PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Wednesday, 15 February 2006

PETITIONS ...... 95 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 95 South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ...... 95 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 96 Lady Bowen Trust ...... 96 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 97 Lexus Inside Film Awards ...... 97 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 97 Commodities Industry ...... 97 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 98 International Economic Outlook ...... 98 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 98 Road Safety Summit ...... 98 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 99 Community Cabinets ...... 99 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 99 Capital Works Program ...... 99 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 100 Public Hospital System ...... 100 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 101 Behaviour Management in Schools ...... 101 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 101 School Based Apprenticeships and Traineeships ...... 101 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 102 Solomon Islands, Police Deployment ...... 102 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 103 Emergency Services ...... 103 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 103 Queensland Rail ...... 103 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 104 Seafood Industry, Gladstone ...... 104

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2006 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 15 February 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 105 Respite for Older Carers ...... 105 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 105 Council of Australian Governments Meeting ...... 105 ORDER OF BUSINESS; COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING ...... 106 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 106 Health System ...... 106 RACING (RACE FIELDS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 106 First Reading ...... 106 Second Reading ...... 106 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 107 State of the State ...... 107 National Congenital Heart Disease Awareness Day ...... 107 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 108 Redcliffe Hospital ...... 108 Queensland Health ...... 108 Full Fee-Paying Medical Degrees ...... 109 Hospital Waiting Lists ...... 109 Leadership Alternatives ...... 109 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 110 Gambling ...... 111 Mary Valley Dam ...... 111 Coal Industry ...... 112 Hospital Waiting Lists ...... 113 Workers Compensation Premiums ...... 113 Health Services, Gold Coast ...... 114 Operation Back to School ...... 114 Inskip Point ...... 115 NightLink ...... 115 Queensland Health, Doctor Resignations ...... 116 Nationals Environment Policy ...... 117 Hospital Bed Closures ...... 117 Community Ambulance Cover ...... 118 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 118 Q-Fleet ...... 118 COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING ...... 119 SUSPENSION OF SITTING ...... 120 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 120 Mr Speaker’s Ruling ...... 120 COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING ...... 120 CHILD EMPLOYMENT BILL ...... 131 Second Reading ...... 131 Consideration in Detail ...... 133 Third Reading ...... 136 FOOD BILL ...... 136 Second Reading ...... 136 HEALTH SYSTEM ...... 159 RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 169 Second Reading ...... 169 ADJOURNMENT ...... 183 Upton, Miss L ...... 183 ACCES Services, Employment for Refugees ...... 183 Rural and Regional Public Transport ...... 184 Health Services, Broadwater Electorate ...... 184 Surfers Paradise Brass Band; Magic Millions Racing Carnival ...... 185 Rotary Club of Yeppoon, Housing ...... 186 Bundaberg Base Hospital ...... 186 Narashino City, Memorandum of Agreement ...... 187 City of Caloundra ...... 187 Fitzgibbon, Ms C ...... 188 15 Feb 2006 Legislative Assembly 95 WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 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—

Fossicking in State forests Mr Roberts from 19 petitioners requesting the House to ensure that there is no adverse impact on fossicking under Government plans to reclassify a large number of State forests in South East Queensland.

Bruce Highway Upgrade Miss Roberts from 229 petitioners requesting the House to objections to the section of the Bruce Highway upgrade proposal (S1) between Cooroy Connection Road and Pomona Connection Road as outlined by the Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Strategic Planning Study and to ensure that the Department of Main Roads investigate alternatives to the S1 proposal, with the aims of minimizing the resumption of homes and avoiding extensive ecological and social damage to our rural environment.

Eastern Busway Mr Caltabiano from 163 petitioners requesting the House to immediately remove Option A from the Eastern Busway option assessment process.

Erosion Protection Program Mr Rowell from 240 petitioners requesting the House to provide emergency funding to the Cardwell Shire Council to implement an erosion protection program.

Dental Services, Ingham Hospital Mr Rowell from 878 petitioners requesting the House to provide a permanent full time dentist at the Ingham Hospital to allow residents access to satisfactory dental services.

Medical Services, Caboolture Hospital Dr Flegg one paper petition from 9,786 petitioners and one e-petition from 37 petitioners requesting the House to ensure the government employees adequate medical practitioners at the Caboolture Hospital to enable this important facility to remain open and operational and to guarantee that decisions on patient care will be taken by qualified health professionals rather than by bureaucrats. The following honourable members have sponsored e-petitions which are now closed and presented—

Eastern Busway Mr Fenlon from 202 petitioners requesting the House to immediately remove Option A from the Eastern Busway option assessment process

Bus Corridor, Eastern Suburbs Mr Caltabiano from 122 petitioners requesting the House to immediately cease planning for a freeway-style bus corridor through the eastern suburbs and commence planning for alternative methods of mass transport.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.33 am): I would like to briefly update members on the largest building program ever undertaken in the history of Queensland. The $55 billion South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan will be a legacy of our government that will benefit this region for generations to come. It is a comprehensive document that clearly maps out two decades of road, rail, water, energy, health, education and community infrastructure. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for people involved in planning, designing and building new infrastructure—320,000 new jobs for road and public transport infrastructure alone. I am surprised when I hear the opposition attack this blueprint. I think the opposition believes that it cannot be done. The opposition’s lack of policy, drive and vision has made it blind to what good government can achieve. I am happy to inform opposition members that while they squabble amongst themselves we are getting on with the job. Major road projects in the plan are well into construction, including the $121 million upgrade of the Bruce Highway between Boundary Road and Caboolture, the $82 million Caboolture northern bypass— Mr Copeland interjected. 96 Ministerial Statement 15 Feb 2006

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Cunningham, I am warning you under 253. You sit there all day and you make these interjections. I warn you under 253. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I was saying that these major road projects in the plan are well into construction. They include the $121 million upgrade of the Bruce Highway between Boundary Road and Caboolture, the $82 million Caboolture northern bypass, the $124 million upgrade on Hope Island Road, the $53 million upgrade to Nerang-Broadbeach Road and the $32 million Linkfield connection road, which I will be opening tomorrow. Mr Terry Sullivan: Bonny Barry’s very happy with that. Mr BEATTIE: Indeed, and so is the Attorney-General. Over $30 million has been spent on these four projects alone this financial year. Major road projects due to commence this year include the Tugun bypass, the Gateway upgrade project and the Sunshine Motorway upgrade near Sippy Downs. Acquisitions for the Centenary Highway extension have been brought forward, and the government has commenced the western Brisbane transport network investigation to resolve longstanding transport issues in this future growth area. The government is also working closely with the Brisbane City Council to progress the TransApex projects. Indeed, those opposite should take a leaf out of the lord mayor’s book—at least he will try to work with us to get projects up that will benefit the people of Brisbane. We are improving our public transport networks with upgrades to the Gold Coast rail line; the section between Ormeau and Coomera is under construction. Construction is due to commence in the first half of this year on the Queen Street station to Roma Street extension of the Inner Northern Busway and the Boggo Road to Green Bridge Busway, and significant planning is occurring in relation to the northern and eastern busways. Queensland Rail is progressing the delivery of $665 million in rail projects. I also announced yesterday the major initiative of QR going national, and I table more details on that with a package of information for the information of the House. As I said, Queensland Rail is progressing the delivery of $665 million in rail projects. The projects to be completed between 2009 and 2012 include the Caboolture and Beerburrum duplication, the Robina to Reedy Creek extension, the Corinda to Darra third track and the Beerburrum to Landsborough duplication. Two water projects, which together could provide an extra 100 million litres of water every day for south-east Queensland, are moving ahead. $20 million has been allocated to commence design, route acquisition and other preconstruction works for stage 1 of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Project. In addition, the $12 million Cedar Grove Weir on the Logan River is on track for completion in 2007-08 with land acquisition due to commence shortly. We are building our energy network, and work is well underway with the $46.9 million reinforcement of transmission capacity between Belmont and Murarrie, the $38 million bulk supply point and 110 kilovolt switching point at Goodna and the $19.3 million replacement of assets at the Molendinar substation on the Gold Coast, to mention just a few. This infrastructure plan breaks new ground both in terms of its size and the integrated nature of the investment projects. To accomplish this task, a program management office has been established as part of the Coordinator-General’s office to coordinate delivery of the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan across government. It includes a mix of government staff and representatives from the private sector who will contribute their knowledge, experience and skills in the planning and delivery of the large-scale infrastructure program being undertaken by government. With the support of business and industry, we are delivering on our ambitious South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. We are getting on with the job and providing the bricks and mortar to help build for the future of this vibrant and wonderful state. We are building tomorrow’s Queensland today. Only my government has the stability and strength of leadership necessary to continue to build Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Lady Bowen Trust Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.39 am): It is not just the physical infrastructure we are working on. There are two additional matters I will mention. Today the new Lady Bowen Trust will receive a $3 million cheque to kick-start its fundraising efforts. Her Excellency the Governor of Queensland, Quentin Bryce, Minister Robert Schwarten and I will work closely with the trust and today we will inspect progress of the trust project—that is, the multimillion-dollar redevelopment of the Lady Bowen complex at Spring Hill. Her Excellency has accepted patronage of the trust to help homeless people in Brisbane’s inner city. 15 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 97

The Lady Bowen complex will give practical support to help homeless people start to rebuild their lives. So we are not just building the physical infrastructure but also building the social infrastructure. The five-year building project is part of a $235 million state government package announced in the state budget last year for initiatives aimed at reducing homelessness. Stage 1 involves redeveloping the historic building known as Roma House, named after the wife of Queensland’s first Governor, Lady Diamantina Roma Bowen. It will provide crisis accommodation, meals and 24-hour support as well as referral services for up to 39 people. Extensive demolition, guttering and foundation works have already been completed. New roof sheeting is now being fitted and internal refurbishment is about to start. The $30 million Lady Bowen complex covers 3,700 square metres and will be completed in three stages. Stage 2 will involve converting the main building into bed-sit style accommodation. It will also have some office space for the state government funded housing organisation so that it can provide needed support services. As part of stage 3 a new complex will be built on the site offering long-term accommodation. The Lady Bowen complex is a partnership between the Department of Housing and the Department of Communities. It also happens to be in my electorate. I know that the local community will be supportive. Whenever these projects happen the community wants to know what is going on. I advise my community that I fully support this project. I believe this project tackles homelessness head-on.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Lexus Inside Film Awards Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.41 am): I have been talking about us building future infrastructure for Queensland. I have talked about the physical infrastructure and the social infrastructure. It is also about building Smart State ideas. Today the Minister for the Arts, Rod Welford, and I will announce that film events will have a greater prominence in Queensland. Queensland is poised to become the film events capital of Australia with an announcement today by both Minister Welford and me that the Lexus Inside Film Awards are moving to the Gold Coast this year. These prestigious national awards will join other signature film industry events which now call Queensland home—that is, the annual Screen Producers Association of Australia conference, the Australian International Movie Convention and the Brisbane International Film Festival. Bringing the awards to Queensland is a fantastic opportunity to have the heavyweights of the industry in Queensland where we can showcase what Queensland has to offer. Australia is poised to create its own film destination and the Gold Coast is it. The film and television industry generated $93.8 million for the state last financial year. The Australian industry accounted for $38.6 million of this. Consolidating our awards showcase and highlighting Queensland’s strengths as a film and television hot spot will bolster investment and put the state on the film map. I also indicate that Minister Rod Welford will announce that the Screen Producers Association of Australia will remain in Queensland for another three years. We are getting the industries of tomorrow as well and building them. That is what the Smart State Strategy is all about.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Commodities Industry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.43 am): I want to talk about Queensland’s commodities outlook. I would like to provide a brief update on the performance of Queensland’s commodity sector, because it is relevant to the strength of the economy. Both state and national data show that current conditions and outlooks for Queensland’s major commodities such as coal, sugar, metals, beef and crops are very positive—just like the economy. Together these commodities accounted for around 75 per cent of our overseas merchandise exports and 12 per cent of gross state product last financial year. Yesterday I outlined the incredible strength of the Queensland economy, and our commodities industries help underpin that strength. Our coal industry continues to boom. The data shows that for the first five months of 2005-06 the value of coal exports was 78 per cent higher than for the same period in 2004-05. Queensland’s other metal exports such as aluminium, copper, nickel and zinc also recorded strong growth in the first half of this financial year. The state’s non-iron metal exports totalled $1.2 billion in the first five months of 2005-06 which is 17 per cent higher than for the same period in the previous financial year. 98 Ministerial Statement 15 Feb 2006

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics predicts national sugar production to fall slightly this financial year. However, it has revised up its forecast for the world sugar price, predicting a rise to the highest year-average price since the mid-1990s. Spring rains have resulted in stronger than expected winter crops such as wheat, and production is expected to grow by 14 per cent this financial year. This compares to a prediction of five per cent five months ago. The value of Queensland’s meat industry totalled $1.76 billion for the first five months of the financial year, which was only slightly lower than the historically high value recorded in the corresponding period in the previous financial year. What this basically says is this: the performance of our commodities industries highlights one of the key strengths of our economy and why we are enjoying one of the most sustained periods of growth and prosperity ever recorded in our state’s history.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

International Economic Outlook Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.45 am): I will now move on to look at the international economic update to highlight the impact that will have on our economy. Recent developments in the world economy and global financial markets are positive for Queensland. Independent analysts Consensus Economics have revised our major trading partner growth for 2006 upward from 3.4 per cent to 3.6 per cent. The improvement is mainly due to a strong forecast growth in Japan, China and the United States. The improved outlook for the Japanese economy is especially good news for Queensland because Japan is our largest export destination. After a long period of stagnation this is very good news. It is also our largest destination for coal exports, and the recovery of its economy has played a crucial role in boosting our coal exports over the past 18 months. Any improvement in the Japanese economy is likely to spill over to stronger growth in Asia and the world economy because it is the world’s second biggest economy. This should support higher export volumes for a broader range of exports from Queensland and help maintain commodity prices at a high level. The ongoing rise in global share markets should also support world economic growth and will also help strengthen returns on assets invested by the Queensland Investment Corporation. It is further good news for Queensland business and industry and underscores the continued strength of the Smart State in the global economy. Last night we held a reception for the business community. Mr Speaker, as you would be aware from my address and the address of the Deputy Premier, we made it clear to Queensland business that there is no better time to invest than right now. At that large reception last night we gave the business community and the community generally a strong message that these fundamentals have never been stronger. That is why we need to continue to grow and continue to see investment. Out of that will come more jobs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Road Safety Summit Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.46 am): There are two other matters that I will talk to the House about. One is the Road Safety Summit which is being organised by the police minister, Judy Spence, and the transport minister, Paul Lucas, and which has the support of the Speaker and me. The Queensland government is organising a Road Safety Summit which will be held here in this House next Tuesday, 21 February and Wednesday, 22 February. I thank you for your help in this matter, Mr Speaker. The Road Safety Summit is an important forum which is bringing experts together to share their ideas about how we as a government and as a community can help save lives on our roads. Road safety is an issue for all of us. While our state’s road toll has been decreasing—it has almost halved over the past 30 years—we are still losing too many people on our roads. Last year there was a troubling increase. Some 329 people died on Queensland roads—that is 18 more deaths than in 2004. Police report that the major causes of these accidents were drink driving and speed. Injury and death caused by road crashes devastate families, friends and whole towns and communities. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that many of these deaths and injuries are preventable. Next week the summit will focus on core areas such as young drivers, drink driving, speed, motorbikes and the safety of vehicles on our roads. Experts attending are recognised leaders in their fields. Along with industry organisations, such as the RACQ, my government will be working hard to save lives. We will also be drawing on the wealth of experience from police, emergency services, motoring professionals and internationally recognised road safety experts. But that is not all. My government is also addressing the very real need to ensure 15 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 99

Queenslanders are on this journey with us and that they have every opportunity to contribute to the solutions that affect them. As well as joining the public gallery, Queenslanders will be able to listen to the summit through the Queensland parliament web site. I encourage my parliamentary colleagues to spread the word and get people involved in this issue, which affects everyone. The chairman and representatives of Travelsafe have been invited, as have key government ministers. We have also invited the Leader of the Opposition and a federal representative. All members of parliament are welcome. The more Queenslanders who take part in the summit, the more chance the community will succeed in reducing this terrible, horrendous and heart-wrenching problem of deaths on our roads. As well, my government is keenly seeking feedback and submissions from members of the public. I have invited Queenslanders to send in their ideas on issues including young drivers, drink driving, speed, motorbikes and vehicle safety on roads, to name a few, by 17 March. Again, I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to encourage Queenslanders to go to www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/summit and submit their ideas or write to Road Safety Summit, Queensland Transport, PO Box 673, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006. Road safety is not someone else’s responsibility; it is up to us. I seek leave to have both of those web site addresses incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/chamber www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/summit

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Community Cabinets Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.49 am): I want to advise the House that this weekend cabinet will be in Bundaberg for the first community cabinet of 2006. Next month the 91st community cabinet since my government was elected will be held in Mackay. We are getting out and listening to the community. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. My Government established Community Cabinet when it came to office in 1998 as a new initiative giving Queenslanders an opportunity to raise issues face-to-face with their Ministers. It is an invaluable forum where Ministers get to listen to Queenslanders in their own communities about the issues that directly concern them. This initiative demonstrates how accessible Government is today, and it recognises the important role our regional communities play, as they are indeed the heart of this great State. This weekend will be the third Community Cabinet to be held in the Wide Bay-Burnett region which is home to 257,200 Queenslanders and a wide range of industries. Wide Bay-Burnett is Queensland’s largest vegetable and citrus producer, with tourism also contributing to the region’s economy, as it stands at the southern gateway to the Great Barrier Reef. Next month, the 91st Community Cabinet since my Government was elected, will be held in Mackay—another dynamic and growing region. Because growth brings many challenges, we need to continue to plan services and infrastructure to help meet the needs of our growing population. To do this, we need to meet and to listen to Queenslanders about their needs, their industries and their visions for the future of their State. Because my Government is focused on getting on with the job and making sure we get the basics right, both the Bundaberg and Mackay Community Cabinets form essential parts of this listening and planning process. The Mackay-Whitsunday region is itself one of the strongest in Queensland and it is opportune for Ministers to see first hand the diversity in this region when Community Cabinet is held there on March 19 and 20. Community Cabinet is an opportunity for dialogue, and I look forward to meeting and listening to the people of Bundaberg and Mackay in the weeks ahead.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Capital Works Program Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.50 am): The Queensland government’s performance in the area of capital works expenditure is the most significant in the country, outranking every other state and territory. This year Queensland’s capital works budget is more than $8 billion. This is a record figure and it demonstrates a commitment way beyond the level of any other government—state or federal—relative to our population. This is the largest capital works budget in the country in per capita terms, equating to more than $2,017 for every single Queenslander. Only New South Wales is spending more on capital investment during the 2005-06 year in raw terms with an estimated $8.6 billion, but that still pales into 100 Ministerial Statement 15 Feb 2006 insignificance in comparison on a per capita basis. The New South Wales per capita figure will obviously be lower, taking into account its population comparisons, at only $1,262 per capita. Compared overall to the average 2005-06 expenditure in other states and territories, Queensland will spend three times more. The Beattie government’s budgeted capital works investment also demonstrates a commitment clearly beyond that of the federal government. As a measure of our commitment, Queensland’s record capital budget represents five per cent of gross state product for the 2005-06 year. Contrast this with the federal government’s spending for the same year which is only 1.3 per cent of GDP, or gross domestic product. This financial year the capital expenditure budgeted to be committed by the federal coalition government amounts to under $12 billion for the whole country. As I said, this government will be spending in excess of $8 billion just for our state alone. In other words, Queensland will spend about 70 per cent of the figure budgeted by the Howard government for the whole country even though we have 19 per cent of the population. Whichever way one looks at these figures, it is clear that Queensland is leading the way in capital expenditure and the development of major projects and infrastructure. This government has made a commitment no other government—federal or state—is able to match. We have made that commitment in roads, in rail, in ports, in energy, in water, in schools, in hospitals and the list goes on. Is it any wonder with these paltry commitments from the federal government that the coalition has not come to the party fixing the Ipswich Motorway and a number of other very essential Queensland infrastructure projects. The commitment of our government to infrastructure—infrastructure needed for our rapidly growing state—is clear. Queenslanders should be asking questions of their federal coalition members: when will the Howard government accept its responsibility? Any federal government with an interest in nation-building would be building in its high growth regions, and right now that is Queensland. Queenslanders can take comfort from knowing that the Beattie government will not shirk our responsibilities in this regard. Far from it; we embrace the task with enthusiasm.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Public Hospital System Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.53 am): The Beattie government continues to get on with the job of addressing the challenges in our health system, especially the problem of access block in our emergency departments. I am pleased to inform the House that I have just approved the immediate opening of 66 additional public hospital ward beds across south-east Queensland. I also announce the contracting of two private facilities to house 25 non-acute patients currently occupying beds in Townsville Hospital and progress on urgent work being done to open up another 170 hospital beds throughout the state next year. These developments are a direct result of our decision to establish a clinical task force comprising heads of emergency departments and directors of nursing across the state. The task force, which I have met with twice, held its third meeting yesterday via a video link at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. As members are fully aware, the biggest problem facing our emergency departments is access block. It occurs when patients cannot be moved from the ED because there are no available beds in other areas of the hospital. For the patient this means increased waiting times and for staff damaging inefficiencies and a great degree of frustration. That is why the Premier and I released and immediately implemented a 10-point action plan last month making access block solutions a priority. We said that we would seriously look at our capacity to open more beds, and we have delivered. From next week we will open up an extra 16 beds at Mater Hospital, 12 beds at the Mater Children’s, 15 beds at Redlands, six beds at Ipswich, 11 beds at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and six beds at QEII. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: These are beds that we are able to open up immediately. I am acutely aware of the potential pressure opening extra beds will put on staff, and I stress that these are beds that hospitals have identified we can service using existing staff strategies. The cost of commissioning the 66 beds until 30 June will be $6.5 million, with the full-year cost equalling $17.6 million. We have already brought another 17 ward beds online at Redcliffe Hospital to reduce access block and pressure brought about by Caboolture’s reduced services. Our actions do not stop there. Queensland Health will also contract two private Townsville facilities to take on 25 elderly patients or patients requiring step-down beds to significantly improve bed capacity in the Townsville district. The Good Samaritan Home, a residential care facility, will supply 15 beds and the Wesley Hospital will supply 10 beds for patients not requiring full acute care services at Townsville Hospital. This will free up 25 beds at Townsville Hospital from next month so staff can use them for emergency and elective surgery patients. This strategy will cost some $878,000 until 30 June. 15 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 101

On a longer term basis, my department has identified scope for another 170 beds in 10 public hospitals at a cost of some $36.6 million a year. We are working to open up another six beds at QEII, 12 in Toowoomba, 19 at the Princess Alexandra and 15 at Logan. Mr Horan interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Even when we do fix it at Toowoomba he still whinges. As I was saying, we are working to open up 15 at Logan, 25 in Cairns, eight in Mackay, 22 at Redcliffe, 13 on the Sunshine Coast, 26 at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and 24 at Prince Charles. I am happy to go through that list again if any of the members opposite want me to. These are beds we could commission if additional staff can be recruited and with some capital improvements, so the beds are likely to come online after June next year. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, I warn you under 253. Mr ROBERTSON: This is great news for our emergency departments, our staff and, most importantly, our patients. It will also benefit people on the waiting lists as less elective surgery is postponed to make room for emergency admissions. As our plan states, we will continue to find solutions to access block with $3 million allocated this year for planning and investigations. However, this is a significant breakthrough and I thank the many staff in our districts and areas and each and every member of our emergency department task force for their determination and their commitment to improving patient care in Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Behaviour Management in Schools Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) (9.58 am): Our government places a high priority on providing safe, supportive and disciplined learning environments in all our state schools. Last year I advised members that a new behaviour management initiative would be implemented in all state schools this year. Today I am pleased to release the new Code of School Behaviour, part of our government’s Better Behaviour, Better Learning initiative designed to strengthen school discipline and student learning. I table this four-page brochure outlining the Code of School Behaviour for the interest of all honourable members. It will underpin the ability of state schools to provide high-quality learning environments. We have developed this new approach to school discipline after speaking to parents and school communities throughout Queensland. It will ensure a more consistent approach to discipline and outlines the responsibilities that all members of the school community are expected to uphold. There will be a range of consequences, developed in consultation with the individual school communities, applied to behaviour that does not comply with this new code. Put simply, we want to ensure that students can go to school in a safe and supportive environment where bullying is not tolerated and where there are clear boundaries for everyone. This new code of behaviour will enhance the values being taught in our state schools by delivering on community expectations through appropriate disciplinary approaches. With the introduction of this code, parents can be assured that state schools set high standards of behaviour and will take action against students who misbehave. The new code will take effect in state schools in July, once there has been consultation with the local school communities. Over the next four months, each of Queensland’s 1,300 state schools will revise their existing behaviour plans to bring them into line with the new code. Each plan will outline strategies for developing responsible behaviour and promoting that behaviour so as to set out the school’s rules in more detail and the penalties for breaking them. Our school behaviour plans will follow a common format and they will be signed off by senior Education Queensland officers to ensure as much consistency as possible across schools. At the same time, during the first half of 2006 our state school staff will be trained in the new code in preparation for its implementation in full in July. We will continue to place a high priority on behaviour management and responsible behaviour on the part of everyone in our state schools. We want to ensure the very best environment is available for teachers to teach and students to get on with learning.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

School Based Apprenticeships and Traineeships Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (10.01 am): It gives me great pleasure to advise the House of the continuing success of school based apprenticeships and traineeships in Queensland. I am sure all honourable 102 Ministerial Statement 15 Feb 2006 members will be aware of young people who have taken up school based apprenticeships and traineeships in their own electorates. The good news is that they are being taken up in all parts of the state and in increasing numbers. Figures for 2005 just released show that an all-time record of 8,089 secondary students were in training in apprenticeships and traineeships. These are real jobs with real pay and real skills training. They are putting young people on the path to careers, both through entry-level jobs and, importantly, in the trades. Last year there were 1,232 school based apprentices and trainees in training in Brisbane north, 1,220 in Brisbane south, 1,087 on the Gold Coast, 1,054 on the Sunshine Coast, 674 in the Toowoomba region, 464 in the Cairns region, 395 in Maryborough-Hervey Bay and 287 in the Townsville region. There was also strong support in rural and regional areas, with 273 in the Roma region, 239 in the central highlands and 174 in the Bundaberg area. Members will be pleased to know that Queensland continues to lead Australia in the implementation of school based apprenticeships and traineeships, with 42 per cent of national commencements coming from this state. Our success in implementing this program is no accident. Queensland was the first state to put in place industrial arrangements to support school based training programs. This government also offers incentives to private and public sector employers in rural and remote areas through the Youth Training Incentives program. This program is designed to help young people in those rural and remote areas stay in their communities once they have left school. I am sure members on the other side would strongly support that proposition. Students entering their final years of schooling this year will have more chances to experience the workforce than ever before, thanks to our Learning or Earning reforms and this government’s strong commitment to vocational education and training. Our white paper, which is coming shortly, is further evidence of this commitment. As Don Whitehouse, principal of Marsden Senior High, told Channel 7 recently— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr BARTON: I take that interjection. Don Whitehouse is an absolutely excellent principal—one of the best. He stated— For our students, school based training is a short pathway to employment—it’s a sure future. I would like to congratulate those young people who have taken up this training. Also to be acknowledged are their employers, the training providers who are patiently giving these young people the skills and the parents, teachers and schools who have encouraged them to move into this exciting career starter.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Solomon Islands, Police Deployment Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.04 am): Tomorrow morning 10 Queensland police officers will be leaving Brisbane bound for a 12- month deployment to the Solomon Islands. The officers will be based in Timor-Leste—formerly known as East Timor—as part of the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor. For the next 12 months they will be working as part of a joint policing group and will provide support to national assistance programs in Timor-Leste. Our Queensland officers will operate as part of the Australian Federal Police International Deployment Group and they will work to help improve security within the south-west Pacific region. This is a big commitment by these officers and their families. Although one of the officers has previously done some project work in Papua New Guinea, it will be a whole new experience for the other nine, and it should provide a valuable experience for all involved. Their work in this deployment is expected to give them strong interjurisdictional contact and cooperation skills, a better understanding of and exposure to different cultures and beliefs, and will enhance the Queensland Police Service’s exposure to international operations. The types of duties they will perform include independent and joint policing; observing, mentoring and training local police; offering forensic and prosecution support; and intelligence. The 10 officers have undergone a five-week training course in Canberra and have been sworn in as special Australian Federal Police members for the duration of the deployment. Queensland police have a long and proud record of international service. Queensland has regularly deployed officers for overseas work in the international deployment group. Since May 2000 Queensland has deployed 26 police officers to Timor-Leste as part of the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor. In 1994-95 Queensland police were deployed to Haiti under the multinational force. Officers were sent to Cambodia in 1992 as part of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia and went to Cyprus in 1964 under the United Nations force. 15 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 103

The 10 Queensland officers will also be joined by three Northern Territory officers who are also going overseas on the deployment. Tonight I will be attending a farewell function for these officers on the eve of their departure for this tour of duty. I will be thanking the officers for their contribution, which is part of the Beattie government’s ongoing commitment to the international deployment group. In Queensland we can easily take for granted the safe community in which we live and our strong approach to law and order issues. Our police are to be applauded for their efforts in Queensland as well as for their contribution to help maintain and strengthen the criminal justice system in the Solomon Islands.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Emergency Services Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.07 am): A great deal has been made in the media, and on the political front, about standards being achieved by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and the Queensland Ambulance Service. In particular, the member for Chatsworth has made outlandish claims that the fire service is overloaded with bureaucrats. He has also criticised the Ambulance Service. This is politics and nothing more. On behalf of my side of the parliament, I would like to commend our ambulance officers and our firies for the magnificent work they do out in the community making Queensland a safer place for Queenslanders. Government members: Hear, hear! Mr PURCELL: I note there were a lot of ‘Hear, hears’ on my side of the parliament but none from the other side. I think the emergency services officers in the opposition electorates would be most disappointed that the opposition members do not support them in this place today. It does little to instill confidence within the general community and it does little to acknowledge and recognise the valuable contribution made by front-line paramedics and firefighters in this state. If we are looking to get a fair comparison of our emergency services then there is only one reference document, and that is the latest report on government services. That is the only document that endeavours to compare apples with apples. This year, the report on government services shows that emergency services in this state are in good shape. For the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, the report shows that the number of structural fires is down, fire deaths are down, property loss is down and the number of people taking appropriate safety precautions is up. That number will increase further when we bring legislation relating to fire alarms into this House later this year. Queensland’s three-year average for fire deaths is now the second lowest in the nation. Despite a booming population, the QFRS continues to meet its response time targets. The situation is exactly the same with the Ambulance Service. Despite a growing and ageing population, the report on government services shows that the QAS is reaching more code 1 patients faster than ever before, our expenditure per person is higher than any other state, and patient satisfaction rates are the highest they have ever been, at 98 per cent. These results are a credit to emergency services personnel throughout Queensland. I would like to personally thank them. I have been out into many of the electorates of the members opposite talking to our emergency services personnel and thanking them for the work they do. These figures show that both services are on track. I support our 8,000 staff and almost 85,000 volunteers. They do a magnificent job. I know they provide a first-class service and I know those standards are supported by independent research—by the latest report on government services and the Queensland community itself.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Rail Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.10 am): Queensland Rail today, I am proud to announce, is investing $78 million in new coal locomotives to be built right here in Queensland at the Maryborough workshops of Downer EDI. These 15, 120-tonne 4000 class locomotives are state of the art and each one provides 2,424 kilowatts of pulling power. We are investing in more than rail. We are investing in the people who live and work in the Maryborough and Wide Bay region. We are investing in jobs and giving greater job security to rail workers in the region. This investment is over and above the $450 million in current contracts awarded in 2005 for new and upgraded coal rolling stock, and it brings the total to more than half a billion dollars, with more contracts soon to be awarded. It is all part of QR’s five year, $3.5 billion coal rail program. 104 Ministerial Statement 15 Feb 2006

