argued in some quarters that nuclear power can provide an answer to world energy demand without the side effects of greenhouse gases. The Queensland government recognises the risk posed by climate change and for that reason supports the consideration of any technology which may reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Given Queensland’s huge coal supplies, we have a keen interest in this issue. It is for that reason that our government is doing research on the effect of further uranium mining on the coal industry, and it is for that reason that we are a strong supporter of clean coal technology. At the same time we need to properly consider whether nuclear power is another option for less-polluting energy production. But we cannot ignore the fact that there are legitimate concerns surrounding the mining and use of uranium. When looking at such a divisive issue we owe it to the community to analyse both sides of the debate in full and to consider it carefully, thoughtfully and with a clear eye to the science of the issue. Uranium poses risks to human health and the environment in its transportation. In the event of vehicles transporting radioactive spent nuclear fuel being involved in an accident there is potential for a catastrophic effect in the accident’s vicinity. Uranium processing by its very nature produces radioactive waste. I have heard no discussion to date about where we would store this waste. Given the toxic nature of such waste, it would obviously need to be stored well away from residential areas. I have not heard any of the speakers from the National or Liberal parties yet volunteering to have that waste stored in their own electorates. Of course, there is also the risk of uranium being stolen and converted to nuclear weapons by terrorists. There are, of course, counterarguments for each of the statements I have made both for and against. It just demonstrates the complexity of the issue. But to listen to the opposition you would think it is simple, that it has an easy answer and that we can sit here in one hour, with less than eight hour’s notice, and come to a resolution. What absolute nonsense. There is nothing more than cheap politics going on here. I listened with interest to the member for Surfers Paradise. If uranium mining came on the agenda as quickly as this and we left here tonight saying that we are going to mine uranium— Mr Lucas: In his electorate. Ms BLIGH:—in his electorate. The member for Surfers Paradise cannot support a cruise ship terminal in his electorate but he can support a nuclear waste dump. Mr Lucas: In someone else’s. Ms BLIGH: He would go to water quicker than an ice cube in an oven. It is pathetic. I have never heard such a weak argument. This is tough stuff. It is complex. We owe it to the community to think about it, not to have a closed mind, not to put our head in the sand but not to jump with this kind of nonsense. Time expired. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (5.55 pm): I rise to speak on the motion. From the outset I would like to make my position perfectly clear: I support the development of the mining industry in Queensland. I am a strong supporter of our great coal industry and support uranium mining. I am a firm believer in utilising all our natural resources to the fullest. I am not, as reported, at any odds with coalition policy on uranium mining. However, I do not and will not support any mining development that has the potential to negatively impact on the health and wellbeing of residents of the Charters Towers electorate. 1306 Uranium Mining 20 Apr 2006

Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you want to interject, please go to your usual seat. Mr KNUTH: While I am fully supportive of the industry and recognise the contribution mining plays in providing jobs, security and billions of dollars to Queensland’s economy, I am also mindful that any sort of mining needs to be conducted with the support of and in conjunction with the local community. Last year the environment minister put her foot on a residential development at Moranbah to allow for a large open-cut mine at the edge of town. My position was clear then and has not changed: I do not support the open-cut mine proposed on the doorstep of Moranbah that could put the health of residents at risk and ruin their quality of life. The Ben Lomond mine, a Queensland uranium deposit, is 50 kilometres west of Townsville in my electorate. The old mine is located near Keelbottom Creek, a tributary of the Burdekin, which supplies water for Townsville, Charters Towers and soon Moranbah. Any mining operation would need to meet with the strictest environmental conditions before there could be any support for its reopening. Where there is any potential danger to residents and communities cannot be fully safeguarded, then it will not have my support. However, we in Queensland are fortunate to have coal in abundance and known deposits of uranium. With the world’s demand for energy forecast to double over the next 30 years, demand for our coal and uranium will soar. I have great confidence that we can develop our mineral resources to sustain our standard of living and provide jobs, growth and new opportunities for all Queenslanders. Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (5.57 pm): I rise to oppose the opposition’s motion and support the amendment moved by the Premier. Uranium mining is one of the most sensitive issues that we will ever debate in this parliament and one that I have had a long involvement with. I suggest to the parliament that we should consider this issue very thoroughly, very calmly, make proper assessments over an appropriate period of time and not follow a knee-jerk reaction as proposed by the Nationals and Liberals here tonight. This is nothing more than a short-term political stunt. As has been pointed out by the Premier’s amendment, they chose to do nothing about this issue when they were in government themselves. All of a sudden, because they see the potential for political short-term gain, they want to put it on the agenda. The government’s decision does allow for proper and timely consideration of this issue. The issues that need to be considered include—but these are not exclusive—the potential economic benefits that are there; the development that can come if we have a whole new industry open up; the potential to create jobs; and the potential to create export income. But to balance this, as my colleagues have pointed out before, very serious potential environment issues need to be considered. There are issues related to nuclear proliferation and public safety, as we have seen with some of the incidents overseas over the past 20 years. All of these require very careful consideration. Mr Speaker, you are well aware of some of my involvement in the industry. I have had very long, personal experience with the uranium mining industry and the nuclear industry. As a young tradesperson in 1969 and 1970, I was a member of the nuclear team at QAL which worked on the instrumentation, changed isotopes and did the calibration of nuclear instrumentation measuring density issues at that plant. There were very tough safeguards for those of us who worked in that environment. From 1975 through to the late 1970s, I was a union official who serviced a large number of the members and employees of Mary Kathleen Uranium, then the only operating uranium mine in this country. My hair still stands on end when I recall some of the events that occurred there. For example, a guy took 32 drums and planted them in the bush near Mary K, just to prove that he could do it. Mary K only found out that he had done it some months later, when he told them, anonymously, where they could find 32 drums of their own uranium that they had not missed. Another guy had stolen a couple of drums and was busy trying to sell them on the international market. The only reason he was found out was that when the people overseas he was trying to sell it to asked for a sample he was silly enough to send it to them. The unique properties of each deposit mean that where it comes from can be identified. They identified it as coming from Mary K so they went and picked him up. Very serious consideration needs to be given to those types of issues before we move too far. That is even before I have addressed the breaches of the code for mining and milling of radioactive ores that took place in that plant. I also visited Ben Lomond, one of the mines referred to by the member for Charters Towers. I went down that uranium mine in the late 1970s. It is a very high-grade deposit. They were not actually mining it—or they claimed they were not mining it. It was owned by Minatome Australia, a subsidiary of a French firm, which was then dropping dirty bombs in the Pacific. It was developing an underground mine in a very high-grade ore body but had at least two incidents that I am aware of. In a heavy rainfall 20 Apr 2006 Uranium Mining 1307 area it flooded some of the ore body. When the bund wall broke into Keelbottom Creek, it ended up in the Burdekin, as the member for Charters Towers spoke about. It also had an incident whereby it inappropriately and illegally kept core samples in a warehouse in Townsville and was caught out. We need to be very careful about these safeguards. If we are to consider doing this then we must be sure that we can do it appropriately. Now, with my background, I am certainly one of those people who have had the most serious concerns about uranium mining and I have probably expressed that over a long period of time. However, I am prepared to have that debate because it may well be that over the 25 or 30 years since I first became involved safeguards have improved and we may be able to consider whether it is appropriate to mine uranium with the appropriate safeguards and, therefore, reap the benefits of the jobs and the development that come with that. However, we should not do this lightly. We should do it as part of a proper assessment. Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.02 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and to oppose the amendment that was subsequently moved on behalf of the government by the Premier. What a load of garbage we have heard from government speakers tonight. What a load of waffle we have heard. An opposition member: Cop-out. Mr SEENEY: An absolute cop-out. Quite obviously, when this government cannot get the loony left to go along with a sensible decision it decides to do nothing. It has done that on a whole range of issues since it has been in power. It cannot convince the loony left to agree, so it does nothing. That is exactly the situation on the question of uranium mining in Queensland. It has become increasingly obvious to almost everybody else in Australia that the time for this industry has come. It is time to revise the stupid three mines policy that was put in place by federal Labor. Yet the Queensland Labor Party cannot come to terms with that. It cannot bring the loopies in the left to a sensible decision, so it chooses to do nothing. We see the crazy situation where those opposite will let Kim Beazley decide. They will become puppets of Kim Beazley. They will say, ‘It’s too hard for us. We’ll let Kim Beazley decide. Then we’ll avoid making the hard decisions.’ That is the crazy situation that the Premier has put the Queensland government in. He has totally abrogated any responsibility he has to make what is becoming a very obvious decision. We have heard much misinformation and downright untruths during tonight’s debate. Accusations have been made about what the coalition government did when it was in government. Accusations have been made about our position. They attempt to distort our position in order to somehow or other justify the government’s own lack of action. I make it very clear to members opposite that our position on this issue has not changed during the five, six or seven years that I have been involved. It has not changed. Six or seven years ago, our position was that these projects should be considered on their merits. If any company wanted to bring forward a project, it should be considered by the government of the day on its merits. Any other mining project must be and should be considered on its merits. Appropriate safeguards would then be put in place and appropriate conditions would be applied to that project to take account of whatever was being mined and wherever it was being mined. Both of those things will affect the conditions, the restrictions and the constraints placed on any mining project, irrespective of what is being mined. There will be different conditions applied, based on what is being mined and where it is being mined to ensure that it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. To its credit, the mining industry over the last five to 10 years has made enormous progress in meeting its responsibility. It accepts that responsibility. It accepts the responsibility to access these resources in an environmentally responsible way. I congratulate the industry on the great strides that it has made. It has never been opposed or rejected by this side of politics in Queensland. Our position has not changed. The government does itself no good by trying to misrepresent our position in an attempt to justify its own. It does not have a consistent position. It cannot accept what is becoming obvious to everyone else in Australia. It cannot convince the loopy left to make a responsible decision on behalf of Queensland. It is a responsible decision to properly consider applications that are brought forward to mine uranium, to ensure that Queensland’s economy can receive the benefits that will obviously flow. The other spurious argument that was put forward tonight is that it is somehow a threat to the coal industry and research must be conducted first. No such research was undertaken when the government quarantined 13 per cent of the coal market for the Papua New Guinea gas project to try and give it a leg up, to try and give it a boost. That was a political decision. In the years since, the domestic coal seam gas industry has filled that 13 per cent market. But that is not what the quarantine was set up for. There was no concern for the coal industry then. Time expired. 1308 Uranium Mining 20 Apr 2006

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (6.07 pm): It is about time we had some honesty and frankness in this debate. This government bases its decisions on empiricism rather than emotive actions and blustering. Uranium mining and export in this country was facilitated as a result of a national conference decision by the Labor Party during the term of the Hawke government. The actual mining and export of uranium occurred under that government. Members opposite need to understand—and it is about time they woke up to this—that nothing has happened since then in relation to the uranium industry to alter that position. The simple fact of the matter is that nobody has sought to mine and export uranium in contravention of that policy—although different mines have operated in relation to it—because there simply has not been the economic demand and case for it. That applies to the Howard government and that also applies to the Borbidge government. Only now, due to the expression of interest from China, has it become somewhat topical. It is now appropriate that the matter be addressed. In fact, interestingly—as the Premier indicated earlier—then Minister Gilmore, the minister for mines and energy under the great pro-uranium policy of the National Party, did not mention it once in parliament. That is how interested National Party members were when they actually had the keys of government in their hands. Until now, there have been no calls in Queensland for uranium to be mined. That is why the government and the Premier in particular have said that they are more than happy to look at the argument and look at the economic basis for it. The Mineral Resources Act does lay off non-coal exploration, but it is in all areas and it is totally appropriate that metalliferous and non-coal finds made would be reported in exploration. That is part of the idea of the act. In 2004-05 the coal industry had exports valued at $11.5 billion. In 2005-06 it is expected to be $15 million, an increase of some 30 per cent over the previous years. We railed 156.3 million tonnes in 2004-05. What is that worth to our economy? It is worth a billion dollars a year in royalties, it is worth 16,000 jobs in the coalmining industry with payroll tax and income tax and it is also worth billions of dollars in the form of jobs in the construction industry, in ports and in services. No matter what, it is simply unforeseeable in the future of this state that the coalmining industry will not be the cornerstone of our export industry. It will be the fundamental basis of the income that supports the hospitals, police, nurses, teachers and schools that all of us demand in our electorates. That is the importance and the significance of the coal industry in this state. Those people who want to get out there and propose it want to internalise the profits but if it goes wrong they want to externalise the cost. In this Smart State we will look at the issue based on science and economic study. Uranium does have its issues. Even if we were allowed to mine and export it in Queensland it would never be in the quantities that coal is; it would never have the economic contribution to this state that coal does. It also needs to be seen in the context of a very unstable world environment where Iran has decided that it wants to undertake an enrichment process. We need to be very, very clear about these issues. It is true, contrary to what the member for Callide and others say, that the energy users do take decisions between coal and uranium, not on a day-by-day basis obviously. A coal-powered station cannot be converted to a uranium one. But when talking about an asset that has a lifespan of 20 to 30 years, as any power plant does, uranium or coal, of course one looks at the long-term cost of the inputs and one of the problems that the uranium industry has always had is that it has enormous capital costs and even bigger decommissioning costs. That is why it has never been a goer in Australia despite our internal deposits of uranium. No-one can match Kogan Creek coal at about 50c a gigajoule. No-one can go remotely near it. We are more than happy to look at the arguments, but Queensland should really be looking at those other issues: clean coal, clean coal, clean coal, clean coal and we will have a look at some of the arguments on uranium as well. All of a sudden there is an interest in this issue, but one thing I will say about the Queensland government is that it has worked hard to build on our state’s economic strengths. The coal industry has become bigger and bigger and bigger, we have created an aviation industry, we have created a smart industry, we have created fibre composites that never existed in this state before. Why? Because we have not been prepared to sell out our fundamental economic interests. I am more than happy as part of this government to look at the arguments, I am more than happy to have it agitated and discussed. That is appropriate. That is appropriate on the other side of the House when those opposite have a policy formulation process. It is important in the organs of government and in the community as well. But we will never sell out the state’s interests. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (6.13 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I remember on numerous occasions in this parliament we had debates with Labor members of the government railing against the levels of HECS contributions from the federal government. I always remember the former member for Moggill saying that the debate was not about whether there should be HECS or not but about the quantum, because the Labor Party introduced HECS. So both sides agreed that there should be HECS and we had the debate about the quantum of what that should be. 20 Apr 2006 Uranium Mining 1309

The same could be said for uranium mining. This debate is not about whether there should be uranium mining or not, because both sides agree that there should be; it is only the quantum we are debating. The Labor Party believes that there should be only three mines, none of which are in Queensland. It is okay for us to mine uranium; it is just not okay for Queensland to mine uranium. That is the fundamental debate that we are having. That is the fundamental debate that the Labor Party needs to have, because at the moment the Queensland Labor Party is shutting Queensland out of the economic promise that uranium now holds in the year 2006—not 1996, not 1997. The world has changed enormously in that decade. If one looks at the article written by the member for Hervey Bay, they would see that he acknowledges that. It is now that we are facing the energy crisis world wide, it is now that the opportunities exist for uranium mining, and that is why we are having the debate about whether Queensland should be able to participate in that economic growth. That is what this debate is about, not about whether we should have it or not; that debate was had decades ago and both sides of politics supported it—the Labor Party and the coalition. Let us have none of this nonsense about the Labor Party not wanting to support uranium mining; the Labor Party does support it but just not in Queensland—just do not give Queensland a cut of the pie, do not let Queensland capitalise on the demand that is there world wide in the year 2006. That is the point that we need to be debating, that is the point that the federal government has recognised in signing the deal with China and that is what Queensland needs to recognise in a hurry so that we can take advantage of the opportunities that now arise. There are members of the government who do support an expansion to uranium mining. I know that you, Mr Speaker, have come out in favour of it. I know that the member for Hervey Bay has come out in favour of it. I know there are others in favour of it who have not come out publicly. Labor members in other states, such as Mike Rann, are very heavily promoting it. Bob Hawke, the former prime minister, is in favour of it. Not only that, he wants to have Australia set up to earn export dollars by becoming the place to store the uranium waste. The member for South Brisbane, the Deputy Premier, said that no-one wants to have the storage. For decades we had it stored at the Kangaroo Point Cliffs under the Story Bridge. Low-level nuclear radioactive waste was stored at Kangaroo Point in a flood area. These debates have certainly gone on and the Premier, in usual form, is trying to spin his way out of what he finds a difficult political situation because of the dynamics within the Labor Party. There is the argument that is being run by the Premier and other ministers that have spoken tonight that we cannot have uranium and coal. Of course we can have uranium and coal. Everyone recognises that, including the Queensland Resources Council and, importantly, the federal shadow resources minister, Martin Ferguson. On 31 March Martin Ferguson stated— I actually think as a nation we can walk and chew gum at the same time, potentially sell coal and uranium. But obviously our Premier cannot walk and chew gum at the same time; he is not going to explore the options regarding uranium because of the detrimental effects to the coal industry. We have a very successful coal industry and that will continue to be the case regardless of what happens with the uranium industry. This issue is not going to be resolved by the Labor Party until April of next year, in the hope that this all goes away until after the state election and the Premier does not have to worry about it and worry about the ructions within his own party. I see that Andrew Detmar, the state secretary of the AMWU, said that this is going to be debated at the ALP state conference on 10 and 11 June. The Premier has a responsibility to state what the state Labor government’s position is on this issue. It is not acceptable to simply duckshove it to the federal Labor conference and say, ‘We are going to be dictated to by the federal Labor Party. We are not going to worry about Queensland.’ That is an indictment on this Premier. Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (6.19 pm): It is a delight to support the amendment. One can always tell a shabby case. We have just heard that there is radioactive waste under the Story Bridge. In actual fact, the radioactive waste that the honourable gentleman who just finished speaking wants us to believe was uranium enriched waste product was like the little bit of radioactivity in a thermometer; it was the little bit of stuff in the road lights. Apparently, another Chernobyl was sitting underneath the Story Bridge. What a lot of arrant nonsense. It is typical of the National Party that members get up— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Members will allow the minister to make his contribution, please. Mr MICKEL: I was rudely interrupted, Mr Speaker. As is typical of the National Party, they did not identify the markets. The member mumbled something about China, as if China will move to a 50 per cent nuclear industry. In fact, it is going from two per cent to four per cent. Recently I was in China and I cannot recall being asked about uranium sales from Queensland. I was asked: how can we access iron ore from Queensland? Can we get involved in Chalco? How do we 1310 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 exploit that wonderful deposit in Aurukun? I had to do a little bit of sidestepping because the Deputy Leader of the National Party had come into the parliament and tipped a bucket over our government’s Chalco decision. He did that and he cannot walk away from it. He came in here and pooh-poohed the idea at a time when I had tried to rescue the situation by asking my friend the Leader of the Opposition to come to a meeting with the National Development Reform Commission when it visited Queensland recently. I wanted a signal to go out that both sides of politics were in favour of this massive Chinese investment. This was a real and tangible thing, but I could not get that support. All we got from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was what the Chinese did not want to hear, that is, that there was diverse opinion on this. I have let that go. I let it go when I was in China. However, members should make no mistake that they are interested in the Queensland coal industry. We are trying to defend the Queensland coal industry because a nuclear industry in Queensland just does not wash. In fact, if one was to build a nuclear power plant in Queensland, it would cost $US2,500 per kilowatt. That is about two or three times higher than a coal-fired power station. Why are we in favour of coal? The honourable member for Charters Towers can answer that. It is beyond me why there is this discord in the opposition. The member for Charters Towers knows that Moranbah is sitting on a coal industry that will last for about 250 to 300 years. The next power stations to be built in Queensland will be either coal or gas. Let us look at the National Party’s record on gas. We brought the 13 per cent gas policy into this House, despite the fact that all the exploration dollars and all the jobs go into National Party electorates. Who opposed that policy? The National Party, through the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! He could not even stand up for Queensland on that occasion. All the jobs and exploration have gone into south- west Queensland. They have gone to the Darling Downs and its engineering firms. When we want to stand up for something tangible, who goes missing in the debate, whether it be on bauxite or gas? The Queensland opposition, led and inspired by the Deputy Leader of the National Party! He has dragged down investment opportunities into the tangible assets of this great state. Those assets are the ones that make all the difference. Who opposed us joining the national electricity grid? The National Party! What has that grid meant for the Queensland coal industry and the generation of electricity? It has meant hundreds of millions of dollars for the state and the generation sector, and also the coalmining industry. Members opposite do not understand it, yet they have coalmines in their own electorates. They have gas plants in their own electorates yet they oppose both of those things. Time expired. Question—That Mr Beattie’s amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, E Cunningham, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 23—Caltabiano, Copeland, Douglas, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 53—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, E Cunningham, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 23—Caltabiano, Copeland, Douglas, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.34 pm to 7.30 pm.

FORESTRY PLANTATIONS QUEENSLAND BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 1300. Mr HORAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the numbers in the House. Quorum formed. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (7.33 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. It will come as no surprise to members of the House when I tell them how important the forestry industry is to the constituents of my electorate. As people drive along the Bruce Highway it is the Beerburrum Forest which provides the lovely green scenery which is 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1311 interspersed with the fabulous volcanic peaks of the Glasshouse Mountains. If people were to leave the highway and drive around the back roads, they would begin to realise the enormity of the government owned plantations, both native and pine. The Beerburrum Forest in my electorate alone comprises almost 16,000 hectares of pine. Behind these figures is the fact that DPI Forestry Beerburrum employs over 100 local people in jobs, which ensures that we have a well-managed and profitable resource. Obviously this bill is of significant interest to the people of Glass House. This bill will establish Forestry Plantations Queensland as a corporation sole which is responsible for the commercial management of DPI Forestry’s plantation assets. To do this, it is necessary for the native forestry business to be separated from the plantation pine business by transferring the native forestry business to the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water. The remaining staff currently work as employees of DPI Forestry, engaged pursuant to the Public Service Act 1996. During consultation with the staff on this bill, the overwhelming majority of staff expressed a desire to continue to remain employed by a Public Service office, thus remaining within the Queensland industrial relations environment, and not be employed by the newly created Forestry Plantations Queensland. Concerns were raised by staff at Beerburrum Forestry about the implications of this bill, and I discussed these with Mr Garry Hannigan, Assistant Director-General, Forestry. It was arranged for senior DPIF staff from Brisbane to meet with the employees at Beerburrum so that they could receive a comprehensive briefing on the changes and raise their concerns. This briefing was well received and it allowed the local workforce to be assured about their future employment and current benefits. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the union representatives from the Beerburrum site who have worked with the employees and the department to ensure that everyone was kept informed. I would also like to thank Garry Hannigan for his obvious care and concern for the workers of DPI Forestry and for his willingness to make himself available to work through this and other issues that I have been concerned about. My concern has always been that the staff of Beerburrum Forestry are looked after and that opportunities are made available to them that allow them to consolidate and develop their roles in a changing environment. No-one should underestimate the importance of the stated owned plantation estate. The market value of the trees across Queensland is estimated to be $650 million, which is expected to generate $90 million of revenue in the 2005-06 financial year. Importantly, the plantations support significant industry investment. It is estimated that these industries directly and indirectly support approximately 6,000 jobs and that a further 650 jobs are provided by DPI Forestry in the plantations themselves. The plantation industries record a direct turnover in the order of $3 billion and add some $1 billion in value to timber products through primary and secondary processing each year. The plantations, as I have said before, are not just an economic resource for the state of Queensland. They obviously have significant environmental benefits and provide additional grazing, beekeeping and recreational opportunities. The Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006 will clarify the responsibilities for managing and delivering this broader suite of services and enhance the delivery of these services. It will do so in a way that is consistent with the commercial production requirements of the forests. The management of the state owned plantations must have a strong commercial focus, and this bill will provide the impetus for further productivity increases and improved cost structures and it will ensure that market efficiencies are achieved. There are currently 26 processors operating in Queensland, and it is vital for them and the people who work for them that the processors can access equitably a competitively priced resource. This bill, as I have demonstrated above, is about ensuring that jobs are protected in the forestry industry and that the industry can be sustainable and competitive. The bill also clarifies the custodial responsibility for the forests which will better enable FPQ to protect its plantation assets. Relevant accountability structures have been proposed for FPQ and start with their responsibility to two ministers, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. FPQ must develop an annual operational plan with these two responsible ministers and they will be subject to the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. It should be noted that FPQ will be obliged to comply with directions of the responsible ministers. As I was working through the proposals that surround the creation of Forestry Plantations Queensland, I was keen to ensure that recreational opportunities would continue to be provided. I would like to reaffirm the commitment made by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation in her second reading speech on the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006 in which she stated— I want to put on record the fact that nothing in the bill is intended to limit the right of people to access state plantation forests for legitimate recreational pursuits, such as horse riding. Tonight I am pleased to inform the people of Glass House that this has been written into the charter, which obligates Forestry Plantations Queensland to continue to provide access for existing levels of recreational usage of the plantation estate and provides appropriate guidelines for 1312 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 accommodating increased recreational usage. Several local horse-riding groups contacted me to clarify this point. I also clarified that horse riding would continue in plantations regardless of their underlying tenure, that is, regardless of whether it be on crown land plantation or in freehold plantation areas. This access is, of course, subject to operational requirements and other restrictions on access when, for example, fire management and safety concerns require. I must say I was rather surprised to hear the member for Surfers Paradise talking about a letter he received from the Queensland Endurance Riders Association when they actually asked me all of these questions. I got straight back to them with all of the answers which clarified their concerns. I was rather surprised that the member for Surfers Paradise had not actually done that but had just felt a need to reiterate them here rather than actually work proactively for the horse riders. With regard to issuing permits to traverse these forests, existing arrangements under the Forestry Act 1959 will continue to apply, and FPQ will adopt a permit system which is similar to that used by the EPA. I would like to take this opportunity to again state my belief that parts of the plantation estate should be considered for a formally designated area for motorbike riding. Currently local residents are faced with a situation where the peace and quiet of the country neighbourhoods where they live is shattered on weekends by inconsiderate trail bike riders. Many of them are nothing short of hoons who have little care or concern for the people who live in the country or the environment in which they are riding. If we could work with riders, councils, recreation groups, the Police Service and motorbike suppliers I am sure that more isolated areas of the plantation estate could be developed to accommodate both the commercial timber growing and the needs of motorbike riders which would help preserve the peace in local township areas. Whilst talking about all things wood, I encourage members to check their diaries and find a way to attend the Maleny Wood Expo—‘From chainsaw to fine furniture’—which is on again this year from 29 April to 1 May. Barung Landcare is the fabulous organisation that has for the past 11 years organised this expo, which is designed to showcase farm forestry, conservation ideals, sustainable landcare methods, the beauty of Australian native timbers and the work of the Sunshine Coast’s best timber artisans. The exhibitors range from sustainable housing design to waterwise gardening, straw bale building, mobile milling, chainsaw carving, government displays and wood-turning. Opportunities abound to meet the artists who have created wonderful furniture, sculptures, functional items and decorative wood articles from sustainable harvested native timbers, recycled timbers and weed timbers. The organisers have arranged daily eco-tours, a soapbox theatre, entertainment, local music, food, environmental and historical displays and more. I am also looking forward to launching Ashley Sewell’s book Australian timbers volume 1, second edition. You could not hope to meet a more dedicated conserver of our knowledge on timber and farm forestry. I would encourage members to hop in their cars and pop up to Maleny next weekend. When they are finished at the expo I would encourage them to explore the rest of the town with its many interesting coffee shops and organic food stores, especially our wonderful Maple Street Co-op that stocks the most amazing items. The Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006 is an important milestone in the history of forestry in Queensland. I am certain that the new arrangements will enable the best economic return for the investment by the state government, ensure the long-term viability for the industry and thus preserve and grow jobs within the government and the timber industry. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.42 pm): I rise to speak to the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill and the government’s proposed changes to the forestry industry and the formation of the business entity Forestry Plantations Queensland. The minister claims that the state’s involvement in a commercial sense with state owned plantations will enhance the competitiveness of the plantation timber industry. I would like it understood and never forgotten that when the regional forest agreement was introduced it decimated thousands of jobs in the forestry industry. With a few exceptions, the closure of private access to logging in state owned forests in south-east Queensland saw the loss of thousands of jobs in small towns, commonly known as timber towns because the majority of jobs were in the forestry industry. It resulted in the loss of other businesses in the towns as well. As jobless families were forced to move away to look for work there was a domino effect. With the loss of clients for businesses we saw the businesses shut, we saw schools lose students and therefore teachers, we saw banks close and people forced to use facilities in other towns and whilst there they would shop which resulted in even more businesses in their towns going under. So it went on and on. The towns started to die. With no help from the government or anyone else, people in those towns dragged themselves through that crisis and started to climb upward. They have to be commended for their persistence and endeavours. People in these towns involved in the timber industry have been hurt very deeply in the past and have very long memories. They have very little confidence in this government because of their past experience. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1313