Queensland Rail is going from strength to strength. Yesterday QR significantly increased its freight business in a $446.5 million deal to acquire almost all of the above rail assets of the Australian Railway Group. Rail is heading for a major revival in this country and QR is right at the forefront. We only have to listen to what the Prime Minister said at COAG to hear what the federal government is saying about the importance of rail. Rail is on the national agenda as a safer, more environmentally sound and better value alternative to road. It has lower greenhouse gas emissions, cheaper infrastructure and, with one general freight train equal to around 32 semitrailers, it significantly reduces congestion on our roads. QR now operates in a national competitive market for rail and it is continuing to build on its competitive advantage as the only remaining fully integrated rail business in Australia. QR is already Australia’s largest freight hauler and continues to set new annual records. Indicative results say QR has carried at least 175 million tonnes of freight in its ninth consecutive year of growth. QR firmly intends to remain Australia’s leading coal and bulk freight transport provider. It is also making its mark in the interstate coal industry by hauling coal in the Hunter Valley in a 10 million tonne a year contract won through an international tender—13 per cent of the New South Wales coal market and that goes towards our schools, hospitals and police. For example, a 110 kilometre spur line that links Xstrata’s new Rolleston coalmine with QR’s existing rail line near Blackwater in central Queensland was delivered two months ahead of schedule. It is expected to haul around 800 million tonnes of coal annually. Although QR is keenly focused on building a national rail business, it is still as strongly committed to Queensland as ever. QR transports coal from 32 Queensland coalmines, translating into more than 460 train services per week. It is expecting to haul about 200 million tonnes a year as early as 2007-08. The Queensland coal industry is forecasting strong growth with coal exports expected to soar by more than 40 per cent over the next four years to be in excess of 210 million tonnes per annum. It is extremely important that we plan for the future now. The Queensland coal industry is a major contributor to our economy—expected to be worth $15 billion in exports this year, up from $11.5 billion last financial year. The workers in Maryborough at the coalface will play a vital role in QR’s future. The construction of these locomotives will provide real job security for workers. The investment will also help QR continue to provide better and more efficient service for its coal industry customers. These 15, 120- tonne 4000 class locomotives are state of the art. The latest rolling stock works will start immediately to ensure that QR meets the industry rail capacity demands. Deliveries of the new locomotives will commence in late 2006 and be completed by mid to late 2008. These 15 locos will run on the Queensland coal network around the Bowen Basin of south-west Queensland. This investment sends a clear message to industry: ‘We’re here and we’re here for the long haul.’ Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, I note that this is the minister’s first address in this parliament as a minister.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Seafood Industry, Gladstone Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.14 am): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Queensland’s clean, green reputation is one of which we are rightly proud. This state’s delicious seafood is a case in point. The fisher’s wholesalers and consumers in Gladstone have had a difficult period since the oil spill on 24 January this year. Concerns of possible contamination to seafood as a result of that spill cast a pall over a thriving industry. Today I can provide the green light stakeholders have been waiting for. DPIF has played a key role in the organisation of sampling and testing of produce from within Gladstone Harbour. Twice I instructed there be further testing, in consultation with industry, to ensure that the seafood is safe for the market and therefore for human consumption. Twice I met in Gladstone, along with representatives from various government agencies including Queensland Health, EPA, Maritime Safety Queensland and DPIF and of course the local state member, Liz Cunningham, to speak with those whose livelihoods have been affected by the spill. Queensland Health in particular has been a crucial player in ensuring the samples have been tested thoroughly and as quickly as possible. There have been numerous teleconferences and regular industry updates. On each occasion government agencies and stakeholders have calmly tackled the job at hand—to not only re-establish their livelihoods but also be absolutely sure that Gladstone seafood is safe. I hope today, after having received further test results that have again cleared commercial catches of prawns, crabs and finfish for the market, that the confidence of consumers can be regained. More than 100 seafood samples have been collected and all have shown the seafood to be suitable for sale. 15 Feb 2006 Notice of Motion 105

This has been about protecting not just the public but also Gladstone’s reputation for high-quality seafood. While testing has cleared these seafood products for market, our job is not yet complete. The environment will continue to be monitored over the next five years to ensure that there are no long-term effects. As for recreational fishers, I have also asked that concentrated sampling of species such as crabs and finfish be maintained in the area where the oil spill had the most significant impact. I would urge recreational fishers therefore not to fish in the areas directly affected by the oil spill until further results from these recreational species are confirmed. In the meantime, I have pledged that DPIF will work in concert with stakeholders, the Gladstone City Council, the Central Queensland Ports Authority and others to rebuild the reputation of the city’s seafood. To prove this is not hollow rhetoric, I will tomorrow take the taste test and host a luncheon of Gladstone seafood. An invitation has been sent to all members of this House. It is an invitation I know members will be hard-pressed to resist.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Respite for Older Carers Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (10.17 am): The Queensland government has strengthened its commitment to supporting older carers of adult children with a disability, allocating $13.1 million for extra respite services. I have now signed the bilateral agreement on the older parent carers respite initiative, and now await the signature of the federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, to formalise the deal. This is an ideal opportunity for the new minister to demonstrate his commitment to carers of Queenslanders with a disability. It will be a test to see if he has more compassion than his predecessor, who opposed conditions in the agreement which recognise the particular needs of Indigenous Queenslanders. The agreement recognises older parent carers as an issue of growing concern as the general population ages. This bilateral agreement will go a long way to ensuring that Queensland carers receive additional support as they age, enabling them to continue their invaluable parenting role. With matching Commonwealth funds, Queensland will have $26.2 million available to provide much needed relief for older carers who have spent a lifetime looking after their sons and daughters with disabilities. The bilateral agreement comes under the provisions of the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement and will have effect until the current agreement expires in June 2007. Priority will be placed on the following three areas: up to four weeks or more respite to parent carers aged 70 years and over or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers aged 50 years and over; up to two weeks or more respite to parent carers aged between 65 and 69 years inclusive or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers aged between 45 and 49 years inclusive who require hospitalisation; and other CSTDA services that have a respite effect, including services which enable the older carer to continue in their caring role. The Queensland government is responding to the particular needs of parents who continue to care for their sons and daughters with a disability. The Queensland government’s commitment to improving disability services is beyond doubt. To put this commitment into perspective, the 2005-06 operational budget for Disability Services Queensland of $520.4 million is an increase of $137.1 million since 2003-04. In the past three state budgets we have directed funding to respite services that support and strengthen families including ageing carers. The Queensland government has also expanded the family support program to include families caring for an adult family member in their home and has initiated the Carer Recognition Policy to acknowledge the vital role that carers play. Work is continuing across Queensland government agencies in consultation with key stakeholders to develop strategies under the Carer Recognition Policy, and this will make a very real difference to older carers.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Council of Australian Governments Meeting Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (10.20 am): I give notice that I shall move— This House notes the significant reforms arising from the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on Friday, 10 February. Further, this House notes the cooperative approach taken by the states and Commonwealth in achieving outcomes which will benefit all Queensland. In particular, this House notes: 106 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006

1. The commitment to formulating a new national competition policy reform agenda to encourage productive investment in, and the efficient use of, infrastructure, as well as the broader national reform initiative agenda on human capital. This House calls on the Commonwealth to honour the Prime Minister’s commitment to equitably share the net financial gains arising from such reforms with the states in recognition of their responsibilities for service delivery and infrastructure provision, and the tax benefits that will flow to the Commonwealth; 2. The important reforms relating to health care, including the commitment by the Commonwealth to fund additional medical training places, and calls on the Commonwealth to ensure that Queensland is allocated a fair share of these places; 3. The significant decisions relating to transport pricing and the resolution to ensure that the needs of rural and regional Australia are taken into account in the implementation of these decisions and calls on the Commonwealth to recognise the particular needs of Queensland in this regard; and 4. The agreement between the states and the Commonwealth to continue to work together in the global war on terrorism including the staffing of police at all major Australian airports and calls on the Commonwealth to ensure that Queensland is adequately funded to support all initiatives in the ongoing fight against terror.

ORDER OF BUSINESS; COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (10.21 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—5 minutes Total debate time before question put—1 hour. Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Health System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this parliament endorses the following targets for the restoration of the dysfunctional Queensland health system. Before the end of the year the government must ensure that: • All emergency departments must be open and operating successfully. • At least 500 of the hospital beds closed by the Beattie government be reopened and staffed to avoid bed block. • At least 10 of the maternity wards closed by the Beattie government be reopened and fully functioning including Beaudesert and Emerald. • All category 1 surgery carried out on time with 95 per cent of category 2 and 80 per cent of category 3 carried out within established time frames. • Sufficient intensive care beds be reopened to permit all planned surgery to proceed. And that these targets be the benchmarks by which the Premier’s promise to resign be measured.

RACING (RACE FIELDS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (10.23 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Racing Act 2002. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (10.24 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I rise today to introduce a bill to protect the Queensland racing industry from unauthorised betting exchanges. The racing industry is an important part of Queensland not just because of its economic benefits but also because of the entertainment it provides for so many Queenslanders. But this success is under threat from unauthorised betting exchanges that generate significant revenue from Queensland Racing but which make no financial contribution to the industry or to state revenue in return. Unauthorised betting exchanges transactions are invisible to racing regulators and some exchanges, 15 Feb 2006 Private Members’ Statements 107 such as the company Betfair, allow punters to back an animal to lose a race. These exchanges could allow cheating to become a reality in our racing industry and undermine not only Queensland Racing but the entire Australian racing industry. The Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Racing Act 2002 by creating a new offence prohibiting the unauthorised publication of race fields. It is designed to protect the racing industry against unauthorised betting exchanges based interstate or overseas. Queensland Racing has made it clear that it does not want betting exchanges, not due to fear of competition against the TAB but to ensure the integrity of the industry as a whole. This amendment is similar to the approach taken by the Victorian and New South Wales parliaments and is being considered by the Western Australian government. I will also emphasise that the bill does not prohibit the state to allow new licensed operators in the future or prohibit the publication of race fields by newspapers or other industry stakeholders. In conclusion, this bill will protect the integrity of the Queensland racing industry and the revenues of both the government and, most importantly, the racing industry itself. I commend this bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Schwarten, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

State of the State Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 am): Yesterday in this place the Premier attempted to justify his government’s negligence of the important things in this state, whether that be infrastructure, the delivery of fundamental services or the proper operation of our utilities in Queensland. What the Premier did not bother to tell Queenslanders was that, due to his government’s negligence on important issues such as the delivery of utilities and infrastructure, Queenslanders are suffering as a consequence. Many Queenslanders—in actual fact, millions of Queenslanders—are now being faced with level 3 and level 4 water restrictions because of the failure of this government to not only plan but also make the hard decisions and invest in water infrastructure. What the Premier did not say yesterday is that his government has also been completely negligent in failing to properly expend money on road funding in Queensland. His government has never built a $1 billion road project, delivered in two years and four months, and a case in point is his failure with the Tugun bypass. Yesterday in this place the Deputy Premier was finally forced to admit that the fine legacy of the low-tax state of Queensland has now been jettisoned by this high-taxing Labor Party. We are now the lowest on mainland Australia—third after the Northern Territory, if we include the territories, and Tasmania. If we look at the issue of health, we have the most appalling waiting lists when it comes to category 1 elective surgery. This is not a Smart State under this government; this is a state of chaos under the Labor Party. It is about time that this Premier fessed up and put some fundamental concentration into getting the basics right in health, in water, in roads and in education—in basic infrastructure. What an embarrassment on the weekend when the front page of one of the newspapers basically said that we have a dumbed down education system after 7½ years of this government. Time expired. National Congenital Heart Disease Awareness Day Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (10.28 am): Yesterday, while many people were wrapped up in certain affairs of the heart on Valentines Day, others were involved literally in matters of the heart at the Prince Charles Hospital. The health minister, the member for Broadwater and I joined a fantastic group of people to celebrate National Congenital Heart Disease Awareness Day. They launched their calendar, which is available for purchase. The member for Broadwater and I are happy to take orders from members for this calendar, the sales of which are to help support research and families of those who have a ‘HeartKid’. One in 100 children is born with a congenital heart defect. The people in the calendar have survived 30 heart surgeries and 350 surgical procedures. There are six children born each day in Australia with a congenital heart defect. At the Prince Charles Hospital, which has world-class cardiac services, more than 800 surgical interventions a year are performed on ‘HeartKids’. I note that HeartKids Qld want to ensure that it becomes an independent paediatric cardiac service at Prince Charles, separate and independent from the adult services. There were some very impressive speakers, from heart kids themselves to their parents. The president of HeartKids Qld, Kathy Ingram, said— Two of my children, Jacob and Mitchell, no longer live with me here on earth but will live forever in my heart. My other two, Jessica and Brodie, are only here thanks to the brilliant work that is done at this hospital. 108 Questions Without Notice 15 Feb 2006

She also went on to say— We need to let people know that we are here. When people want to give donations for sick children, the money goes either to the Mater childrens or the Royal childrens and Heart Kids is not affiliated with either. When they want to donate money for children with CHD they make the mistake of giving it to the Heart Foundation who don’t do anything for us either. We need to let people know there is another choice. That choice is to support the calendar and support the fundraising. While little Rowan, who is aged less than 18 months old, was running around creating joyful havoc in the auditorium, 13-year-old Kayla was talking about what it is like to be a kid who has congenital heart disease. We support this group.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Redcliffe Hospital Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): I direct a question to the Minister for Health. On 1 August he was specifically advised that ‘there were insufficient staff to meet the demand for maternity services at the Redcliffe Hospital’, and I table that ministerial briefing note. I also table the running order prepared by his department for the Premier’s visit to the Redcliffe Hospital on 9 August 2005, immediately prior to the Redcliffe by-election, which shows that the Premier was to tour the maternity ward at 12.35 pm to ‘speak with mums and be pictured with newborn babies’. I ask: is this not a clear case of the Premier’s preoccupation with getting his photo in the paper and media stunts rather than rescuing our failed free hospital system in Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. The answer is—quite the contrary. I remember that day very well when I visited Redcliffe Hospital with the Premier because it coincided with the announcement that day of another $4 million for Redcliffe and Caboolture hospitals to improve services, to increase the number of clinical staff. I am happy to go through it to refresh the honourable member’s memory to remind him what we actually spent that $4 million on. The relief package included $2.6 million for a new team of 22 specialist health professionals, the provision of home support for elderly patients in need of care, $1 million for a new paediatrician and four special care cots for newborns— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you have asked the question in silence. Allow the minister to reply in silence. Mr ROBERTSON: I can understand why he would be embarrassed because, as I said, there was $1 million for a new paediatrician and four special care cots for newborns—two at Caboolture and two at Redcliffe. Talk about the Inspector Clouseau of the Queensland parliament! In terms of the briefing note that he has received, what did we do? We responded.

Queensland Health Mr SPRINGBORG: My further question is to the Minister for Health, and he did not say how many maternity staff or those other— Mr SPEAKER: Is that your question, Leader of the Opposition? Mr ROBERTSON: I am happy to take the question. Mr SPRINGBORG: The minister had two minutes to fill it out before and he did not bother. Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: Minister, sit down please. Leader of the Opposition, ask the question, please. Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is also to the Minister for Health. In the recent budget papers the minister has been provided with a budget of $1.5 million this year to fund 12 staff, including a range of media and policy advisers. I ask: will he explain why Queensland Health employees are now being directed to write his draft media releases, and I table one? This is just one example. Is this not just the latest confirmation that scarce Queensland Health employees are being redirected from looking after sick patients to looking after a sick government by becoming the minister’s publicity agents? Mr ROBERTSON: No such direction has been given. As the Leader of the Opposition would be aware from the time he spent as a minister in the Borbidge government, his department on a regular basis would have provided him with draft press releases to be released by the minister to, in fact, highlight the wonderful things that his department would have been doing. I have to say that in Queensland Health that happens on a very regular basis. 15 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 109

Full Fee-Paying Medical Degrees Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I direct a question to the Premier. What is his response to a story in today’s edition of the Australian which says that the ALP aims to block an increase in the number of full fee-paying medical degrees? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable whip for his question. I simply say that I am disappointed. I want to explain clearly to Labor Party members and supporters around this country the issues that I put on the agenda of COAG. We put on the agenda of COAG that we want more HECS funded university places for the training of doctors. We also want more training places for nurses and allied health professionals. The Prime Minister agreed to do this—and I refer to the communique. He said that COAG recognised the urgency of addressing the national health workforce shortage—that is doctors, nurses and allied health professionals—and required senior officials to provide COAG in June 2006 with detailed information on the number of additional Commonwealth student places required, along with related measures needed to ameliorate the situation. In other words, the Prime Minister agreed to provide more HECS places. We now have to determine how many and where. Therefore, the sort of public places that Jenny Macklin is talking about is the centrepoint of what I sought to do, and I stand by it. No Labor Party person in this nation could properly disagree with that. In addition to that, I did suggest that we lift the quota from 10 per cent to 25 per cent for fee- paying students. That is in addition to the HECS places. There is a possibility that the University of Queensland or any other university can do a deal with Greenslopes Hospital to train 60 fee-paying students, that is, training doctors in the private sector. There is nothing wrong with that. The point I make to Jenny Macklin is this: these places are in addition to the HECS places. The Prime Minister made it clear in his news conference when we were all present that these fee- paying students were not at the exclusion of the HECS places. Mike Rann, Premier of South Australia, and I and all the other premiers who signed off on this deal wanted to make absolutely clear that these fee-paying places were not in place of any of the HECS places. Our job as premiers is to work with the government of the day, whether it is Prime Minister John Howard or Prime Minister Kim Beazley, to get medical training places and to resolve these workforce issues in health. I stand by what I did. I stand by it and I make no excuse for fighting for Queensland to get more doctors. I do not care whether we are talking about the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party; I will stand up for Queensland on every occasion. I say to the Labor Party federally: I do not agree with your disallowance motion; it is wrong. I urge them to support our bid to get more doctors trained to look after Queenslanders. We have heard a lot about Senator Barnaby Joyce. Let us have him stand up for Queensland on this and every other senator as well.

Hospital Waiting Lists Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. The latest waiting list data shows 414 category 1 patients did not receive their potentially lifesaving treatment on time compared with only 77 a year ago, and I ask: what is the mortality rate for category 1 patients who fail to receive their treatment within the medically necessary 30-day period? Mr ROBERTSON: I think it is fair to say that no Minister for Health would carry that kind of information around, but I am more than happy to provide that information to the House if the member wishes to place that question on notice.

Leadership Alternatives Ms NOLAN: My question without notice is to the Premier. As the leader of the state government, is the Premier aware of what is being offered by some of the leadership alternatives in Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Ipswich for her question. As we have highlighted over the past two days in this parliament, my government is delivering for Queensland. We have the strength and the leadership necessary to continue to build Queensland not just for today but for tomorrow. The alternatives? There is no leadership on the other side. Yesterday I tabled in this parliament three documents which supposedly represented the agreement between the conservative parties here. When opposition members sought to explain this on television last night I noticed the lack of unity within the coalition which demonstrates that they are not fit for government. They need another term in opposition before they will be ready for anything. As the Deputy Premier pointed out, they are not fit for opposition, let alone fit for government. How about the television reports last night? The Leader of the Liberal Party may well smile because I smiled as well. I saw this report on television. This was the day it unravelled for the coalition. The report said, ‘They made their agreement a bigger issue because they couldn’t agree on whether there was now a final deal or not.’ 110 Questions Without Notice 15 Feb 2006

What Mr Quinn said is, ‘This thing’—I assume that means the coalition—’changes from time to time as we make arrangements.’ But not Mr Springborg. He said, ‘That’s been done—signed, sealed, delivered. That’s it.’ What we have, on the one hand, is the Liberal Party saying, ‘Well, we’re not quite sure and we might change our mind’ and then there is the Leader of the National Party saying, ‘The deal’s already done.’ Is it any wonder that the Liberal Party has forced its candidate for Gaven to withdraw? Is it any wonder that a Liberal Party preselection ballot in Burleigh has been cancelled with two days notice? The reality is that the coalition has not been able to agree on preselections. If it cannot agree on fundamental things, such as how it is going to chose its candidates, then it is not fit for government. Let me make another point. I thought the Leader of the Opposition was indecisive, but I think he is not quite sure now. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is not here; that is right. Let us look at these agreements. It is very interesting to see how they will work out. Clause 3.3 in a document headed ‘A lasting partnership’ states— The parties will announce regional plans. These regional plans will be announced by the party that has the carriage of that region. The Liberal Party is in charge on the Sunshine Coast. The member for Maroochydore, Fiona Simpson, is actually being run by the Liberal Party. Why somebody would ever bother to vote for the National Party in Maroochydore is beyond me. At Hervey Bay, where there is a three-cornered contest, the National Party is in charge of what happens with policy announcements. Forget about voting Liberal; there is absolutely no point in voting Liberal in Hervey Bay. It is an absolute waste of time. But I reckon the biggest doozy of all is clause 1.5, which basically says that in its party room the coalition has to get 65 per cent to agree to a measure. If it does not, then members of the coalition can vote how they like. In other words, if it comes to tree clearing and— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Well, the coalition thinks government is a circus. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Queenslanders deserve better than this rabble. Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to a letter from the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine to the acting director-general dated 4 January which was released publicly and which the minister would have seen. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Is there a point of order? Mr ROBERTSON: There is a point of order. I asked the member to table the document, and he has done so. Mr SPEAKER: It has been tabled. Dr FLEGG: I intended to table it. The first paragraph of the letter refers to six months of warnings by the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine and senior Queensland emergency medicine staff to the director-general and to the minister about the lack of emergency medical staff in Queensland public hospitals. I ask: what warnings and briefings was the minister given in relation to the lack of emergency medical staff and the impending consequences? When did the minister receive those warnings? Why did the minister take no action to avert the impending crisis and the closure of the emergency department at Caboolture Hospital? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. As we saw yesterday, the Inspector Clouseau of Queensland politics had this briefing note that was provided to me when I became Minister for Health some seven or eight months ago. What did the government do when it was alerted to the fact that there were these pressures and these challenges in the system? The government did a couple of things. I hope the honourable member opposite remembers the mini-budget that was brought down late last year—$6.4 billion of new money to be invested right across Queensland Health, particularly targeted to our emergency departments. What did we do? Dr Flegg: What about Caboolture? Mr ROBERTSON: In terms of the allegation that we were made aware of these pressures and challenges in the system, that is true; I agree with that. Did the government sit back and do nothing? No, it did not. The Premier and I hit the road with a special package of funding to relieve pressure on emergency departments. If members go back through the many media releases that the Premier and I have released up and down the length and breadth of this state, they will see that we are providing new money to relieve pressure in emergency departments throughout the state. On top of that, we brought 15 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 111 down a budget of $6.4 billion of new money over the next five years to provide further relief to increase staff numbers and to improve their pay. What we did on top of that— Dr Flegg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock, please, Clerk. Take a seat, please, Minister. Member for Moggill, there is not a day that goes by when you do not ask your question at question time and then you sit there and assist the minister to answer the question you asked. I am giving you your final warning now. The next time you do it you will be asked to leave this chamber. Start the clock again, please. I call the minister. Mr ROBERTSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On top of the $6.4 billion of new money that we put into Queensland Health, we also sat down with the AMA and the College of Emergency Medicine when they raised concerns about pay rates, particularly for senior medical officers in Queensland Health working in emergency departments. What was the result of those consultations? In total, the government just put forward another $1 billion worth of pay rises for doctors, particularly those working in our emergency departments. Did the government listen to the concerns expressed by the College of Emergency Medicine? Yes, we did. There is $6.4 billion in the mini-budget and over $1 billion of new money for pay rises for our doctors working in emergency departments—targets that came out of the Forster review that talked about increasing doctor numbers throughout the state. Queensland is far more competitive than we have ever been in terms of attracting doctors to this state. Yes, we were told and, yes, we responded. Gambling Mr LAWLOR: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. It is reported today that spending on gambling is on the rise. What responsible measures has the Beattie government taken with regard to this? What comparable examples are there of the coalition’s efforts in this area? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Southport for the question. Members may well have noticed reports in this morning’s paper which suggest that at the national level gambling turnover has outpaced that of retail turnover in recent years. That is a disturbing report. I can advise the House that the growth in national gambling turnover was largely driven by New South Wales, where gambling as a share of retail reached seven per cent in December, which is well above 3.2 per cent in Queensland. I take no comfort from those figures. Any rise is one that we should be genuinely concerned about, and it serves to highlight again the importance of getting the balance right. It is well known, I think, that the Queensland hotel and club industry is a very significant employer in this state—some 28,000 Queenslanders have jobs in that industry. Thousands of Queenslanders enjoy gambling in moderation. Unfortunately, for a small minority gambling becomes an addiction and has very serious consequences for them and their families. It is incumbent on governments to get the balance right. We try to do that through both regulation and assistance to those in need. Queensland has a very strong record of assistance to those people who require it. In fact, we are leading the nation. The report called Problem gambling and harm: towards a national definition, which was commissioned by the Ministerial Council on Gambling and was released last year, said that Queensland appears to have the most developed, responsible gambling strategy of all Australian jurisdictions. This strategy has both early intervention and prevention components, including a community awareness campaign to prevent people ever becoming problem gamblers as well as problem gambling management with 13 help counselling services plus a 24-hour crisis line. It is important that we regulate this industry. A key part of our strategy is the cap on gaming machines. Some members might have noted in recent months the breathtaking hypocrisy and holier- than-thou attitude of some of those opposite about gaming machines and their so-called proliferation in this state. I thought it important to have a look at the record. Gaming machines were legalised by the Goss government. It introduced a program that was favourable to clubs where the clubs could have up to 250 machines, but pubs would be under strict control with only 10 machines and then later 20. It was a Labor treasurer, Keith De Lacy, who called for a review of this in 1995. In 1996 the coalition carried that through and then issued its own white paper. Its changes in 1996 shifted the pendulum clearly to a virtually open slather system in our hotels. There were no controls. The coalition freed up the pubs, dropped the tax rate from 66.6 per cent to 45 per cent, and then it allowed poker machines in pubs to double from 20 to 40. This graph shows what happened under the policy introduced in 1996 by the then coalition government. There was a 186 per cent increase in gaming machines in hotels in Queensland. It was Terry Mackenroth, a Labor Treasurer, who introduced a cap in hotels and reduced the increase to 14 per cent. The coalition’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. Mary Valley Dam Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the minister for natural resources and mines. Recently I have been approached by residents of the Mary Valley who are concerned about rumours that the new 112 Questions Without Notice 15 Feb 2006 dam for the Mary Valley may be located in either the Conondale section or the Obi Obi part of the valley and that the new weir may be located at Moy Pocket near Gheerulla, and I ask: can the minister please clarify if these three locations are being investigated by the government? Mr PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. I would also like to acknowledge the work that has been done by the honourable member for Glass House in relation to this issue. She has been speaking to my office and the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water about this issue quite regularly. Last week the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, and I released the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy stage 2 interim report. This report lists the programs in place in the short term, medium term and long term. In the short term there is reference to the Mary River Weir, which is to be completed by 2009, with the delivery of up to around 25 megalitres per day. A weir on the Mary River would greatly improve water security for the communities of Noosa and Gympie. I am advised that the preferred site for the proposed Mary River Weir is Coles Crossing, not Obi Obi Valley, Conondale or Moy Pocket. Coles Crossing is going to the detailed investigation stage. The reason the Coles Crossing site was selected for the Mary River Weir is that it would act as a regulating weir for Borumba Dam. I believe the previous minister for natural resources and mines gave the honourable member similar advice. Part of the strategy is a proposal to have an interconnector between water storages in south-east Queensland. That proposal for an interconnector was supported by the 18 mayors and championed by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and me. I was appalled to see on the television and read in the newspapers that the member for Maroochydore and the member for Caloundra were basically saying that the reason this water grid was being prepared was to steal water from the Sunshine Coast. When it comes to water we need cooperation. We need people to be informed before they make these outlandish statements. The member for Maroochydore is from the National Party and the member for Caloundra is from the Liberal Party. I understand that the member for Chatsworth supports the water grid proposal. The member for Caloundra does not support the water grid. I would like to know who the opposition’s spokesperson on water is. This morning I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition called the shadow minister for the environment. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call for the member Fitzroy, I welcome into the public gallery staff and students from Bracken Ridge State School in the electorate of Sandgate, which is represented in this parliament by Mr Gordon Nuttall. Coal Industry Mr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. I refer the minister to the strong performance of the coal sector. Can the minister advise the House of any new developments that will further assist the growth of the coal sector? Mr PALASZCZUK: I have great news for Queensland. I say thank you to the honourable member for Fitzroy for being such a strong supporter of the coal industry in Queensland. Our coal industry has been booming in recent years. When our government came to office in July 1998 total saleable coal production was 105.7 million tonnes and exports were around 86.3 million tonnes. Coal production and export volumes have increased by more than 160 per cent over the last seven years. When our government came to office in 1998 there were 8,961 people employed in the sector. Since our government came to office there have been an extra 7,000 people employed in the state’s coal sector. I can announce today that the government has granted exploration permits for coal over the major Taroborah coal resource in central Queensland. The Taroborah resource in the central Bowen Basin, 20 kilometres west of Emerald, was estimated to contain 157 tonnes of thermal coal. The resource had restricted area status prohibiting the grant of any mining tenement for coal over the area until September last year, when applications were invited for exploration permits for coal within the area. I can now announce to the House that the two successful applicants are Shinelia Holdings Pty Ltd, a majority owned registered Australian subsidiary of Henan Shenhuo Corporation Ltd of China, and SK Australia Pty Ltd and Kores Australia Pty Ltd, which are subsidiaries of major Korean based energy, chemical and mining companies. Shinelia is the preferred applicant with an offer of an exploration permit over 138 square kilometres. SK Australia and Kores Australia have been offered an exploration permit over 249 square kilometres. When the applications were assessed, the ranking of applications was based on the proposed work programs, understanding of geological concepts, proposed exploration expenditure, the applicant’s access to technical resources and finance and any previous exploration history. Before the exploration permit is granted a number of administrative procedures must be put in place such as native title assessment, environmental authority and lodgement of final survey. Today I will be launching Mine Challenge 2006 for the Leukaemia Foundation’s world’s greatest shave to raise funds for this very important cause. As ambassador for Mine Challenge 2006, I commend those men and women from Queensland coalmines and associated industries for participating or for supporting participants. 15 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 113