The forestry department was restructured, renamed and staffing cut to the bone in my area alone. This has been reflected across the state over the past few years. Small family mills were forced out because they could not access any timber to meet their quotas. Many of these working families sat in my office outlining the impact on their lives. Some were small contractors who do not believe they were given a fair deal by this government and nor do I. Now we have this bill, which will allow a government business to compete with the dwindling private sector with its corporatisation of the forestry plantation industry. I believe the opposite of what has been stated will occur. There is a line that has always been wheeled out every time governments want to privatise or corporatise any government business and it is that it will be better for the industry and better for consumers. We have seen many industries devastated in the past. I dare say they will not be the last ones we see. The minister claims that 6,000 jobs in the plantation sector will be saved with this bill, but she should never forget just how many were initially lost to the industry and associated enterprises because of what many believed was flawed thinking. Several years ago DPI Forestry sought the interest of property owners in my area in growing hardwood forests on their properties for logging in the future. DPI promised landholders ongoing support and advice to maintain their plantations. That turned out to be just another pie in the sky, good intention. Even today many feel that they have been left to stumble on in the dark in what was to them a new and unknown science simply because they were told they needed to diversify and DPI staff numbers were decimated. There are still landholders with plantations and no help. Unfortunately for landholders, the scheme looked workable on paper but it failed to be workable in reality. Now the intent of the government’s proposal is to pass assets and ownership of some state owned forests to a new government corporation—namely Forestry Plantations Queensland—in direct competition with private enterprise. The government has consistently failed its own good neighbour policy when it comes to state forests, with weeds and feral pests being allowed to flourish with little or no controls while neighbouring properties have been hounded by government officials to keep their properties clean of the same pests. As the drought continues to bite, the one major survival technique of Australian trees—and I know I go over and over this in the House, but it needs repeating until it sinks in—is that they discard their leaves and limbs. This results in vast amounts of fuel for fires. When forestry grazing leases existed, leaseholders cleaned up that rubbish. As a result, although they still had fires the forests were saved from extreme blazes and could recuperate. It is not so today. With insufficient staff and a flawed philosophy, it has been recognised that such practices as advocated by certain governments that bow to pressure from people who have little or no practical experience of these conditions amount to mismanagement by negligence. Quite a few years ago a major intense fire fuelled by such a build-up of discarded rubbish went through an area of concern killing everything in its path, and I mean everything. The wildlife, nocturnal birds and the next generation of seed pods were burnt to a crisp. Very mature trees were also burnt. The bigger trees, although dead, could have been harvested. When the property owner asked for permission to harvest he was given a definite no. When he tried to explain that they would fall down anyway and only add more fuel to the next fire he was still knocked back. The reason was that it was believed that landholders who had endangered or of-concern areas on their property would put a fire through those areas so that they could harvest the trees. That is a ludicrous situation. As one member stated earlier, there are cowboys out there. They are in any industry. But they are less than half of one per cent and by far and away the majority treasure their land because, as they often state, they need that land in good condition because they rely on it to survive. It can take a century to recover from a severe fire such as the one described. We all know that. No-one who understands and relies on their land can afford that kind of time. That is why it is fairly common to hear of farmers being badly burnt or killed trying to preserve their asset. This bill allows for agreement with other government departments to control fires, feral pests and noxious weeds. I will find it particularly interesting to watch over the next few years to see how this new money-making business venture deals with these issues, particularly in comparison to past management practices. During the briefing that was conducted by the minister’s staff, for which I thank them, it was stated that 25 per cent of the remaining western hardwood mills would be bought out in the not-too-distant future because hardwood timber is in short supply and they cannot access further supply. It is all very well for the minister to say that industry processes need equitable access to a competitively sourced resource—and I could not agree more—but plantations take years to establish. The industry will need much more timber before plantations mature to sustain its current output, let alone increase productivity. So I envisage that even more mills would be forced out of the industry. To sell any new venture, any new policy, or new legislation to the public, governments must ensure that a very positive spin is put on it. I would think that very few private enterprises would be prepared to wait 20 to 30 good years—which is what it would take—for any return on their investment. In drought or difficult times, those investors would be waiting a heck of a lot longer. Only governments could support these future plantations. 1314 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Many forests have been harvested selectively and sustainably for generations. Those forests have suffered very little or absolutely no long-term damage and meet current needs. Some of those forests would even have been classed as pristine by those who would choose to close them up and preserve them forever. It would seem that past generations knew more about selective logging than they have ever been given credit for. There was no felling of every tree, as they have often been accused of doing. I am very relieved that nothing in this bill will limit any further the right of people to access the state plantation forests for recreational pursuits, such as horse riding, grazing and beekeeping. Unfortunately, those who undertake these activities, especially horse riders, still do not believe that they have received any real clarification of their rights as statements made to that effect have never made it very clear exactly what ‘no net loss’ really means. I guess for nonriders, a person riding a horse along the edge of a road with traffic passing by only a few feet from their mount is acceptable. But it is a very dangerous practice. I am quite curious—so I have to ask—as to how much the government intends to take from Forestry Plantations Queensland. I know how much the government says it will take at this moment, but will Forestry Plantations Queensland end up like a power industry corporation which is robbed blind to prop up government coffers or will it be able to reinvest into the industry any profits from its commercial success? If Forestry Plantations Queensland cannot invest in its own future, it ends up just like a state owned power corporation: in crisis—as it did recently—and the people bear the brunt. We are assured that this will not happen—and I hope this is true. The bill also guarantees that DPI staff working in commercial plantation management will not lose their jobs. Over the past few years I have learned to be a bit cynical. I have to ask whether these positions will eventually be lost through natural attrition. Unfortunately, my cynicism comes from experience. Previously we received these guarantees from the forestry department, but places like Yarraman, Blackbutt and Kingaroy still lost plenty of staff. This bill outlines the following objectives as stated by the minister— The bill reaffirms this government’s priorities of increasing economic development and strengthening regional Queensland by establishing a new commercial entity to ensure the long-term sustainability and overall competitiveness of the plantation processing industry. If this bill can achieve those objectives then I am fully in support of it. On the other hand, we have seen this scenario before. Such plans have ended up being more destructive to the industry than helpful. So members can see that I am very wary of this bill. But as the industry appears to have not made any major protest against this bill, I lean strongly towards supporting it. I only hope that this bill achieves what the minister has outlined and has assured members that it will provide, that is, the necessary security and confidence to the plantation processing industry. As members can see, I am very concerned about the future of the industry. I can see the government perhaps kowtowing to the green movement at the next election, or at the one after that. Perhaps it has always been the intention of this government to close all private forestry and merely have government owned plantations in the future. That is something that we will find out in due course. Everything that has occurred in the industry since the government has come to office appears to be headed in that direction. Will we be—even more than we are now—forced to go offshore for more and more of our timber? How does the government reconcile its own policy of minimising greenhouse gases by preventing logging on our own shores but encouraging it in Third World countries by buying from such countries where they happily log every tree in sight to meet the demand? I agree that there needs to be a strong business structure to manage this asset. I support the establishment of the FPQ. I commend the bill to the House. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (7.54 pm): I rise to speak to the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill. As my colleague the member for Toowoomba South mentioned in his contribution, the coalition will support the bill. The main purpose of this bill is to establish a new corporation, Forestry Plantations Queensland, to be a commercial manager of state owned plantations. Forestry plantations are managed by DPI Forestry, which is a commercialised business unit. It controls almost 90 per cent of Queensland’s forestry plantation estate. The bill also creates the position of chief plantation forestry officer, provides a proper accountability framework for Forestry Plantations Queensland and provides the corporation with the property rights and powers to undertake commercial operations. It also enables the government to appoint a commercial advisory board. Curiously, this bill also seeks to amend the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 in relation to changes to salary sacrifice arrangements for members of parliament. It also clarifies salary entitlements for members holding more than one office. The Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries will have jurisdiction over Forestry Plantations Queensland and will have the power to issue ministerial directions. One of the key reasons behind this change is that, despite the state plantations operating as a commercial business 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1315 entity for well over a decade, they are very bureaucratic in their operation. That has affected their market competitiveness and their ability to meet industry demands. My hope is that treating state owned suppliers as a normal company will improve the efficiency of the organisation and free it up from some of the bureaucratic red tape that binds it currently. I would like to comment on the use of state plantations by recreational users. Recreational groups have been very concerned about the proposed changes and they have every right to be. This government has not made it easy for people to use state forests and plantations for recreational purposes. I have been contacted by several of these recreational groups in relation to this bill. They are all apprehensive about the possible changes contained in the bill, such as changes to permits, access to certain areas and providing insurance details. The rights of all Queenslanders to access these areas must be protected. These forests belong to the people of Queensland, not to the government of the day. The management of forests by governments is a delicate business. On the one hand, governments have to protect the rights of timber workers and others who earn a living in this industry. On the other hand they have to protect areas of the forest for the benefit of the environment and for the enjoyment of people and for future generations. Ironically, the Labor Party knows nothing about that. I ask members to cast their minds back to the 2004 federal election and to a certain policy of the former member for Werriwa, Mr Latham. Labor was so desperate to win Greens preferences in Victoria that it was willing to sell out the timber workers in Tasmania with its embarrassing excuse for a forestry policy. What did the coalition produce as a forestry policy? That policy looked after both the environment and timber industry jobs. What happened? The coalition won two seats in Tasmania and, once again, a Labor policy was consigned to the dustbin of industry. Once again, that was proof that the Labor Party will pander to any special interest group if it thinks that it can win a vote from it. The coalition will support this bill, which seeks to commercially reform the state owned forest plantations. The concerns of the recreational users are valid. We hope that those issues will be dealt with in a proper manner by the government. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (7.57 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the consideration of the Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 2006. At the outset, might I say that the forestry industry has always played a very important role in a number of communities throughout my electorate. Traditionally, that forestry industry has been based on native forest reserves that were set aside almost 100 years ago for the commercial production of timber. Unfortunately, this government has taken a philosophical position that has seen the closing of almost all of those forestry areas—those areas that our forefathers recognised could be a sustainable source of commercial timber and which have been managed sustainably over that 100 years to create a viable industry and produce some very valuable and very beautiful hardwood timber. This morning’s announcement by the Treasurer is the final blow to that native forest based timber industry. It was not unexpected, because for some time the community had been expecting an announcement as the government procrastinated about its solution following the western hardwood study. The fact that that announcement was not unexpected does not lessen the shock and the despair that is being felt in a number of communities that I represent. The communities of Monto and Mundubbera are facing economic devastation because of the decision made by the state Labor government. The minister said this morning that some 30 jobs would be lost because of the announcement. I think that is grossly misleading. My estimation, from discussions today with some of the community leaders in those towns, is that close to 80 jobs and anything up to 100 jobs will be lost in those two communities. When a town like Monto loses a small number of jobs it has a flow-on effect. When you take 30 or 40 jobs out of a community like that it causes devastation. That is what the people I represent in Monto and Mundubbera are facing. On their behalf I put on the record of this House my anger, my despair and my frustration at how unnecessary this decision is. The decision is not scientifically based. It is not logically based. It is philosophically based. It is an emotive political decision that is designed to source Greens preferences for a desperate Labor government. It is a continuation of an approach that has been taken over a number of years. It had its genesis with the south-east forestry agreement, which closed up a whole range of timber towns. Other members have spoken about that in this debate tonight. And so it continues as the Beattie Labor government seeks to close down completely native forest based timber industries. It is interesting to look at that decision logically and to examine the reality behind it—something no member of the government has done because they are philosophically, emotively and politically driven. The reality is that there is no reason for these communities to be devastated in this way. The green movement has demanded, and has got, something like one million hectares of reserved areas. I have seen the maps that indicate where these areas are. One of the main areas is the Coomlingah Forest, which is between Monto and Biloela on the Coomlingah Range. It is a vast area of what is recognised by foresters as the best spotted gum forest in the world. It is now to become a reserve. The sustainable timber operation that has operated in that area for almost 100 years is to be closed down and it is to become a reserve. Members should just think 1316 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 about that. The industry has operated there for 100 years, yet that area is still good enough to become a reserve. Don’t the people who have operated that industry deserve some credit? Don’t the generations of foresters with their great corporate knowledge who allowed that area to sustainably produce spotted gum timber for almost 100 years deserve some credit for their management? They have left that area in such a condition that the conservation movement and the Labor government believe it is so valuable that it should become a reserve. I know that area fairly well, coincidentally, because my family had the grazing leases in that area for many years when I was younger. I know that some blocks have actually been harvested three times over that period. You can go into those forests and see the evidence of three harvesting operations that have been done in a sensitive and sustainable way over the life of that forest. Yet it is still in a condition that warrants, in the government’s view, it being turned into a reserve. I object most strongly to the proposition that has been put to the parliament in this forest debate that somehow this emotive, politically driven agenda is saving the forest. That is absolute rubbish. What it is doing is putting the forest at risk of destruction. That is the difference between people who understand the reality of it and the mindless politicians who sit in this parliament and vote on legislation such as this for emotive, politically driven aims. When you take away the management expertise that has been built up over the years and these areas are left to somehow manage themselves, inevitably fuel will build up and sooner or later fire will destroy those areas. It will destroy the values of those areas that have been preserved and enhanced for so many years. Those areas are not naturally meant to have fuel build up in them. Those areas were developed under a regime that conducted burn-offs on a regular basis. Without any proper management of those areas, inevitably—and unfortunately—the heritage values that people seek to protect will be lost in the wanton destruction of the wildfires. That is as much a tragedy as the tragedy that is being wreaked upon the communities that I represent. Those areas will end up with less heritage value to the generations who come after us simply because of the ignorance and the short-term political aims of a government that is not interested in the facts. This bill sets up a corporation to manage the plantations that the government has established to replace the native forest industry, which has been the basis of the timber industry in south-east Queensland for so many years. The plantations that have been established in the last five or six years— all of the pine plantations, the softwood plantations, that were established many years ago—will be managed by a corporation. Queensland has only recently moved to hardwood plantations. There are some great examples of softwood plantations that are readily seen from the Bruce Highway immediately north of Brisbane. But the hardwood plantation industry in Queensland is very much a recent development. A significant proportion of that hardwood plantation is also in my electorate. As the government has moved to replace the timber supply that was lost by the decisions that were taken under the South East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement, DPI Forestry has bought up large tracts of former farmland across the South Burnett and established plantations. Despite some early problems with establishing those plantations, they have been reasonably successful to this point. Some of the growth rates have been quite impressive. So we will in time, I believe, see a viable hardwood plantation based timber industry, and those plantations will in time provide a very valuable timber resource. But there is no reason why that hardwood plantation timber resource could not have coexisted with a native forest based timber industry. There is no reason why those areas that were set aside 100 years ago could not continue to provide a sustainable yield of timber. There have been arguments about what that sustainable yield is. There has been debate about whether or not the crown allocation that is allocated to the timber mills in those areas is sustainable. That is a worthy debate. Everyone in the timber industry who depends on that timber industry has a vested industry in ensuring that that industry is sustainable. So we can have a debate. We need to closely examine what the sustainable yield of those forests could be. There is no way that it could be argued that that sustainable yield was zero, but that is the proposition the government is putting to the people who depend on that timber industry. However, the government is certainly not interested in establishing what is the sustainable yield. As I have indicated, it is driven by a philosophical position. It is driven by a political motivation to somehow placate a green movement with a short-sighted approach and it does not understand the inevitable damage of its decision. I hope that the corporation that will be established upon the passage of this bill tonight will administer the plantations that have been put in place across the southern part of my electorate. A certain number of issues relating to those plantations deserve some consideration by the government and by the corporation that will established, not least of which is the loss of the rates base to councils where a significant area has been turned over to plantations. Some of the South Burnett shire councils have indicated to me that the area of hardwood plantation that has been acquired by DPI Forestry—and which is, therefore, no longer rateable by council—has reached a level where it is impacting on their rates base. I pose the question to the minister of whether that will change when this corporation takes over the administration. Will the corporation be a rateable entity as far as councils are concerned? Obviously, DPI Forestry, as a state government entity, was not rateable. The property that it had acquired and owned was not rateable. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1317