Hospital Waiting Lists Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the latest waiting list data, which shows that the number of category 1 patients waiting longer than 30 days for lifesaving treatment increased from 77 in January 2005 to 414 in January this year, a situation which the minister described as not acceptable. If the current figures are not acceptable, then what is an acceptable number for category 1 patients waiting longer than 30 days? If the waiting list data does not improve to this acceptable figure by the end of the year, shouldn’t the Premier keep his promise and resign? Mr ROBERTSON: The commitment that I will give the honourable member is that we will be working flat out on a daily basis to reduce those elective surgery waiting list figures. It is true that I said they are unacceptable. They are unacceptable. However, they need to be seen in some context. For example, we need to consider that Princess Alexandra Hospital has experienced a 16 per cent increase in emergency surgery over the past 12 months and the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital has experienced a 14.7 per cent increase in emergency surgery over the same period. We can look at other significant increases such as at the Gold Coast, which has had a 8.9 per cent increase, Nambour, which has had a 30 per cent increase, and Cairns, which has had a 34 per cent increase. Obviously that is going to have an impact on elective surgery waiting lists. As we all know, priority must always be given to those who are categorised as emergency patients. That is why today I announced that 66 new beds are opening up around the state to deal with that increase in emergency department workload. This will take pressure off elective surgery waiting lists as well. As per our commitment to be more open and transparent, for the first time when we published the elective surgery waiting lists for the last quarter we also included quite an extensive report on the reasons those elective surgery waiting lists had increased by the amount they had. It is very interesting to go through this on a hospital-by-hospital basis for the major 10 or 11 hospitals and see the reasons those elective surgery waiting lists had increased. By far the biggest reason for the increase in emergency surgery waiting lists is what? Doctor shortages in specialities such anaesthesia. If we cannot recruit anaesthetists then that results in the cancellation of surgery lists. It does not take Einstein to realise the impact that that will have on elective surgery numbers. That is why our response of putting $1 billion on the table to pay our doctors better than ever before to make us competitive nationally and internationally is so important. It is important in terms of recruiting new doctors, new specialists and new surgeons into our system and retaining the ones we already have. I make no bones about it— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, I give you your final warning under 253. Mr ROBERTSON: I make no bones about the challenges that are ahead of us, but the important thing is that we have a plan. We have a plan to address those challenges—$6.4 billion worth of plans— to ensure that our health system receives the funding it needs to make sure that those challenges are addressed. Workers Compensation Premiums Mr FENLON: My question is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport. I understand that the minister has some great news for the business community in general and news which is also welcome to our state’s workers. Minister, does this news also underline the fact that Queensland continues to be far and away the best place in Australia to do business? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question. Doing business in this country’s economic powerhouse just keeps on getting better for Queensland industry. One of the major reasons companies continue to look to Queensland and are coming here is that we have the lowest business costs and taxes and Australia’s lowest workers compensation premiums, and we are going to cut them again. That is right; we are cutting the average workers compensation premium rate from $1.43—already the country’s lowest—to $1.20. That is a significant reduction for Queensland employers and once again emphasises that the Smart State is the place to do business. It is a further incentive for interstate companies to start businesses here or for local industry to expand and create even more jobs for Queensland workers. This latest cut in the premium rate means that since we were elected in 1998 the average WorkCover Queensland rates will have almost halved from $2.15 in every $100 to just $1.20. Everything else may be going up in price, but employers in this state at least are finding one of their major costs being slashed. The saving for Queensland industry from the new rate will be more than $125 million in the first year alone. Previous cuts mean that during the life of the Beattie government employers have saved $1.5 billion in premium payments through rate cuts and benefits for injured workers have increased over the same time. Queensland is already the envy of other states, but this latest reduction, taking effect on 1 July, puts us even further out front. Currently, for each $100 of wages paid, Victoria charges $1.80—half above ours again. New South Wales charges $2.44—more than double Queensland’s rate. Western 114 Questions Without Notice 15 Feb 2006

Australia charges $2.32, South Australia charges $3 and the federal government charges $1.77. As well as saving millions for our companies, all of our rate cuts have been accompanied by improved benefits to workers. For example, there have been significant increases in benefits payable to dependent family members on the death of a worker and new benefits for totally dependent spouses and non-dependent family members. Of course, the new rates are made possible by the strong financial performance of WorkCover Queensland. I want to thank the board chairman, Ian Brusasco, and the entire WorkCover staff for successfully maintaining our long-held position as leader of Australia’s compensation schemes. We should not forget to acknowledge that the cuts are also possible because employers have improved their workplace health and safety performance. Well done to everyone. Health Services, Gold Coast Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the alarming blow-out in urgent category 1 waiting lists at the Gold Coast Hospital where one-third of patients are not being treated on time within the recommended 30-day period, and nor is the minister, according to this morning’s statement, allocating the Gold Coast any more beds. I ask: is this blow-out across numerous surgical disciplines on the Gold Coast caused by a shortage of specialist surgeons or a more fundamental problem such as a lack of beds? Mr ROBERTSON: I would have thought that in terms of the most recent allocation the member for Currumbin would be the last person to be complaining about not receiving an increase in the number of beds. Had she been paying attention, she would have remembered that we announced a significant increase in beds for the Gold Coast and brought forward the capital works project at Robina Hospital. Off the top of my head, I think the announcement back then was for 30 beds at Robina and an increase in beds at the Gold Coast as well. The simple fact is that we have already announced the allocation for the Gold Coast, because the Gold Coast is a priority for this government. We understand the pressures that the Gold Coast is under, and I indicated in my previous answer the increase in numbers that are going through the emergency department at the Gold Coast Hospital. I have to say that the staff at the Gold Coast do a magnificent job. The doctors and the nurses who staff that emergency department do a magnificent job day in and day out, and that is why, understanding the growth and the demand that they have had— Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Those opposite can laugh about the pressure the Gold Coast is under. I find that, frankly, very sad and absolutely disgraceful. We do not. We treat it very seriously, which is why we made the announcements with respect to Robina Hospital last year about bringing forward the expansion in the emergency department of that hospital in recognition of the increase in demand. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Currumbin, please apologise to the minister. Apologise to the minister! I am not having you screaming out in this place. Mrs STUCKEY: I withdraw my comments. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Operation Back to School Ms STONE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Last month children across the state returned to school, and I notice that police focused their attention on driver behaviour in school zones. What were the results from this exercise? Did motorists in some parts of the state set a worse example for bad driving behaviour? Ms SPENCE: This morning I watched my ministerial colleagues get up and give Queensland good news about health and other issues. I am afraid that there is no good news concerning our driving behaviour in this state. Here we are on 15 February and already 40 people have died on Queensland’s roads, and that is 15 more than at this time last year. Incredibly disappointing is the fact that in the first week of school I launch, alongside police officers, Operation Back to School, a high-profile campaign telling Queenslanders that there would be more police officer hours on the road in front of schools to make sure that parents and other people obeyed road traffic rules around schools. Despite that high- profile campaign, in just one week 1,328 Queensland drivers were caught speeding in designated school zones. For example, one of the worst offenders in Mundingburra was clocked doing 100 kilometres in a 50 kilometre zone outside a school. As well, 103 people were given tickets for failing to wear their own seatbelts or they did not have their children properly restrained in their vehicles. As well, there were 238 parking offences outside schools and 78 cyclists were detected for not wearing appropriate safety and head gear. Some regions were worse than others, and one of the worst regions this year was the Northern region, which was responsible for nearly 30 per cent—338—of all of these offences. That was followed by the Metro North region, which had 245 speeding offences in these school zones and, I am sorry to say, my own region, Metro South, which had 196 speeding offences outside school zones. This followed 15 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 115 on from a dreadful Christmas, one of the worst Christmases in this state’s history as far as the road toll is concerned. We had a high-profile media campaign warning Queenslanders to slow down on the roads, to wear seatbelts and not to drive fatigued. We had a high-profile campaign in the first week of school and we get these appalling results. I am very pleased at the interest that members of the public and indeed members of parliament have shown in the Road Safety Summit, which the transport minister and I and the Premier will be hosting in this place next week. I understand that we have had thousands of submissions, and people are continually writing to me about their ideas on how we could change our traffic rules and how we could reduce our road toll. I am very optimistic that we are going to get more of those ideas next week, and I would encourage all members to play a role in this important issue. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Gympie, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students of the Bracken Ridge State School in the electorate of Sandgate, which is represented in this place by the Hon. Gordon Nuttall.

Inskip Point Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is for the minister for environment. Will the minister provide an update as to the situation regarding visitors and campers to Inskip Point, which is located within the Gympie electorate? Ms BOYLE: I thank the member for Gympie for this question. The events that occurred during the Christmas holiday period are a matter of some considerable local concern—in fact, stronger words than ‘concern’. There is no doubt that Inskip Point is a great camping spot. Lots of Queenslanders, particularly from this southern corner of the state, go there for regular or annual visits with their family. It is a great spot for families. It is an affordable camping spot. There is no doubt that it is a beautiful part of the world. The problem is that over recent years, particularly during peak periods such as Christmas, Easter and some school holidays, Inskip Point has become so popular that there are too many people crammed into a small area. In fact, I am told that our best estimate is that, at its peak, there were as many as 2,800 people at Inskip Point on any given night. I believe the reports from the public that some of the difficulties that occurred over this last Christmas period were not due to the regular campers but were due to some visitors—mostly blokes, I would have to say—who drank too much alcohol, became aggressive and then spoiled it for everybody. The solution is not as simple as exempting the unruly few. The area is overcrowded and the infrastructure is under pressure. There were rubbish problems and toilet problems. Is QPWS doing enough? We are spending $600,000 a year on managing Inskip Point, which is an amount that is far in excess of the camping fees that we receive for Inskip Point. As a result of the extra capital works that we have put in, there are 11 permanent toilets and we bring in another 15 portables. That still is not enough. So what is the solution? The mayor of Gympie, the council members and the business community have made it plain that they want camping to go on and to grow as it is great business and great tourism for the Rainbow Beach area. I agree. However, our rangers are quite right in that this little Inskip Point can cope with only so many people. Therefore, the suggestion that I have for the parliament—and particularly for the key stakeholders at Inskip Point and Rainbow Beach—is that I go there shortly and convene a meeting of the key stakeholders, that we look more broadly at all the land in the area, that we assist the business community and the council to expand camping opportunities, that we do what we can on Inskip Point, but that we also adopt a broader vision to expand business in the area. I have invited one of the regular campers at Inskip Point and a member of this parliament, the member for Ipswich West, to join me on that committee and to assist. I also invite the honourable member for Gympie and ask her, too, if she would care to assist. We can have a win-win solution. We can have camping, we can have the environment protected, we can have good business and we can have that very special part of Queensland protected.

NightLink Mr REEVES: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. As the No. 1 ticket holder of the South East Busway I have always advocated for initiatives which ensure greater use of the busway. One of those initiatives is the new all-night transport service, NightLink, which was kicked off in early December in Brisbane in a first for the city. Can the minister inform the House whether the trial is proving popular with weekend revellers? Are they climbing on board late-night buses, trains and the new flat-fare taxis? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this matter. He is a regular user of public transport and a big supporter of public transport not only in his electorate but also generally. We 116 Questions Without Notice 15 Feb 2006 all know that one bus operating in peak hour takes 40 vehicles off the road. People do not need to be engineers to understand the effects of that. Since NightLink commenced operating on 3 December it has carried more than 30,000 passengers. On the first weekend we had to get our service providers to put on more buses to meet the demand. Nightly bus and train services have carried more than 24,000 people. We have also introduced flat-fare taxis. Passengers heading in the same direction can share a cab for a flat fee less than the metered fare. More than 6,000 people have used the special bulk-use taxi services. For example, by using them a person can travel from the city to Camp Hill at 2 am for around $10 when a standard fare is usually at least $21. Mr Terry Sullivan: And it’s being used by young adults a lot. Mr LUCAS: The Government Whip has indicated how popular the service is. He is a parent of young adults and knows how popular the service is with them. Through the introduction of this service, people can say goodbye to long waits at queues. It takes enormous pressure off our taxi fleet. It is about putting a few extra dollars in the pockets of our taxi operators while at the same time being efficient with the use of those assets and offering members of the public a better service. It gets people home safely. NightLink buses have had more than 800 patrons a night. The big winners are the 111N service to Eight Mile Plains— Mr Reeves: Hear, hear! Mr LUCAS: That would be the bus the honourable member and also the minister for police would use. Other big winners are the 200N to Carindale, with more than 3,000 patrons; the 333N to Chermside, with more than 2,450 patrons; the 412N to St Lucia, with more than 2,460 patrons; and the 385N to The Gap, which comes in last at more than 2,200 patrons. We need to get more people using that route. NightLink trains are averaging 55 passengers a service. I would like to see that figure go higher. As I have said before, use it or lose it. I want to see more people using our train services. Of course, the most popular night for public transport was New Year’s Eve. Extra TransLink services carried more than half the 110,000-strong crowd who were going home from attending the New Year’s Eve fireworks celebrations in the city and at South Bank. NightLink bus drivers will drop off patrons anywhere along the route where it is safe to do so, bringing them closer to home. So if people are on the bus and they want to get dropped off on any part of the bus route, they can be dropped off. People have a right to feel safe when they go out at night. We have created a safer atmosphere by putting on extra security staff at inner-city stations and on board public transport services. On 23 December I carried out an inspection of the buses, trains and taxis to see the wonderful job that our people in Queensland Transport and in the private sector are doing. Security staff and taxi marshals are on hand to help passengers at nine clearly marked secure taxi ranks in the Valley, the city and Caxton Street. Security staff are also on board train and bus services and at bus stops in Warner Street and Eagle Street. QT, CityTrain, BCC, the Taxi Council of Queensland and taxi companies are all working together to provide the best taxi, bus and train services for the people of Brisbane. We have plenty to gain. As I said before, we are having a six-month trial of the NightLink bus and train services. People should use it or they will lose it. I want people to use it. Queensland Health, Doctor Resignations Mr COPELAND: My question is to the Minister for Health. Yesterday he could not tell this House how many doctors have resigned or not renewed their contracts over the past 12 months. Now that the minister has had the benefit of 24 hours to find this number, can he tell the House how many doctors have resigned or not renewed their contracts over the last 12 months? Mr ROBERTSON: I am happy to inform the minister—sorry, the member. That is something that will never occur— Honourable members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: I was clearly mistaken; I meant the Leader of the Opposition. Between June 2005 and January this year 593 doctors left Queensland Health and 168 went on unpaid leave. So in terms of the number of doctors who have exited the system or who are no longer at work, 761 is the total that we have lost over that six-month period. That is certainly a very high figure, but I am pleased to advise that 825 is the number of doctors we have gained over the same period—an increase in a six- month period of 64. 15 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 117

While I am on my feet talking about staff numbers, I note that the opposition has said that, if elected to office, it will sack 2,000 bureaucrats from Queensland Health. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Indeed. I just happened to have a look at some of the staff figures. It is interesting to note that between 1996 and 1998, when the opposition was in office, the number of bureaucrats in Queensland Health increased by 1,200. In two years, the number of bureaucrats employed by Queensland Health was 1,200. So I assume out of the 2,000 whom the opposition is seeking to sack it will start with the 1,200 it employed in two years. Nationals Environment Policy Mr LEE: My question is to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women. Is the minister aware of any developments concerning the member for Burnett and attempts by the Nationals to develop an environment policy? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for the question. He is on the environment policy caucus committee and provides great assistance. We are happy today to provide some assistance to the shadow spokesperson for the environment, who is casting about publicly for suggestions for the Nationals environment policy. I must say that that is a very wise move. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Minister for Transport and Main Roads, I warn you. Ms BOYLE: Therefore, I thought it opportune for me to take stock of the extent to which their environment policy has already developed. I have discovered that, in fact, there are three policies that really we would be more inclined to call antienvironment policies. Their first policy is: no more national parks. Their proud boast on springborg.com is that they created two per cent— Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order. The minister is misleading the parliament and I ask that she withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, will you withdraw. Ms BOYLE: I withdraw. I think I have a copy of it here but I would rather go on. Their second antienvironment policy is, via the shadow spokesperson, to criticise the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service rangers for doing their job—in particular, rangers who fought wildfires over the Christmas period. They were called lazy and arrogant and were attacked for insufficient action. Their third policy is to kill, via shooting and/or electric grids, every flying fox in Queensland. These are, in fact, antienvironment policies. Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order. Once again the minister is misleading the parliament and I ask that she withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Ms BOYLE: I withdraw. Time expired. Hospital Bed Closures Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Health. How many hospital beds have been closed by his government over the past five years and how does the minister justify the closure of those beds at the same time as the state’s population has increased by 500,000 in the same period? Mr ROBERTSON: My simple response to that is to read the announcement that I made today— 66 new beds opened immediately to address access block. As I said I think in the answer before last, I make no bones about the challenges that are ahead of us in terms of addressing not just an increasing population but an ageing population as well. We see that reflected in the increased throughput in our hospitals right throughout Queensland on a daily basis. That requires us to hire more doctors and more nurses, and that is the way to open more beds. As we heard in my previous answer, despite the significant challenges of doctor shortages throughout the state, we still managed over the last six months to increase the number of doctors employed by Queensland Health by 64. So what the opposition was trying to suggest yesterday was that the number of doctors in Queensland Health had, in fact, decreased. That is not the case. Despite the significant pressures both nationally and internationally—the worldwide shortage of doctors—we have nevertheless still managed to increase doctor numbers in Queensland by 64 over the last six months. That is taking a fairly generous view of the number of doctors who have actually left the system. As I said in a previous answer, 593 doctors had left, resigned, retired—whatever—and another 168 went on unpaid leave. So 761 was the total number of doctors lost and 825 is the number of doctors gained for the same period. We have also seen a similar commitment to increase numbers of nurses and allied health professionals. As I said, as the member for Maroochydore would well know, once we get more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, that is how we can open more beds. 118 Questions Without Notice 15 Feb 2006

Community Ambulance Cover Mr HOOLIHAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Can the minister please tell the House what the community ambulance cover scheme has done for the Queensland Ambulance Service and how it has made a difference to community safety? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for Keppel for the question and I also thank him for his abiding interest in emergency services in his electorate. I was in his electorate before Christmas and I know the interest he has in assisting and supporting emergency services in his area. We were looking at a new ambulance site and he had his LAC and the mayor there. That site is progressing very well. The short answer to the member’s question is: extra paramedics and additional resources. But I would like to expand on that. Since the community ambulance cover scheme came into effect back in 2003 we have seen 280 extra paramedics trained in Queensland. These additional paramedics are part of the extra 500 paramedics that the Beattie government will bring online by October next year. I would also like to thank the Premier for the extra 10 paramedics for the Carindale station that will be delivered this year. The community ambulance cover scheme for the first time provided a predictable and stable funding base for our ambulance service. From this funding base we have been able to plan with certainty to provide ambulance services for our growing and ageing population. Paramedics are an amazing group of people. They work very hard and they do a fantastic job. Despite the unprecedented population growth, ambulance response times in Queensland have consistently improved over the past three years. The Queensland Ambulance Service gets more Queenslanders to hospital faster—and in a better medical condition—than ever before. Figures for this financial year show that the QAS has responded to 69.49 per cent of code 1 cases in less than 10 minutes. That is a great effort. It is only through the efforts of our paramedics that that happens. I would really like to thank them for that. They work so very hard for us. This has not happened by chance. The Beattie government has made a sustained investment in the QAS through record budgets, additional paramedics and more funds for facilities and infrastructure. Our expenditure per person for ambulance services is higher than in any other state or territory in Australia. The Queensland community knows that that is the case. That is why people in Queensland have constantly reported patient satisfaction rates of around 98 per cent. The latest Productivity Commission report, as I said earlier here today, gives Queensland a big tick. These figures are a credit to our paramedics and QAS staff throughout the state and clearly demonstrate that the QAS is in good shape due to the significant investment of the Beattie government. I would like to remind members opposite that when the coalition was in government the ambulance budget was $158 million. This year’s budget is now $313 million. Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the unprecedented closure of the emergency department of the Caboolture Hospital and to the pressures on the emergency departments in other hospitals. When will the emergency department at the Caboolture Hospital be fully operational? Can the minister guarantee that no other emergency department will close over the next eight months? If he cannot achieve these improvements in our health system in that time, shouldn’t the Premier keep his promise and resign? Mr ROBERTSON: The simple answer to the question of the member opposite about when Caboolture Hospital will reopen to the level of service that it provided previously is: when we recruit sufficient doctors. Q-Fleet Mr ENGLISH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing. Can the minister update the House on the implementation of the policy changes announced last year to Q-Fleet’s operation? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, the changes that I made last year are working and, in fact, we have been able to get the fleet down from about 2,500 sitting out there waiting for sale to about 1,200. For those members who think that this situation only affected Q- Fleet or the Queensland government, I suggest they read yesterday’s Courier-Mail business section where it talks about a car auction dealer crashing. The article said that consumers were rejecting used cars like Commodores and Falcons because of high fuel costs. As I said in this parliament previously, Q-Fleet has been a very good business for government and continues to be. It has made $80 million, which has been returned to Treasury. In my view it continues to be a very solid base for a business but, of course, it is not immune to market forces. 15 Feb 2006 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 119

I know that those opposite want to privatise Q-Fleet. They have said so. The Western Australian government did that, much to its detriment, and other states have done the same thing. They are now coming back on board and buying back their own fleet. The reality is that, by extending the leases and keeping the cars longer, we will be able to wear some of that risk internally. But in all certainty we will not have as good a year this year as we had last year. There is no question about that. I think anybody who thinks we will does not live in the real world and knows nothing about the car industry. The fact is that it is a business unit of the Department of Public Works which is not for sale. The predators out there no doubt would like the government to be out of it, but, as I have said, any business that people would own that has returned $80 million in the last five or six years would not even come on the radar screen. I do not know at this stage where the bottom line will end this year, but it will not be anywhere near where it was last year and I forecast that that is the case. Everything that can be done has been done. We are now reassessing the needs throughout departments. We are going down the path of four-cylinder vehicles. There is no question about that. There are no more eight-cylinder vehicles being purchased or ordered. Those who have them at the moment can keep them until the lease runs out and they will be passed in. That includes the Leader of the Opposition. I think he has a V8. I would urge members of parliament to continue to apprise themselves of what the car market is doing out there. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for question time has expired.

COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (11.31 am): I move— This House notes the significant reforms arising from the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on Friday, 10 February. Further, this House notes the cooperative approach taken by the states and Commonwealth in achieving outcomes which will benefit all Queensland. In particular, this House notes: 1. The commitment to formulating a new national competition policy reform agenda to encourage productive investment in, and the efficient use of, infrastructure, as well as the broader national reform initiative agenda on human capital. This House calls on the Commonwealth to honour the Prime Minister’s commitment to equitably share the net financial gains arising from such reforms with the states in recognition of their responsibilities for service delivery and infrastructure provision, and the tax benefits that will flow to the Commonwealth; 2. The important reforms relating to health care, including the commitment by the Commonwealth to fund additional medical training places, and calls on the Commonwealth to ensure that Queensland is allocated a fair share of these places; 3. The significant decisions relating to transport pricing and the resolution to ensure that the needs of rural and regional Australia are taken into account in the implementation of these decisions and calls on the Commonwealth to recognise the particular needs of Queensland in this regard; and 4. The agreement between the states and the Commonwealth to continue to work together in the global war on terrorism including the staffing of police at all major Australian airports and calls on the Commonwealth to ensure that Queensland is adequately funded to support all initiatives in the ongoing fight against terror. Mr LINGARD: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr LINGARD: Mr Speaker, I refer to standing order 70 and your previous ruling on standing order 70 which states that a motion must not be longer than 250 words. As this motion is longer than 250 words, I ask that you rule the motion out of order. Mr SPEAKER: As standing orders have already been suspended to allow this motion to come before the parliament, I call on the Premier. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr LINGARD: The standing orders referred to the fact that this motion could be brought on. Standing order 70 refers specifically to motions which state that motions must not be longer than 250 words. Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr SCHWARTEN: I say to the honourable member: good try. I suggest that he read the motion I moved. It says ‘notwithstanding anything in the standing orders’. Mr SPEAKER: The motion which the parliament accepted this morning was— 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 ... I rule the motion— Mr LINGARD: A point of order, Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: There are no further points of order. 120 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 15 Feb 2006

Mr LINGARD: I am allowed to take a point of order whenever I want to take a point of order— Mr SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Mr LINGARD:—and I ask for a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Mr LINGARD: I dissent— Mr SPEAKER: Take your seat. Otherwise I will ask you to leave this chamber. Mr LINGARD: I dissent against your ruling. Mr SPEAKER: I ask you to leave the chamber. Mr LINGARD: I move a motion of dissent against your ruling. Mr SPEAKER: I ask you to leave the chamber. Mr LINGARD: I dissent against your ruling. Mr SPEAKER: I suspend the sitting of this parliament. Sitting suspended from 11.34 am to 11.50 am.

SUSPENSION OF SITTING Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I was forced to suspend the sitting due to the House falling into grave disorder. That disorder was caused by the member for Beaudesert disregarding the authority of this chair and failing to leave the chamber when directed. To alleviate any doubt, the member was ordered to withdraw under the authority of standing order 253.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Speaker’s Ruling Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.50 am): Mr Speaker, I give notice that I shall move— That Mr Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS MEETING Resumed. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (11.51 am), continuing: I do not know why those opposite do not want to debate the need for increased numbers of doctor training places. For the life of me I do not. This is about actually getting the Queensland parliament to support a COAG agreement that was reached by the eight state leaders and the Prime Minister. Yes, I want a better go for Queensland, but there is no criticism of the Prime Minister in my motion. We worked very closely with the Prime Minister. While we have our political differences, I have a good working relationship with him. If there is a good thing to benefit Queensland then I will pursue it. I do not care whether it is Prime Minister John Howard or Prime Minister Kim Beazley. I reject the opposition’s reluctance to participate in this debate. The member for Beaudesert raised issues about the length of the motion. I make the point that this is one of the most detailed COAG meetings I have attended in the more than 7½ years that I have been Premier. It covers one of the most comprehensive agendas in the nation’s history. Frankly, why would we have a short motion that is dealing with major reform and the future of Australia? Let us not have silly nonsense that limits this parliament in debating the substance of the future of Queensland and Australia. I have asked for copies of this full communique to be distributed to all members of the House, and I table another copy for the House. I also table a copy of a number of releases I put out endorsing the outcomes of COAG. Let me talk about a number of things here. I want to start on a positive note by paying tribute to my fellow state leaders—premiers and territory leaders—and the Prime Minister for reaching agreement on key issues that will lead to a better Australia. It was one of the most successful COAG meetings that I have attended. The recognition by the Prime Minister and my colleagues from other states and territories of the significance of the health workforce shortage was particularly pleasing, and the Prime Minister acknowledged the fact that we do not have enough doctors. I know there have been some on the conservative side of politics who have tried to reject this argument. That is not true. I am delighted that there is agreement on this. The Prime Minister said— 15 Feb 2006 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 121

I might also mention in the health care area if I can go back to that again that we recognise that one of the big problems is the shortage of doctors. That is what the Prime Minister said. I table the transcript of the news conference that was held by the state leaders and the Prime Minister after COAG finished its meeting. We have the Prime Minister accepting that we do not have enough doctors in Australia. But did he simply whinge about it and try to undermine, as some opposite have tried to do? No, he worked with us to find a solution. There are two aspects to it. Firstly, he agreed that there would be work done to receive advice in June this year on the actual number needed to address this shared challenge properly. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I hope the member actually has some respect for not just this parliament but also the importance of the number of doctors required, because he represents one of the areas that needs additional doctors. That is why I went to COAG and fought to get additional places. Today this parliament needs to call on the Commonwealth to ensure that Queensland receives its rightful share of these places. I was also successful in gaining the support of the council for a lift in the quota of full fee-paying medical students at university from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. I want to stress that this is an interim measure. The council emphasised that this initiative should not displace the availability of Commonwealth funded positions. I made that absolutely clear. Mike Rann, the South Australian Premier, made that absolutely clear. They are not, in any way, to displace— and the word ‘displace’ is in the communique when members see it—the number of HECS places. The health workforce measures were part of a detailed health package. I want to make the point that I have spoken to a number of our universities. Are there opportunities for these fee-paying students? Yes, there are. Queensland University has the capacity and demand for additional places this year in its four-year postgraduate course. Last year Bond University had to turn down many applications for full fee-paying places in its medical school. This year the university has received almost double the number of applications. There is absolutely no logical reason for opposing the training of these extra doctors. I take on board what Jenny Macklin said this morning. I look forward to the federal Labor Party coming forward with a full commitment, before the June meeting, to the 325 extra training places for doctors we need—the over 1,600 HECS places that we need, that is, 325 places per year for each of the next five years commencing in 2006. I say to Jenny Macklin today that, if she is serious about funding HECS places, give Queenslanders a commitment that she will fund the 325 training places per year that we want starting next year. I want the same commitment from the Prime Minister. I want the Labor Party federally and the Prime Minister to give us the extra 325 training places per year for doctors starting from next year. Let us have a bipartisan approach to it. Let everybody get on board, and let us sort out this health problem once and for all. One of the other significant things that came out of this COAG agreement was this. We have 125,000 bed days every year taken up by senior citizens—that is, aged citizens—in our hospitals. Mr Terry Sullivan: And frail young people. Mr BEATTIE: I will come to that. It is not their fault. Why are we locked into these 125,000 bed days every year? Because there are not enough nursing home beds. For the first time, the Commonwealth accepted its responsibility to do something about it. I have to say that I was enthusiastic about that because, hallelujah, we have been trying to get the Commonwealth to do this for ages. That was the first thing. The second thing is that we accepted responsibility for the young people, those under 50 and under 65, who are in our nursing homes who should not be there. These are people with acquired brain injury, MS, Huntington’s disease and people who have been injured in car accidents who should not be in nursing homes. Some of these people are 50 and under, and that is the group we will target. We allocated just under $24 million as part of our $94 million package to get them out of nursing homes and into some other form of care. What does this mean if it is thought about? It means that we are getting aged persons—nursing home type patients—out of hospitals and into nursing homes. We are getting young people with acquired brain injury, for example, out of nursing homes into another area of care, so we are freeing up the beds. What is the good news about that? It means that we have 125,000 bed days every year for patients in our hospitals. People keep saying to me, ‘What about beds?’ This strategy that we have agreed to with the Prime Minister will free up 125,000 bed days every year. There is logic to it. I say to our National Party friends opposite that one of the things we agreed to also directly benefits the bush. I have tabled the news releases that I have put out. This one I put out the day before because we had already reached private agreement with the other states and the Prime Minister. We agreed to allow doctors in our hospitals in country areas, where there are no GPs, to access the medical benefit scheme. As the member for Moggill understands, we have trouble getting doctors to go to hospitals in places such as Muttaburra, for example. There are 54 of these places listed including 122 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 15 Feb 2006

Croydon, Wallumbilla, Boulia, Georgetown, Aramac and Tambo. This means that, when someone goes to one of those hospitals and sees the doctor, if that person is not admitted to hospital but receives treatment for a cold or flu the doctor can access the MBS. We have to work out how much goes back to the hospital and how much goes back to the doctor. But if we are actually giving the doctor more money, what does that mean? It means that we can get GPs to go to rural communities and serve those communities. This is a fantastic plan for regional and rural Australia. We have identified 54 such places in Queensland. The Member for Fitzroy, Jim Pearce, understands this better than anyone because he has been talking to me about it until he is blue in the face. We have finally done something to support doctors in the bush and in the regions. Therefore, these are the most comprehensive reforms that we have ever had in health. I table those news releases for the information of the House. If members want more details about access to this scheme then I am happy to provide them. What did we do? We got a sensible outcome for nursing home patients, we got a sensible outcome for our hospitals—we got more beds—and we finally faced up to the fact that we do not train enough doctors. We do have some fee-paying students. I am sick to death of the ideological nonsense in terms of opposing fee-paying students. Frankly, they are out there. If they want to be trained we will do it. If a person is in hospital and seeking treatment of some kind they will not care whether the doctor was a HECS student or a fee-paying student. That person will not care; they will want the treatment. The other point I want to make so that no-one forgets it is that 35 per cent of our courses generally are fee paying. Medicine was 10 per cent. The only reason it was 10 per cent is that we did not have enough clinicians and others in the public sector to train them. If we are going to train them in the private sector as well, which we will do at Greenslopes, that 10 per cent quota no longer makes any sense. Therefore, we can lift it. I said 20 per cent and the Prime Minister said 25 per cent and we agreed. We are going to have training places in private hospitals like Greenslopes. Is it going to solve the problem? In the long term, yes, it is, but in the short term, no. We have to have more overseas trained doctors. I point out to the member for Moggill that the other thing we have is a national system for the registration of overseas trained doctors. It will be done nationally. If that had happened before, there would never have been the tragic situation that happened in Bundaberg. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (12.01 pm): I second the motion moved by the Premier. Like the Premier, I welcome the cooperative spirit that prevailed at the COAG meeting on Friday. It is important that governments put aside political differences in the national interest. What came out of Friday’s meeting were some of the most significant reforms and significant proposals since the Commonwealth and state governments agreed to implement the national competition policy. That policy, initiated under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments but supported by a number of conservative state governments at the time, delivered huge financial dividends to Australia. Despite concerns in many quarters about the impact, the federal government was prepared to take hard decisions at that time to guarantee Australia’s future prosperity. It resulted in higher economic growth and millions of dollars in competition payments to Queensland. It is important to understand that the national competition policy has now finished. National competition payments to the states will cease. They are no longer budgeted for into the forward years. What COAG did on Friday was commit to investigate a significant new economic reform agenda. COAG recognised that, to secure our future prosperity, reform must continue. The reforms to be investigated are extremely wide ranging. One of the reasons for having this debate today is so that we are in a position to talk about the extent of the reforms. While we have captured some of the content of the health reforms, I think the breadth of the other decisions on Friday are yet to be understood. These reforms will be aimed at establishing regulatory frameworks that encourage productive investment in infrastructure that is necessary to deliver future economic growth in Queensland and Australia. It will also look at the need to ensure pricing mechanisms and regulatory processes provide sufficient incentive to take the risk inherent in multimillion-dollar investments. In the energy sector, for example, COAG has committed to exploring the use of smart meters nationally to more accurately measure electricity usage and better manage demand. It has also committed to explore further reforms to support efficient national energy marketing—for example, through the strengthening of the national electricity transmission system and encouraging greater competition in the generation and retail sectors. In the transport sector there is an agreement to explore more efficient methods of rail and road pricing and investigate possible solutions to the problem of urban congestion. Work will be done to establish a simpler and more consistent national approach to economic regulation of significant infrastructure. These are very big issues. They are not confined only to physical infrastructure and utilities. There are potentially big shifts in policy to better harness Australia’s human capital through reforms to health, education, training and work incentives. 15 Feb 2006 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 123