This is an issue. If the corporation is going to continue acquiring land and continue expanding its plantation base, then this issue must be addressed by those councils which have had significant areas of their land turned over to plantations. Other questions will arise as these plantations grow to maturity and the harvesting operations get underway. A whole range of issues now surround the harvesting of timber—for example, where the impact of harvesting operations is unfairly felt by shires that do not receive a direct benefit such as when timber is harvested and transported distances and shires are left with the responsibility of maintaining roads that have come under pressure from heavy logging but have no recourse and no method of recovering costs from either the harvesting operations or the property owners who may well live in other shires or some distances away. That problem will be exacerbated and magnified when harvesting of the plantations eventually takes place. I believe that the corporation to be put in place by this bill and the government need to consider the interests of the shires and ratepayers who must bear the impact of this legislation. As the shadow minister indicated, we will support the bill tonight. We have always supported the establishment of a hardwood plantation industry in Queensland. We are certainly proud of the softwood plantations that our forebears established and which now provide a valuable timber resource. We hope, and know, that one day the hardwood plantation industry will provide a similar resource. However, it is a tragedy that it has come at the cost of the abandonment of large areas of state forests. They were identified and set aside for the production of sustainable timber and they have been very well managed and sustainably managed by generations of foresters. In conclusion, I pay tribute to the men and women who managed these great forest estates for very many years and who, unfortunately, have never received recognition of that. In fact, they have borne the brunt of the government’s decision in respect to forest estates. That is a great injustice. As I said earlier, they have left those areas in a sufficient condition that they are now considered worthy of being reserved. That, in itself, speaks volumes about the results that they have attained. I will certainly have more to say about the effects on my electorate of this latest decision. I will look for some support by the government of the communities that have borne the brunt of this ridiculous, ideologically based decision. In terms of the bill before the House, as the shadow minister has indicated, we will support it. We hope that it contributes to a successful plantation based forestry industry in the future. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (8.15 pm), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this bill. I also thank the opposition for its indication of support for what I believe is a very important step forward in maintaining the competitive viability of a very important resource for Queensland. A number of issues were raised during the debate and I will very briefly address each of them. Firstly, a question has been raised about the payment of dividends by the proposed new entity. This was raised by the member for Tablelands, who seems to believe that the purpose of the government’s move is simply to secure a new source of dividends. I assure the member, and other members, that DPI Forestry already pays dividends to the government and this practice will continue under the new entity. Nothing about that will change. The question of the use of the estates for recreational purposes was raised by a number of members. I want to reassure all of the members who are concerned about this issue. Firstly, during the development of the bill, extensive consultation occurred with the Environmental Protection Agency and with stakeholders about third-party access to state plantation forests and, in particular, third-party access for recreational use. The Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill provides the necessary legal structure to allow the new FPQ or Forestry Plantations Queensland to fulfil its charter obligations. The charter obligates FPQ to continue to provide access for existing levels of recreation usage of the state plantation forest estate, including access to the horse-riding trails that were established pursuant to the South East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement, and to provide appropriate guidelines for accommodating increased recreation use. These guidelines are based upon the principles of transparency and accountability of the responsible ministers. In reality, the state presently has an incomplete understanding of the existing levels of recreational use of state plantation forests. A considerable level of unlawful use occurs, including rubbish disposal, car dumping and arson in some plantation areas. Accordingly, the FPQ charter obligates it, within 12 months of commencement of its operations, to undertake baseline studies of existing usage and to develop a recreation strategy which details how it will achieve its third-party access obligations, including managing unlawful use and the state’s public liability exposure. It must then submit this strategy to the responsible ministers for consideration. In the interim, FPQ will continue to manage recreation use in accordance with practices that are extant now. 1318 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

In essence, the government is committed to retaining recreational use of these areas of plantation. On page 10 of the bill, clause 12, under the heading ‘Functions’, (b) specifically lists ‘recreational purposes’ as an example of an appropriate use of the estate. Much of the debate this afternoon has centred around the western hardwoods agreement. It has not focused on the clauses of the bill. However, it is important to address some of the issues raised during the debate about the western hardwoods announcement by the government. Some speakers have entirely missed the point of the western hardwoods proposal. The western hardwoods process is required to create and maintain a sustainable hardwood industry. The current levels of harvest are just not sustainable. At current levels of harvest, if we did nothing—if we buried our heads in the sand and did nothing—the best estimates that I and the government have been advised of on the basis of all available research is that there is an estimated 11 years of supply left of western hardwoods. So, we can bury our heads in the sand, allow the current levels of harvest to continue and watch this industry go right out the back door. This government does not think that is a responsible thing to do. We do not think that that is the best way to maintain a sustainable industry into the future. The way for the future is to transition to a plantation based industry, and the industry itself supports this transition. But this transition cannot be made in 12 months, it cannot be made in a short period; it has to be planned for. As everybody knows, timber production by plantation is more efficient. It produces more than 20 times better growth than native forest. With the delivery of one million hectares to conservation reserves and a voluntary sale by Millers of more than 25 per cent of the current crown allocation, we can, in an orderly way over the next 20 years, transition to a plantation industry. I stress that the sale by Hyne and Sons was a completely voluntary sale by them. They made a decision to move out of hardwoods. I thank them for their willingness to work with the government on this because it has allowed us to reduce the yield and that will mean that instead of having 11 years at the current rate of harvest, it will reduce the harvest so that the industry that relies on crown allocation can have a 20-year period during which to transition to a plantation based industry. Far from some loony, baseless, ideologically driven, extreme green agenda, this is a program put in place to ensure that we have a hardwood timber industry in Queensland into the future. I would venture to suggest that the people on the other side who have stood up and mouthed off during this debate know that. They know that the current rate of harvest is unsustainable; they know that to do nothing is not an option. They are doing nothing more than compounding an already difficult situation with ill-informed comments. At times like this when an industry is facing serious, serious problems, we ought to see a level of bipartisan support for these sorts of solutions. One of the other issues that was raised was a concern about the continued management of the hardwood area. Again alarm bells are ringing that somehow it will not be managed, there will be fires, there will be pests. I reassure people that the EPA is currently the custodian of these areas in terms of fire and pest management and their role in relation to these areas will continue and they will continue to manage it. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: As they do in every other area. Ms BLIGH: Yes. Mr Horan: That is a bit of a worry. Ms BLIGH: Does the member not think that they are doing a good job now? Mr Horan: No. Ms BLIGH: I am happy to put on the record that the member for Toowoomba South believes that the EPA’s management of these areas is less than desirable and I will make sure that the people who do that work know of his views. I conclude by recognising, as other speakers have, how very important this resource is to Queensland. It is a very valuable and significant industry to Queensland. The plantation estate has a value of some $650 million in the trees alone. That is excluding the land. There are 650 jobs directly in Queensland Forestry, but there are indirectly more than 6,000 people employed in related areas. This government does not treat an industry of that significance lightly. We believe that the plantation estate is a key part of making sure that our timber industry is sustainable. We are not going to watch it go out the back door, we are not going to put our head in the sand, but nor are we going to ignore the need to keep our own plantations managed as well as they can be and to keep them as competitive as we can. We believe that the model that has been put in place through this bill is the way to do that. I am very pleased that members across the House will support the bill and I commend it to the House. Motion agreed to. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1319

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr HORAN (8.24 pm): Can the minister give an explanation of exactly what this bill means and some examples. The bill states— A regulation may declare a stated area of land to be a State plantation forest if the land is, or is part of, a State forest. However, land that is a State forest park under the Forestry Act 1959 may not be declared to be a State plantation forest. I presume that is simply blocking any state forest park from ever becoming a plantation. Then it states— If the land stops being a State forest or part of a State forest, the declaration of the land as a State plantation forest is taken to have been revoked. I would like an explanation of that and an example, if there is one. Ms BLIGH: I draw the member’s attention to the explanatory notes. I think it is pretty straightforward. Clause 4 provides for the making of a regulation that allows the status of a block of land to change and to ensure that, should it change and if that change is then revoked, it retains its original purpose. Mr HORAN: Clause 4(4) states— To remove any doubt, it is declared that the declaration of land as a State plantation forest does not affect the status of the land as State forest. That is really at odds with clause 4(2) which states that land that is a state forest park may not be declared as a state plantation forest. In (4) it states that the declaration of land as a state plantation forest does not affect the status of the land as state forest. It seems to me to be at odds with (2); (2) says it cannot be done and (4) says if it does happen this is how it is done. Ms BLIGH: It is probably easier to understand if I give an example, as the member suggested. It would apply in circumstances where, for example, land that is currently a state forest was identified to be more appropriately used as an area for recreation and therefore its status changed to a recreation area. It is not so much the example that the member gave but the opposite, if that makes sense. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr HORAN (8.26 pm): I notice that one of the conditions of doing virtually everything depends upon the approval of the two responsible ministers in all cases. It does allow in certain instances for it to be done by one person. I presume that is to cover Christmas holidays and those types of occasions where one minister is looking after the two jobs. Ms BLIGH: I am happy to confirm for the member that it is intended that this body would operate in the same way as GOCs do in relation to shareholding ministers—that is, that two ministers would share responsibility, in this case the Treasurer and the minister responsible for what is currently DPIF. But, yes, there are some circumstances, as the member says, where there may well be acting arrangements that would require an order for a matter to proceed. A minister who might be acting and hold both portfolios would be required to act alone, but it is not intended that that would be the usual course. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr HORAN (8.28 pm): This clause is probably the crux of the bill where it establishes the corporation sole. I think it is important for this parliament to examine in this clause why it is a corporation sole and not a government owned corporation. I know that we have touched on it in some of the contributions by the Deputy Premier and me. I think that the reasons given for it being a corporation sole are to do with native title issues, that it is easier to deal with unresolved native title issues. I would like that confirmed. It does seem to me that the main reason that it is being made a corporation sole is for industrial relations purposes. Only under a corporation sole can a system be put in place—that system being the office of Forestry Plantations Queensland—that simply handles as a stand-alone unit the wage structure and the IR structure for those people employed. If they were in a government owned corporation there would be different arrangements and they would have different options and choices in regard to the industrial relations system that they opted to work under. Those seemed to be the two main reasons. Perhaps also it is a more flexible arrangement, because a latter clause states that the legal capacity of a corporation sole is that of an individual. Maybe it has been put together in that way so that it has a greater degree of flexibility. I ask the minister whether the two key reasons are the industrial relations and native title issues. Are property rights also an issue? Ms BLIGH: As a government our aim was to find a suitable way to ensure that we could get the benefits of a corporate structure into the management of the plantation estate. We wanted the benefits of a more corporate way of doing things to ensure that we remain competitive. In doing so, we had to be 1320 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 mindful of the circumstances that prevail at the moment, which include a very rapidly changing industrial relations environment. At the time of putting the legislation together, we wanted to ensure that we could achieve the benefits of corporatisation without exposing the workforce to a set of industrial arrangements that we do not think would enhance the operation of the new corporation. We did not want to enter into a restructure of this organisation in a way that would expose our workers to an industrial environment that we believe is unfair and that would not take us forward in terms of our aims. In terms of native title, it is reasonable to say that it is likely that, if such issues were to arise, maintaining the land in the body as proposed in the bill may well help to circumvent difficulties. However, I would have to say that that is not the main motivation. It may well be an effect, but we do not anticipate significant native title issues to arise or for that to be a significant problem for the corporation. As I have in other forums, I am happy to acknowledge that this structure has been chosen because we think it will achieve, firstly, the benefits of corporatisation without exposing our workers to the detriments that would be entailed in the new industrial relations environment. Mr HORAN: I ask the minister what would be the advantage of this over, say, the workings of a government owned corporation such as Queensland Rail? Queensland Rail has been very successful. It has expanded into other states. It has become a very successful government owned corporation. Is the minister saying that workers for government owned corporations such as Queensland Rail, Q-Build, Q- Fleet or any one of the others would be forced into a set of industrial regulations, presumably alluding to the Commonwealth’s WorkChoices program, that they may not wish to be involved in? Many of those decisions have to be agreed to by the shareholding ministers. I wonder why the minister could not do all that she wanted to do within a government owned corporation, or is this a trend? The Australian agricultural colleges have gone to a corporation sole. Is it a trend to go to a corporation sole rather than a government owned corporation simply because it is a far easier and simpler operation to run? Ms BLIGH: In my previous answer I gave sufficient justification for the government’s decision in relation to this organisation. At this stage no other parts of government have been identified as appropriate for any further corporatisation. I think it would be an exaggeration to say that there is any trend or even any decision by government to adopt this model in any other arrangement. We would look at every situation on its merits, the circumstances that prevail and the nature of the business. We are very satisfied with the current operation of Queensland Rail and we are equally satisfied that this model is the appropriate model for this organisation at this point in time. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr HORAN (8.34 pm): Clause 7 provides that Forestry Plantations Queensland represents the state, which means that it has all the privileges and immunities of the state. Many people on this side of the House have spoken about this, particularly with regard to the issue of rates. We are developing a forestry plantation system. The previous DPI Forestry, now the FPQ, had begun a process of purchasing freehold land, particularly through areas like the South Burnett. As I understand it, this can involve quite substantial tracts of land. Off the top of my head, I believe at the moment the target for South Burnett for the western hardwoods will be an area of 10,000 hectares plus another 10,000 hectares. That involves very substantial amounts of freehold land in shires that rely very heavily on their rate base. If that rate base is taken out, it can make a huge difference. Plantings are occurring on a timed basis and so they will move to a gradual harvesting regime. That will mean that a lot of heavy trucks will travel on the local roads. The plantations of the South Burnett are scattered throughout the area. They are not located down a single roadway or in one area. They are all over the place. A plantation could be located on the corner of a property, a larger part of a property or basically the whole of a property or a subdivision of it. The plantations are located all over the shires, which could mean a substantial reduction in the rate base. At the same time, the shires could face an increased burden due to the increase in the maintenance of roads, bridges and culverts and with wash-outs in wet weather and so forth. It is a real issue for us that local government is going to have to bear this burden. Are we actually taking away the ratable base that local government had previously? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for raising this, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record that rates are currently paid on the 10,000 hectares of freehold land within the plantation estate. Those rates will continue to be paid on the freehold and nothing will change. Mr HORAN: Does that mean that they do not have all the privileges and immunities of the state? Clause 7(2) states— Without limiting subsection (1), FPQ has all the State’s privileges and immunities. Therefore, they are entitled to be rate free, because one of the normal immunities and privileges of the state government is that it does not pay rates. The minister states that FPQ will pay rates. We are quite concerned that the rates are not being paid, but the minister advises that they are. FPQ is currently 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1321 buying up land around Fitzroy, Felton and some of those areas for the western hardwood plantations. Can the minister guarantee that FPQ will continue to pay rates on any freehold land that it purchases where rates are currently being paid? Ms BLIGH: I know that it seems at odds with the notion of attracting all of the immunities and privileges of the state. However, it is important to remember that, as we speak, those plantations are creatures of the state and they are paying rates on the freehold parts of their land. It is only the land that is freehold, and that is only 10,000 hectares. However, I acknowledge what the honourable member is saying that that is an important part of the rate base of some very small councils. Moving to this new structure will make no change to the rate-paying requirements of the new entity FPQ in relation to its freehold land—not to the other land. In relation to its freehold land, as is currently the case it will continue to pay rates. The second question the member asked was whether they would pay rates on any further purchases of land on a freehold basis. The answer is yes. Mr SEENEY: I think there is some confusion here on the part of the minister with regard to the answer that has been given to the member for Toowoomba South. As I understand it, when the state government buys land it does not pay rates to the local authority. That is the complaint that has been brought to me by local authorities: that when the state government buys these areas of land they are no longer part of a rate base for the local authority. It is quite misleading for the minister to say that whatever rates are being paid now will continue to be paid. The complaint that has been made to me is that the properties that are being purchased by DPI Forestry at the moment are not rateable. The education department does not pay rates to the council. The justice department does not pay rates on its courthouses. The same situation exists with land that DPI Forestry purchases. When it purchases extensive areas of what was previously privately owned land, that land is removed from the rate base of the local authority. That seems to be at odds with the information that the minister is giving. It needs to be clarified. If the councils that are complaining to me are being misinformed or have the wrong understanding of the situation, it needs to be clarified. Significant issues have been raised with me about the degree to which the rates base is being eroded by the purchase of previously privately owned land by what is the state government. As far as I am aware and from my experience of local authorities—and I was on councils for seven or eight years—no state government department pays rates. They do not pay rates on any of the properties. They pay service charges if they have a sewerage connection, a water connection or whatever, but they do not pay a rate based on the valuation in the way that the minister or I or private landholders do. The minister certainly needs to clarify what the situation is and what the situation is going to be in regard to this new corporation. Ms BLIGH: I can only repeat my last answer. In relation to the payments made to local councils currently by DPI Forestry, the arrangements whereby payments are made in relation to freehold land but not with regard to other title will be retained with the new body. Nothing will change. If the member is aware of circumstances in which the current DPI Forestry is buying land and, in his view, on the basis of other blocks of land or other arrangements that they have on which they are paying rates and they are not doing it, I suggest he takes that up with the minister. There is nothing in this bill that will change the rating arrangements in relation to freehold land or other kinds of land that is managed by FPQ as opposed to the current arrangements through DPIF. The current arrangements may well have problems with which the member has issues, but there is nothing in this bill that will change the existing arrangements. Mr SEENEY: That is exactly the point. That is as I understood it. My reading of the legislation was that the legislation did not change anything; it provided the corporation with the same rights and immunities as a state government department currently enjoys. The point I was trying to raise in the second reading debate was that, with the formation of this corporation, there is an opportunity to solve what is becoming an increasingly bigger problem for local authorities in that they are losing their rates base with the establishment of these extensive areas of plantations. Everyone supports the establishment of these plantations, but it is an unforeseen issue that their establishment does erode the rates bases of small shires. The answer that the minister has given certainly confirms that that situation, unfortunately, is going to continue under the new corporation, and I think that is a shame. There remains an opportunity for the government to ensure that this corporation acts like a corporation rather than an arm of the government and pays the same rates as any other corporation would pay rather than receives the immunities from that rate-paying responsibility that government departments currently enjoy. I firmly believe that that is an issue that has to be addressed somewhere. If this is going to be a corporation in any real sense of the word, then it has an obligation to meet with regard to ensuring that the rate base of the shires in which it operates is maintained and can be sustainable in the long term. Mr HORAN: In this last segment available to me we have to clarify this. I think the minister and I have both acknowledged that under this clause this corporation sole has all of the same rights and privileges of a department. So it can buy land and not pay rates. The minister said initially that the DPI has still been paying rates on the land— Ms Bligh: Only on the 10,000 hectares of freehold land. 1322 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Mr HORAN: On the 10,000 hectares of freehold land it is still paying rates. The minister said in response to my question that if it purchases more land it would continue paying the rates that exist on any freehold land it buys, for example, for the western hardwoods. Then in her final reply she simply said that this legislation does not change anything that happens now. That is our concern. We are of the understanding that the rate base is being eroded. Can the minister finally say that it will pay the rates on all freehold land? That is what people who have a private forestry plantation have to do. If they buy a farm they have to pay rates. If it is owned by the state government, there is the ability here for it to have that privilege that a state government has and not pay rates. I would like it clarified once and for all that it is paying the rates on all those state owned plantations that have been purchased—10,000-odd hectares in South Burnett—and will do so in the future when it buys the land for the western hardwoods, just as the owners of that private land were paying. Ms BLIGH: I am not sure where the confusion lies. I think I have been very clear. Where the DPIF currently pays rates, that will continue under the provisions of the newly created entity. Where they do not, there is nothing in this bill that will create a new rates liability. I understand that the member wants to change that. That is a policy issue. This bill does not change the existing arrangements. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr HORAN (8.47 pm): This clause relates to the legal capacity of FPQ. The bill states quite succinctly that it has the powers of an individual. That is probably a good description of a corporation sole and the flexibility given to it. It then goes on to a number of things that it is able to do. It says in subclauses (3) and (4) that it may exercise its powers inside and outside of Queensland. I presume that is allowing this corporation to expand like Queensland Rail throughout the rest of Australia if it wishes to. It goes on to say that it may exercise its powers outside Australia. Whilst we like to see a Queensland corporation do well and expand and so forth—and it might be drawing a long bow—that would not stop it from conducting its operations overseas if it found that it could do it more cheaply. That could happen. It would have to have the approval of the two ministers, would it not, to shift its operations fully overseas? It could well be that it gradually starts operations in Tasmania and finds that, due to the rainfall, it is a better and more financially viable operation to start doing it in Malaysia and it then finds that it can clear a lot cheaper and there is a lot more there. Then we could end up with some sort of a fledgling industry left here in Queensland because there is a corporation sole making a profit and providing a dividend to the government and it finds it can do better elsewhere for climatic, industrial or political reasons. Ms BLIGH: I think the member is drawing a very long bow to suggest that Forestry Plantations Queensland is about to start operating overseas. This is a very straightforward clause. It simply enables it to exercise the powers of a corporation. The much more likely example of using those powers would be to sue and be sued—that is, to sue companies that are beyond the borders of Queensland. That is something which I would have thought we would all support and think desirable. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr HORAN (8.50 pm): This clause relates to the limitation on FPQ’s powers in relation to state plantation forests. Its powers are limited to those it has under the Forestry Act or a profit a prendre, as mentioned further on in the legislation. Is this the clause that gives the corporation the security that it needs to be able to take those timbers in the plantations? I think what everyone fears is that if they are operating in the private sector or the semipublic sector suddenly there would be some change to the legislation that means that they would no longer have the right to take that product that they have been growing for some 20 years or more. Ms BLIGH: I am sorry, I do not actually know what the member is asking. I think the clause is straightforward. It limits the powers that FPQ may exercise in relation to a state plantation forest to those that are conferred on it under the Forestry Act. Mr Horan: I am talking about the security of the profit a prendre. Ms BLIGH: That is clear. What clause 9 says is that under a profit a prendre arrangement the powers that FPQ may exercise are those that are mentioned in the section of the act. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr HORAN (8.52 pm): Can the minister explain that part of clause 10 regarding the FPQ being declared an excluded matter for the Corporations Act? Ms BLIGH: Again, I am not sure what needs explaining. Clause 10 provides explicitly that FPQ is excluded from the operation of the corporations legislation. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1323