While the details of all of these reforms are yet to be worked through, they are expected to generate significant financial gains to Australia and to the states. Further reforms are also likely to generate higher company revenues and therefore higher company tax receipts for the federal government. It is important that these increases in revenue are shared across the country. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the premiers to equitably share the net financial gains arising from these reforms. I hope that he sticks with that commitment. There will also be cost impacts for the states in implementing the next tranche of reforms, and they must be compensated for. The states are major service providers in health, education, transport and police, for example. The Commonwealth has indicated that payments to the states will be linked to improved outcomes. Queensland does not disagree in principle with these reforms, but it is important for the Commonwealth to work cooperatively with the states to ensure that the outcomes are sensible and achievable. We all know that with competition policy in many cases there were real human problems. Often they arose because of a lack of understanding of the very big differences between the states. In the case of the next round of reforms, the outcomes must take account of the factors that are unique to Queensland, particularly in the remote and regional parts of the state. It is important to ensure that the people we represent, especially in the regions and rural areas, are not disadvantaged, for example by road and rail pricing reform. This could happen if it goes the wrong way. This is a very significant reform agenda. The premiers sought and got agreement to a number of caveats that will protect individuals and communities from the inadvertent, harsh effects of these reforms. We need to make sure that those caveats are honoured and that they do result in better outcomes. They are big issues. They are issues that should be debated. In my view, if someone wants to stand for election they have to have an opinion on these issues. I share the Premier’s confusion about why the opposition sought to stop this debate today. I cannot for the life of me understand why those opposite would not want to be part of this debate and why this parliament would not want the opportunity to express its views on some of the reforms that will have an impact on all of our constituents. I think there is only one answer to the Premier’s question. That is simply that the opposition was not ready. It was not ready to have this debate. It has not taken the time to look at the COAG communique. It has been available for five days. The COAG communique has been available. Those opposite are not ready for government and not ready for opposition. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (12.06 pm): I move— After paragraph 4., insert the following— 5. And supports the Prime Minister’s call for the Beattie Labor government to preserve Queensland’s free hospital system; 6. And endorses the Prime Minister’s call for the state government to rule out charging copayments or means testing of services at public hospitals. It is as simple as this. If the Queensland Labor Party does not support free public hospitals, what does it support? I will say it again: if those in the Labor Party are not prepared to support free public hospitals in Queensland, what are they prepared to support? They have not been prepared to debate this issue and they have not been prepared to embrace, endorse or even acknowledge the Prime Minister’s concerns with regard to the Beattie government’s attempt to tear apart the fabric of our free public hospital system, which has existed in Queensland for some 60 years. We need to reflect on the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the Premier on 4 November 2005, particularly the third and fourth last paragraphs. He states in relation to health— These challenges are significant, but I do not consider that there is a need to pursue any proposal to increase taxes, charge co- payments or means test services in public hospitals. Further, while it is appropriate that patients be informed of their choices when being admitted to a public hospital, I ask that you consider carefully the implications of forcing privately insured patients into private care. Free public hospital care is a core component of Medicare and I note that the Queensland Government would be in breach of its Australian Health Care Agreement if it moved to charge co-payments or means test public patient services in its hospitals. It would also be in breach if there were any systemic evidence of staff at Queensland public hospitals directing or in any way pressuring patients to elect to be private patients or directing them to go to private hospitals. If we are going to debate a motion in this place today which is intrinsically and deceptively about shifting the blame for the crisis in the public hospital system in Queensland to other jurisdictions, then this government should be prepared to face up to what it is properly responsible for—that is, all aspects which it is responsible for. This is a motion which is not motivated out of the goodness of the Premier’s heart but is motivated out of the Premier’s desire to divert attention from his mismanagement—his chronic 7½ years of mismanagement—of the Queensland public hospital system to the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions. If the Premier wants a commitment of bipartisanship from anyone with regard to fixing this, then the Premier himself must also reflect upon, pick up, endorse and support the Prime Minister’s requirements that the free public hospital system continue to exist in Queensland in the future as it exists today, and that is by the preservation of it in its current form—without copayments, without means testing. As the Prime Minister says, copayments and means testing fundamentally undermine the 124 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 15 Feb 2006 fundamental tenet of our free public hospital system. If the Prime Minister of Australia, who had to sit through the shenanigans of the Premier walking into COAG the other day with a goofy badge on his lapel, had to sit there to try to have a meaningful debate about future healthcare directions in Australia— if he is prepared to take these issues seriously and also address serious concerns about the preservation of Queensland’s public hospital system the way it exists today—then the Premier should be prepared to stand on his mettle. He should be prepared to put his money where his mouth is. He should be prepared to rule out immediately his intention to even consider the introduction of copayments and means testing. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I say to the member for Rockhampton, who really does not have too many interjections beyond the inane, that if he and the Labor Party do not support the retention of the free public hospital system in Queensland as it exists today, what do they support? What do they support? Mr Schwarten: Imbecile! Mr SPRINGBORG: What do they support? Mr Speaker, I am sure that you heard what the honourable member said in relation— Mr SCHWARTEN: I said he was an imbecile. Mr SPEAKER: Please! Mr SPRINGBORG: I find it offensive and ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Withdraw. Mr SCHWARTEN: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is a legitimate question, because that is what Queenslanders are asking. How can a government—a Labor government, which is supposedly steeped in the history of standing up for the workers, standing up for the battlers, standing up for the underprivileged—be prepared to even consider sneakily or otherwise the fundamental destruction of the tenets of our free public hospital system by further charging copayments and by the introduction of means testing in Queensland? When the Prime Minister wrote—because he does not play silly political games, shenanigans and stunts like the Premier opposite—to the Premier on 4 November last year, he raised that issue. If the Premier wants our support and if he wants to properly illustrate today that this is beyond a political stunt of diversion, then he should be prepared to support that amendment. If he wants to rework it or if he wants to renumber it and put it after dot point 3 or whatever, then I do not particularly care. That is a matter for him. All I am saying is that we want to have those fundamental tenets supported with regard to the free public hospital system, because all governments in Queensland post the Second World War—whether they be Labor or conservative—to this current Labor government have supported this fundamental tenet. It has stood the test of time. Through economic thick and thin, through depressions and recessions, it has stood the fundamental test of time. How can this government justify in the most prosperous times which our nation has had in probably more than half a century, if not ever, destroying this when it has that much money rolling in that it does not know what to do? It can talk about economic reform and all sorts of things, but this government is raising 100 per cent more in state taxes than when it came to office some 7½ years ago. They are the projected figures for the next financial year. This government is getting an extraordinary amount of revenue from GST. This government is now spending twice as much per day as it was when it came to power 7½ years ago and the population in that time has increased by some 20 per cent. One really has to ask the question: where has all of the money gone and what is actually going wrong with the fundamental administration in Queensland? The problem is that Labor administrations are about creating a bureaucracy and a process in government which is about servicing their requirement in government and their need to stay in government more than it is about servicing the requirement of the electorate at large and the people who put them there. That is why we see bloated bureaucracies, and that is why we see a fundamental incapacity to deliver services. If one looks at this motion moved by the Premier, it is motherhood stuff. Who can really disagree with the fundamentals of this if we take it at face value? The federal Labor Party does. Dot point 1 of the Premier’s motion talks about infrastructure. Infrastructure in Queensland has been run down comparatively under this government to levels that we could not even believe. We have a $55 billion infrastructure plan which is on the never-never. Our next dam to be built in Queensland has a time frame of 2026. The extension of the rail line on the Sunshine Coast from Beerwah to Caloundra and Maroochydore is 2026. We will all perish by then! If we look at water and fundamental infrastructure and at the incapacity to deliver even relatively minor projects or small projects in comparison to the M1, projects such as the Tugun bypass, this government is talking about doing it in 10 years and we built the M1—signed, sealed, planning done, work completed and left for the Premier to cut the ribbon—in two years and four months. That is how governments should operate. We have a government which is about diverting attention. It is about blame-shifting. We also know, according to the Productivity Commission, that even if we get those student places we do not 15 Feb 2006 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 125 have the training capacity. We have the student places increasing exponentially over the next four years anyway, but this health minister was not able to tell this parliament over the last couple of days the number of doctor resignations until he went away and researched it, the number of medical places in universities last year compared to 2010, the number of training positions in our hospitals last year compared to 2010 and the number of hospital beds closed. He cannot tell us any of that, yet today he is making a virtue out of reopening 60 hospital beds when his government has closed 600 at the PA and the RBWH in the last five years. This is the sort of nonsense that we have seen in this diversionary process. If this government is not prepared to support our amendment in full, then this motion is fundamentally flawed. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (12.16 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and we do so because we want to see Queensland’s free public hospital system preserved. We do not want to see this government blame the general public for the use of the free hospital system in this state and then have to bear the cost itself. It has not been the general public or the patients of Queensland Health who have run down our free hospital system; it has been this ALP government in Queensland—no-one else. It always looks for someone else to blame. It blames the patients because they use it too often. It blames the patients because they do not take care of the free hospital system in Queensland. It blames the Commonwealth because it is not providing enough doctors. It blames someone else. When a government is continually blaming someone else, it is simply using that as a refuge to avoid having to shoulder the blame itself. That is what this is all about. For the Premier to come in here today and pretend that there should be bipartisan support for this COAG agreement and so on is just a lot of froth and bubble. That is all it is—another one of their stunts, a yellow badge on their shirt to say that they sympathise with the residents of Caboolture when they closed their accident and emergency section, another badge on their lapels when they cannot keep doctors in the public hospital system and another stunt in the parliament. There is a stunt a day because they want to avoid public responsibility for closing the hospitals and not managing them properly. That is what this is all about. The solutions to the Queensland public hospital system problem will not be found in Canberra. They will not be found in any other state. They will be found in this state. The Minister for Health really let the cat out of the bag today when he answered the question as to how many doctors have resigned or left the system over the past 12 months. That was a chilling answer. Some 761 doctors have left the public health system over the last 12 months—761! In that time 825 have been recruited—a net gain of some 64. If the government wants to keep our accident and emergency departments in this state open, if it wants to reduce our waiting lists from the unacceptable—which is the term that was used by the Minister for Health—to the acceptable, if it wants to keep our beds open and not close them, if it wants to make sure ambulances do not bypass hospitals, the very first thing it has to do is retain its doctors in its hospitals. The government should not toddle off to Canberra and ask the federal government to provide more training places for doctors. It should not blame everyone else. It should do the hard work itself. But that is what this government will not do. It will not put the right policy platform in place to make sure that we retain our doctors in the public hospital system in this state. That is the fundamental thing that has to happen. This government will do anything else other than face up to that hard fact. To do so would require a change in the culture and the attitude within our public hospital system and within Queensland Health. The bullying and the intimidation, which has been the hallmark of this government over the past seven years, has to change. But what do we see? Absolutely no sign of that whatsoever. The briefing that we were given by the minister in the run-up to the Redcliffe by-election indicated that that culture is alive and well and fostered by this government. That is why we will continue to see doctors leaving this system and the Premier, the minister and the ALP continuing to try to shift the blame somewhere else. The last point I would like to make relates to the government’s ideological opposition to full fee- paying students in the medical school. That opposition does not come from us. We have the Premier standing up trying to blame everyone else in the room when the problem lies on his side of politics. His problem is that the loopy Left in Canberra opposes it. So if Kim Beazley becomes Prime Minister of Australia, what is the first thing we get? The abolition of full fee-paying students in the medical school. Who will the Premier blame then? Will he go to Canberra and blame the federal government? Members should not hold their breath on that one. That is the extent of the hypocrisy of what is going on in this chamber today. The government will use anything to divert attention from what is really going on in the public hospital system, for which this government bears 100 per cent of the blame. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (12.22 pm): I move the following amendment— Delete all words before ‘Queensland’ and insert ‘reaffirms its support for’, and delete paragraph 6. Last week’s COAG meeting was incredibly important for Queenslanders from a health point of view. Finally, we are getting some action from Canberra. Finally, we got the Prime Minister to admit that it was the Commonwealth’s responsibility to ensure that we had sufficient doctors coming through our universities to meet the needs of this growing state. 126 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 15 Feb 2006

Over the period that we have campaigned for Queensland to get a sufficient number of doctors coming through our universities for our Queensland hospitals, what has been particularly galling is the interference run by the members opposite. The campaign that we have waged on behalf of Queenslanders is something that Queenslanders expect a government to do. They do not expect us, as the opposition has been, to be in denial. The opposition should ask the people in Caboolture whether there are enough doctors. It should ask the people in Maryborough whether there are enough doctors. It should ask the people in Bundaberg whether there are enough doctors. The answer will be no. Even the Prime Minister says that there are not enough doctors. But what did this mob opposite do? It sat mute and absurd. In fact, the opposition did everything possible to talk down the Premier’s campaign to increase the number of medical places at our universities. The opposition even tried to knock the 325 extra university places that we were seeking, even though it was explained clearly how that number of 325 had come about. That number included the increase in the number of places, which we have always acknowledged, that the Commonwealth finally provided. This issue is about playing catch-up in a way in which we should not have to if the federal government had done its job and maintained the number of doctors coming through our universities which we should have received to meet the needs of a growing and ageing population. The level of hypocrisy on the other side knows no bounds. We have had the Leader of the Opposition talk about his commitment to workers rights. In the same breath, if he comes to office he wants to sack 2,000 people from Queensland Health. As we heard this morning, the last time the opposition was in office 1,260 of them were employed. So in the magnificent two years that Queensland had when the opposition was in office, what did it achieve for Queensland Health? It employed 1,260 more public servants. Now it wants to go to the people and say, ‘We want to sack 2,000.’ The opposition’s record speaks for itself. When the opposition was in office we saw that blow-out in the number of public servants employed by Queensland Health. The level of the opposition’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. Now, of course, the opposition wants to say that we should not have copayments. If the Leader of the Opposition understood how Queensland Health works he would know that copayments are already in existence. But it goes further than that. The opposition has this so-called fine commitment to free public health in Queensland, yet what happens out in the real world on a fairly regular basis in terms of the opposition health spokesperson? Members should ask him this question: does he bulk-bill? The answer is no. The opposition has a so-called commitment to free public health, but what do we have? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Does the opposition health spokesman bulk-bill at his surgery? No! What is the result? The people of Caboolture and Beachmere need to go to Caboolture Hospital to get the free service. If doctors such as Dr Flegg offered to bulk-bill, then we would not see the pressure on our health system that we have. He knows that is the case. But Dr Flegg is too interested in the dollars— Mr SPEAKER: The minister should refer to the member by his correct title. Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Moggill is just too interested in the green folding stuff to be truly committed to free public health in this state. Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. This is offensive and I ask that the minister withdraw his trivialisation— Mr SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw. Mr Caltabiano interjected. An honourable member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chatsworth and one of the female members, when I am on my feet I expect total silence in this place. Minister, withdraw. Mr ROBERTSON: I withdraw, but let the record show— Mr SPEAKER: Hold on. Minister, have you withdrawn? Mr ROBERTSON: I have withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Moggill, are you happy? Dr FLEGG: Yes, Mr Speaker. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (12.27 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the Premier. I would also like to second the amendment to the amendment moved by the Minister for Health. I have to say that I am disappointed that the opposition has chosen to talk only about the health aspects of the COAG agreement, because other important issues are discussed at COAG. One of those important issues is airport security. In June last year at a ministerial council for police ministers all police ministers raised with the federal minister, Chris Ellison, the issue of airport security. We asked the question that every air traveller wanted to ask: how secure are our airports? 15 Feb 2006 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 127

As state ministers, we were very pleased that a week after that ministerial council meeting the federal government commissioned an inquiry into airport security. As a result of that inquiry we had the Wheeler review and then the Wheeler report. I think that report is an excellent document. It confirmed the fears expressed by police ministers that our airport security was wanting. The recommendations in the report to improve policing and security arrangements at our airports are to be commended. Of course, as we all know, it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to ensure funding for this issue. The Wheeler report identified three Queensland airports—Brisbane, Cairns and the Gold Coast— as airports that have heightened security requirements. We are unique in Australia in having three airports that require an increased level of policing. New South Wales has one airport and Victoria has one airport that have to be considered. But because Queensland is an important international gateway, we have three airports that now require an increased police presence. Mr Messenger: Have you got a police station at the airport? Has the state got a police station out there? Ms SPENCE: That is what we are talking about today. That is the most naive question I have ever heard. The Wheeler report recommended for the first time that we establish a police presence at these three airports—that, indeed, it was the federal government’s responsibility to do that. As a result of this report, we have had ongoing dialogue with the federal government on these issues. There has certainly been a lot of goodwill on behalf of the Queensland Police Service and the federal government. There have been concerns about the way the federal government wants to staff these airports at police stations. There have been concerns about the staffing levels that are required. The Queensland Police Service identified that we should have 296 police at these three airports supported by 42 civilian staff to run three, 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week airports. The federal government has said that it will pay for 93 sworn officers and no civilian staff. So these are issues that we continue to debate with the federal government. Mr Johnson: And they become part of the Federal Police. Ms SPENCE: Yes. I said initially that we will clearly not take police away from Queensland communities to staff these airports. So we are going to have to train an additional 120 police officers before we open these police stations. The other issue which the member for Gregory knows about is that the Police Union in Queensland, along with other police unions in Australia, is not happy about the fact that the federal government will be seconding these police out of the Queensland Police Service and asking them for that period to be part of the Australian Federal Police. The unions have great concerns about the chain of command. They have great concerns about employee entitlements and, indeed, the Police Service itself shares these concerns. While we are certainly committed to working with the federal government to resolve these issues, I have to say to members of parliament that there are still outstanding issues which I am confident will be resolved in the near future, but it will be some time before we see these police stations up and running. In the meantime, we have appointed three airport commanders to those three airports. Officers from the Queensland Police Service have gone to these airports to start their job as airport commanders. As well, we have agreed and advertised for two positions for joint airport investigation teams that are proposed to be established at our airports and also joint airport intelligence groups. Time expired. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (12.34 pm): I move the following amendment to the amendment moved by the Minister for Health— At the end insert— ‘And supports the Prime Minister’s concerns expressed in his letter to the Premier regarding means testing and copayments and this House absolutely opposes the introduction of further copayments and means testing.’ I support the COAG reforms—speaking principally about the health reforms, which are the ones that I have studied—in relation to the movement of elderly patients out of hospitals; the movement of young patients out of nursing homes; and review of the mental health system, which has been required because of the appalling record of state governments like Queensland in relation to mental health. I also support initiatives for the medical workforce in relation to full fee-paying students and the review of HECS. I have been a long-term advocate of increasing these places. Those opposite have a desperate problem telling the whole story. We heard the Premier in his rant here today trying to paint the picture that this is the federal government admitting liability and suddenly doing something about it. He conveniently ignored the words in his own COAG communique— the words he himself as Premier agreed to—that COAG notes the significant investment of the Commonwealth and states to date to address the workforce shortage. This is one of the issues: the medical school places in Queensland have already been doubled. We see this deceptive campaign of advertisements saying that there are only 240 graduates a year when, in fact, we have 540 graduates already in the system for the year 2010—they have already started their training. This approach is just a stunt on the part of the Premier to try to paint the crisis in our public hospitals and our emergency 128 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 15 Feb 2006 departments—a crisis of this government’s making—as being the fault of somebody else and attempt to shift the blame to the federal government. Here in this place this morning we heard some of the true story come out—761 doctors have left the system in Queensland in one year. I see members opposite wearing little badges saying, ‘Train 325 more doctors.’ They lost 761 doctors in just one year. To make matters worse, they did not lose trainee doctors or junior doctors that have to be trained and supervised; they lost large numbers of senior doctors who are necessary to train others. The loss of 761 mostly senior doctors is crippling our ability to train young doctors and has crippled our ability to deliver services to people in this state. We heard the disgraceful performance of this dud health minister resorting to personal attack and his pathetic effort to pretend that everything is the fault of the federal government. In answer to question on notice No. 1800, again we get a bit more of the truth. When asked how this government would cope with the medical students already in the system—the big increase that has already been given to Queensland—the minister said that he can only guarantee them their clinical training to complete their degree and qualify as a doctor up until 2008. So students already in the system and training in Queensland are not guaranteed an internship in this state. We have already seen the careers of allied health professionals destroyed when they could not get a clinical training year in a Queensland public hospital and had to leave their profession because they could not be registered. Now we have doctors facing the same situation—not the 325 asked for by the stunt that those opposite wear on their chest but the 540 a year that are already in the system being trained. This failed minister cannot even come out in an answer to a question on notice to the parliament and guarantee that they can complete their degree and be registered as a doctor. Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.37 pm): I rise to second the amendment moved by the member for Moggill to the amendment moved by the Minister for Health and to support the comments that have already been made on this side of the House by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Robina. There is no doubt that this motion before the House today is a stunt on the part of a desperate government. It is another stunt from a government whose method of operation is simply to design these stunts to divert attention from its failings. We have seen it in this parliament over the years. Every time the government gets into trouble there is a stunt manufactured to divert attention, to shift the blame, to shift the responsibility away from this government that does nothing but blunder into trouble and then puts on these types of stunts to try to get itself out of it. Those opposite come in here wearing silly badges and silly ribbons and all sorts of stupid things rather than addressing the core problem. They came in here today to move this motion simply to try to divert responsibility, to divert the blame for the crisis in Queensland Health to the Commonwealth and to somehow suggest that the COAG agreement presents a solution to a problem that is of their making and is their responsibility to fix. The Council of Australian Governments communique that was released on 10 February and tabled in the parliament today does not do that. It is not the lifeline that this government seeks to paint it as. It is not the solution that the Premier somehow claimed it was when he tabled it here in the parliament. It is a false impression. It is another stunt. It should be worrying to the people of Queensland that this is the response from their government in crisis. This is the response that their government believes is appropriate to the worst administrative crisis in Queensland’s history. The government is suggesting that this COAG communique will provide solutions that will reassure the people of Queensland. The people of Queensland should be worried sick today to see the government respond in this way. They should be worried sick to see government members come in here with their silly little badges on and suggest that that is going to do something to address the problems that affect Queensland Health and that have caused so much real human suffering and pain to Queenslanders all over the state. For government members to suggest that an appropriate response is to come in here and wear silly little badges and pull these sorts of cheap stunts is something that everyone in Queensland should be worried about. The government was very keen to amend the amendment that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition, because the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition sought to entrench in the motion support for Queensland’s free hospital system. It sought to have included in the motion support for the Prime Minister’s call for the Beattie government to preserve Queensland’s free hospital system. It sought to include in the motion a commitment that there would be no more copayments and means testing in Queensland hospitals. That was the issue that the Prime Minister raised in a formal way with the Premier of this state. The Premier is only too keen to try to hitch himself to the COAG communique because he can see a little bit of political benefit, he can see an opportunity to divert attention and he can see an opportunity to create a false impression. However, when it comes to the letter that was written to him by the Prime Minister of Australia expressing concern about the government’s attitude to the free hospital system in Queensland, copayments and means testing, the government wants to run a mile. It would 15 Feb 2006 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 129 rather run a mile than be forced to publicly express its position on Queensland’s free hospital system. It wants to scamper out of here without expressing its position on further copayments and means testing. The government does not have the courage or the backbone to let the people of Queensland know its true position, because its true position would be an absolute embarrassment to anybody who ever considered themselves a supporter of the Labor Party in Queensland. It has been an absolute fundamental of Queensland politics for years for governments to protect and support Queensland’s free hospital system. This government has wrecked it in two terms because it has not been able to administer the system. Now it seeks to avoid the position where its intention will become clear to the people of Queensland. The government will not get out of it. It will be forced to declare its hand today. Time expired. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (12.43 pm): What a hypocrite the member for Callide is when he talks about copayments. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. That is offensive and it is beneath the member. Mr SPEAKER: Are you asking that it be withdrawn? Mr SEENEY: I find it offensive and I— Mr LUCAS: Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. The member for Callide says one thing and then justifies it by saying another. Everybody knows of the tragic decline in bulk-billing through Medicare that has happened in this country over the last 10 years, and it is due to one thing— An opposition member interjected. Mr LUCAS: In the last few months? It is due to one thing and one thing only: the direct control of the number of doctors, because of the closed shop attitude of people such as the member for Moggill. They do not want more doctors. That is why bulk-billing in my electorate, for example, is a fraction of what it used to be. That is why we cannot get it by federal division anymore. The federal government has stopped us getting it by federal division because it does not want us to see how it is declining. I want to talk about roads. What I will say about the COAG meeting is that I welcome the review to investigate the causes, trends, impacts and options for managing urban congestion. This is a welcome step but it could go further. There was discussion at COAG about the need for urban centres. One of the things that the Commonwealth keeps going on about is the national freight network and AusLink’s preoccupation with it. The national freight network is important, but anyone would think from a philosophical point of view that the taxpayers in the cities and urban areas who pay good money in fuel tax—$18 billion or so a year—ought to have some consideration given to their motoring needs. The people of Toowoomba, the people of Brisbane and the people of regional Queensland who pay those dollars in fuel tax are entitled to it, not just the national freight network. If the Commonwealth government wants to get serious, it could take immediate steps with regard to urban congestion to do something about freight. First of all, a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway but, secondly, because it is topical— Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr LUCAS: The approval came through on 19 December last year. That is what a dope the member is—19 December last year. He is just like Santo Santoro. He is happy to make interjections but he never takes them. That is the mark of a coward or someone who is not up to the job. We saw on the Pacific Motorway what the problem was there. Some $392 million was allocated for the state. How much did the wonderful success of federal coalition members get? How much did the federal coalition get, other than $120 million for Tugun on the Gold Coast? Not one cent. That is how much they got. That is their spectacular success! The member for Chatsworth highlights the impotency of the federal Liberal Party when he talks about the Nielsens Road interchange, where it will not put up the money to match the state. They can do it in New South Wales. His colleagues in New South Wales are happy to grandstand about the Pacific Motorway. He does not do it here, because that is the one thing that distinguishes the member for Chatsworth from members on this side of the House. They are never prepared to get up and argue against the Commonwealth government. We will work with the Commonwealth and we will also take issues up with the Commonwealth when we need to. That is what the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, does as well. He must have been relaxed when the member for Chatsworth left. The member for Chatsworth is not interested in building anything. He is interested in scoring political points and he will do that at any cost. It will be very interesting in the future to read his history in this place. Regional roads, as part of the agreement at COAG, are extremely important to us. That is why the Queensland government announced last August our Regional Bridge Renewal Program to replace up to 100 bridges in our rural and regional areas. The member for Nanango has a number of bridges in her electorate that are getting replaced. In addition to the Accelerated Road Rehabilitation Program, that is 130 Council of Australian Governments Meeting 15 Feb 2006 replacing a number of bridges in central and southern Queensland including those in the electorate of Gladstone and I think also in the Nicklin electorate. I have said to the Commonwealth government time and time again that we need to roll out higher mass limits. We need bridges that are capable of doing it but we also need appropriate funding from the Commonwealth to do that. The freight task is critically important to Queensland and we need to work more to convince the Commonwealth of the benefit of it. The third determination from the National Transport Commission has come down. That is currently a subject for negotiation and discussion between the Commonwealth and the states. Ninety- three per cent of registration goes directly into roads. That is not our only source of funding for roads. Of course it is much greater than that. But 16-odd per cent of fuel funding is going towards it. It particularly sticks in the craw of transport operators when they have a heavy vehicle user charge that is allocated to them, and like a hypothecation it is paid and they do not get it back. It is about time we saw some consistency. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.48 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the motion which calls on the House to note the cooperative approach taken by the state and the Commonwealth in achieving outcomes which refer to a commitment to formulate a new national competition policy reform agenda. I remind members that almost two years ago—on 21 April—the very first private member’s motion moved at 5.30 pm was a motion moved by my Independent colleague the member for Nanango. That motion called on all members of this House to convey our concerns to the Prime Minister about the impact of national competition policy and the privatisation proposals on Queensland’s business industry and the devastating effects being felt by Queensland farmers. It is very disappointing on such an important issue as the national competition policy that the government has chosen to not engage with the opposition or the crossbenches. It did not give us the opportunity to know in advance that this important matter was coming on for debate. Instead, it chose to catch us all out—to give us a maximum of one hour’s notice to prepare for debate on such an important issue that impacts on all Queenslanders. When I started to read through the minutes of the meeting dated 10 February I saw that there was talk about engaging all councils and all Queenslanders. I say to the government that if it is not prepared to give the opposition and the crossbenches notice in advance of such an important motion coming on for debate, where is the genuineness and this will to cooperate? It might be all very well and good for the government to say it is working in cooperation with the federal government, but it does not look like it is prepared to work in cooperation with all members of this, the 51st Parliament. On that issue of cooperation, it is disappointing that on such an important issue we have one motion and three amendments. I think the answer there is that the government has simply not wanted to engage and include the opposition and the crossbenches in debating and genuinely working together on such an important issue. I note the Deputy Premier, who seconded the motion, referred to— Time expired. Question—That the member for Moggill’s amendment of the minister’s amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 26—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 53—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER: I remind all members that any future divisions will be of two minutes duration. Question—That the minister’s amendment of the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 53—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 26—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1.03 pm to 2.30 pm. 15 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 131

CHILD EMPLOYMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 14 February (see p. 67). Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (2.30 pm): I rise to offer my support to the Child Employment Bill. I believe it is important that young people are provided with the ability to work part-time whilst still at school or full-time if they choose to leave school to take up employment. It is essential that our youth get an understanding and appreciation of money and that it does not grow on trees or magically out of parents’ wallets. The earlier a child can learn the value of money the greater will be the benefits for them in the future. That being said, being young and in the workforce, these people are vulnerable and without the necessary experience to deal with the fact that they can be taken advantage of. There are employers who like to employ young people because they think that they can pay the lowest rates whilst expecting the highest output. This legislation is designed to protect children under such circumstances. All workers should be entitled to a number of rights in relation to their employment, no matter what age that employee may be. From firsthand experience I know of an organisation taking advantage of young people. When I was 17 I was accepted by a major Sydney hotel to participate in a hospitality management traineeship. Myself and the two others chosen to participate in the program were paid $150 a week before tax. There were occasions when I was left in charge of the kitchen on my own from 11 pm to 6 am the following day. I was expected to cook all the meals on the room service menu on my own, collect all the breakfast menus from over 100 rooms and set up the breakfast trolleys as well as man the overnight room service requests, which I have to say led to some very interesting circumstances for an innocent young girl. However, when I asked the general manager, on behalf of my other two colleagues, if we could be paid overtime and be employed in positions that actually suited the levels of experience that we had, having just left school, he looked at me and said that I should be privileged to be employed by the company, and he asked me who I thought I was to ask him such a thing as I and my colleagues were nobodies. We later found out that the company was renowned for taking on trainees so that the company could work them to the bone for wages which, after tax, paid for little more than the public transport required for us to get to and from work. Very rarely did this company, following the end of the traineeships, ever employ their hardworking trainees. At the time I was employed at this hotel I joined the Army Reserve. When I told my boss, purely out of courtesy as I would not be parading during my work hours, he told me that if I did not resign from the Reserves I would be sacked. It did not matter how much I assured him that I would not let the Reserves affect my traineeship: he was not prepared to change his mind. Knowing me, I am sure members would not be surprised to hear that I told him, nine months into my 12-month traineeship, where he could stick his job. I walked out and began full-time service in the Australian Army. These are just a few examples of how young people can be treated simply due to the fact that they are not aware of their rights and, in many cases, not able to fight for those rights, even if they are aware of them. For children who are still at school and work part time, employers should not expect them to work unreasonable hours or in a way that could impede or interfere with the education of the employee. The reality is that employers employing children have the ability to pay low wages and provide less than perfect working conditions. It is reassuring to see that as a result of this legislation it will not simply be up to the children themselves or their parents to fight for fair conditions in the workplace. They will have legislation to back up any claims of negative working conditions. Children are very vulnerable during their school years and face many pressures, particularly those who, due to economic circumstances, need to work to assist their families to survive. Once again, I wish to offer my support to this bill and to any legislation that will make life easier for children to work in a safe and secure environment, and I support anything that will contribute to the best conditions available to combine employment and studying with the least amount of difficulty. Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (2.34 pm), in reply: First of all, I would like to thank all of the members who have spoken in this debate, particularly the members of my own committee and my parliamentary secretary, the member for Algester. They have worked very closely with me for quite some time now to ensure that the bill was what we needed it to be on behalf of the government and the people of the state and, of course, in the interests of young people who are in the workforce or who will be in the workforce in the future. I want to thank the members of the opposition who spoke to this bill. I also want to thank the shadow minister for his indication of support for the bill and the support of his colleagues because I think it would be a retrograde step if this bill were to go through without having the wholehearted support of 132 Child Employment Bill 15 Feb 2006 this parliament. It has been indicated that the bill has the wholehearted support of this parliament, apart from a few issues that have been raised that I will comment on briefly. I also thank the Independent members for their indications of support for this piece of legislation. I am going to try to be very nice about this. The member for Moggill is not in the room, but there are a few comments I probably need to make in view of comments that have been made by both the shadow minister and other opposition members, particularly the member for Moggill. Yes, we did vote down a bill that the member for Moggill brought in in late 2004. I think that part of what prompted the bringing forward of the private member’s bill from the member for Moggill was that we had a major review being conducted by the children’s commission about the whole issue and this was going to be the focus of legislation from this government. There had been a lot of publicity. At that time, on my way to work one morning, I heard about the sorts of issues that the public considered were important and should be considered in that review and groups were putting in their submissions not long before the member for Moggill brought his private member’s bill forward. As a government, we were absolutely sure that what we needed to do was to wait for that review to be concluded, to draw on the findings of the review and to make sure that if we were going to bring legislation forward we brought forward the best legislation we could, given the very broad public consultation that was taking place at the time of the review. Sadly, that does take a bit of time. Even had we sought to amend the member for Moggill’s private member’s bill, our view was that we would run the risk of missing something important that we would not have missed if we had allowed that review to go to its natural conclusion. It was not a matter of us playing politics in not supporting his bill. I could be so cheeky as to suggest that the member for Moggill was playing politics, knowing that we had something coming forward, and deciding to jump in, for political reasons, ahead of us. However, the important thing is that we are all on, if not the same tram, substantially the same tram now. If we had a perfect world, we might like a few bits of the signage or the brake pull levers to be a little bit different. However, I am very thankful that we have, in fact, had indications of support from essentially everybody who has spoken, although a few people have made a few points about things they had reservations about. One of the other points that I should answer is, again, the member for Moggill’s comments about the fact that we are not introducing the need to have a blue card. I find it very hard to comprehend that in one breath he was opposed to parental consent yet he wants a blue card. The most fundamental issue is to ensure that there is genuine, legitimate parental consent to the child working—that the parents know who their child is going to be working for and in what circumstances so that a parent or a guardian can properly protect the interests of the children. Our view was that the blue card was not necessary in these circumstances. The fundamental thing we need to do is make sure that parents are aware of what their children are doing and that they give genuine consent. Much was made of the issue of the red tape to get parental consent. We think it should be straightforward. It works interstate. One of the others provisions we put in was the capacity for the chief executive of the Department of Industrial Relations to give consent where a child is in the position where they do not have a parent or guardian readily available to give consent. We cannot really conceive of any such circumstances, but that is something that many of the people we consulted with when drafting this bill felt was important. We cannot conceive of there being any more than potentially a handful a year, if any at all, who would be subject to that requirement. We will make sure that those processes are done very quickly. Members of this chamber know that I come from a small country town. I have worked in a farm environment. I have had a go at everything. I listened to the member for Burdekin talking about children in the Burdekin area picking mangoes. I have stripped cane. I have picked tobacco. I have picked cucumbers. I have picked beans. The worst job I ever had was cutting millet for a straw broom factory. I will not describe what is involved in cutting millet other than to say that it was damn tough. When I was at high school a lot of my mates and I worked on local farms to get whatever pocket money we could and help with the family income. Relationships are built with local farmers who need short-term labour at a crucial time. A lot of that is done by young people. From what the member for Burdekin says it is still that way. It is that way in my home town. It is that way in my electorate and across the state. We do not see the process of parents giving legitimate consent as a barrier or that it would interfere in the ability of a young person to get a job or an employer to give a young person a job. I think it was the shadow minister who asked me: if these processes are shown to be real barriers and problems will we look at them? The answer is: of course we would if they prove to be a barrier. Several other comments were made. At this point, I would like to table my response to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report that was tabled yesterday. I know that we got the report in only the last few days, but the bill has been on the table for 10 weeks—that is, over the Christmas and holiday period. We have responded to the issues that various members of the opposition raised as potential concerns, one being why so many of the conditions are going to be provided by regulation. 15 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 133

The short answer to that question is that industrial changes happen very regularly. What occurs for most industrial standards is that they are set by industrial tribunals. In Queensland they are set by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. Until the WorkChoices legislation comes in federally they are set by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. At some date in the near future they will be set by the Australian Fair Pay Commission. If employers had one set of conditions applying to their adult workers and a different set applying to their child workers and the only way we could bring them back into line was to come back in here and change the act then it would be a barrier to consistency. It is not a subterfuge. We have always understood very clearly the preference of not just this Scrutiny of Legislation Committee but a succession of scrutiny of legislation committees—and this has been the case while I have been in this parliament and while I have been a minister—that those types of things are definitively in an act rather than in a regulation. It was spelt out fairly clearly in my explanatory notes, in my second reading speech and in the letter to the chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which I have tabled now and which will no doubt appear in a future digest, that I ask the parliament to support my view that in these cases it is necessary for us to do that by regulation for not just ease but also consistency. We need to make sure that we can look after the interests of not just employees but also employers. The penalties are a little higher than for many other similar offences. This is for the very good reason that these penalties are consistent with the penalties in the Industrial Relations Act 1999. We felt that if there are comparable offences then there should be comparable penalties. That act will work hand in glove with the Child Employment Act once it passes through this parliament and becomes law. That explanation is also given in the letter that I have forwarded to the chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, a copy of which I have tabled in the parliament today. I do not want to go on any longer. We take on board the comments that have been made. I have a small number of amendments that have been picked up. It always amazes me that Parliamentary Counsel gives us the formal words and it comes back later and says, ‘We think you are wrong in this bit. You should change it.’ What we have done is put forward what it drafted in the first place. I accept the wisdom that there are a few adjustments that we need to make. There will be a few corrections that I need to make by way of amendment in the consideration in detail stage. I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. This is incredibly important legislation. We will have the regulations in place in time for the bill to come into force from 1 July this year. The adult entertainment regulations will take a little longer. There are solid provisions to keep children out of that area. I know from my days as police minister that we will make sure that children are not disadvantaged while that code of practice for children in the adult industry is put together. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr BARTON (2.48 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2— At page 6, lines 6 and 7, from ‘a day’ to ‘proclamation’— omit, insert— ‘1 July 2006’. I table the explanatory notes for the amendments to the Child Employment Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr ROWELL (2.48 pm): Unfortunately, I am just reading the response. It deals with the regulations. The concern expressed by those on this side of the House relates to an inordinate number of regulations coming in with a bill. Very often the regulations can change the intent of the bill. I know the member for Moggill raised this issue in his private member’s bill. He did have a more in-depth understanding of what was intended as far as the bill is concerned. Until we see all that is included in the regulations we will not have a true appreciation of exactly what the bill is about. I know the intent of the bill, but the finer points can make it difficult to understand. I understand fully that the opposition or anybody can move a disallowance motion if they feel that the regulations when tabled are not satisfactory. In light of the fact that we are trying to get this right in the first instance, it probably would have been better if we had a clear understanding of what these regulations might have contained when the bill was introduced. 134 Child Employment Bill 15 Feb 2006

Mr BARTON: In response, there is not a lot more than I can add that is not already in my second reading speech, my initial explanatory notes or my response to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. We understand what is being said. In the normal course of events we agree with that philosophy, and that is something that we did expect the scrutiny committee to make comment on. It did. We believe we have responded appropriately. I have explained why. The only thing I can say is that the bill is the way it is. The amendments are here before us now. That is the way we need to proceed today. Obviously if the member does find anything that is offensive in the regulations when we bring them forward, we will have another debate about it then. But I am fairly confident that we will be able to convince those opposite so that when we put the regulations together they can be supported by the opposition as well as the government. I move amendment Nos 2 to 4— 2 Clause 9— At page 10, lines 1 to 4— omit. 3 Clause 9— At page 10, lines 10 to 13— omit, insert— ‘(6) Also, an employer does not commit an offence against subsection (4) if, for a child or work prescribed under a regulation, the employer supervises the child in the way prescribed under the regulation for the work.’. 4 Clause 9— At page 10, after line 16— insert— ‘(7) In this section— an Act, in subsection (5), does not include a federal award, federal agreement or industrial instrument, as defined under the Industrial Relations Act 1999. Note— This definition displaces the application of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 7 to the extent of the instruments mentioned in the definition.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr ROWELL (2.50 pm): This clause deals with a parent’s consent and the special circumstances certificate. We spoke to the ministerial advisers about this issue, and I have some concern about the process as much as anything else. It is incumbent on employers to comply with certain requirements— that is, tax declarations, superannuation and all of that sort of thing. That may be a federal issue, and there are other issues that employers have to deal with such as workplace health and safety. Employers now also have to comply with getting parental consent and special circumstances certificates for those under 16, and this is an additional issue that can make it quite difficult for employers. I believe that it would be beneficial—I do not think that it would be detrimental—if that parental consent could lapse for, say, two days. I have found that, after sending off a bunch of certificates such as tax declaration requirements, it sometimes takes weeks to get them back. It is not the fault of the employer; it is something that happens with the person who is seeking employment. Under this legislation, the child will take the forms home because they are young and have to get their parents to fill them out. The forms do not get filled out nearly as quickly as they should and therefore there is going to be this problem with parental consent and special circumstances certificates. If we could give those people a set period of time—say, about 48 hours—for them to comply, it would make it much better, because, technically according to the legislation, employers cannot employ that person until they get the consent form back from the parent. I understand that the form will be available on the internet, so there is not much of an issue in that regard. The form can be accessed fairly easily. This system has to be put in place by 1 July according to an amendment that the minister will move. I understand that advertising will be done. As there are only four months before all of this has to take place, that advertising needs to be undertaken almost immediately to make employers aware to ensure that they comply with all of the regulations relating to the employment of people under the age of 18. Clause 11 states— A parent of a school-aged child who is performing work must, within 14 days after becoming aware of a change in the hours when the school-aged child is required to attend school ... That clause recognises that there needs to be a set time frame in the event that a change occurs. I do not think that that is different to what I am saying, but I am not suggesting 14 days. I am suggesting a 48-hour period to allow that form to be returned to the employer. As I said, my experience is that sometimes it takes quite a bit longer than just a day. In the case of cutting millet or picking mangoes, an employer may want an additional number of people fairly quickly because of their work demands. Very often somebody knows of somebody who is available to do the work and they ring them up and that person comes out, but under this legislation they cannot technically start work that day if they are under the age of 16. 15 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 135

There needs to be some time lapse—and I am not talking about an inordinate amount of time—to enable those young people to be able to do that work. If they take the form home that night, their parent may not be available, especially those seeking special circumstances certificates. They have an additional problem as well. As I said, very often this work is done on school holidays and weekends and therefore the school issue is not an issue at all. I am not saying that we should remove that from the requirement as far as parental consent is concerned, but I do not think it is unreasonable for some time to be given to the employer to ensure that the form is made available to the employee who is under 16 so that they can get it to their parent and get it back within a reasonable time. If that is not the case, that would deny both the employer and the employee the prospect of starting work when it is most needed. I ask the minister to take that into consideration, because all of this is going to happen very shortly—that is, 1 July with the amendment that the minister will move. We need to get this right. The minister will put some regulations in place. I believe it is possible to write this into the regulations, and I ask the minister to consider that. Mr BARTON: I will have a look at that to see whether that is a possible or a realistic way. I do not want to give an absolute commitment now and I do not have the form of words to put an amendment in the bill to achieve that. I again stress that this legislation is all about protecting children. I think having genuine, informed parental consent is fundamental to children working. Mr Rowell: And I’m not saying otherwise. Mr BARTON: I am not suggesting that the member is, and he is in agreeance with me. In my experience in this place with people coming to my electorate office and the many years I was a union official I have run into that handful of bad employers who will go out of their way for whatever reason to break the rules. They are a very small minority. Where children are concerned, my view is that we cannot be too careful. I do understand the point that the member is raising. I want to give it more thought and talk to my advisers about whether it is appropriate for us to do that in the regulation or whether we are crossing a fundamental Rubicon in allowing a bit of time for that. When I was doing the myriad things I did on farms around the Burdekin as a high school student on holidays and weekends I normally did know a few days ahead. It was not a question that someone rang up or knocked on the door and said, ‘Can you be available to strip cane tomorrow morning?’ I can recall one occasion where that happened—where someone did say, ‘We’ve had our team not turn up. We heard you might be available. Can you come out and give us a hand?’, and a couple of us did. But, again, it was family. It was one of my mum’s cousins cane farms. So it was an extended family environment where my mum’s cousin arrived at the front door and said, ‘I’m stuck. Can you give me a hand?’, and we did. I know the process for the special circumstances application might take a little longer, because the chief executive of my department has to be involved. He and I have discussed this matter, because we were also concerned that that process could end up being a barrier. The member has been a minister. He would know the barriers, or red tape, that can be created when documents fall into in-trays or get moved from one spot to another. Sometimes even the most urgent matter could take a day or two to get to the minister if someone does not appreciate the urgency of the matter. At this stage our fundamental belief is that we can make this work effectively and not disadvantage people. I have already said that if we find that it disadvantages people, we will look at changing it. I am prepared to have a think about that between now and when we finalise the regulations. But I want to give some more thought to whether we can, in fact, allow that couple of days. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 48, as read, agreed to. Clause 49— Mr ROWELL (3.00 pm): This matter arises from comments made in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest. To be quite frank, I have not had time to read the minister’s letter in response to the committee’s concerns. This matter concerns clauses 49, 51 and 52, so I will raise it generally. The Alert Digest states that these clauses— ... establish extended family leave obligations, which may have the capacity to impact adversely on the position of employers. The committee refers to Parliament the question of whether these provisions have appropriate regard to the rights of both employers and employees. Every time we talk about additional requirements for an employer or an employee, the implications of those requirements have to be taken into account. Although Australia is a competitive country, we like to make sure that employees receive all their benefits. That is why people can go to the Industrial Relations Commission and raise issues there. So I am not quite sure why this provision has to be put into legislation. Maybe the minister can explain that a little more clearly to me. The point I am making is that if a person feels aggrieved and there is a mechanism by which they can get the matter resolved, that is fair enough. If they are being disadvantaged because of parental leave, carer’s leave— a range of issues—at the end of the day the cost of that has to be borne by somebody. This provision is included in legislation that deals with child employment. As I said in my contribution during the second reading debate, I regard this legislation as an omnibus bill. I know there 136 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 is some concern on this side of the House about the cost to the employer of additional leave. We did not make an issue of it because we were supportive in principle of the legislation. I would like the minister to comment on why this provision has been included in the bill. As I said, it is an additional cost that has to be borne by somebody. Somebody said to me that employers can just get somebody else to do all this extra work for them, but at the end of the day there is a cost to the employer, quite apart from the fact that there would be an increase in their contributions, such as holiday pay and that type of thing. Mr BARTON: We are back to where we were before. This is one of the fundamental checks and balances that is contained in the legislation to allow children to work. I know that it puts an additional onus on employers when they employ children, but I also want to put it in the context that many people we consulted with, including as recently as last week, were telling me in no uncertain terms that there should be a minimum working age for children of 16, not 13. As would be the member’s experience when he was in government, you try to achieve a balance between the very different but strongly held views of various people. Very many people in our community have reached the conclusion that children under the age of 16 should not work at all—full stop. They think that because they are schoolchildren they should not work. Alternatively, very early in the formulation of this legislation we dealt with the issue of children working in family businesses. This legislation does not impose restrictions at all on children working in family businesses or on family farms. We believe—and again I think this is consistent with our view of parental consent when children are working for other employers—that if children are working for their parents, then that is the parents’ business. Yet we also had many people who were concerned about this matter saying to us, ‘Even in those circumstances you should not allow children, particularly very young children, to work in family businesses or on family farms, because some parents will even take unfair advantage of their own children who should be studying or who should be playing rather than working.’ We made a value judgement and said that we were going to rely on the good sense of parents to do the right thing by their children, whether it is in relation to a family business or a family farm. We have taken the step to not interfere in that relationship. But many people who have been lobbying me believe we should have intervened. Some of those people still have very strong views. As I say, as recently as last week I had one very significant group of people in my boardroom lobbying me again with the view that, even with the level of protection that is contained in the bill, children should not be allowed to work at all unless they are aged 16. All I would like to say to the member very sincerely is that we think this is a fair compromise. Other people have said to us, ‘We don’t think you should try to regulate how this approval is made.’ We think we have found a balance. Only time will tell whether we have or not. I must admit that I would amend that provision at this point at my peril because there are some groups of people who are not 100 per cent happy with it the way it is; they would like it tighter. Clause 49, as read, agreed to. Clauses 50 to 59, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time.

FOOD BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 8 November 2005 (see p. 3744). Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (3.08 pm): The Food Bill continues the tradition of the Health portfolio bills of being rather large. The index alone runs to 12 pages. That said, I do not think I will take up the time of the House for very long in debating this bill. I will raise only the matters that I think need to be said. Mrs Miller: Thank you. Dr FLEGG: There was a special request from the member for Bundamba. Let me say at the outset that the opposition will not be opposing the bill itself. We will be opposing one aspect of the bill in the consideration in detail stage which I will refer to as I speak to the bill. Essentially, the bill repeals the Food Act 1981 and seeks to enforce the national Food Standards Code. This code has been adopted in Australia and New Zealand. I think it would be fair to say that on both sides of the House and in the community generally there is a commitment to the fact that food when it is sold—whether it be in restaurants or supermarkets or at the roadside—should be safe and 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 137 that people who purchase that food should not be exposed to the risk of disease. Obviously a food standards code is a one-size-fits-all model. Some members on our side will comment on specific circumstances where the Food Standards Code creates some problems, but there is an understanding and acceptance that a universal food standards code is the only practical way to go. Beyond the general requirement that all businesses meet the national food standards, the bill then steps up a peg and requires the majority of businesses to have a licence. There are probably two points to make here. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 13 comments on this issue of the government exempting state owned agencies. The state owned agencies, which includes the GOCs, covers an enormous number of food outlets. I have real concerns about this and this is the aspect of the bill that we are opposed to on this side of the House. I will mention three state owned agencies as examples. The first is hospitals. The library produced a brief on this bill. I will not go into the medical names, but certain types of food poisoning have dramatically increased mortality in some hospital patients. So to exclude the public hospital system seems unreasonable to me. It is perhaps one of the high-risk areas for serious complications of food poisoning. It seems to me inherently unacceptable and unreasonable that we would apply this licensing standard to a private hospital but then exempt a public hospital. Essentially, our attitude on this side— and I believe it would be the attitude of the community—is that if it is good enough for the goose it is good enough for the gander. If it is good enough for the government to make laws that bind private hospitals, private aged care facilities and private schools, it is good enough for the government’s own facilities in those areas to meet the standard that is prescribed for those other agencies. The second is aged care facilities. Again, in relation to aged care homes we are dealing with a particularly vulnerable and high-risk group. If anything, I would suggest that hospitals and aged care homes should be included. The third is schools, and I think the community would find that totally unacceptable. State schools are exempt in that meals served at tuckshops at state schools are exempt from the provisions of the bill—exempt from the licensing standard—whereas the same service provided in a private school is not exempt. I think it is reasonable that all facilities should be bound by the provisions of this bill. There are some real complexities with the licensing issue. Perhaps the minister could address some of these in his summing-up. There are exemptions in other areas apart from the general exemption that applies to the government and to GOCs—in particular, the not-for-profit sector. If not-for- profit organisations serve meals less than 12 days per year they have an exemption from having to get a licence but they are still bound by the Food Standards Code. So we are entering tiers of compliance, and there is a little confusion because I am not sure that all charitable agencies would be able to say automatically at the beginning of a year how many days of the year they would be serving meals. I would be appreciative if the minister in his summing-up would detail some of the technical information about the licences—who is issuing them, what happens if businesses operate in more than one jurisdiction and any information to do with the cost of compliance. I contacted the LGAQ. The bill provides for inspection and enforcement to be done by the LGAQ. As members are no doubt aware, particularly in relation to the asbestos related bill that was passed by the House recently, local government has a deep distrust of requirements in state government bills that put the onus of enforcement on local government. Mr Robertson: Are they still speaking highly of me? Dr FLEGG: The minister did not have a problem with the LGAQ with this bill. I think the difference with this bill is that food enforcement has traditionally been a local government issue, whereas asbestos enforcement has not traditionally been a local government issue. In any case, the LGAQ did not raise any particular objections, and I do not think it is up to me to raise objections on its behalf where it sees none. I think this is an important area. As well as expressions of concern about some of the practicalities of the licensing and how it affects different types of business, the minister will get expressions of concern from this side in relation to the bill’s impact on community groups and charitable organisations, and there are many, many of them. All of our electorates have them, and I think there are some concerns, most of which could perhaps be addressed satisfactorily by comment. I think the example raised in the documentation itself is that of a mobile van that supplies meals to the homeless. As a charitable act, they will be caught under the bill and will be required to get a licence. I do not particularly find that objectionable, but it raises issues that need to be considered. I note that various criteria are being looked at as to whether a licence will be issued. One of them is whether the applicant is suitable. I doubt if they will have a look at them and decide whether they look clean enough, but they will look at their history and whether they have previous offences. I would accept that as being reasonable, if that is the implication of a suitable applicant test. I also notice a provision in relation to the licensing of a suitable premises test. I think we have all seen the horrible pictures of a premises on the Gold Coast where somebody painted over a dead rat rather than pick it up. If it happened as it was reported in the press, it is probably one of the more extraordinary stories. Perhaps that applicant under this bill would fail the suitable applicant test, and I 138 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 would suggest the suitable premises test might be breached as well. They are my comments on licensing. As a Liberal Party member, I look hard at things that might incorporate red tape on business, bearing in mind that the food business is about as big as it gets, but I think that has to be balanced against the public interest. I think the protection of the public requires that a reasonable licensing regime should be accepted. With those few provisos, the minister might address the complexities of licensing— if people have multiple sites and so forth. The final of the three levels that the bill applies is that which is referred to as a high-risk food business. It is probably the hardest definitional issue in the bill. The high-risk food business is described as off-site catering—which I usually refer to as a pie van but I think off-site catering covers a bit more— or on-site catering, where catering is the principal business conducted by the person. These higher risk food businesses will have to meet a much higher standard for their licences. In particular, they will be required to have somebody working in that business who has a higher level of skill and training than would be the case for general food businesses. So there will be compliance issues for certain types of businesses. I think I have canvassed the main issues. With respect to community groups, a number of different types of activities were raised as concerns. There were things such as fetes and fairs, Girl Guides and CWAs. Meals on Wheels is an interesting case because they require a licence if they prepare their own food but they do not require a licence if their food is prepared elsewhere. Higher risk food businesses will require a food safety program. So, again, this is an extra red tape imposition and an extra compliance cost on business. They will have to design a program as to how they ensure their business is kept compliant and free from disease. This is a licensing requirement, as I understand it, which applies only to those that come under the definition of a high-risk group. In the year to December 2004, which I think is the most recent set of statistics, Queensland has 7,127 cases of food-borne illness. That is significantly up on the previous year, where there were only 6,320 cases. As I think the minister will appreciate, the reporting of food-borne illness is very low and it would be very safe to assume that the true figures are a lot higher. The good news for Queensland is that the very severe forms of food poisoning, some of which are fatal, are quite rare. Off the top of my head, I do not recall Queensland cases although there have been outbreaks in other states, particularly diseases like botulism which has a very high fatality rate. The whole range of salmonella type illnesses and golden staph infections are still pretty common in Queensland. In closing, in addition to the area of licensing, I might suggest a couple of other areas the minister might make some more expansive comments on. It is a bit unclear to me who is meeting the compliance cost of inspections and enforcement. Is that covered by the licensing fee or are there other issues? The minister might be kind enough to address the cost. I am a little uncertain as to whom the licensing fee is paid. Is that paid to the state government or to the local councils which are entrusted with the task of compliance? Could the minister in his closing comments indicate to whom the licensing fee is to be paid? Likewise, if there are additional fees in relation to safety audits and inspections, who will bear the cost? If the minister has the information available, he might also indicate what licence fees will be charged when the bill first comes into effect. I think that concludes the remarks I want to make to the Food Bill. In summary, we accept the need for these provisions. There are some compliance issues and a red tape burden on small business, but on balance we accept that these are necessary. There are some grey areas and some confusion around community groups. The one area of the bill to which we are opposed is the state. I have noted the comments that the minister’s office has made to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, but on something as basic as the safety of food in public hospitals and aged-care homes I do not believe they are sound enough reasons to exempt the government. If it is good enough for the goose, it should be good enough for the gander. So we support the bill with those areas of concern. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.27 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Food Bill 2006. This bill replaces a number of acts which currently regulate hygiene and safety in food manufacturing services and retail sectors. In 1991 under the Goss Labor government it was agreed that all states and territories would adopt the Food Standards Code developed by the federal Australia New Zealand Food Authority, ANZFA, and it became law. ANZFA was replaced in 2003 with FSANZ’s Food Standards Code for Australia and New Zealand which enabled food businesses to comply with either the existing code or a new joint code. The Queensland Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 covers Queensland’s primary industries sector food production up to the point of manufacture. It is interesting to note that its regulatory body Safe Food Production Queensland has since established schemes for Queensland meat and dairy industries and, more recently, eggs. This resulted in a fiasco last year when there was a huge outcry over the giving away of a few eggs from backyard henhouses and even involved school tuckshops. This resulted in a backflip by the Beattie government. Prior to that we would all remember when people were stopped from giving away a few pints of milk from the house cow, even if it were only for dog use or as a skin application. At the time I remember 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 139 asking the minister what would be next and he replied that fish would be. Here I see in the explanatory notes that seafood will follow soon. Heaven forbid! Those wanting to throw a line into the backyard stream will soon not even be able to give away a fish. We may as well become tin soldiers or mindless robots. This bill will replace the dual system of registration of premises and licensing of persons with a single licensing system, and it leaves enforcement with local government. However, it will introduce three levels of performance on food businesses. The simplest level will apply to all food businesses apart from those exempted from the bill and will require them to meet the national Food Standards Code, which includes the food safety standard. The first thing to clarify is: what is a food business? According to the explanatory notes, it is an activity or business involving the handling of food for sale or the sale of food and includes one-off activities and commercial, charitable and community activities—a very inclusive description. Let us look at what kinds of activities are exempt. It is a pretty short list. School tuckshops operated by P&C associations are exempt. The giving away of food to non-profit organisations, apart from business promotions, is exempt. Food businesses operated by the state are also exempt. As I understand it, this is essentially very similar to the situation under the Food Act 1981, which this bill replaces. The second branch of the new framework introduces the Food Bill 2006, which will require certain businesses, primarily for-profit food businesses that handle and sell unpackaged food, to be licensed. Essentially, this means restaurants and cafes, although those posing low or negligible risk to the public will not have to do so. While non-profit organisations may fall under this category, it will only be if they sell meals on at least 12 days each financial year. Some other activities are also exempt if carried out by non-profit organisations, such as the sale of low-risk meals such as breakfast cereals and toast; the sale of meals where the consumer helps in its preparation; and the sale of prepackaged meals stored and prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Also included in this list is delivered meals services, such as Meals on Wheels. According to the explanatory notes, these will only require licensing if they also prepare the meals. That is the case for the highly valued Meals on Wheels services operated at both Mareeba and Atherton in my electorate. In fact, as all volunteer organisations are hard-pressed to meet the demands placed upon them, these laws will impose additional difficulties and costs for them. They are quite concerned about these additional imposts on them. This level of licensing is to be carried out by local government, no doubt in a manner similar to that already in place. The highest level, categorised as high-risk food businesses, will have to draw up and implement food safety programs. This requirement applies if the food business conducts off-site catering, it conducts on-site catering under certain circumstances, it is done by a private hospital or it is prescribed by regulation as being a food business that handles potentially hazardous food reasonably likely to pose a risk to public health or safety. This level will be monitored by approved safety auditors. I have some concerns about how the off-site catering provisions may affect small coffee shops and cafes that might receive an occasional order for light refreshments. Will this provision mean that these small businesses, often family owned and operated, will have to draw up and implement the same kinds of plans as major catering firms serving large commercial contracts? I note here that the new licensing arrangements will commence on 1 July 2006 and also that there are very heavy penalties resulting from food offences such as a maximum of 1,350 penalty units, which equates to $101,250 for a person, or two years imprisonment. This is serious stuff, indeed. The food industry on the Tablelands has, I believe, an enviable record not only for the safety and care taken in preparation but also for the delicious taste and wonderful meals and snacks based around the premium quality produce of the region. I trust this bill will be seen as a positive by those people and businesses it affects. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.34 pm): As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I have been directly involved with the development of this Food Bill. I have been privy to attend and consult via the food stakeholders forum and liaise on a federal and state level with our interstate colleagues to achieve national consistency with food standards. On a federal level, the Queensland state government is part of the FSANZ process—Food Standards Australia New Zealand—which is the vehicle through which state and territory ministers assess and ultimately achieve world-class standards and consistency in our approach to applications, legislation, standards and codes and, ultimately, impacting on each state’s food legislation and regulations. I have attended all of the health FSANZ ministerial council meetings which included many debates that will ultimately ensure the public’s health and safety risks are minimalised in consumption of many foods, beverages, processing aids, for example health and nutrition claims, and even fortification of vitamins such as folate. Many applications are assessed each month by FSANZ and sent to each state government and relevant departments for our assessment of the application and potential risks. Innovation is a key for industry, and the hospitality, food and beverage industry is a major contributor to our economy here in Queensland, employment and success for many Australian 140 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 companies. That is why we must get it right and reach consensus with all parties—not to stifle innovation or economic success but to couple this with consumer protection, which is our fundamental role as a government to all parties. At the 1991 premiers conference, agreement was reached that there should be a nationally consistent legislative approach to food regulation as well as a harmonisation of Australia’s domestic and export food standards with international food standards. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority, now known as Food Standards Australia New Zealand, was created to undertake the task of developing and maintaining national food standards which were to be inserted into the Food Standards Code. The Food Standards Code comprises four chapters, each containing a collection of individual food standards. Chapter 1 consists of a collection of standards applicable to all foods with the exception of maximum residue limits and processing requirements. Chapter 2 deals with standards affecting particular classes of foods and chapter 3 deals with food hygiene. Chapter 4 contains standards dealing with the primary production of food in Australia. The enforcing and policing of the food standards rest with the states and territories in Australia. The Commonwealth, through the Imported Food Control Act 1992, enforces the code in relation to food imported into this country. It is an offence under the state and territory food legislation to supply food which does not comply with the relevant food standards. In 1999 Food Standards Australia New Zealand developed four food safety standards: 3.1.1 Interpretation, 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs, 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements and 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment. These standards were intended to replace existing state and territory food legislation, which was inconsistent between jurisdictions, outdated and inappropriate for contemporary food-handling processes. Unlike the existing state and territory food legislation, the new food safety standards are outcomes based and are recognised as international best practice in the food industry. In 2000 the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council organised the adoption into the code of three of the four food safety standards. The proposed food safety standard 3.2.1, Food Safety Programs, was not adopted until the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing completed further research into the effect the mandatory implementation of the standard would have on food businesses. Also in 2000 all states, territories and the Commonwealth signed an intergovernmental agreement on food regulation. In accordance with the IGA, all states and territories agreed to adopt annex A of the national Model Food Act. Annex A sets out the policy principles and objectives, including the legal obligation not to sell or handle food that is unsafe and a requirement that food businesses comply with the code. Annex B of the national Model Food Act deals with a number of issues including registration of food businesses and food safety programs. Adoption of each provision in annex B is discretionary. In December 2003 the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council endorsed the recommendations made by the Food Regulation Standing Committee, which consists of health and primary industries director-general representatives, that the following sectors implement food safety programs. They are food service, where potentially hazardous food is served to vulnerable populations—for example, hospitals and nursing homes; producing, harvesting, processing and distributing raw oysters; catering operations serving food to the general public; and producing manufactured and fermented meat. In order to minimise costs associated with the initial preparation of a food safety program, particularly for smaller businesses, a number of tools—for example, templates—have been developed or are under development by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing and the states and territories to assist businesses that may be required to have food safety programs. The following food safety program templates have been developed or are currently under development. A template has been developed to assist the children’s services sector develop and implement food safety programs. A reference group consisting of representatives from child-care associations and government guided the development of this template. A template has been developed for the commercial food service establishments. Queensland Health, in conjunction with Restaurant and Catering Queensland, Restaurant and Catering Australia, Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Queensland Hotels Association, Clubs Queensland, Redland Shire Council and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing developed this template. A template has also been developed for small and medium hospitals and nursing homes. This project is managed by the Western Australian department of health with guidance from a steering committee comprising industry and government representatives. A template is currently being developed to assist organisations that deliver meals to the housebound and other people who are unable to prepare their own meals. Included in the development strategy is a video and a poster set to provide guidance on complying with standards 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 in a form that is easy to understand. Queensland Health is managing the project with guidance from a steering committee. 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 141