Mr HORAN: Even though it is a corporation? It is a corporation sole. Does it mean that because it is a corporation sole it is not subject to the Corporations Act? What I want to know is why it is excluded from the Corporations Act. Does it get some special privileges that other corporations do not get? Ms BLIGH: It is simply the case that because it is established under a state act it is excluded from the requirements and operations of the federal act. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr HORAN (8.54 pm): This is probably the better area to talk about profit a prendre. We want to be sure that we do not have some radical green push on the government of the future that renders this profit a prendre less secure than we think it might be. This clause describes the functions of FPQ as managing the forest by entering into a profit a prendre for the Forestry Act. It also allows it to cover not only the trees but also the quarrying. Further over the page there is the provision about owning and using freehold land primarily for plantation purposes and any other purpose consistent with those plantation purposes. That takes account of using the land for a nursery, for grazing or for recreational purposes. I presume, then, that this particular clause sets out that they can manage the forest or the plantation by allowing it to be used for grazing, a nursery or recreational uses that we talked about during the debate on the second reading. This clause sets out at paragraph (f) the paying of dividends to the state under section 22. I would like the minister to explain that a little further. We know that the commercial business unit has been paying a dividend. Is it correct that this dividend is not specified, other than further on in this bill, which says that it cannot be more than 100 per cent of the profits? As I understand it, the dividend would be determined each year when the financial and operational plan and budget are put in place and approved by the two shareholding ministers. It might be that the chief forester says, ‘We are going to make a profit of $10 million this year and the dividend we propose to pay is $4 million.’ Paragraph (g) states that they have to perform community service obligations. Are these community service obligations predetermined, set out or regulated, or are they simply something that arises on an ad hoc basis? Is there any force or compulsion on FPQ to actually provide community service obligations or does it only come about if they decide to put it into the operational plan which they do each year? Subclause (2)(a) states that the best practice principles for sustainable management of plantation forests must be used. It did not do them much good in western hardwood, where they had some of the world’s best practice and they still got closed down. Ms BLIGH: There are a number of questions. Can I say that the member’s interpretation was accurate in all of those. I can clarify in relation to the dividend that, yes, it is intended that the dividends payable by the new entity would be determined on an annual basis as they are with other similar entities. All of the circumstances that would prevail at the time would be taken into account. In relation to the performance of community service obligations, that is not specified in the bill but would be contained in the operational plan. A good example would be the planning of a hardwood plantation which on its own is not commercially viable at this stage and would require a CSO payment to effectively subsidise that plantation in the short term. I will clarify in relation to the functions concerning profit a prendre arrangements that, yes, this and the other parts of the bill that refer to this are the provisions that effectively secure the resource for FPQ’s use. It separates the title of the land from the title of the trees, thereby securing the use of the resource. I think that was all of the member’s questions. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr HORAN (8.59 pm): This clause deals with the financial arrangements. Subclause (a) refers to borrowing money and raising money. That is understandable. The clause states further— ... including by the issue of debentures, bonds, inscribed stock and other securities. Does the minister foresee this corporation issuing debentures, bonds and inscribed stock? The corporation will be able to do that because it is contained in this legislation. Does the minister see it doing that? Subclause (b) refers to lending money. Under what circumstances would the minister envisage this corporation to be lending money? Who would they be lending money to? Does this subclause relate to the issue of some forms of credit or the loaning of funds to people to establish a plantation? Who would be the recipients of this money? Ms BLIGH: The provisions in the bill that relate to the financial arrangements for the proposed new entity are drafted in a sufficiently broad way to ensure that the very flexibility that we are looking for from a corporate entity can be achieved. It is not intended in the short term that there would be the issuing of debentures or that there would be any entering into of loans. Were the corporation to take up 1324 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006 any of those options, it would have to be included in the operational plan and approved by the shareholding ministers at the time. This provision was drafted in a sufficiently broad way to give the new corporation flexibility. I do not have ready-made examples of how that might be exercised, but should the corporation seek to do so, it would have to do that through its operational plan and with the approval of the minister. This bill is preparing a corporation, hopefully, to be on a very sustainable footing that can grow well into the future. Mr HORAN On page 12 of the bill, subclause (m) states— The formation or establishment of, participation in the formation or establishment of, or participation in a business undertaking. The minister just said that this provision was to give the corporation complete flexibility. I am trying to dot all the i’s and cross the t’s. This subclause allows the corporation a fairly broad scope by which to enter into a form of business undertaking. I presume this provision is designed for them to enter into some form of contracting or subcontracting business. That might relate to thinning trees, taking off the lower limbs of tress, or planting trees. Theoretically, unless there is some other provision in this clause that limits the corporation to staying within this field, it gives the corporation the opportunity to move into two or three other business enterprises. Because the corporation has the equipment that is used to plant trees and other machinery, it may decide to go into contract ploughing throughout the district or something like that. That provision gives them a pretty broad scope to move into any other sort of business. Ms BLIGH: The intention of this bill is to allow us to maximise the commercial return on the asset and to maximise the value of the asset. Over time, if that means entering into arrangements that would allow the best use of the resource, of course, that is what we want them to do. This clause would allow the sorts of examples that the member just gave. It would also allow for the entity to enter into joint ventures. I do not think that it is very difficult to imagine that in the future there may well be joint ventures with private sector organisations that might enhance the value of the estate. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Mr HORAN (9.03 pm): Could the minister give an explanation of this clause? It simply states— FPQ is a statutory body under the FA & A Act. However, the note beneath that states— FPQ is not a statutory body under the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982. What are the implications of the corporation not being a statutory body under the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act? Ms BLIGH: I am advised that the clause provides for FPQ to prepare its plans and reports under the Financial Administration and Audit Act, not the Corporations (Queensland) Act. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clauses 15 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr HORAN (9.05 pm): This clause allows FPQ to form or participate in the formation of a company. It can also become a parent entity in relation to a company. Certainly, it has to have the approval of the responsible ministers. I take on board what the minister said about giving this corporation the maximum amount of flexibility in how it operates so that it can do its job well. I find it interesting to note that, under this clause, this corporation could form companies. I would have thought that a corporation sole, with all the flexibility, rights and privileges that have been given, could have done all that it wants to do. Why would it have to form a company? Is it so it can expand and have all of these other various branches or companies? Once the corporation forms other companies, they can probably do other things. Ms BLIGH: The best example of this is the joint venture that DPIF has entered into with Wollemi Pines Australia. This clause would provide for a very similar arrangement. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr HORAN (9.06 pm): This clause refers to the payment of dividends—a matter which we have canvassed already. Subclause (5) states— The amount of the dividend must not be more than FPQ’s estimated profits for the financial year. The minister has set herself a pretty good parameter. In other words, under the financial plan the chief forester, if he so feels, could decide to give 100 per cent of the profits to the government. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1325

Ms BLIGH: I think I have outlined sufficiently the situation in relation to dividends. Basically, the dividends, as they operate currently with similar entities, would be paid out of net profits after taking into account all the expenditure required for FPQ to operate commercially. Technically, it may be possible for such a thing to occur, but any CEO who wants to keep their job and make their organisation viable and ensure that they are investing in growing its value is not going to do such a thing. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 and 24, as read, agreed to. Clause 25— Mr HORAN (9.08 pm): The bulk of this clause 25 appears on page 18. I am particularly interested in subclauses (h)(ii) and (h)(iv). Subclause (h)(ii) refers to— Providing the services in State plantation forests that were available to recreational users of the forests immediately before this section commenced. I note that the minister said in her summing-up that within 12 months there will be an audit of the particular recreational services that are available in these plantations. In recreational terms, no doubt the lack of access to state forests has been a big loss. To hike or ride a horse through straight lines of pine trees on flat ground is not as interesting as doing the same thing in native forests where there are undulations, creeks and far more interesting topography. I doubt whether there has been a lot of recreational activity in some of these plantations. I think the government should be doing everything it can to let those organisations, through their peak bodies, know what recreational activity could be available and what plantations could be opened up. It might well be that some plantations may be suitable to people who want to go horse riding because of their topography or location. Other areas may be more suitable to bushwalking or camping because there is a creek and so forth. That is the sort of assurance we need (a) that this audit is going to be done and (b) that people are going to be told that it is available. The only way that will happen is if people approach the two shareholding ministers or if the two shareholding ministers take it upon themselves to direct the chief plantation officer to do the audit as part of the operational plan. Most plantation officers would probably feel that management of their plantation would be far simpler if there were no recreation or other services in the plantation because they would then not have to check it or have rules and so forth. It would be a far simpler job to run it if no-one went into it and if it were fenced off. I think we need some assurances about that. Subparagraph (iv) is about managing the risk of fire in state plantation forests. I see a real issue with fire. DPI Forestry is to be split up—130 workers are going into DNR to manage the state forests and the logging therein and about 630 staff are going to manage the plantations. The government is splitting up a service that has a very successful track record in terms of managing fires in forestry areas— maintaining the fire trails, the equipment and the lookouts; endeavouring to pick up fires early; back- burning done in late winter; and the general clearing of firebreaks and so forth. I think the real concern is going to be fire. No doubt that is going to be part of this operational plan. In terms of managing fire it will be of concern to a lot of people that the service has been split up. Many of these plantations may well be close to native forests. If they are not, the service has been split up and will not be as effective. My question to the minister is that we really need some guarantee of direction from the shareholding ministers to the chief forester about recreation use. It needs to be publicly made known to the peak recreation body what plantations are available and how they get themselves on to the operational plan. I would also like to hear the minister’s comments on how fire is going to be managed in these plantations now that the service has been split up into two parts. Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I have made a number of unequivocal statements about the expectation of the government that this resource will be available and will continue to be available for legitimate recreation purposes, including horse riding. That is included in my second reading speech. I made it clear in my reply. The legislation provides explicitly for it. In fact, this clause requires FPQ to put in place in its operational plan specific policies that will enable continued recreation use of the resource. I take the point that the CEO and others will have to make sure that the relevant people who have an interest are informed about this. I would be very surprised if there is not a great deal of interest taken in the first operational plan of FPQ, and the CEO will be taking that into account. In relation to the risk of fire, the reason this clause is made so explicit is that the government has a clear expectation that the resource is managed well, that it will be managed carefully and safely. That is why we will require in the operational plan explicit reference to the steps that have been taken by the new organisation to ensure that the risk of fire is minimised. Clause 25, as read, agreed to. Clauses 26 to 32, as read, agreed to. Clause 33— 1326 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Ms BLIGH (9.14 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 33— At page 21, line 18, ‘or a member of the board’— omit, insert— ‘, a member of the board or another appropriately qualified person’. 2 Clause 33— At page 21, after line 21— insert— ‘appropriately qualified includes having the qualifications, experience or standing appropriate to perform the function.’. This is the first of a number of amendments to be moved in my name. None of the amendments affect the policy objectives of the bill as a whole. They are only aimed at clarifying and achieving the bill’s objectives. The amendment to clause 33 omits the words ‘or a member of the board’ and inserts ‘a member of the board or another appropriately qualified person’ and the second amendment outlines the appropriate qualifications required of the person. Amendments agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, agreed to. Clause 34— Ms BLIGH (9.15 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 34— At page 22, after line 27— insert— ‘(4A) To remove any doubt, it is declared that FPQ does not have power to employ a public service employee or another person performing work for FPQ under a work performance arrangement.’. Again this is a technical amendment. Mr HORAN: Clause 34 talks about work performance arrangements. It states that a work performance arrangement may be entered into with the chief executive or the appropriate authority of another government entity including, for example, the head of a public service office. I presume what that is saying is that they are the only two people who can have a work performance arrangement in this corporation. Clause 34(1)(a) and (b) lists the types of people that FPQ may enter into a work performance arrangement with—that is, the CEO and another person who could be the head of a public service office. I presume that the CEO and the other person is going to head up the office of FPQ, which is the industrial relations arm of the organisation. Ms BLIGH: The member’s assumptions are correct. Mr HORAN: So when we look at subclause (4) to which the minister has moved an amendment, that subclause is basically saying that the FPQ does not have the power to employ a public service employee or another person performing work for FPQ under a work performance arrangement. The only two people who can have a work performance arrangement are those two we talked about previously. Everybody else is under the public service awards and so forth. What about the people we have seen previously? They can form companies, they can form subsidiaries and all those sorts of things. If they set up a separate company—for example, joint ventures—are they able to employ people under a work performance arrangement in those joint ventures or other companies? Ms BLIGH: Should the entity establish a new company then any employees would be employees of the company or the joint venture as the case may be. Mr HORAN: But could they be employed under a work performance arrangement within that company? The current employees of DPI Forestry will be employed under the office of FPQ under public service awards. That was their wish. If this corporation sets up other companies, other joint ventures, as it is able to under this, those companies will be able to employ them in any way they see fit. So, in effect, the protection of working for the public service under the state award basically only applies to existing employees. It may well be in the future that the corporation sole sees fit to enter into joint ventures or set up other companies and arrangements and will be employing people under a different system. It may well be the federal system. Ms BLIGH: The member is correct. It is not possible, if a new company was formed, for them to be employed under the office of the FPQ and, therefore, they would be exposed to whatever industrial relations laws prevail at the time. If I could find a way to protect the employees of that new company— and, indeed, any other company—from John Howard’s industrial relations laws, I would. Amendment agreed to. Clause 34, as amended, agreed to. 20 Apr 2006 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 1327

Clause 35— Mr HORAN (9.19 pm): This clause deals with the compensation payable to the corporation if state plantation forest is revoked. The state must pay compensation for the reasonable value of the natural resource products on excluded land when it stops being a state plantation forest. They have gone into a number of different arrangements, particularly in the South Burnett. Sometimes they have simply purchased freehold land and sometimes they have leased land. If they leased land from a farmer that had a plantation and that is then revoked, it would not come under this clause because it is only a state plantation forest. If it was leased, would it then be declared a state plantation forest and if it was revoked would you have to pay compensation to the lessee, as well as— Ms BLIGH: No. As outlined in paragraph (a) of the clause, this only applies where land is a state plantation forest. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clauses 36 and 37, as read, agreed to. Clause 38— Mr HORAN (9.21 pm): This clause states that the Ombudsman Act 2001 does not apply to a number of things, including the making of a recommendation by FPQ to the responsible ministers or a decision by FPQ about its commercial policy or commercially competitive activities. The previous clause deals with the application of the Crime and Misconduct Act. It states— FPQ is a unit of public administration under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. Presumably that act applies to ensure that everything that is done in this quasi-public corporation is done correctly and there is no official misconduct or corruption. However, when it comes to being answerable to the Ombudsman, this clause states that it is not responsible to the Ombudsman. People who deal with this corporation sole could have legitimate complaints that they want to take further. Someone might feel that they have been improperly dealt with in the lease arrangements or the payment arrangements. They might feel that they have been improperly dealt with in some of the management activities involving use of the land. A recreation group may have been promised some particular usage and then denied it. All these people will have no recourse to the Ombudsman, which is a last-resort type arrangement that people often need to use to obtain resolution of an issue. Can the minister tell us why it will not be answerable to the Ombudsman? Ms BLIGH: This clause will make FPQ consistent with other government owned corporations. The bill puts in place a fully commercial structure for FPQ, including the creation of a separate legal entity outside of the operation of a government department. This organisation will be out in the marketplace, competing in a very competitive environment. It will provide goods and services in a competitive market. It will enter into commercially sensitive arrangements. As I said, it is standard legislative practice to include such clauses when what was formerly an operation of a government department changes to a fully commercialised structure. Mr HORAN: If that is so, why is it answerable under the Crime and Misconduct Act? It has full flexibility to operate as a private company and it is not answerable to the Ombudsman, yet it comes under the Crime and Misconduct Act. Ms BLIGH: It is pretty straightforward. The CMC addresses matters which might amount to illegal activity. The government must still have an interest in its corporations operating legally. The other range of activities are commercial activities and not properly the business of the Ombudsman. Mr ROWELL: Would this particular act be eligible for judicial review? If we are unable to go through the Ombudsman, are we eligible to go through judicial review? Ms BLIGH: As the member would be aware, there are two separate entities. The Office of FPQ will be open to judicial review but FPQ will not. Mr HORAN: But neither the Office of FPQ nor FPQ are answerable to the Ombudsman—even the Office of FPQ, which deals with employees’ wages and conditions? Ms BLIGH: I should say that they are not answerable to the Ombudsman in relation to commercial decisions and commercial activities. Clause 38, as read, agreed to. Clauses 39 to 46, as read, agreed to. Clause 47— Mr HORAN (9.26 pm): With regard to the appointment of board members and the payment of remuneration, is there a set standard of remuneration for boards such as this? What are the approximate parameters of remuneration for a board of this type, which is mainly an advisory board? Will that remuneration, details of board members, the number of board meetings and so on be part of an annual report? 1328 Forestry Plantations Queensland Bill 20 Apr 2006

Ms BLIGH: The Department of Employment and Training and Industrial Relations makes assessments of the appropriate payment levels for the various government boards that operate across all government departments. It will make an assessment in relation to this board. That is yet to be done. However, there will be a recommendation to cabinet when the members of the board are taken for appointment to cabinet. Cabinet will make a determination about the appropriate payment for those members in relation to the recommendation from the Department of Employment and Training and Industrial Relations. What was the second part to the member’s question? Mr Horan: Is there an annual report that sets out the number of meetings, how many they have attended and remuneration? Ms BLIGH: They will be required to have the normal reporting arrangements that are expected under the Financial Administration and Audit Act, as provided for in an earlier clause of the bill, including an annual report. Clause 47, as read, agreed to. Clauses 48 to 58, as read, agreed to. Clause 59— Mr HORAN (9.28 pm): A fair bit of dividing up of assets and liabilities will occur because a number of staff and functions will go to DNR. That might include all the fire equipment, machinery and gear that is associated with the forests, and the liabilities and so forth. Likewise, FPQ is probably going to take a large chunk of equipment. I presume there is going to be some form of an audit done and some form of decision making as to who gets what. It may be an operational matter, but at the end of the day it all has to balance up with the original audit. It is going to be a fairly major exercise and I would be interested to know what the mechanics are of the dividing up of those assets and liabilities. What will be the system of apportioning the liabilities or the debts that are owing? It might be the lease of equipment or it could be various other costs. Ms BLIGH: No doubt it will be interesting. It is not unusual in government departments, as machinery of government changes are made, for these sorts of decisions to be made on a regular basis. They are often not easy processes, but in my experience people get through them one way or another and, of course, all of the material at the end of the day has to be accounted for. Clause 59, as read, agreed to. Clause 60— Mr ROWELL (9.31 pm): I have concerns in relation to this clause because basically it talks about divesting the interests of the former forestry department. There is substantial change occurring as a result of this. We are seeing an asset of some $650 million being put into what is now called the FPQ. There is a major change in status. There is a great deal of concern in many of the shires that I represent in relation to the issue of rates. Clause 20 deals with the requirements in regard to divesting the dividend to the government. I think it is procedurally unfair that councils receive no consideration for the large investment that is there. There will be a change of investment. Areas that once upon time were simply forest, that were not productive, that were not used for anything, now have logs on them which require a considerable amount of cartage involving usage of roads. This has become a major problem for many shires. I think in terms of procedural fairness where there is such a massive change—and certainly a determination by the government to take a profit—it would be reasonable for some consideration to be given to the payment of rates to council. There is this large asset of $650 million and there are shires where something like 70 per cent of the area cannot be used but the council has to maintain roads. On top of that we have an increase in forestry area which compounds the problem. There is a tremendous impost upon councils to actually provide roads. I can assure the minister, as I said in my contribution during the second reading stage—unfortunately the minister was not in the chamber at the time—that often the area is very wet when they are trying to get the logs out and it does do a lot of damage to the roads. I think it is totally unfair and unreasonable to expect councils to be responsible for maintaining those roads for the use of council workers and the residents of the shire. I believe that, in areas of high productivity, consideration must be given to FPQ providing roads, bridges and other infrastructure that from time to time are absolutely necessary for the transmission of logs by road and also the maintenance of those roads for the people who live within the shire. I am requesting that the government do give consideration to this. The actual value of the property could be quite considerable. If it was a private forest the owner would have to pay rates; however, because it is a government forest there is no consideration given to the payment of rates or some remuneration for road maintenance, repairs or construction. I think this is an extremely important issue and I would like fair consideration to be given to it. Ms BLIGH: I am not sure if the member for Hinchinbrook was in the House earlier when this issue was canvassed at some length. I note his comments. This clause is not relevant to those comments. I understand his point, but this bill does not go to extending the current arrangements. 20 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1329

I add to my earlier comments in relation to this that DPIF, in relation to its forestry, currently pays and under the new FPQ will continue to pay subsidies for roads to councils in areas where its major activities are. It provides gravel to councils and in addition it maintains its own infrastructure within its estates and those roads are used by councils for other reasons. I know that will not satisfy the member entirely. I understand the point that the member is making, but I do not think I should let go unanswered the view that these estates come in, are an impost and make no contribution, because that is not the case. Mr ROWELL: I can assure the minister that getting a contribution from government is like pulling teeth; it is extremely difficult. The cost of building and maintaining these roads is particularly high. Yes, token contributions are made from time to time; however, to be quite fair, there is not true recognition of the reward that government is getting for the use of council roads. I am not talking about internal roads within the forest itself; I am talking about the roads that they take the logs out on to get access to ports or to get them to a sawmill which may be some kilometres away. Not all of them are state controlled roads; many of them are council controlled roads and the best the council gets is some TIDS funding which is very minor and which it has to match dollar for dollar. I think it is totally inadequate and unfair, particularly in areas where maintenance on roads is very, very high. Clause 60, as read, agreed to. Clauses 61 to 68, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1— Ms BLIGH (9.38 pm): I move amendments Nos. 4 and 5 circulated in my name. I also table the explanatory notes to the amendments. 4 Schedule 1— At page 40, line 7, ‘sections 61O(h) and 96A’— omit, insert— ‘a provision of an Act allowing the administering entity to delegate its functions or powers’. 5 Schedule 1— At page 42, lines 13 to 19— omit, insert— ‘reference to FPQ.’. Amendments agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 2, as read, agreed to. Ms BLIGH (9.39 pm): Can I take this opportunity to correct an answer that I gave earlier to the member for Hinchinbrook in relation to judicial review. Both entities are subject to judicial review. The only activities that are exempt from the Ombudsman are those in relation to commercial activities and commercial activities are defined, if the member looks at the clause. Both of them, in relation to decisions relating to the act, will be subject to judicial review. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.40 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Kholo Creek Quarry Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (9.40 pm): Recently at Mount Crosby in my electorate I conducted a public meeting following the Premier’s announcement of his approval of a haulage road from the Kholo Creek quarry to the Warrego Highway. The Kholo Creek hard rock resource is a huge resource sufficient to supply a quarry truck every three and a half minutes for a century. It is fair to say that the Mount Crosby/Karana Downs communities do not want a quarry in their area. There is a range of well-founded concerns that the local community wants addressed. Firstly, having approved the haulage route, the Premier has stated that properties directly affected will not be resumed until the proposed commencement of quarrying activities, possibly in 10 years time. That is outrageous. Clearly the burden of the cost of holding the land for the purpose of building this quarry road is being foisted onto property owners instead of the government or the private owners of the quarry. In this country how can one possibly justify forcing property owners to bear the burden of holding the land until the developer is ready to develop his quarry? Those landholders have no prospect of capital gain 1330 Adjournment 20 Apr 2006 on their property, certainly no prospect of selling or developing their properties and they will not receive compensation in the foreseeable future. There is something to be said for the certainty of preserving a quarry route, but it is clearly unconscionable that a small group of property owners are forcibly made to bear the cost burden because the government and the quarry operators are unwilling to do so. A number of local residents, including some very experienced engineers, strongly support the concept of a conveyor system to remove the rock from the quarry. Clearly this would have benefits to the local community with reduced traffic and it has been used in other sorts of mining products. The local community wants the feasibility of this option examined. Clearly the building of more than 11 kilometres of haulage route, plus a bridge over the Brisbane River, will be a very expensive option in the long term. Now is the time to consider another possibility. A number of my constituents raised the issue of the quarry trucks joining or leaving the Warrego Highway every few minutes and the impact on Warrego Highway road users. It seems to be putting the cart before the horse to be considering moving this huge amount of heavy traffic onto the Warrego Highway without fixing the road issues. My local community—and I join with them wholeheartedly—also wants a guarantee that the haulage route will be used for all quarry traffic and not just for quarry materials, particularly the passage of supplies, explosives and fuel to the quarry. Under no circumstances would the movement of those noxious and dangerous materials be accepted on any of the community roads in the Mount Crosby area. I will be writing to the Premier to ask for a guarantee that all this material will be confined to the dedicated haulage route and none will be permitted on local roads. The residents of Mount Crosby, Karana Downs and Karalee are very reasonable people. They are no different from any other Queenslanders in that they want to preserve the magnificent natural environment and the peace and quiet of their rural amenity. Time expired.

Inner Wheel Club Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (9.43 pm): Nineteen ladies who make up the Inner Wheel Club of the northern Gold Coast are to be commended for their efforts and commitment to two very important projects: the silky pillows project and the cord blood research project. On 28 April the ladies, who are wives, partners and widows of present and past rotarians, will be holding an information stand at the Ashmore Shopping Centre to raise funds for medical research in the field of umbilical cord blood research. The ladies tell me that the leading researchers in the field of cord blood research are hopeful of finding new and improved methods to assist in the treatment of children afflicted with blood disorders, including acute leukaemia. In addition to this hard work, the ladies are deeply committed to their silky pillows project, which I believe is truly remarkable. For the past five years the ladies have been holding working bees in their homes to make silky pillows for breast cancer patients. The silky pillows are a soft crescent-shaped pillow with a strap at the top to fit over the shoulder and down the arm. I understand that this protects the sensitive area against knocks and bumps during healing following surgery. The ladies hold garage sales, fashion parades and luncheons to raise money for the materials to make the pillows and also accept donations of stuffings and cotton. So far those wonderful ladies have made 670 pillows, 618 of which have been handed over to the Gold Coast Cancer Fund for delivery to patients at the Gold Coast Hospital who have had a lumpectomy or a breast removed. The balance of the made-up pillows will be sent to friends or family who have also had a breast removed. Indeed, it is important to mention that men can get breast cancer and the ladies have made a small number of silky pillows in darker shades of material. Through their actions the ladies demonstrate a commitment to helping others and form strong friendships, which are two of the aims of the Inner Wheel Club. I believe that those ladies are remarkable and inspirational. Queensland Health conducts free breast screening for women aged 40 years right across Queensland and a doctor’s referral is not needed. All women aged between 40 and 49 years, and those aged 70 years and over are encouraged to have a breast screen every two years, but women aged 50 to 69 years are especially encouraged. The latest data shows that more women are now surviving a diagnosis of breast cancer. This is due to the early detection of breast cancer through breast screening and improvements in treatment. I am pleased that the mobile breast screen unit will be at the Paradise Point Uniting Church hall, 6 Robin Avenue Paradise Point, from 3 May to 23 May. Women can arrange a breast screen by calling 13 20 50. I hope that local residents in my area will take advantage of this wonderful service. 20 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1331

Hyne and Sons Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.46 pm): For the second time today I rise to address the issue of the devastation that has been wrought on two towns in my electorate by the Treasurer’s announcement this morning that the government intends to buy the hardwood milling business of Hyne and Sons in a bid to surrender the crown allocation. Having listened to the address that the Treasurer gave to the parliament this morning, I believe that she has grossly underestimated the impact that this decision will have on the communities of Monto and Mundubbera. The Treasurer said that 30 jobs will be transferred from those communities to Maryborough or somewhere else. It is more accurate to say that in those two communities something like 100 jobs will be affected. Today I have been in touch with community leaders in those two communities and they have confirmed that in each town about 40 jobs will be lost if the hardwood timber mill closes. This decision is a political one. It makes no sense. No amount of logical argument can convince the government of the folly of closing down the hardwood timber industry, which is based on crown forests that for many years have provided a sustainable source of timber to the mills in Monto and Mundubbera and that have become an important part of the economic base of those communities. The loss of any number of jobs from small rural communities is hard felt. However, when we lose such a number of jobs from communities of this size it spells an economic disaster that the communities will struggle to recover from. That is particularly so for the community of Monto, which has been struggling to come to terms with the closure of the dairy factory following the Beattie government’s disastrous handling of the dairy deregulation issue. The community was dealt that blow a couple of years ago and now it has to deal with losing the town’s largest employer, Hyne and Sons sawmill. At least 40 direct jobs will be lost and there will be flow-on effects for other jobs. It will be a devastating blow. Once again, this is an indication that the Beattie Labor government is prepared to sacrifice regional and rural communities for a cheap political purpose, that is, to court green preferences in electorates in the south-east corner. There is no logic to this decision. It will not provide a better environmental outcome for those forests. Unfortunately, those forests will end up in a worse state because of a lack of management and the communities that are dependent on them will be devastated. Time expired. Mobile Phones Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (9.49 pm): Mobile phones have become all pervasive in our modern life. I will go as far as to say that every member in this place would use their phone at least once a day. In the wider community it seems that nearly everyone under the age of 50 has a mobile phone. The number of young Australians using mobile phones has helped push our nation to achieve one of the world’s highest rates of ownership. So when my mate Ken Kipping, President of the North Queensland Consumers Organisation, rang me last month about a rort when it came to servicing mobile phones in the north Queensland area, I listened with interest. Ken told me that he had a couple of complaints from residents who had just purchased new mobile phones which then malfunctioned in some way. When the phones were returned to the retailer to be fixed, buyers were told that the phone may have suffered water ingress and that a $40 fee was required before the phone was sent away. The purchaser was also told that if it had suffered water ingress the phone’s warranty would be void, the $40 would be used to cover postage and handling and the poor old phone buyer would still have to cover their contracts and buy a new phone. By this time I was extremely interested in what Ken had to say as the same thing happened to me last year. When my spanking new phone that I proudly purchased with the generous allowance supplied by the parliament started to do funny things, I took it back to the retailer. I was given the same lines about water ingress, handed over my $40 and three weeks later shelled out for a new phone as my old one was deemed buggered. I have never taken my phone into the shower or even taken it fishing. I have not had that much time since I have been elected. An honourable member interjected. Mr WALLACE: I take the member’s interjection; I have not dropped it in the loo, either. I was pretty puzzled as to how water supposedly got into the phone. I should have realised that I had been taken for a ride and phone companies simply were not honouring their warranties, making the poor old consumer buy a new phone and fork out $40 for the privilege. Ken and I went public with this story about four weeks ago. Well-known journalist John ‘Ando’ Anderson at the Townsville Bulletin and Selina Sharratt at Townsville’s WIN News gave us a good run on this rort. Since that time the public response has been nothing short of staggering. Hundreds of people in the same boat have contacted both Ken and me. We also started to receive calls from people down south, which showed that the rort was not confined to north Queensland. 1332 Adjournment 20 Apr 2006

We took our concerns to the ACCC, and Ken convinced it to start an investigation. I am pleased to advise all honourable members that this investigation is underway. The ACCC has set up a hotline for people affected by this rort. I would encourage anyone who has been ripped off or knows someone who has suffered to contact the hotline. The number is 1300302502. I put on the record my thanks to Ken Kipping, who is doing a wonderful job protecting consumers in north Queensland. I encourage anyone who has suffered this rort to contact that number, 1300302502.