In addition, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, in consultation with jurisdictions and other stakeholders, has commenced work on developing a guide to standard 3.2.1 to explain the intent of the provisions in the standard on a clause-by-clause basis. The primary purpose of the guide is to promote a nationally consistent interpretation of standard 3.2.1 by state and territory enforcement officers and thereby assist them in assessing whether the objectives of the legislation are being met. Industry associations and training organisations may find the guide useful in preparing information to assist businesses to comply with standard 3.2.1. The interpretive guide may also be of direct use to food businesses. It also commenced work on developing an appendix to the guide that will outline details that will be specific for food businesses that provide potentially hazardous food to vulnerable populations. The Food Bill has incorporated these national food arrangements by the following. It will adopt the annex A provisions of the Model Food Act, which impose certain food safety obligations on persons who handle or sell food: for example, the obligations to handle food safely, sell safe food, not to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the sale of food and to comply with the national Food Safety Standards. It will incorporate certain annex B provisions of the Model Food Act: for example, approved food safety auditors to audit food safety programs, obliging certain food businesses to have their food safety programs audited by these auditors, and authorised officers able to issue enforcement improvement notices against food businesses where, for example, the businesses are in an unhygienic state. It will require local governments to ensure that the premises of food businesses meet the standard of acceptability set by the Food Safety Standards before licensing a food business that manufactures food or retails unpackaged food. It will oblige local governments to conduct inspections on all food business premises to ensure that the premises are maintained in accordance with the standard of acceptability set by the Food Safety Standards, and that food prepared and sold is safe and suitable. It will require licensed food businesses to have a food safety supervisor for their food business. This food safety supervisor will be responsible for day-to-day food safety, have experience or expertise relevant to the food business, be reasonably available to both local governments and persons who work in that food business and have authority to supervise and give directions about food safety. It will require higher risk food businesses—for example, off site caterers, on site caterers and private hospitals that prepare and sell food to patients—to develop food safety programs in accordance with the approach endorsed by the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. It will allow for regulations to be made prescribing other food businesses that handle potentially hazardous foods that could pose a risk to public health and safety to develop food safety programs, and it will oblige these higher risk food businesses to have their food safety programs regularly audited by approved safety auditors. Information and training sessions on the new requirements of the bill will be conducted by Queensland Health for Queensland Health staff, local government—including Aboriginal local governments and islander councils—and the food industry. Information and support material to assist the food industry to comply with the legislation will also be developed by Queensland Health. There is to be a staged commencement of the legislation to permit the effective development of guidelines to assist local governments and food businesses on matters relating to the administration of the legislation: for example, guidelines on the frequency of inspections of food businesses by local government authorised officers. There will be templates to assist food businesses comply with the legislation: for example, templates for food safety programs that may be adapted by those food businesses that are required to develop food safety programs under the bill. This will reduce the burden on those food businesses required to have food safety programs. Also there will be approved forms for use by local government and food businesses so as to maintain a level of consistency across Queensland. There will also be training programs and the delivery of these programs by Queensland Health to all relevant enforcement agencies and industry. As members of the parliament can see, the process involved in developing a bill such as this is not an easy one, with federal bodies, state and local government, industry and community organisations all trying to achieve a win-win outcome. This Food Bill and the consensus reached by the food stakeholders forum and their working groups, through a transparent and thorough consultation process, has been paramount in bringing Queensland to the forefront in this billion dollar industry so that each and every one of us can saviour the fantastic food on offer and also the reputation of our Queensland food industry. I would like to congratulate our departmental officers who have worked on this project, particularly Sophie Dwyer and Michael Skinner, former health department officer Kerry Bell and the entire food reform team. I would like to salute them on behalf of our government as they have exhibited dedication over many years to bring this bill before this House. Their professionalism has persisted throughout the entire process and is reflected in this Food Bill. 142 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006

I would personally like to thank every member or contributor to the stakeholders forum or those who have sent in submissions in the consultation process. Their involvement and feedback has been critical in achieving a Food Bill where they can proudly claim ownership and success. I applaud their ongoing dedication. I look forward to further meeting with any stakeholders in Queensland where we can promote this Food Bill and also maintain our national and international reputation as a leader in the food industry. I would also like to thank the health officers of Ipswich City Council, who ensured that the legislation was workable on a day-to-day basis by local government, and also Greg Hallam’s team at the Local Government Association of Queensland. Greg indicated to me that the LGAQ totally supported this legislation, and I would like to thank him for its support. I would like to thank Minister Robertson and former minister Nuttall for their support of this bill. I would like to thank Rosalie Devonish, my policy adviser, and Felicity Higgins, from my parliamentary secretary office, who have lived and breathed this legislation for the last two years. I would also like to pay tribute to my good friends and parliamentary colleagues, Government Whip Terry Sullivan, who headed up the stakeholders forum, and Dr Lesley Clark who, as the previous parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health, had an in-depth involvement in the legislation in earlier years. I am very pleased that the opposition will be supporting this bill. I hope that in the future months the opposition will find it in its heart to support us as we work with this food legislation to make sure that it is the best legislation in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (3.49 pm): I rise to speak briefly to the Food Bill 2005. There are a few comments that I want to make. I would have thought that when talking about food and health one rule fits all. It seems to me that there are three tiers to this legislation. We are talking about different facets of food preparation. When it comes to food preparation, whether it is a commercial operation, a private operation or an institutional operation such as private or state school tuckshops, I would have thought that one rule fits all. I ask the minister: what is the difference between a state school tuckshop and a private school tuckshop? He might like to answer that question when summing up. When I walk around food courts—I think many people in this House would have done it too—the one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how long the kebabs have been there for. One would not know how long the meat has been turning for—whether it be two weeks, two days or two hours. I have never in my life bought one of those. I have lived in some pretty rough camps in my life and eaten some pretty rough tucker but I can tell members that a piece of salted corn beef would be healthier than some of the kebabs we see in those shops. How can we control the effects of bacteria that can get into meats and foodstuffs when they are exposed to the elements and given the weather that we have in Brisbane, along the coast or anywhere for that matter? I really believe that some of these things are recipes for disaster when it comes to providing healthy sustenance for people. A lot of times children or older people are the ones who buy these things. Their tummies can be very easily upset. We could have an epidemic on our hands due to bacteria in the food in question. I know that a lot of work has gone into this legislation. The thing that worries me is complying with the legislation. I note from the minister’s second reading speech that there has been consultation with Clubs Queensland, the Queensland Hotel Association, Restaurant and Catering Queensland, the Queensland Retailer and Shopkeepers Association, the Local Government Association of Queensland and state government departments. I think the issue I have just raised is very relevant when we talk about the three-tier system. We talk about safety. We are trying to bring Queensland into line with international best practice. The first tier is the basic requirement that all food businesses that are not exempted from the legislation must handle and sell food safely and comply with the national Food Standards Code. That is all very well. I feel that there are avenues where we will let people off the hook. Some people are going to be exempt and some will not be. I think that leaves the legislation open to criticism. That is not going to be good in the long term. It is very pleasing to see that schools, CWAs and charity organisations will be able to continue to sell food that has been cooked at home at food stalls and street stalls. There is no doubt that there has been a question mark hanging over that for a period of time. I believe that is a very important part of the culture of our communities. Whether jams, cakes, biscuits or whatever, the organisations sell them to raise money. The legislation states that these organisations are permitted to hold 12 stalls per year. I applaud that provision. The bill requires all licensees to have a food safety supervisor. Will this be the responsibility of local government? I would have thought that the relevant local governments are the ones responsible for safe food practices. They are the ones that have inspection services. I think this is somewhat of a let off. As the minister says, it is important to note that many people involved in food businesses have existing skills and knowledge, from either their experience, on-the-job training or more formal training. I would have thought that we would need qualified people. What sort of qualifications are these supervisors going to have? I think it is paramount to have the right people to be food inspectors or health 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 143 inspectors. We need fairness for hotels, cafes and food courts. At the end of the day, I think this is where a lot of the problems are stemming from. We need clarification of the provisions for private and public school tuckshops and kitchens. I would have thought that we should have one rule for all and not one rule for this one and one rule for that one. I will be interested to hear the minister’s comments when summing up. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.57 pm): The Food Bill has been some time in the making. It is important with regard to the safety of people when eating out, particularly in intensive eating areas. We have seen outbreaks of salmonella and so forth at different times. Often this happens a little further back in the chain—sometimes in the manufacturing areas. Certainly this legislation has been in the making for some time. I want to bring up a number of issues that are of concern to those of us in the opposition. In his second reading speech the minister referred to service clubs, volunteer organisations and so forth. We all know too well how legislation can sometimes seem to be well meaning but when it comes to the regulations, the act being put in place and local government officers interpreting the black and white and small print it can be difficult. There has been a lot of debate about this for some time. These clubs are part of our community infrastructure. Service clubs run their barbecues at rodeos and carnivals and so forth. Sports clubs have sausage sizzles and so forth. Recently we saw the controversy at Rainbow Bay. The nippers club was banned from having its weekly sausage sizzle. I presume if they do that throughout the season they would probably have somewhere between 20 and 26 sausage sizzles a year. That is over 12. What is going to happen to organisations like that? There are many service clubs that might run barbecues weekly at particularly events. It might be, for example, a craft market or some other sort of market that is held weekly. The service club runs a barbecue, makes some money and provides a service. At the Carnival of Flowers I know that service clubs do things not only on the main day but day after day. They might provide food at a hall where there is a display of flowers. Those people would only have to run two or three more functions later in the year to be caught by this 12-day rule. I want to bring a real note of caution to this debate. Whilst legislators and those who have looked into this may be well-meaning, we often find that once this happens it becomes far more difficult to interpret and far more difficult to oversee than those original legislators first thought. There are a number of tiers involved in the way that this food safety legislation is structured. The first tier is that all food businesses that are not exempted from the legislation must handle and sell food safely and comply with the national Food Standards Code. However, one of those exempted is probably one of the biggest food operators in the state—the state government. Just think of the 160 hospitals throughout the state. Just think of all of the public nursing homes that the state government operates throughout the state. Just think of all of the state primary and secondary schools, and there are literally thousands of them throughout the state. However, these organisations will be exempt from the same sort of pressure, oversight and legislation that will apply to private hospitals, private nursing homes and private schools. What is the difference between food that can make someone sick in a private hospital and food that can make someone sick in a public hospital? Would it not be only fair, sensible and logical to say that it applies to everybody, the state government included? I note that hospitals are listed as high risk, and of course they are. If someone in a fragile state due to some form of stomach upset or an old person in a medical ward consumes food that is contaminated in any way, then they are at high risk. We saw that situation a few years ago in a Brisbane hospital. The state government is prepared to introduce this legislation and say that this is what has to be done to safeguard people, yet the state government is responsible for those hundreds of hospitals, nursing homes, state primary and high schools and all of the state government canteens throughout departments in Queensland. Let us take, for example, Q-Rail with its dining cars on its trains serving tourists and others. I presume that, as it is a corporate business part of government, it is going to be exempt as well. What about functions that take place at Parliament House on the Speaker’s Green or functions that government departments put on? Are they all going to be exempt while others doing the same thing have a high level of oversight, regulation and legislation applying to them? The legislation says that state businesses have to try to follow the regulations that apply to other businesses, but the minister’s second reading speech states— State food businesses that require inspections or audits to demonstrate their compliance with equivalent administrative arrangements may elect— ‘may elect’— to have this undertaken by Queensland Health or local government officers. They do not have to, just ‘may’. We are going to have two sets of rules in this state: one for those people who operate in private enterprise such as hospitals, nursing homes, private schools and restaurants and another set of rules for state government hospitals, state government schools, state government canteens, Queensland Rail and all state government functions that are held by government departments. It just does not make sense. It is not fair to people and it is not good corporate leadership 144 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 and governance by the state. If Queensland Health and the state government were truly genuine in saying that this is for the good of the people, then those tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who are going to eat at a state government exempted facility will be at a greater risk than those who will be eating at private facilities because of the way this legislation is constructed. The second tier of this legislation looks at manufacturers and food businesses that sell unpackaged foods such as takeaway food stores, caterers, delicatessens and restaurants and requires them to be licensed. Again, state government organisations with takeaway food such as Queensland Rail or canteens in the foyers of hospitals and so forth will all be exempted, yet those others have to obtain a licence. Once again this legislation brings in red tape, but let us accept that for the necessity to ensure that the food people eat is safe. As part of the licence all licensees have to have a food safety supervisor, so I guess we are going to see another industry spring up. There are seminars and forums everywhere. Everyone is being trained to be something. According to this legislation, every little business is going to have to have a food safety supervisor. If a service club is doing over 12 barbecues a year, they will have to have a trained food safety supervisor to check that the hamburgers are put on the barbecue the correct way and so forth. This is going to become quite an administrative and red-tape nightmare just when people are talking about the need to get rid of red tape and to make the operation of business more straightforward and more safe. The third tier of this legislation relates to higher risk food businesses—the legislation gives the example of on-site and off-site caterers and private hospitals—to prepare, implement and maintain food safety programs in addition to being licensed. These organisations will have to have these special programs. As I referred to earlier, these programs will need to be audited and so forth. Here again we see discrimination where the equivalent state government organisations will not have to be audited. They ‘may’ be audited if they so choose. The minister says that it is his intention to delay commencement of the bill’s provisions about food safety programs until July 2007. That date has obviously been picked to make it after the election, because there could be some unpopular and difficult issues in this legislation particularly as it relates to service clubs and organisations. The bill says that this will allow sufficient time for food businesses to develop their food safety programs or adapt template food safety programs produced by Queensland Health, and it is interesting to note that Queensland Health itself does not have to go to the same extent in terms of catering in its hospitals that all of these other businesses have to go to. There will be—and other speakers may well bring them up—a number of examples where there will be grey areas when it comes to clubs. The bill refers to charitable or donating organisations. What happens to footy clubs? What if it is a Rugby League club that has some professional players yet is a country club? They might have a sign-on day with a sausage sizzle where it costs $1 for a sausage on a bit of white bread. Are there going to be all sorts of nitpicking interpretations of those sorts of things, or are people simply going to feel pressured not to do it? It is very important to tread very carefully. I am quite concerned about what is going to happen with issues dealt with under this legislation. We need to ensure that we are not going to put an imposition on clubs that do things for charity, clubs that provide sport and recreation for young Queenslanders and clubs that raise money because it is hard to undertake their coaching and training programs or even pay their insurance, because some clubs have to fundraise through various types of barbecues and food stalls to pay for such things. We do not want to knock them out of the equation and make it almost impossible for them to be volunteers and do honorary work and run their clubs the way they should be running them. They are the main concerns that I and those of us on the opposition side have—that is, the fact that this legislation is one rule for the government and another rule for private enterprise. We also have serious concerns about clubs and the effect that this legislation will have once it comes into place followed by regulations, followed by interpretation, followed by local government interpretation and having to act according to the black-and-white rules within those regulations. We could therefore see some real difficulties for the backbone of our community—that is, community, sports, social and service clubs. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (4.09 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Food Bill 2005. This is a very important bill and I am pleased to see it introduced because the handling of food and food safety is important to everyone in Queensland. I know of far too many people who have had their holidays or their wonderful days out ruined by coming down with food poisoning later that evening or the next day. So we need to take every step we possibly can to make sure that food handling is done properly and safely so that we can ensure the wellbeing of all Queenslanders. I was pleased to take part in the debate several years ago now about the handling of raw milk. I see the former minister for primary industries is in the House. He will understand that that matter, too, was about safety. It was about making sure that people who were going to be consuming certain products were safe and, in that instance, that they would not be able to consume raw milk on the spot. As I said, this bill is very important legislation. I am not sure that we should be nitpicking around the edges when we want to make sure that everyone is safe. The library provided me with some statistics relating to food poisoning. They show that at the moment a person has a 22 per cent chance of contracting a food-borne illness. I think that statistic is quite frightening. From January to December 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 145

2004, there were 7,127 cases of food-borne illnesses due to the nine food-borne pathogens or conditions that were under surveillance. Those were the cases that were notified to Queensland Health. So that figure does not take into account the other attacks of food poisoning that people experience at home that they do not need to let Queensland Health know about. During 2004 there were 107 outbreaks of gastrointestinal illnesses reported to Queensland OzFoodNet affecting at least 3,219 people. So we are talking about a huge problem in our community. Over the past several years the Queensland government has initiated some education campaigns to teach people about food safety in their homes—teaching them about keeping separate chopping boards for blood products and salad products; all of those sorts of things. This bill continues that process by making sure that people who prepare food on a commercial basis are doing the same thing and that their premises are also clean so that the whole food cycle is operated in a safe manner. One of the statistics the library gave me related to the fact that older people are susceptible to food poisoning. Obviously, young people are also susceptible to food poisoning but, as we have an ageing population, if we do not take the steps we are taking today, this issue will become more of a problem in the future. The Food Bill that we are debating today will repeal and replace the Food Act 1981 and the regulations made under the act. In essence, this legislation will maintain annex A of the model food provisions. Those provisions relate to the obligations on food businesses to handle food safely, to sell safe food, to not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the sale of food, and to make sure they comply with the national Food Standards Code. The legislation also incorporates certain annex B provisions of the Model Food Act: for example, it approves food safety auditors to audit food business’s programs and authorised officers are able to issue enforceable improvement notices against food businesses where the premises are in an unhygienic state. These are some of the key provisions of the bill that we are debating. The legislation also requires food businesses that manufacture food or retail unpackaged food to be licensed by local government. In this instance, local government is the authority best placed to do that. The legislation also requires licensed food businesses to have a food safety supervisor who will have responsibility for the day-to-day food safety at that food business. It is interesting to note that this bill will reduce the regulatory burden on food businesses by excluding them from the licensing requirement for low-risk food activities such as selling packaged food. That also applies to those coffee shops that sell only tea or coffee. I can tell members that that will be welcomed very much by businesses in my local community, because that is not a high-risk activity. It is not an activity that could cause a great deal of problems. That is a very sensible exclusion. It is good to see that this bill contains some important exemptions. Some people in my local community have raised these matters with me. For example, the legislation exempts food given away for charitable purposes, state school tuckshops and food made for donation to a non-profit organisation for sale, such as a cake being baked at home and taken to a school fete. This issue was worrying people. They were afraid that all of a sudden they were going to have to have commercial kitchens at home, that they were going to have to be licensed—they were going to have to go through that regime. This legislation is not about that. We know that people are going to approach this matter sensibly. So this legislation will not apply to these one-off types of events. This legislation also reduces the burden on non-profit organisations by requiring only those organisations that sell meals on 12 or more occasions a year to be licensed. So fundraising activities such as cake stalls, sausage sizzles and the like will not be required to be licensed if they are held only occasionally. That is good, because that allows our community to function as it always has. We do not want to be a state that becomes overregulated. People often say that there is too much red tape, there are too many laws and there are too many regulations. Some of the provisions in this legislation are very important. For example, the wider provisions of this bill are vital to ensure the safety of Queenslanders, but we need to be sensible about how we go about this. The baking of a cake at Beerburrum to take to the local state school fete is not going to be caught up in this legislation. As I said, this bill contains very sensible provisions. I thank the minister for introducing this bill as it deals with the safety of Queenslanders. I thank his staff and the department. There was extensive consultation done on this bill and I commend it to the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (4.15 pm): As has been stated to the House by the shadow minister for health, the opposition supports the bill. But there is a large question mark over one element and that is the ability of the bill to bind both public and private sectors. The member for Glass House hit the nail right on the head when she made the comment that it is important that, in the preparation of food by anybody or any organisation, there be in place safety regulations to ensure the food produced at the end of the day is fit for human consumption. She also pointed out that Queensland has an ageing population. Coupled with the fact that we have many fast- food outlets and an increasing number of food distribution outlets across the state, we then have to 146 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 wonder why the state exempts itself from what is, in essence, one of the major causes of illness in this state—that is, food being prepared poorly or badly. If we are going to produce legislation that is going to assist the public, then it is important that the government shows the way ahead by providing that the regulations apply to itself. As the bill stands now, there is a distinction between the public and private sectors. In my opinion that is unsustainable. For example, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers, public and private hospitals are guided by different principles. The public hospital system is simply not bound by the terms of this bill. Private hospitals are bound by the terms of this bill and the regulations that will flow from it. If we have a principle that people are required to be protected in relation to the preparation of food and also the preparation of ingredients, there is no reason for the health system to be exempt, whether that be the public or the private health system. State school P&Cs are exempt and P&Fs and other organisations of private schools are not. As has been stated here in the past, it is inconceivable that the public is going to accept that state schools operating a P&C are exempt from regulation or control whereas private schools and P&F organisations are required to stick to the letter of the law. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other members of the opposition, it is simply nonsensical that legislation should differentiate to that extent. Queensland Rail, a tourism body, a tourism destination and a tourism organisation, supplies food just as frequently as the Hilton, the Ramada or other complexes. Why should Queensland Rail be exempt from the terms of this bill purely because it is a state government body or organisation? It makes no difference: bad food will make people ill; bad food will kill people. There is no basis in either reason or fact that this government or other government organisations should be exempt from the terms of the bill. Two sets of rules are being established. The smaller, private organisations will be burdened by more regulation and more taxes, more requirements, more scrutiny. Yet organisations that fall under the state government banner are not going to face that same scrutiny. It is inequitable and, in my opinion, it is blatantly wrong. In a matter of this nature and of this importance, the government cannot differentiate between public and private sectors. If the government is going to introduce legislation to govern a critical issue such as food preparation, that legislation must govern all segments of our society. To do otherwise is blatantly a mistake. In my opinion the bill should definitely be amended to cover all segments of our society and not pick and choose one over the other. I conclude my comments by making this very strong point: a government has to lead by example. A government has to set the benchmark for others to follow. If the government does not place itself under its own legislation, in my opinion it fails morally in guarding the interests and protecting the rights of the citizens of this state. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (4.20 pm): The Food Bill covers quite a range of areas. One aspect that I am concerned about is that if not-for-profit organisations sell meals more than 12 times a year then they are required to be licensed. I am very, very worried about the likes of our soccer clubs and our footy clubs. Country areas survive on them. What about our CWA ladies? How do they know in their budgets this year whether or not they are going to cater 12 times? How do they know whether or not they have to get a licence? This is going to put a lot of pressure on these clubs that they simply do not need. In any district when there is a gathering of people local organisations always cater. Things are getting tighter and tighter and legislation such as this makes things harder and harder. I am very concerned that the government has made government organisations exempt from this process. I believe that one of the reasons government organisations are exempt—and Queensland Rail has been quoted—is that the government knows what these organisations have to go through to become licensed. We have seen accreditation processes such as the process that nursing homes have had to go through and the fear that staff had of becoming accredited. I know we have to have safe food but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The government knows exactly what is involved in becoming licensed. I see here in the bill that a licensed premises has to have a supervisor. This legislation also touches on shifting rainwater from rainwater tanks. In times of drought we rely on different people to provide rainwater and shift water from place to place. That water is classed as a food under this bill. Does the carter, the person who has to shift the water, have to become licensed and accredited? Does he have to go through this process? Have members seen what goes into rainwater tanks? The green frogs on the roof and the leaves that blow onto the roof all go into the rainwater tank and settle. That rainwater is good. We have lived on it all our lives. Yet all of a sudden the poor old bloke who has to help shift water in times of drought and who is run off his feet may be faced with these terrible problems. The member for Toowoomba South mentioned the nippers down the coast. That situation is exactly what we do not want. We want organisations in this state to be able to go out and raise funds without red tape. The minister’s second reading speech says that this will reduce red tape. How is this going to reduce red tape? This is putting more red tape in front of us—more accreditation and more 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 147 work for genuine people who want to just get on with life and not be faced with more red tape. Yet the government and its agencies are exempt from this. The minister is saying, ‘My organisations will not have to go through this but every other private organisation has to face these limitations.’ I think that is disgusting. I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. There is a lot about this legislation that I simply do not agree with. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.23 pm): It is my pleasure to rise this afternoon in support of the Food Bill 2005. I wish to confess that I was not going to speak on this bill originally, not because I am not interested in food at all—quite the opposite. It has been said that everyone else eats to stay alive and the Chinese live to eat. The Chinese basically eat anything with four legs, except tables I was told—but that is changing because the Chinese realise that tables have a high fibre content! They eat anything with wings, except aeroplanes, but they are working on that as well. I am ‘banqueted out’ in the last 20 days due to the celebration of the Chinese New Year. I cannot understand how 25 per cent of the world’s population can consume so much food in a few days and still have food left for the balance of the world’s population. In fact, I am going to another banquet this Saturday—the 16th banquet this year in celebration of the Chinese New Year. I will be joined by the Minister for Health and I am sure he will enjoy my company. While on the subject of the Chinese New Year—and I am fully aware that this has nothing to do with the Food Bill—I understand that members and staff have been wondering what happened to the little toys that I give away every Chinese New Year and are wondering whether they are still coming. I would like to inform the House that I ordered 1,000 four-legged dog toys before Christmas and they were supposed to arrive just before the Chinese New Year. They did not arrive. I have subsequently been informed that the factory which manufactured them has gone bankrupt. I was told that business was very tough and it is a dog’s breakfast out there. It is certainly a dog-eat-dog world and every dog has his day, and this one has just gone belly up on me. I have not given up. I will find another top dog for this job, and I hope that I can teach this new dog old tricks by making toys for me. Turning back to the bill, as the minister outlined in his second reading speech, this bill has been several years in the making. Queensland Health has consulted widely with other state agencies, local government, food industry representatives, consumer groups and a lot of not-for-profit organisations in order to formulate the details contained within this bill. I wholeheartedly congratulate all food safety stakeholders who have contributed to this bill. Their combined input will ultimately achieve much better health outcomes for all Queenslanders. I further recognise and commend the minister and his staff for the commitment and dedication to the development of this bill. It is our responsibility—and it is obvious by introducing this bill that we take this responsibility very seriously—and the government is dedicated to an ongoing role of ensuring that foods are safe for Queenslanders to consume. There are serious public interest issues at stake. This bill is clearly a demonstration of this government’s commitment to the issues of public health and safety on behalf of all Queensland families. The Food Bill has been presented in a manner that is aimed towards making it easier or as user- friendly as possible. This has been achieved by identifying a three-tiered framework to regulate food safety in our state. The first tier is the basic requirement that all food businesses that are not exempt from the legislation must handle and sell food safely and comply with the national Food Standards Code. The second tier requires food manufacturers and food businesses that sell unpackaged food—for example, restaurants, takeaway food stores and caterers—to be licensed. To obtain a licence, applicants must satisfy certain objective criteria to prove their ability to provide safe food. The third tier requires high-risk food businesses—for example, on-site and off-site caterers and private hospitals—to prepare, implement and maintain food safety programs in addition to being licensed. With regard to the auditing of food businesses, Safe Food Queensland is a government initiative which was established to ensure the reliability and safety of the Queensland food chain. It was set up by the government to ensure that this state’s food supply remains one of the safest in the world. Because safety can be easily compromised at any point in the food production process, Safe Food Queensland was established to address the entire food chain, beginning with farm input and ending with products on retail shelves—in other words, from farm to fork. Food safety programs are also implemented by Safe Food Queensland. A food safety program is a written plan that shows how each business is managing food safety. The ultimate objective is to ensure that these programs are implemented in all primary industries that have an identified food safety hazard. The issues involving the Food Bill are complex, particularly with regard to the continual auditing of food businesses. This bill provides for internal review and appeal processes, monitoring, investigative and enforcement powers—all of which are provided for in the detailed content of this bill. It is an ill-fated reality that food poisoning has a far-reaching and devastating impact on many Queensland families which, in turn, has a radical and negative impact on business and the Queensland economy as a whole. I recently read an article on Channel 7’s Today Tonight web site and was stunned to learn of the facts about one young mum who almost died from one of Australia’s worst cases of food poisoning. Doctors worked miracles to save her damaged face. Until she ate contaminated salami, this 148 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 young woman was an attractive and happily married mother of four children. But her face and body were horribly disfigured from an extreme case of food poisoning. Her baby was terrified of her, as she looked horrific. This mother was lucky to be alive, but she suffered organ failure, lost her leg below the knee, had all her fingers amputated and her nose basically chopped off. The impact on her life was tragic. Her marriage failed because her husband could not cope with her appearance, and this young mum is still undergoing extensive plastic surgery on her road to recovery. This is one story too many. The Food Safety Information Council reports that every year five million Australians get sick from eating food contaminated with bacteria or viruses. Based on this figure, it cost the economy over $3.75 billion a year from lost earnings and medical expenses, and the sufferers have a pretty unpleasant experience. This is one tragic case where we can openly see the devastating effect that a food-borne illness can cause a family. Through implementing responsible legislation, we can reduce the number of Queenslanders getting sick from food poisoning. Food-borne illness is on the rise worldwide. At a national level the financial costs can run into billions of dollars. It is clear that traditional management strategies to date have not provided the required level of protection to consumers. As the minister detailed previously, every year each Queenslander has a 22 per cent chance of contracting a food-borne illness which can vary from mild physical discomfort to far more serious side effects including long-term illnesses or even death. This bill is to take effect from 1 July this year except for the food safety program provision, which will start a year later. This new Food Bill is aimed at implementing, promoting and maintaining food safety standards right up to the time it reaches the consumer. After that, the rest is obviously up to the consumer. I sincerely commend this bill to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (4.32 pm): I rise to support the measures contained in the Food Bill 2005 as outlined by the minister in his second reading speech and to follow the lead of my good friend the shadow minister for health and member for Moggill. Having been a member of the Surfers Paradise Chamber of Commerce for many years, a district with a high concentration of food outlets, I am aware that my fellow businesspeople in the hospitality industry have always understood the need to keep their customers safe and satisfied. My experience is that the industry has also welcomed any moves to keep their customers safe and smiling, knowing full well that many of their happy customers will be repeat visitors. As such, I am very much in favour of the provisions to implement a consistent food safety standard across the country and across food businesses in Queensland. The bill provides that all businesses, unless they are exempt under the act, are required to comply with the national standards. It is in examining those exemptions that the Beattie Labor government once again displays inconsistency, passing legislation to shield itself from any potential liability. One of the bill’s exemptions states that it does not apply to the state, which includes government owned corporations like prisons, residential aged-care facilities, Queensland Rail food services, hospitals and state school tuckshops. I note that the minister responded to comments from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in its final report last year. He responded in a letter to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee on 20 December and stated— ... administrative arrangements will be put in place to ensure that State-owned food businesses will supply safe and suitable food. Can I suggest that if we were to just alter two words in that sentence and change it to ‘administrative arrangements will be put in place to ensure state owned health businesses will supply safe and suitable health outcomes’, I do not necessarily know that we would be that happy with the assurance of the minister that we will be getting a good health system. For that reason, I am concerned that the inconsistency that effectively protects the state is just not fair. Where is the fairness in protecting the P&C operated state school tuckshop but not the tuckshop in our private schools, especially if they were to attest that administrative arrangements would be put in place to ensure that they would supply safe and suitable food? Why does this current government feel that it does not have to be subject to the red tape it imposes on everyone else? I recognise that the government has its own administrative guidelines in place for its facilities, but why should it not have to subject its operations to the standards this bill will impose on private sector businesses? Let us remind ourselves of the intention of this bill and the aim of the intergovernmental agreement of November 2000. We are trying to provide the safest food possible for consumers. If the self-administering standards that this government uses in our state schools and hospitals are inconsistent with the agreed standards set down by the federal Australia New Zealand Food Authority, how can we be assured this government’s facilities are providing the safest food for young and hospitalised Queenslanders? Unfortunately, we cannot, and that is a real shame because it is the children of this state and those Queenslanders requiring health care that deserve the best, or at least the same, treatment and safeguards as anyone else. The young, the elderly and pregnant women are the groups at the highest risk of becoming critically ill due to food poisoning, and it is the young in our state schools, the elderly in our state aged- care facilities and pregnant women in our hospitals who are not guaranteed the safeguards this bill 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 149 could achieve because the government wants to avoid any potential liability. This Labor government has its priorities all wrong when it comes to the health of Queenslanders and the safety of its consumers. Once again, as in the Child Employment Bill, we have a reversal of the onus of proof as outlined by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee at points 26 and 27 of its Alert Digest tabled 22 November 2005. At those points, the committee notes that clauses 259 and 260 of the bill effectively reverse the onus of proof. At point 27, the committee refers to parliament the question of whether in the circumstances reversal of onus is justified. Once again, there are numerous of us here who have concerns whenever this important legal principle is overturned. On 8 November last year the minister put out a press release which in its first paragraph stated— The Beattie Government will strengthen legislation to better protect Queenslanders against food poisoning and help ensure food consumed meets national standards. The minister should qualify this statement with the fact that national standards would not be employed in state schools, hospitals and aged-care facilities. The government is forgetting that in 2004 there were 56 outbreaks in aged-care facilities affecting 2,734 people. Eleven of those elderly people died. This exemption is not justified and the state needs to reconsider its exemption. I would like to commend the inclusion of licensing provisions within the bill itself rather than having it in the regulations, but it should be noted that registration provisions remain in the regulation. Chapter 3 sets out the requirements for licensing for certain food businesses—those that manufacture food, for-profit organisations selling unpackaged food such as restaurants and delicatessens, and not- for-profit organisations that sell meals more than 12 times a year. These provisions seem reasonable but I am still uneasy about the balance struck between increasing food safety and minimising the red tape that not-for-profit organisations may have to negotiate—for example, a volunteer surf club that runs 14 sausage sizzles a year having to apply for and pay for a licence. Furthermore, I do not feel the new licensing provisions go far enough in minimising the cost local governments will bear due to the continued need for them to be responsible. Once again, another state government responsibility has been devolved to local government, as it is responsible now for the administration of the licensing scheme. Indeed, it is the local authorities that will conduct the inspections of licensed food businesses. The objective of having a consistent food safety standard will be subject to the discretionary upholding of it by local governments around the state. The large number of local government committees in Queensland may lead to inconsistencies from region to region and this is not desirable. It seems odd that the government has chosen to place the responsibility of licensing with local governments yet fails to include clause 4 of the food safety standard 3.2.2. This clause would have required food businesses to provide local governments with the name, address and contact details of the food business, the nature of the business and location of all food premises. Most jurisdictions except the Northern Territory have realised that consistency may be better achieved through having the suggested clause included. I support the new provision that high-risk food businesses be required to develop and implement a food safety strategy. These safety programs would be audited on a regular basis. Despite the fact that these provisions are needed for the safety of Queenslanders, clause 99 of the bill illustrates again the double standard policy of the current Beattie Labor government. The bill explicitly identifies off-site and on-site catering businesses as high risk, as it should. It also labels the operations of private hospitals as high risk, as it should. The safety of our hospitalised Queenslanders should be at the top of any government’s priority list. However, by acknowledging private hospitals as high-risk businesses worthy of food safety programs, my colleagues opposite acknowledged the need for the food provided to hospitalised Queenslanders to be of the safest standard. I return to my earlier argument: why private hospitals and not public hospitals? Where is the consistency? Where is the fairness? Where is the safety? I care to support this bill and its provisions insofar as it aims to provide the safest food to Queenslanders. However, I find it very difficult to comprehend how the Australian Labor Party can justify its employment of this bill to again put the health of our most vulnerable second to its desire to avoid potential liability. Then again, with the state of Queensland Health, it is pretty obvious why it is abusing its power. Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (4.40 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Food Bill 2005, which is a rewrite of the Food Act 1981. It is in accordance with the November 2000 intergovernmental agreement to adopt food safety standards across all jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand which will bring Queensland into line with the rest of the country. There are three tiers to the legislation: firstly, all food businesses comply with the requirements of the food safety standards; secondly, specified food businesses—for-profit businesses handling and selling unpackaged food and not-for-profit organisations serving meals more than 12 days of the year— will have to be licensed; thirdly, high-risk food businesses will be required to have an accredited food safety program. 150 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006