Kingaroy Cheese Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.52 pm): If honourable members will excuse me, tonight I am going to indulge in a little bragging. Many members will have eaten the cheeses in the dining room. I have been advised that the Parliamentary Catering Service is now purchasing Kingaroy Cheese products. I am very proud of the cornucopia of products produced in our electorate and the high standards the producers set for themselves to come up with a great product. Kingaroy Cheese is experiencing incredible growth, and I would like to give a quick summary of the 2005-06 financial year. Honourable members should remember that we are only in the fourth month of 2006, so we still have two months to go. Kingaroy Cheese’s production growth is up by 150 per cent, and that is no small feat. This boutique cheese factory, which has been in production only a few short years, is currently producing 18 tonnes of cheeses, and that figure is still climbing. it also produces five tonnes of cream in the form of double cream and creme fraiche. Honourable members may have heard about the Tarong Mine Wine and Food in the Park Festival, which is held every year in Kingaroy. This festival has experienced enormous success also and features local wines and produce. Kingaroy Cheese products are a major exhibitor at the festival. If honourable members have not been to the food and wine festival, I invite them to put it in their calendar for next year so that they can enjoy a not-to-be-missed culinary adventure. Kingaroy Cheese’s range includes its Kingaroy red rind cheese, which has been featured in major media outlets including the Courier-Mail’s Q Weekend. The cheeses are distributed through Black Pearl Epicure and are sold through IGA stores as well as other outlets. So honourable members can see that Kingaroy Cheese, although still a very young enterprise, is making huge leaps and bounds to make a name for itself in what could only be called a David and Goliath market. Adam Chapman, who once blended wines in Kingaroy, now works for Sirromet, which is really showing its credentials in leadership in the wine industry. Most, if not all, members would be familiar with the Sirromet label. As I have seen many a Sirromet bottle of wine being enjoyed in the dining room, I know that members are familiar with Adam’s work. Recently a wine and cheese matching was conducted at Sirromet for its wine club members using Kingaroy Cheese products. Now honourable members and their guests can have the same experience in the parliamentary dining room. I have often mentioned the wonderful wineries that anyone can visit in the Nanango electorate. People in Brisbane could take a weekend trip starting at either the Esk Valley or Woodford-Kilcoy areas and immediately start visiting the wineries and sampling the quality. I would suggest they take a nondrinker with them as driver if they are planing to stop at every winery. It would be preferable that they take a few weekends throughout the year. If they spent one weekend a month visiting four wineries each weekend, it would take at least six months and possibly longer to visit them all. Olives have become a major industry in the area as well. If honourable members taste the local olives I guarantee that they will never eat a shop-bought olive again. I will even go so far as to say that if they do not currently enjoy olives they will after sampling these. I cannot recommend highly enough sitting down with a glass of local wine, a plate of antipasto— Time expired.

Migrant and Refugee Employment Project Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (9.55 pm): On 15 March I represented the minister for employment and training, Tom Barton, at the launch of the Acces Services’ Migrant and Employment Community Jobs Plan and Employment Assistance Program. The Department of Employment and Training funded a grant of $70,000 from Breaking the Unemployment Cycle to make the new employment assistance project possible. It will assist 50 local migrants and refugees. Breaking the Unemployment Cycle was established in 1998 and has helped to create over 99,000 jobs so far. It is through organisations such as Acces Services Inc. that the government is able to direct funds to communities where training is most needed. The Migrant and Refugee Employment Project is the first time such a program has been offered to migrants and refugees on the Gold Coast, which has 73 different ethnic community groups. It is also the first time Acces Services has worked with the Multicultural Communities Council on the Gold Coast to deliver employment and training activities. 20 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1333

These organisations have agreed with the Migrant Centre to have a project worker available for participants one day a week at the Gold Coast TAFE Southport. This arrangement will help new residents overcome transport problems, such as not owning a car, not knowing how to drive a car and difficulty reading timetables, all of which pose a major barrier to employment and training. Both organisations involved in this project have a proven record in providing services to people from non- English speaking backgrounds on the Gold Coast. Many of the people on this project are currently on waiting lists to access other community support programs. Through the state funded Migrant and Refugee Employment Project, these people are being given immediate opportunities to learn about the Australian workplace, improve their job search skills and meet local employees. These strategies will help increase their skills and enhance their opportunities for finding work. Participants will also be encouraged to build their own local support networks and to be closely involved in decisions that affect them. They will have help in adjusting to a new culture and in understanding information they need to access training and further education, with additional language support as required. My thanks go to the program participants who attended the launch, together with Adel Mutsaers representing Acces Services; Agnes Nemeth representing the Multicultural Communities Council; Rhonda Wilson, the manager of Multicultural Communities Gold Coast; Roxanne Scott, senior adviser with the Department of Employment and Training; Anna Zubac, assistant manager of the Migrant Centre; and Vicki Valentine, project worker for the Migrant and Refugee Employment Program.

Carina, Emergency Services Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (9.58 pm): When I was elected to the state seat of Chatsworth on 20 August 2005, local residents placed their trust in me to pursue local issues and improve their quality of life. In common with all growing communities in Queensland, fundamental infrastructure developments such as roads, schools, hospitals and emergency services must be provided by the state government to support local families. One of the most important things for my community is the provision of emergency services facilities. For the past six years locals have been asking for police, fire and ambulance services for the area. I am on record supporting infrastructure development in my community and advocating for an integrated emergency services centre combining police, fire and ambulance services at the intersection of Creek Road and Old Cleveland Road behind the current Police Citizens Youth Club to service the south-eastern suburbs of Brisbane in a new, fully integrated, 24-hour manned centre. The history of the Carina ambulance centre dates back several years to when the current government wanted a new ambulance station at Morningside. The site it chose was the Bennetts Road bushland site, a choice that was supported by its Labor mates in Brisbane City Council, and the land was sold to it. After two years of the community protesting against this site the government finally acknowledged the folly of its ways and sold the land back to the council. The saga continued when the Labor government decided that a better location would be at Wiles Street, Camp Hill, adjacent to the Camp Hill Infants School on a road that is, like the Bennetts Road bushland site, totally inappropriate for emergency service vehicles. The location of the centre on Wiles Street was strongly opposed by local residents and after two or more years of local residents mounting a campaign that I gave my support to, the Labor government again acknowledged its mistake and said that it was not going to build an ambulance station at this location. Despite all the years of lobbying, my advocacy for an integrated emergency service centre for the entire district to be located on state government land adjacent to the PCYC has been rejected by the Labor government. On the eve of the Chatsworth by-election the ambulance station was moved from Camp Hill to Narracott Street, Carina, adjacent to the PCYC, the exact location the Labor Party had been rejecting for years. Promises were given and undertakings made to have this vital ambulance centre up and running and completed by the end of 2006 to service the new and emerging communities of the south-eastern suburbs of Brisbane. However, it now seems that there are further delays to our ambulance centre. There has been four years of indecision about the location before the government finally got the message and now the centre is not expected to be completed until May 2007. This delay to the ambulance centre for my community is a result of some mysterious native title issues on the land—land that does not have a stick or tree on it, that used to be a major highway and at the turn of the century was the old bullocky trail that linked Cleveland to Brisbane. What native issues could possibly apply to this site? A six-month delay has now been built into the program and the people of my electorate will not get their ambulance centre this year. If this government gets its way it will find another excuse to further delay the program and ultimately not deliver the ambulance station and continue to deny the people of the south-eastern suburbs a key facility to save lives. 1334 Adjournment 20 Apr 2006

This government has passed its use-by date. Local families have been put at risk. They are sick and tired of not having a high-quality service which they pay taxes to receive. This government needs to get on with the program, stop making excuses and invest the billions of dollars of revenue that pour into this state annually into basic infrastructure to support local communities. Keeping commitments to infrastructure is something this Labor government has a real problem with. Samford Valley Bus Service Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.01 pm): Local community activists make the difference. The Samford bus success story on the front page of the Village Pump on 13 April was a great yarn and pictured three handsome blokes, but was minus an important member of the team. Gillian Blackett helped get the whole idea rolling and has been actively involved from start to finish. Gillian first raised the idea with me at the Christmas party for the Closeburn Rural Fire Brigade in 2002. As a mum and dad with young boys, Gillian and her husband, Stuart, were exhausted from driving the boys over the Samford range and back every time they wanted to escape the valley. Gillian cornered me and wanted to know how they could go about getting a bus service from Samford to the Ferny Grove Railway Station. It was clear that information was needed to see whether enough locals would use the service to make it worth while. Some information was also required about where the money would come from to set the whole thing up. As the local state MP I was the one who would have to argue the case with the transport minister. The involvement of Bob Millar, the local shire councillor, was also essential for the smooth passage of the proposal through the Pine Rivers Shire Council. Both Bob and I were delighted to be involved. Before the state government funded a bus service it needed evidence that the community would support such a service and that it would be a worthwhile financial investment. To bring other interested valley residents together to explore this idea, I convened the Samford Valley Public Transport Group. Gillian then set off like a hare. The group met regularly and decided that what was needed was a survey of the Samford community to get some facts and evidence to convince the state government that putting money into a trial Samford bus service would show a commitment to the needs of local residents. This set off a host of activities by the transport group including collecting and analysing survey results, putting proposals together, organising a public meeting, testing options and arguing the case with the government. Young university postgraduate student Tristan Peach did marvellous work on the survey. Harry Audus from TransLink was also a vital part of the plan, especially with the complex technical and legal processes that were involved. This was the first of such trials organised by TransLink and it was excited by the community support and activism demonstrated by the local public transport group, as shown by Gillian’s involvement. The result, after much hard work, is the approval of a permanent service by the minister for transport. The reality is that without the involvement of locals like Gillian it would have just remained a good idea instead of the real-life bus service that we have today. Thanks, Gillian! Cyclone Larry Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.03 pm): Many people between Cairns and Cardwell are struggling to deal with the aftermath of Cyclone Larry. Losses for many have been absolutely catastrophic. People have had to contend with makeshift arrangements for their homes—tarps on roofs and windows boarded up. If anybody has ever experienced a cyclone they would understand how difficult it is to keep a house dry. Many of the interior linings have come adrift. The connection of power has been an issue. The insurance companies have not been particularly friendly in carrying out the assessments that need to be done. That has held up the whole process of doing the repair work. I have to say that, in general, both the federal and state governments have been particularly good in terms of the support that they have given. At the end of day, there is no support like having the cooperation of all those people who are involved in carrying out repairs, and certainly those who are responsible for providing the private insurance funding. Cyclone Monica inundated the area on Tuesday night. Again tonight I think we are experiencing more heavy downpours. At times we are getting 200 millimetres in 24 hours. Power has been restored by the tireless workers in the electricity authorities. They have worked seven days a week to ensure that power has been supplied to residents wherever they can get a connection. We did a lot of work in getting safety packs put into houses where there was a concern about the quality of the wiring. Rainfall for April has, in many cases, been of the order of about 1.5 metres. That is absolutely incredible when we consider the situation at this end of the state. Primary and secondary industries have fared badly. Whether people are involved in growing crops or trying to do business it has been extremely hard under these conditions. 20 Apr 2006 Adjournment 1335

Roads are suffering. Major pot holes are occurring. It is difficult to traverse some of these roads. The tourism industry has fared badly from the adverse weather over the last month. There is a need to rebuild the profile of tourism in areas such as Mission Beach, Bingle Bay and Kurrimine Beach. Both the federal and the state ministers for tourism, Fran Bailey and Margaret Keech, have visited the area each contributing something like $250,000 to assist in the recovery of the tourism industry and those who are involved in the industry between Townsville and Cape York. I think this is particularly good. At the end of day, the implementation process is the key to getting the industry back on track. It will take some time for this money to filter through. We can only hope that by the end of April when the traditional tourism season starts these entities are back in business. Time expired. Red Shield Appeal Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.06 pm): At the outset I would like to endorse the comments of the member for Broadwater in relation to the silk pillows that are presented to women who have suffered breast cancer. The Zonta Club in my area provides those pillows. I ask every member in this chamber to assist generously any group who provides them. As most people know, my wife has been through a mastectomy. The provision of those pillows has been of great assistance to her and it is so for many women who have suffered breast cancer. When I listen to some of the adjournment speeches I sometimes wonder what motivates people to get up in the morning and take a whingeing pill or to live life looking through a dark glass. On 5 April I attended the launch of the Red Shield Appeal for central Queensland at the Rockhampton Leagues Club. Major Brian Watters AO was the guest speaker. He is a member of United Nations group that works to stop narcotic use. That launch really showed the community and the government how the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal assists the community. The Rock Building Society underwrote the breakfast. It was a lovely morning. The number of people who attended, mainly because they wanted to support the Red Shield Appeal, was impressive. The central Queensland area has to raise $149,500. It is currently at about 47 per cent of their fundraising goal. Many of us will have Red Shield Appeal fundraising efforts in our own communities. I ask everyone to wholeheartedly support the Salvation Army’s Red Shield Appeal, which raises funds to assist people in our community who are suffering ill health and who suffer problems because they have somewhat less than each one of us has. There will be a door knock appeal held the second weekend in May. I ask everyone to support the Red Shield Appeal for the good that it does in our communities. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.09 pm.