The reasons put forward by the government for exemption of the state from the bill is that the state cannot prosecute itself. So it would not be practical for state facilities and services to come under the bill’s provisions. Currently there are administrative requirements in place such as annual inspections by Queensland Health and audits to ensure that food safety standards are being adhered to. As demonstrated in the Parliamentary Library material on this bill, the government is aware that health and safety inspections and audit arrangements need to be strengthened. So state facilities are required to meet similar standards to those applying to the private sector, but there are no legislative requirements to do so. Despite this, the bill does not propose to strengthen those arrangements, leaving the state operating under much less rigid food, health and safety requirements and a standard well below that expected by similar private sector operations. In proposing to exempt the state from the requirements of this bill, the government is differentiating itself from others who prepare food in Queensland. State school tuckshops are exempt from the regulations contained in the bill. However, private school tuckshops are required to operate under all three tiers of the legislation. A private school tuckshop will have to operate in accordance with the food safety standard, be licensed and have to put a food safety program in place. Rotary Club fundraisers who operate every weekend will need a licence, whereas an adjoining club perhaps doing one fundraiser every six weeks will not need a licence. My Rotary Club, the Rotary Club of Carindale, for which I volunteer on a regular basis to undertake activities in the community, conducts a sausage sizzle every Saturday morning at the local business centre. That activity will not continue if the Rotary Club is required to be licensed and to go through the food safety standards. All that will happen is that those activities will cease and that income to the club will also cease. Public hospital canteens and food provisions services for patients are exempt from the regulations contained in this bill. However, private hospitals will be required to operate under all three tiers of the legislation. State operated aged-care facilities will be exempt from the regulations contained in this bill, yet privately run facilities will be required to operate under all three legislative tiers. There are two fundamental problems with the approach that this government has taken to exempt the state from this legislation, the objective of which is to ensure that food is safe for sale and suitable for human consumption. Firstly, this legislation discriminates against all private sector food businesses which are subject to the legislation. This will result in more red tape for non-state operations and more cost to business to operate where licensing is required and where a food safety program needs to be implemented and enforced. We support the activities of food safety in the private sector. We just want it extended to the public sector. Why should there be a different food standard for the state-run food businesses compared with the private sector food businesses without any explanation in this bill? There is no logical reason that state-run food sellers should have less stringent health and food safety requirements than a private sector food seller. I accept that the state cannot prosecute itself under legislation for a breach. However, it is the local government that completes the inspection and the local government that issues the notices. All the state has to do is comply with the notices issued by the local government. To ensure the same standard for all food sellers regardless of whether they are public or private sector operators, the administration arrangements for the state should have been strengthened to similar standards required of private food businesses. These unequal requirements for businesses will result in unequal safety standards, with food from private sellers being much safer than food from a state-run food business. This leads me to the second major flaw exempting the state from standards under which it should also operate. The legislation demonstrates this state government’s attitude to the health and wellbeing of Queenslanders. The government discriminates against consumers of food sold by state-run food businesses. People in public hospitals, people in aged-care facilities and children at public schools will have the safety of their food jeopardised by less than satisfactory food safety standards applicable to state-run businesses. Everyone in Queensland is aware that the health of our schoolchildren is not of great importance to the current Labor government. It clearly has the wrong priorities when it comes to the health and wellbeing of our children’s schools. There are already government entities paying compensation to victims of this government’s maladministration, and the government is merely creating an opportunity for more negligence in its treatment of Queenslanders. The risk of not having appropriate food safety standards in state-run enterprises here in Queensland is increasing the likelihood of food poisoning of Queenslanders by the state. There is another show of incompetent administration by this Labor government and potentially a show of incompetence that could cost all Queenslanders millions of dollars. This legislation is clearly not about reducing red tape for businesses in Queensland or ensuring food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption and in compliance with the Food Standards Code. The purpose of the Food Standards Code, advocated back in November 2000, was to be universal code for all food businesses—not just some food businesses—to protect consumer safety. Under this legislation, inefficient government operations will be able to take advantage of less stringent food safety standards and provide food in a manner that is not consistent with the Food Standards Code 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 151 advocated by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. To a concerned Queenslander, this appears to be another government attempt to provide an excuse for incompetence and hide it all behind a veil of faulty legislation. By allowing state-run food businesses to be exempt from these laws and save the funds that would otherwise be spent ensuring accordance with these laws, the health and safety of Queenslanders is being put in jeopardy. This government clearly has the wrong priorities when it comes to food standards in state-run organisations. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.47 pm): I rise to participate in this debate on the Food Bill 2005. In speaking to this bill, I reflect on the first debate we had this morning regarding the national scheme legislation and everyone working in cooperation for the good of all Queenslanders and for the good of all Australians. The Premier tabled for the benefit of all members of the House and for all Queenslanders the Council of Australian Governments’ communique dated 10 February 2006. I take members to page 9 of that communique under the heading ‘Reducing the regulatory burden’. I wish to take a few moments to quote it because it is relevant to the matter that we are debating before the House. The communique states— The regulatory reform stream of the COAG National Reform Agenda focuses on reducing the regulatory burden imposed by the three levels of government ... That is a matter which the previous speaker, the member for Chatsworth, spoke about. It continues— COAG agreed that effective regulation is essential to ensure markets operate efficiently and fairly, to protect consumers— and that is what this bill is about— and the environment and to enforce corporate governance standards. I believe that corporate governance standards should apply equally to both the state government and private enterprise. It further states— However, the benefits from each regulation must not be offset by unduly high compliance and implementation costs. COAG agreed to a range of measures to ensure best-practice regulation making and review, and to make a ‘downpayment’ on regulatory reduction by taking action now to reduce specific regulation ‘hotspots’. It is expected that further action to address burdensome regulation and red tape will be taken as the Commonwealth considers and responds to the report of the Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business and as State, Territory and the local governments undertake their own regulation review process. Yet here I believe we see another situation where more and more regulations are imposed on another level of government. I take members now to page 3 of the explanatory notes of the bill where the minister says— Local governments are to conduct regular inspections of licensed food businesses to ensure that these businesses are selling safe food and local governments may recover their monitoring costs by charging reasonable fees for licensing and inspections of food businesses. In order to obtain a licence, a food business must satisfy certain objective criteria that indicate an ability to provide safe food. For example, a government can consider the suitability of the premises for safely carrying out food business activities, the applicant’s previous compliance with food legislation and the applicant’s skills and knowledge in providing safe food. Then the minister talks about the food safety programs. I note that the minister for small business and member for Kawana, Chris Cummins, announced some time ago a red tape review task force to look at how we can try to reduce the level of red tape in Queensland. As I look at the bill, going to 170 pages, and the explanatory notes, going to over 61, on which members have spoken for a number of hours in relation to its implications and far-reaching effects, I wonder if there has been a genuine concerted focus by the minister for small business and the minister in charge of reducing red tape on how we can perhaps reduce the level of new regulations that this parliament is introducing whenever we sit. I was hopeful that perhaps the minister for small business and red tape reduction may have actually participated in the debate on this very important bill, but it does not appear from my speaking list that the minister has been able to find time to participate. Hopefully the current Minister for Health will comment on the issue of reducing red tape and perhaps clarify what steps the government, the department and his backbench task force have undertaken to ensure that wherever possible there will be a minimum level of red tape as a result of this new bill and future law for Queensland. I note in the opening paragraphs of the explanation of the objectives of the bill that the minister sets out very clearly that there are a number of businesses which are exempt. I again use the minister’s words where he says— The Bill does not apply to: food businesses conducted by the State, for example, food services operated by Queensland Rail; state school tuckshops operated by parents and citizens associations; and food that is given away for free to a non-profit organisation, apart from business promotions. It is great to see that the government has made two very specific exemptions. It was not so long ago that we had a raging debate in this House in relation to concerns that businesses were giving away food for free to non-profit organisations. We all know of groups in our communities that provide a wonderful community service by assisting those in need in our community. However, they rely on the 152 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 donation of food to perform this service. It is very pleasing to see that the government has specifically provided an exemption for the non-profit organisations. I congratulate the minister on that exemption. I also congratulate the minister on the initiative to ensure that state school tuckshops operated by parents and citizens associations are also exempt from the provisions. When it comes to Queensland Rail being an example of a state government agency to which the bill does not apply, I have to ask a question. Queenslanders regularly see advertisements promoting and encouraging people to use Queensland Rail and our other state government agencies. Part and parcel of much of that promotion of our state businesses involves the consumption of food. I echo the reservations of other members from this side of the chamber when I say that the government could have worked harder at trying to ensure that everyone is equal before the law. In my view everyone should be equal before the law. I believe the Food Bill should be no exception. I note on page 1 of the bill that the minister refers to how on 3 November 2000 all states, territories and the Commonwealth signed an intergovernmental agreement on food regulations. The minister states— In accordance with the IGA all States and Territories agreed to adopt Annex A of the national Model Food Act developed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. Annex A provisions include policy objectives, definitions ... I conclude by saying that I do have reservations. As a member of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee I am aware of the minister’s response to the issue as to why government agencies should be exempt. Quite frankly, I believe everyone should be equal before the law. Whether it is a minister or a member of parliament, it is Queensland’s law and it should apply to everyone in Queensland, including state government agencies. I am looking forward to the minister’s response, not just to my contribution but to the contributions that other members have made during this debate. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (4.56 pm): I am pleased to support the Food Bill 2005 which represents the culmination of much hard work over many years by a large number of people from state government, local government, industry and not-for-profit organisations. When I was parliamentary secretary to health minister Wendy Edmond she gave me the responsibility for food safety in the year 2000. It was then that the government first began the detailed work on the legislation and the regulatory framework to address this vitally important issue of food safety. At that time I undertook a study tour of southern states with departmental staff to learn from their experiences and we returned from that trip determined not to make the same mistakes as Victoria, for example, which introduced the requirement of mandatory high-level food safety plans for every business from the corner deli to major hospitals without any recognition of their different risks. In many cases small businesses were paying thousands of dollars to consultants to develop these plans and it was really causing quite a furore in Victoria. The other message that we brought home was the need for a partnership between state government, local councils, industry and the informal or not-for-profit sectors to come up with a regulatory framework that was practical, cost-effective and appropriate for the level of risk involved. It was to that end that I sought the minister’s support to establish and then chair the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum that has, over the years, played such a significant and ongoing role in developing this legislation. The particular aspects of the bill that I would like to address in detail this afternoon are those that relate to the non-profit organisations and also to local government. The not-for-profit sector provides vital services to the community on behalf of local, state and federal governments. These services include caring for the aged, accommodation for women in crisis, outreach services for youth, mobile food vans, providing meals and light refreshments to victims and official workers during times of disaster or crisis, providing clothing and shelter for the homeless, and drug and alcohol and gambling counselling. The cost of delivering these services to members of the community is increasing and the non-profit sector, unlike the commercial sector, has limited capacity to pass these increases on to their customers. Unlike the current Food Act 1981 and the Food Hygiene Regulation 1989, this bill limits a non- profit organisation’s exposure to regulatory fees such as licence fees charged under the legislation. The bill defines the term ‘non-profit organisation’ to mean an organisation that is not run for the profit or gain of its individual members and is engaged in activities of a charitable, cultural, education, political, social welfare, sporting or recreational purpose. This means not only those organisations like the Salvation Army, which are commonly accepted as being a non-profit organisation, but also organisations set up for political purposes. So in the coming months when the Labor candidate for Barron River, Steve Wettenhall, is having his sausage sizzle to introduce himself to the community he will be treated as a non-profit organisation for the purposes of this legislation, which will make our campaigning a whole lot easier. The majority of community non-profit organisations will not require a licence because they do not sell meals as defined in the act on 12 or more occasions each year. The bill defines the term ‘meal’ to mean food that is intended to be eaten by a person sitting at a table using cutlery and the food is of an 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 153 adequate substance to be normally considered to be a meal. Therefore, sandwiches, hamburgers, sausages, cakes and finger foods are not considered to be a meal and a non-profit organisation that sells only this type of food would not require a licence. I think that members can see the common sense in this legislation. It will not provide a burden to non-profit organisations which are engaged in that kind of activity. It also means that the annual P&C school fete, for example, will not require a licence from the local council. Equally, Meals on Wheels organisations that merely deliver meals to their clients that have been prepared by another entity, such as a hospital, do not require a licence. Other Meals on Wheels organisations, as in my electorate, have their own kitchen. In that instance, I know from discussions with them that they have been preparing for this for many years, with support from their peak body. They are ready to comply with this legislation, having developed their own food safety plans. There are further exemptions from the licensing requirement for non-profit organisations that sell meals. These include meals where the consumer participates in its preparation, meals prepared as part of an educational training activity conducted by the organisation, pre-prepared food that is heated or prepared in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and low-risk foods such as cereal, fruit or toast. For those non-profit organisations which are required to be licensed, the law enables the local government to completely waive or to reduce the fee that is payable to obtain a licence. This flexibility will be very welcome. The law also provides guidelines for regulations to be made about the fees charged under the legislation, including licensing fees. We should see a more consistent approach taken by local government in the setting of licence fees, if any, for non-profit organisations. Some non-profit organisations that are required to be licensed may be required to implement food safety programs to effectively manage food safety hazards in the conduct of their business. For example, a licensed non-profit organisation that undertakes off-site catering for meals is required, however, under clause 99 to have an accredited food safety program. To ease the burden on commercial and non-profit organisations, Queensland Health, in conjunction with the food industry and federal health authorities, is developing food safety program templates, which may be adapted by non- profit organisations. The development of this bill has been greatly assisted by the efforts of the Local Government Association of Queensland in representing local governments throughout Queensland. I really want to put on record my appreciation to that organisation. Its involvement in the stakeholder forum meetings and working group meetings represents a cooperative approach between the two layers of government in order to provide better outcomes for the community. There is one particular matter that I would like to mention because it is always of concern to local government. The government has acknowledged that there will be costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the legislation. However, the Food Bill 2005 does not leave it to local government to bear these costs. The bill provides that local governments may set fees for services rendered under the bill. This means that local government can recover from food businesses the reasonable costs incurred in issuing a licence, accrediting a food safety program or inspecting food premises. In recognition of the current approach adopted by local government to the non-profit sector, the bill allows local governments to waive licensing and inspection fees for non-profit organisations. As is the case under the Food Act 1981, the bill also provides that any fines payable as a result of prosecution of a food business by local government will be paid to the local government. Again, this assists local government to recover the cost of any prosecution that is undertaken. The bill provides sufficient flexibility for local government to discharge its enforcement role at the high end of the scale. The bill assists local governments in taking a firm stance against food businesses that do not comply with the legislation by empowering local government to suspend or cancel a licence after a show-cause process, or to immediately suspend a licence if there is an immediate and serious risk to public health and safety. In recognition that not all breaches of legislation would be serious enough to warrant the suspension or cancellation of a licence, the bill, very sensibly, provides for an improvement notice to be issued. The improvement notice will state the reasonable steps that should be taken to rectify a breach of the legislation and the time frame to rectify a breach, which may, indeed, be all that is necessary. I want to commend the minister and to recognise all of the people in the department and across local government, industry, business and the non-profit sector who have contributed to this legislation before the parliament. I am convinced that we in Cairns will not again face the kind of scare we had when raw cracked eggs were used in the preparation of a dessert at a large hotel and caused a major food poisoning incident, which had a serious impact on our tourism industry. Legislation such as this sets in place a very sensible, fair and appropriate regulatory framework to ensure that the safety of consumers in Queensland is well protected. I commend the bill to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (5.04 pm): In rising to support the bill, I am proud to say that I have played a small part in this bill by chairing the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum for some 154 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 period of time. I would like to speak about that forum because it will demonstrate how this bill got to this stage and, hopefully, it will allay some of the concerns raised by members opposite. I would like to comment on some of the things that they said. In June 2000, the then parliamentary secretary, Dr Lesley Clark, the member for Barron River, the previous speaker in this debate, undertook a fact-finding trip on food safety and tobacco control. A major recommendation of her report was that a Food Safety Stakeholders Forum be formed to act as a consultation mechanism to guide the introduction of the risk-based management system for food safety in Queensland. Subsequently, on 15 September 2000, the Premier granted approval for the formation of the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum as a consultation mechanism. The FSSF was to be chaired by the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health, Lesley Clark. Letters were issued from the minister’s office to invite stakeholders to participate in the forum. Prior to the first meeting of the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum, Dr Clark met individually with all invited forum members. The purpose of these meetings was to meet the forum members in a face-to-face manner, to explain the purpose of the forum and to elicit any particular concerns of members regarding food safety reform. The letters of invitation also contained the draft terms of reference and the initial membership of the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum. The inaugural meeting of the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum was held on 13 November 2000. The forum was later chaired by me, commencing from the fifth meeting held on 26 June 2001. Since my involvement as chair, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health, Jo-Ann Miller, and I have met and consulted with the stakeholders on an ongoing basis. A total of 15 Food Safety Stakeholders Forum meetings were held between November 2000 and August 2005, with the successful outcome of achieving consensus between consumers, industry, community organisations, local government and the state government. The bill we are debating today is testament to the dedication of all stakeholders who participated in this process. They can claim rightful ownership of the Food Bill, which will put Queensland at the forefront of the food, catering and hospitality industries. The community can be assured of good quality, healthily produced food by food organisations that have their reputations at stake and, under a regulatory regime, will have regulations and guidelines to adhere to and be monitored by. I would like to table this document and wholeheartedly thank everyone who has contributed as a stakeholder, provided feedback and generously given of their time to the production of this bill. Some of the people I would like to make special mention of are Tony Downer from the Australian Food and Grocery Council, who came up from Canberra on a regular basis; Martin Webb, who wore a couple of different hats, promoted food safety for many years; Penny Wilson from Clubs Queensland; Peta Jamieson and Bryce Hines from the Local Government Association of Queensland itself, who played vital roles with their input; John Martinkovic from local government who played a key role; Ian Baldock and James Visser, who brought fantastic expertise from the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association and Restaurant and Catering Queensland. Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! The member for Stafford, there is a point of order. Dr FLEGG: It does not appear that we have a quorum. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! I will just do a quick count, if you do not mind. Mr Terry Sullivan: Yes, we do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): I will ask the Clerk to help me out. Mr Terry Sullivan: We have 16. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): We have how many? Mr Terry Sullivan: I counted 16. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Fifteen. A quorum is required. Ring the bells. Quorum formed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! We have a quorum. The member for Stafford. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Thank you. As I was saying before that unnecessary interruption, Ian Baldock from the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association and James Visser from Restaurant and Catering Queensland played a vital role in bringing the focus of their particular industries to the discussions. Queensland Health has many dedicated people who have contributed in many ways to this bill. In particular, I thank Sophie Dwyer, Michael Skinner, Kerry Bell, Paul Sheehy, Sue Cawcutt and Larry Clark, who played such magnificent roles in bringing this legislation to this stage. 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 155

One of the biggest issues that was discussed was the guidelines that would apply to the various aspects of this bill and of food safety. One common concern raised by stakeholders in the development of the Food Bill was the lack of consistency in the application and interpretation of the existing food legislation by local government enforcement officers. There are a number of examples of past inconsistencies which have had a disruptive impact on the operations of commercial and non-profit food businesses. For example, differing licensing and registration requirements imposed upon food businesses by different local governments created difficulties in the food industry. This was especially the case for those businesses operating in a number of locations throughout the state that could not achieve economies of scale by adopting a standardised approach to premises fit-out and operational practices because of the inconsistent application of the legislation by different local government groups. There was an inconsistent approach adopted by local governments about the licensing of non-profit organisations and the fees payable by those organisations to local governments. To improve the consistency of administration of the food safety legislation, the new Food Bill will provide for the chief executive of Queensland Health to make guidelines to assist with the administration of the legislation. The bill requires the chief executive to consult with local government, food businesses, consumer organisations and other relevant bodies in the development of amendments of these guidelines. The guidelines will be made reasonably available to local government, food businesses and the public, including, for example, internet access. I am pleased to say that, with the involvement of the industry concerned, consensus was reached on almost every issue. I want to comment on a few of the issues raised by members opposite. They have incorrectly understood the bill or have deliberately misinterpreted what is in the bill about not-for-profit organisations. For example, a not-for-profit organisation will require a licence only if they have sit-down meals with cutlery more than 12 times a year. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I will take the interjection from the honourable member opposite, even though he is not in his right chair. You said, ‘How will the CWA know?’ If an organisation does not know that they are going to have that number of functions, there is negotiation available between the authorities. It is not a heavy-handed approach. The whole approach of this bill is one of consensus, and the member opposite should know that the key concern is safe food. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: You asked me a question and then when I start to respond to you, member for Darling Downs, you do not even want to listen to me. Mr Hopper: I’m listening. Mr Robertson interjected. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: You may not be aware, as the minister said, that organisations like Meals on Wheels and the CWA have in fact supported this legislation, because they know from the discussions that were held that the elderly and young are most vulnerable in terms of food safety. In fact, they know themselves that situations have occurred where it has caused damage to membership of voluntary organisations. The last thing you want is people in a volunteer group unwittingly, because of practices that no-one had deliberately gone about, causing damage to health because of poor food preparation. Mr Hopper: Has it ever happened before? Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Yes, it has. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! I will not have a conversation across the chamber. Would the member address his comments through the chair. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What some members opposite have said has been absolutely untrue or stretched to the limit. For example, a sausage sizzle requires no licence. It is not defined as a meal under this bill. An article that appeared in one of the local papers in Brisbane when the forum was holding consultation meetings said that churches will no longer be able to hold cake stalls because this legislation will ban it. That is an absolute lie. This will not stop the local church, the local Girl Guides or the local ambulance committees having cake stalls and local fetes. Rather, this bill addresses the 6,000 cases of food related illness in this state. I ask the shadow minister what his attitude is to those 6,000 people in Queensland who suffer from food related illness in a year. I was at a meeting of a business group last week. One of the gentlemen there was telling me about an incident that happened at a family gathering where seafood was purchased from a commercial premises. There had been damage done to the food. He was in hospital for five days and some 16 out of the 17 people at that gathering ended up in hospital. This bill attempts to address issues such as that, not from the family side in that case but from the production side and the transportation of such foods. It costs $1.67 billion in Australia each year to deal with these cases. Members opposite also, in a twisted and dishonest manner, interpreted the notion of not binding the Crown in this bill. My understanding is that crown law advice is that the bill cannot bind the Crown 156 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006 because the Crown cannot prosecute itself. The question is: are hospitals bound by this regulation? Yes, they are—not by the legislation but by the regulation. In fact, the shadow minister may not know that Queensland Health has led the way in developing safe food programs and protocols which have been made available to the private sector. In fact, what is being imposed or instituted in Queensland Health in the hospitals is stronger than the legislation actually requires, and those protocols are being made available for the private sector to adopt. What the shadow minister might not know—and I think the member for Nicklin spoke about red tape—was that in Victoria small groups and small businesses were paying $1,500 to a consultant to produce a paper document that met the requirements of the bill but did nothing to actually improve food safety. This does not impose those financial or paperwork burdens on small businesses and on not-for- profit and low-risk businesses. Mr Hopper interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Member for Darling Downs, you have had your turn. We will listen to the member for Stafford now. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, if his interjections had some sense and were based on the bill, I would probably take them. But, since they are inane and incorrect, I will not. We have not followed the Victorian system which put an impost on not-for-profit and small businesses and businesses that had low-risk foods. The discussions at the Food Safety Stakeholders Forum were undertaken by a very wide group, including the tuckshop groups, Meals on Wheels, Foodbank Queensland, food industry associations, retailers associations, the Department of Families, which is dealing with a lot of these community groups, the Department of Communities, primary industries and school parents groups. They worked their way through a whole range of issues to come to a consensus on this bill which they could all live with. This bill covers the most vulnerable, high-volume complex seafood down to the small school fete. The aim is to produce safe food for all Queenslanders so they do not become unwell. I support the bill. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (5.17 pm), in reply: Firstly, I thank all members who participated in this debate. In particular, I want to thank my parliamentary secretary, the member for Bundamba, the previous parliamentary secretary for health, Dr Lesley Clark, and the member for Stafford, Terry Sullivan, who have worked very hard over a very long period of time along with officers from my department to get us to the stage where we are today. I thank them quite sincerely for their efforts. I will deal particularly with the issues raised by the shadow spokesperson for health as well as a couple of other members from the opposition who raised a number of issues despite the quite comprehensive coverage of those issues by the member for Stafford in his speech. The member for Moggill was concerned that the Crown was exempt from the Food Bill and that therefore certain high- risk activities run by the state will not be subject to the act. As members on this side of the House have reflected now repeatedly, the Food Bill continues the approach under the current Food Act 1981 to not bind the Crown. There is a general principle that the Crown cannot be prosecuted criminally because the prosecutor in those matters is the Crown. In addition, the enforcement agency for breaches by food businesses is local government. To ensure that government-run food businesses meet national food safety standards and that the health of the community is protected, the government has determined that all state owned food businesses must adopt equivalent administrative arrangements which mirror the obligations that will be imposed by the Food Bill on private sector food businesses. As with the obligations imposed on private sector food businesses, state owned food businesses will be required to ensure that all food that is sold is safe and suitable; that food handlers have the required skills and knowledge to provide safe and suitable food; where appropriate, state owned food businesses will employ a food safety supervisor; and that premises where food is prepared meet comparable standards with their private sector counterparts. Inspections of food businesses are carried out by authorised officers to ensure that the food for sale is safe and suitable. Food safety programs are implemented by state owned food businesses which would otherwise be required under the legislation to have a food safety program and they report annually to the director-general or chief executive officer of the relevant department or minister to whom the state owned food business is accountable and forward a copy of the annual report to Queensland Health. In addition, state owned food businesses are required to have food safety programs and must ensure that these programs are audited by approved safety auditors. I must say that the member for Moggill raised a legitimate issue. I appreciate that that is the case. I also understand that nevertheless the member reserves the right to call for a division over this issue. But I found it a bit galling when the member for Chatsworth came in here and spread the nonsense that he did during his contribution. Mr Terry Sullivan: It was a disgrace. 15 Feb 2006 Food Bill 157

Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Chatsworth just joined us not that long ago and he came from the Brisbane City Council. If we asked him how many times, during his career as a member of the Brisbane City Council, the Brisbane City Council prosecuted the Queensland government for a breach across the gamut of issues that local government deals with, if the member for Chatsworth could be honest just for one moment he would probably say nil. Yet, despite his own experience in local government as a Brisbane City Councillor, he still carried on with that nonsense. That is unfortunate. Mr Seeney: What’s that? Mr ROBERTSON: I do not want to repeat what the member for Chatsworth said. It would just give credence to someone whom I would rather not. I just invite the member for Callide to reflect on what the member for Chatsworth said by reading Hansard. The member should reflect on the fact that the member for Chatsworth could be part of the coalition’s leadership team in the not-too-distant future and that he should understand where he is coming from on such issues. Nevertheless, I would have to say that I genuinely appreciate what the member for Moggill had to say, because at least on this issue he was a bit more honest than the member for Chatsworth was. The member for Moggill proposed that hospitals are very high-risk food businesses and as such that both public and private hospitals should be treated equally. Apart from the fact that I have just dealt with the issue of a public hospital being caught up in the principle that I mentioned before, Queensland Health voluntarily commenced a program to develop food safety programs in 135 Queensland Health hospitals in 2005. This work, which commenced over two years before similar requirements will be placed on industry, was undertaken to ensure the safety of our hospitals’ food supply. So that higher level of testing is already underway. Queensland hospitals’ food safety programs are subject to accreditation by environmental health officers of the Population Health Unit. These officers will also audit hospitals against their programs to ensure compliance. This program required the development of food safety program templates and guidelines to support our hospitals. These resources will be made available to private hospitals free of charge. Similarly, resources have been developed for aged care facilities. The opposition spokesperson was also concerned that state school tuckshops are exempt from the bill but private tuckshops are not. As I indicated, all state agencies will be subject to the same requirements as other food business under the equivalent administrative arrangements scheme that will operate across the state government. So we will have our own standards reflecting those standards that apply in the broader community. In regard to controlling food safety risks in schools, a risk management approach will be taken. Private school tuckshops not serving meals—and ‘meals’ are defined as food that is intended to be eaten by a person sitting at a table with cutlery—are not required to have a licence. However, both private and state school tuckshops will be required to ensure that food is provided safely. The member for Moggill also asked how businesses operating over multiple sites within one local government will be licensed. Generally, a licence will apply to only one premises. However, a food business with multiple premises in one local government area may submit a single licence application indicating the number of premises for which licences are sought. It is intended that a draft approved form for licence applications will be developed by my department in consultation with local government and industry. The LGAQ has indicated a willingness to develop and recommend the simplest possible administrative processes for application. To me, it sounds like common sense that they would go down that path. Under the bill, although licence fees have been set by individual local governments, guidelines will be made in consultation with stakeholders about the components of licence fees. The fee for a single application for multiple premises could be structured in a way that would not result in increased costs for business. For example, an application for four licences where the food business has four premises in one local government area could be made on a single form and a fee charged might consist of one application fee and the equivalent of four licence fees, which includes the cost of inspecting each site. I will repeat that. We might look at a system of one application fee for multiple sites plus the equivalent of four licence fees to cover the costs of inspections of each visited site. I think that is probably a pretty balanced approach. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: This will be worked out in consultation with particularly the LGAQ as we go to the next stage of sitting down and talking about the regulations that would underpin the legislation. The member also questioned how inspection and licence fees would be set. These fees will be set by each local government and are payable by the food business to the local government. That allows local government to cover its enforcement costs. That fee cannot be any more than the reasonable costs involved. Guidelines will be issued by Queensland Health to assist local government to set appropriate fees and to encourage consistency. 158 Food Bill 15 Feb 2006

The auditing of food businesses is undertaken by persons approved by Queensland Health, which may include local government officers. The fees for auditing will be set through negotiation between the auditing business and the food business. The member for Toowoomba South expressed concern about the impact of the bill on small, not- for-profit groups such as small sporting clubs. Other members also raised this issue. Let me assure the House that the bill goes to great lengths to minimise its impacts on not-for-profit groups and to make it clear as to how it affects not-for-profit groups, which is far from the case under the current act. The bill exempts from its operations food given away for charitable purposes, state school tuckshops and food made for donation to a non-profit organisation for sale. For example, that means that a person baking a cake at home to give to a school fete is exempted from this legislation. The bill reduces the regulatory burden on non-profit organisations by requiring only those organisations that sell meals on 12 or more occasions a year to be licensed. ‘Meals’ are defined as food that is intended to be eaten by a person sitting at a table with cutlery. Therefore, I need to make it very clear that, under this bill, fundraising activities such as cake stalls, sausage sizzles, hamburger stalls and lamington drives will not be required to be licensed. Mr Terry Sullivan: Will not be required? Mr ROBERTSON: Will not required to be licensed under the bill. In addition, other exemptions apply to licensing, such as meals where the consumer participates in its preparation, such as NGO- supported accommodation; preprepared food that is heated or prepared in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, such as a non-government canteen that heats frozen lasagna; and low-risk food, such as cereal or fruit toast, that would be served at a sporting club breakfast or after sport training. Proper enforcement of the legislation will be aided by guidelines to be issued under the legislation. There has been extensive consultation with not-for-profit groups in developing these provisions. That is why we are pleased to say that key groups such as the CWA and Meals on Wheels support this legislation. The member for Tablelands was concerned about the impact of this legislation on small businesses that served food off site. I will clarify the situation. Catering involves the preparation and serving of hazardous foods of a predetermined type for a set number of people at a set time. Off-site catering involves the preparation at one site, transport and then service at another site. The preparation of hazardous food, storing, transporting and then serving creates risks that must be managed. Thus off- site caterers will be required to develop a food safety program. As members would realise, under the legislation the delivery of food alone does not constitute off- site catering. Food safety programs will not be required for the delivery of food. To explain further, a small organisation that occasionally prepares food, such as sandwiches and cakes, and which delivers them for eating without any further handling would not require a food safety program. It is also worth noting that a food safety program is required only for licensed food businesses. As many not-for-profit organisations are not required to be licensed, they would also not be required to develop food safety programs. I also clarify that mobile food businesses, such as pie vans or ice-cream vans, are not considered to be an off-site caterer and will not be required to develop a food safety program. The member for Darling Downs raised the issue of water carriers delivering water to home rainwater tanks which are not free of matter but which do not harm the health of the resident. The simple response is that the bill requires water carriers to be licensed. Water is an essential food and an essential ingredient in food. People who purchase water are entitled to receive a safe and suitable product. Water is carted not only to homes but also to food businesses. What a person does in their home does not need to be regulated. Finally, the member for Nicklin raised concerns about red tape. In the development of the bill, Queensland Health worked very closely with both local government and industry to reduce the regulatory burden. One such example is the present requirements for a food business to have both the owner licensed and the premises registered. This has been reduced in the bill to a single licence covering both the owner and the premises. Another example is the licensing provisions for mobile food premises. Presently a mobile food business must obtain a licence and registration for every local government area in which it operates. This has been greatly rationalised in the bill to a requirement to be licensed under a single local government with this licence allowing operation in any local government area. Queensland Health will develop a register of all mobile food businesses to support this rationalisation. Yet another example is the bill’s clarification of what businesses are required to be licensed. Presently, businesses such as petrol stations selling packaged food or stores selling tea and coffee only can be licensed. The bill recognises the low risk of packaged food and has removed this requirement for licensing. Once again I thank members for their contributions during this debate. It has been a very long road to get to this stage. I hope that the broader community will appreciate that this significant review of 15 Feb 2006 Health System 159 one of our most fundamentally important acts has delivered a much improved set of regulations in the interests of Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Debate, on motion of Mr Robertson, adjourned.

HEALTH SYSTEM Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.31 pm): I move— That this parliament endorses the following targets for the restoration of the dysfunctional Queensland health system. Before the end of the year the government must ensure that: • All emergency departments must be open and operating successfully. • At least 500 of the hospital beds closed by the Beattie government be reopened and staffed to avoid bed block. • At least 10 of the maternity wards closed by the Beattie government be reopened and fully functioning including Beaudesert and Emerald. • All category 1 surgery carried out on time with 95 per cent of category 2 and 80 per cent of category 3 carried out within established time frames. • Sufficient intensive care beds be reopened to permit all planned surgery to proceed. And that these targets be the benchmarks by which the Premier’s promise to resign be measured. It is very important that this parliament sets benchmarks against which it can judge this government’s performance in the Health portfolio in Queensland. We have heard much in recent times about what this government proffers to do in this important portfolio area. Surprisingly, in the last couple of weeks we have heard from the Premier himself as he has been experiencing an opportunity to review his own mortality about what he will do if he is unable to fix the health crisis in Queensland. What the Premier has not told the people of Queensland is what the benchmarks are against which his performance and his success and the success of his government in the area of health can be judged. That is what Queenslanders are asking today. If the Premier is not prepared to set those benchmarks against which we in this parliament can judge him—the parliament which represents the people of Queensland—then, frankly, who is prepared to set those benchmarks? What the Premier would like to see happen is this: that he make some grand statements, that he says sorry yet again, that he says he is going to fix something and that he says the corner has been turned and everything is going to be better later this year, everything will be fine and everyone will have forgotten about it. Frankly, that is not going to happen. The people of Queensland have heard it all before. They have heard all the spin. They have experienced all the false promises. They have experienced the Premier and his deception on the issue of health—he has been saying ad nauseam since he was appointed health minister in 1995 that he would listen and make things better and all those sorts of things. I simply say to the Premier today that he has had 7½ years or more as Premier of this state and the health crisis in Queensland is something of his own making. The people of Queensland want a clear set of parameters, benchmarks against which they can judge him and his government’s performance in the area of health. They have had enough of the Premier saying that things are going to be fixed. The reality is that things have not been fixed. Every time the waiting lists for elective surgery in this state get worse we see the Premier and his health minister, whoever that may be, embark upon another stunt— he turns up and expresses some sort of affinity, some sort of latter day Bill Clinton approach to politics where he says that he shares their pain. He then protests against himself and his government’s performance on health and says that he is going to fix it. The next time there is a health crisis and those figures get worse, he turns around and says that he is going to fix it again. Then we get another set of glossy brochures—a report in 2002, health workforce reports, the Davies and Morris royal commissions and in October last year we had the 10-point plan, or whatever it was, from the health minister. Things are just not getting better. If the Premier is serious about performing and serious about his commitment not only as Premier but also as a government to make health better in Queensland, then what is wrong with establishing a clear set of guidelines so that the people of Queensland can judge his performance? I suspect I know why—because he knows that he will not meet them. He wants this to be nebulous. He wants this to be something which is debatable in his eyes and in the eyes of Queenslanders. My challenge today is very clear: join with the opposition in parliament to set these guidelines and benchmarks for the restoration of the Queensland health system. It has been apparent to us over the last couple of days that this government knows nothing about the basics in health. The government does not have any substance when it comes to the real issues. We have been pursuing the fundamentals with this health minister in this place for the last two days. If a government is going to embark upon any campaign to shift blame to another jurisdiction or seek to give the impression that the system is in trouble and needs to be fixed, then it should know the basics. In the last two days in this parliament the opposition has asked the health minister some very simple questions 160 Health System 15 Feb 2006 such as: what is the number of medical students in our universities in Queensland today and how many will there be in 2010? Could he answer those questions? No, he could not. Mr Caltabiano: He had no idea. Mr SPRINGBORG: He had absolutely no idea, as the honourable member for Chatsworth said. When the opposition asked the minister how many training places are in our public hospital system now and how many would be there in 2010 to ensure that our doctors can be trained as postgraduates once they have graduated from medical school, what was the answer? Mr Caltabiano: No idea. Mr SPRINGBORG: He had no idea. The minister did not have a clue. He could not answer that particular question. When we asked him in parliament yesterday how many doctors had resigned over the last 12 months in the Queensland health system, could he answer that? No. He had no idea whatsoever. We asked him about the number of bureaucrats vis-a-vis doctors who have been appointed in the Queensland health system over the last 12 months. Could he answer that question? No, he could not. Today could the minister answer our question on the fundamental issue of the number of hospital beds which this government has closed in the last five years? He had no idea. He could not tell us. Notwithstanding the fact that the opposition asked him prior to Christmas to provide a hospital by hospital breakdown of some of these issues, he could not provide us with an answer in the parliament today. Is that the mark of a person or a government that is up to the job? In order to fix a problem, in order to be able to provide a better system to the patients of Queensland, a government must first know the extent of the problem and the issues at hand. The government has no idea—no idea of the number of medical graduates last year, no idea of the projection to 2010, no idea of the number of training places in our hospitals today, no idea of the number of training places in 2010, no idea of the number of bureaucrats appointed vis-a-vis medicos in our hospitals, no idea of the hospital beds which have been closed, no idea of the resignations of doctors in our hospitals. Is this the mark of a government which is across the Health portfolio in Queensland? No way. The opposition wants to provide some guidance. If the Premier is fair dinkum about setting some benchmarks in Queensland against which his success or otherwise can be judged, then join with us in a bipartisan way. Frankly, I say to honourable members opposite: what is wrong with the criteria that have been laid down in this motion, and that is that before the end of the year the government must ensure that—and this is the first dot point—all emergency departments must be open and operating successfully. One would have thought that that is the mark of a successful health system operating in Queensland. To say otherwise means that the Premier thinks it is acceptable that after 7½ years in government and after the chaos and crisis he has caused not all emergency departments must be opened and operating successfully. What is wrong with opening at least 500 of the hospital beds that have been closed by the Beattie government since it took office? That would help to avoid what the government calls bed block. What is wrong with opening up more beds? Today the government announced an extra 60-odd beds but would not tell us how many it has closed in the past five years. We understand that at the PA and the RBH alone the number is about 600. What is wrong with reopening 500 of those beds? What is wrong with reopening and making fully functional at least 10 of the maternity wards closed by the Beattie government, including the wards at Beaudesert and Emerald hospitals? That is about providing maternity and birthing opportunities for mothers in their local communities. Over 12 months ago a report was delivered to this government by Dr Cherrell Hirst. That was a great report. It was lauded by virtually everyone in Queensland who knows anything about maternity services. What has happened under this government since that time? More maternity services have been closed and none have actually reopened. There has been a net loss. What is wrong with setting that particular benchmark? What is wrong with a benchmark that states that all category 1 surgery will be carried out on time, and 95 per cent of category 2 and 80 per cent of category 3 surgery will be carried out within established time frames? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with saying that we will ensure that there will be no unacceptable delays for category 1 elective surgery patients in Queensland? We are talking about patients who require lifesaving surgery within 30 days or they could die. What is wrong with actually setting those benchmarks? What is wrong with ensuring that sufficient intensive care beds be reopened to permit all planned surgery to proceed? Are the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Health Minister scared of not being able to meet the benchmarks? Do they want to be able to have some nebulous debate at the end of the year in which they can say ‘We have met our set of criteria and a bunch of backroom boys have said that we have been successful’? They should set some benchmarks against which they can be judged, because under this government the health system in Queensland is in crisis. This government does not preside over a smart government. It presides over a crisis government in a crisis state. We want to set benchmarks and we want some basics. This is about getting the basics right. 15 Feb 2006 Health System 161

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.43 pm): I rise to support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition because it is about time that we had some substance to the plans being put forward by the Labor Party. Why do I say that? It is quite clear that over the past 7½ years this government has roamed around the state saying, ‘We have a plan to fix the problem.’ In fact, people will remember that two years ago they went to the election saying just that. They said, ‘We will fix the hospital system and we have a plan.’ Two years later, what do we hear? ‘We have a plan to fix the hospital system.’ They have plenty of plans but no results. Mr Caltabiano: Plans to fail. Mr QUINN: Plans to fail. Without benchmarks, targets and a government that holds itself openly and honestly accountable to achieve those benchmarks and targets, we will hear more of what we have heard for the past 7½ years—that is, more plans and more failure. We cannot afford any more failures. Today the Minister for Health was asked about category 1 waiting lists which in the past 12 months have blown out from 77 to 414 or from 4.3 to 18 per cent. What did the minister say when asked when those lists would be brought under control? His answer was— The commitment that I will give the honourable member is that we will be working flat out on a daily basis to reduce those elective surgery waiting list figures. Mr Caltabiano: In other words, no idea. Mr QUINN: Yes, and the question is, what have they been doing for the past two or three years? Loafing with their feet up on their desks? Dr Flegg: Not working. Mr Caltabiano: Not working flat out. Mr QUINN: Certainly not working flat out. Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Liberal Party, direct your comments through the chair. Mr QUINN: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The inevitable conclusion is that they have not been working flat out. They will not work hard, they do not have the right policy or initiatives in place and they certainly will not commit to a benchmark or a target because they will not work hard and they know that they cannot get the results. Today another question was asked about when the emergency department at Caboolture Hospital will be opened. The Minister said— The simple answer to the question of the member opposite about when Caboolture Hospital will reopen to the level of service that it provided previously is: When we recruit sufficient doctors. Again, they have no idea. In 12 months time this department will be closed and what will the answer be? ‘We have not been able to recruit a doctor.’ There is no commitment whatsoever. Forty maternity wards have been closed and this government is not willing to commit to reopening any of them. Despite the hundreds of hospital beds that have been closed by the government over the past four or five years, it is not willing to talk about reopening more than 66 beds. In terms of retaining doctors, the government will give absolutely no commitment whatsoever. The churn-over figure that the minister used in the House today is absolutely frightening. In the six-month period from June 2005 to January this year, 761 doctors have left our public hospital system. That has to be at least 20 or 25 per cent, or perhaps even more. That is a horrific figure when we want to retain experienced senior medical officers to ensure that they can train the next graduates who come into the hospital system. There is a rapid de-skilling of the hospital system and it will be unable to cope with graduates who come through in the future. Let us look at what this government proposes to do. It has plenty of plans and plenty of stunts, but gives no commitment to achieving any realistic goals. It does not have the discipline to set targets for itself so that it can be independently judged in the public arena. That is the absolute tragedy here. The government has the plans and the money, but it does not have the discipline to actually achieve its goals or its targets because it does not know what they are. There is a nebulous thing floating in the arena, but there are no targets and no benchmarks. What the government does have is a plan and a stunt for every occasion. That is what this government is about: more plans and more stunts, but nothing realistic. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (5.47 pm): I move— That all parts after ‘parliament’ are deleted and the following parts inserted: 1. notes the significant pressures on all health systems in Australia in terms of increasing demand brought about by an increasing and ageing population; 2. notes the significant shortages of doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in Australia to meet these increasing demands; 3. notes the Beattie government’s response to these demands by: • injecting $6.4 billion in new funding for Queensland’s health system; • the initiatives to recruit doctors, nurses and allied health professions from interstate and overseas; 162 Health System 15 Feb 2006

• the significant increases in salaries paid to doctors working in Queensland Health to ensure Queensland retains its existing workforce and attracts new doctors from interstate and overseas; • today’s announcement to open 66 new beds as an immediate response to relieve access block at a number of major public hospitals throughout Queensland with another 170 to be opened by mid-2007; 4. notes the positive results gained by Queensland from the Council of Australian Governments meeting which is outlined in the communiqué tabled by the Premier this morning; and 5. expresses its support of the Premier’s commitment to make responding to these health challenges the No. 1 priority of the Beattie government. It is typical of the opposition to ask us to do something that it could not achieve when it was in power. Let us hear some truth and look at its record. The total number of patients waiting longer than acceptable in categories 1,2 and 3 had blown out from 7,344 in 1996, when the opposition came to power, to 8,577 by February 1998. On the coalition government’s first set of waiting list figures in 1996, 32 per cent of the 23,208 patients in all three categories had waited too long. By February 1998, that had blown out to 35 per cent of 24,755. Worse was the way in which category 2 patients—that is, semiurgent patients—had to wait. In 1988, as the opposition we released figures that showed that on 1 January 1997, 38.5 per cent of category 2 patients had waited too long. By December 1997, that had blown out to 40.5 per cent. Based on what we have put forward, we look like angels compared to that incompetence. Basically, not only are they incompetent in opposition but they were also incompetent in government. They should not talk to us about track records. I shall table two things. The first is the waiting times for category 1 surgery, their targets and a cabinet document which we obtained in opposition that sets out the figures that I have just released. I table those for the benefit of the House. Let us have no more incompetent nonsense from those opposite. This document shows that when the opposition was in government its waiting lists were almost twice as bad as ours are at the moment, notwithstanding the difficulties that we have had. That is why they are not fit for government and that is why they should never be allowed back into government. We do have problems in health and, if members opposite come back into government, those problems will be twice as bad. That is the evidence and the figures are very clear. Opposition members: Ha, ha! Mr BEATTIE: They may laugh, but their cabinet document confirms it. Both members opposite were in that cabinet. The Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the National Party were responsible for waiting times where 40.5 per cent of patients waited too long. I assure those gentlemen opposite that they will be hearing more of that statistic over the next few weeks and months. Let us move on. It is no wonder Mr Springborg and Mr Quinn were part of a cabinet decision to hide these figures from freedom of information legislation. What target did the coalition set for itself in category 2? Not five per cent, not 10 per cent, not 20 per cent. It decided a realistic target for treating semiurgent category 2 patients on time, that is within 90 days, was 40 per cent. The member opposite has no credibility on waiting lists—absolutely none. Ms Bligh: Four times. Mr BEATTIE: Four times. In other words, the coalition was prepared to tolerate four out of every 10 patients waiting for more than three months for operations that they should have had in less than 90 days. That is the opposition’s track record. Forget about the rhetoric and the hot air; that is what it did in government. Talk about incompetent! It was the worst handler of health that this state has ever seen. This policy was published in the State Social Development Strategy in February 1998. For seven years my government has done better than that and will do better in the future. For the whole seven and half years that we have been in government we did better than that. The incompetent rabble opposite know exactly what they did when they were in government. Queensland Health has consistently produced better results under my government than it did under the coalition government. Let us talk about facts. Let us talk about the truth. That is exactly where we are. On 22 January I announced a 10-point plan to address current issues. I can report progress on each one of these points. Firstly, the urgent establishment of the clinicians emergency department task force. This group of clinical heads of the state’s emergency departments has now met three times. It is working closely with the three newly appointed area managers of Queensland Health. It is working well. Secondly, in relation to access block solutions, $3 million has been allocated in 2005-06. Many of our emergency department clinicians say more efficient movement of patients from emergency to ward beds or other care will improve working conditions, treatment times and outcomes for patients. Every hospital in Queensland was instructed by the director-general to investigate how many beds could be opened to assist with solving access block across Queensland’s health system. Today the health minister, Stephen Robertson, announced a major breakthrough with the immediate opening of 66 beds. There will eventually be 170. Thirdly, we are holding a direct appeal to doctors in Queensland, especially women doctors. Advertisements have been placed. 15 Feb 2006 Health System 163

Fourthly, there is an interstate and international recruitment campaign. We are continuing with our overseas recruitment campaigns and a specialised recruitment team is assessing new applications. Fifthly, we will publish information on staffing levels and emergency department status reports. Queensland Health will make available detailed reports on hospital staffing on a monthly basis. Its web site will also carry daily status reports. This is being done. I table for the information of the House those plans and the responses to what we are doing. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (5.51 pm): I second the amendment moved by the Premier. I welcome the opportunity to speak in tonight’s debate because it gives me the chance to remind all members, including those opposite, of the very substantial commitments that this government has made to health, particularly in the recent mini-budget. Nothing could speak more clearly of our firm resolve and determination to turn the corner on health in this state than our commitment to put into the Health budget an extra $6.4 billion over the next five years. These funds have been dedicated to ensuring that we are in a position to recruit more doctors, more nurses, more allied health professionals. These funds will also ensure that we are in a position to pay our doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and all of the workers in our health system the salaries that they deserve and that will make us competitive with other states in difficult recruitment stakes at a time when we are experiencing shortages around the country. It also is a budget that will see much needed equipment and the opening of new beds. However, this $6.4 billion commitment has not come without some very tough decisions and without a deal of pain. As members may recall, we are funding the $6.4 billion through a number of sources. Firstly, our strong surplus has allowed us to fully fund the 2004-05 capital program and to extinguish Queensland Health’s $493 million debt and, thereby, save on interest payments. Members will recall that on a number of occasions the health minister has pointed out that it was the failed administration of the hospital system in this state prior to the Goss government being elected that left Queensland Health with that almost $500 million debt which it has been servicing for far too many years. Secondly, we have looked into our own backyard to make sure that we are delivering services in all other areas as efficiently as we can and to ensure that where savings can be made in the delivery of other services we are making those savings and we are prioritising them for the Health budget. To this end, we have put in place a new Service Delivery and Performance Commission that is charged with reviewing the activities across a number of service delivery areas. We have also imposed a one per cent efficiency dividend on the appropriate government departments while, at the same time, exempting front-line service delivery in key areas from that dividend. I have to say that is more than the previous government did under its Treasurer, who imposed efficiency dividends and did not exempt front-line services. It certainly did not exempt front-line services in Health. We have also made a number of changes in relation to the administration of our gambling revenue, including the redirection of the Major Facilities Levy directly into health, and we have changed the statewide cap on gaming machines to see further funds go directly into health. As I said, all of that could not speak more highly of this government’s determination to prioritise Queensland Health not only this year and not only over the life of the five-year plan. Those funding arrangements that I have outlined will see us in a position in the out years, on a recurrent basis, of being able to ensure that Queensland Health is well placed to meet the needs of ordinary Queenslanders into the future. I note that the Leader of the Opposition describes his motion as an attempt to offer this government some guidelines on how we might improve things in Queensland Health. Nothing could be more woeful than the display we have seen this week from the opposition when it comes to offering an alternative. We have seen plenty of knocking, plenty of whingeing, plenty of hypocrisy and plenty of double standards, and this motion is just a continuation of that. What we have not seen is any kind of realistic alternative by way of policy. We have seen a constant contradiction from within the so-called coalition. Recently, the shadow minister for health, the member for Moggill, for example—and I thank him for this—came out and said that the salary deal that was offered to our doctors in the last couple of weeks was in fact a good start and a much-needed improvement to salaries. However, it was interesting to note that in exactly the same newspaper the Leader of the Opposition condemned the government for making these salary offers to doctors and was appalled that we would be offering our doctors that kind of money. I suggest they talk to each other about what doctors’ salaries should be. The member for Moggill has also been on radio in relation to Caboolture Hospital, endlessly calling on the government to employ locums, to fill the gaps in our emergency wards no matter what the cost. He was acknowledging that the cost would be expensive but implored us over and over again to use locums and to plug holes in other emergency departments. Then the minute that we pulled together a solution that involved locums from CareFlight, who is the first person out whingeing? Who is the first person out saying that this will cause resentment, that this is wrong, that we should not be doing it? He could not stick to his own policy for five minutes. 164 Health System 15 Feb 2006

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.56 pm): If the government chooses to amend away or oppose this motion it shows one thing and that is that it is not serious about fixing the health system. The people of Queensland are no longer going to buy another promise to fix up health. They have heard it time and time again about the world-class health system—the health system that has no problems. On 27 April 2004 the previous health minister in this government told this very place that there was no access block; there was no bed shortage. Today the government is telling us that it will open more beds after it told us there were no problems. All we have asked for in this motion is for the government to set a target of modest goals for improving the health system in Queensland. Quite frankly, the people of Queensland are not going to buy the government’s story any longer unless it tells the people what it is going to do and it achieves those targets. Government members can no longer get up and start promising things. Honourable members should have a look at the targets we have asked the government to accept. They are all modest, achievable targets. Firstly, they relate to emergency departments. Emergencies are just that— life-threatening medical situations. These patients cannot be moved from one hospital to another down the road without endangering their lives. Part of the basic goal of fixing the health system would require the government to keep the emergency departments open. In opposing this motion or amending it, those opposite are saying they do not have any intention of getting our emergency departments open. If they intend to get our emergency departments open they would support the motion. It is a reasonable, achievable goal that the people of Queensland expect. I turn now to the opening of beds. As the Leader of the Opposition said, at the Royal Brisbane and the PA hospitals alone 600 hospital beds were abolished—in two hospitals. They abolished more in Townsville. The goal of achieving 500 beds is an achievable goal and it is absolutely essential to fixing the system. The government cannot stop the access block that has crippled our emergency departments; it cannot reverse the disastrous deterioration in elective surgery if it does not have beds to put patients in. Once again the government, by refusing to commit to a modest goal of getting more hospital beds so that elective surgery can be done and access block can be moved out of emergency departments, is telling the people of Queensland that it is not serious, it is not going to open sufficient beds to fix the hospital system in this state. Likewise, the goal in relation to maternity units is a very modest, achievable goal. In the life of the present government it closed 40 per cent of all the maternity units in this state. We are only proposing a goal to re-open 10 of them—not even all the ones that it closed—including major maternity units like Emerald and Beaudesert, delivering hundreds and hundreds of babies every year. The closure of maternity units has failed families and mothers in this state, preventing them from having the basic right of having their baby near their own community or near their family. If this government is serious about fixing the health system why will it not commit to a modest goal of re-opening 10 of the 30 or so maternity units that it closed? It would be a great act of goodwill and good faith to the people of Queensland to set that goal and be held accountable if it does not achieve it. But it is not willing to be held accountable at all; it is not willing to have any goal put in front of it. The government just wants to tell the people of Queensland that it will fix it. In six months and 12 months time it will still be saying that it will fix it and we will not be any better off than we are now. It is the same situation with waiting lists. The modest targets we have set for waiting lists in relation to category 1 and category 2 are just slight improvements on what they were 12 months ago before this catastrophic failure of the system in elective surgery. There are insufficient beds, there are insufficient resources. This would commit the government and show that it was serious about fixing the underlying problems so that reasonable health outcomes could be achieved, particularly in the most critical category of surgery. But, no, no, no, the government will not commit to the people of Queensland or be held accountable to fix the elective surgery system. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.01 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Premier and seconded by the Deputy Premier. Confronted with a national and international shortage of doctors our government has embarked upon the most comprehensive and extensive recruitment and retention campaign of any government in this state’s history. Whilst we have been working hard to find solutions to longer term problems, like the shortage of doctor training places in our universities, we have also been facing up to the urgent need to both attract new doctors to Queensland and also keep the doctors that we already have. That is why significantly improved pay and conditions for doctors was such a key part of the $6.4 billion extra funding for health that was announced in last October’s mini- budget. Based on direct consultation with doctors we were told that if we wanted to get on top of the workforce shortages we needed to fix up doctors’ salaries and that is exactly what we have done. We have provided an extra $633 million over the period to 2008-09 for Queensland Health doctors and an extra $100 million for visiting medical officers. Dr Flegg: Do you think that it is going to fix the system; is that what you are telling us? Mrs MILLER: Well, those opposite asked us to do it. The opposition wanted us to do it and we have delivered it. We did not stop there. As members will recall, the government has recently further 15 Feb 2006 Health System 165 enhanced remuneration packages for senior doctors providing an additional $272 million over three years. That is two significant pay increases in a matter of months which have elevated Queensland to the most competitive place for doctors to live and work. Based on publicly available award rates, Queensland is the head of the pack for all levels of senior doctors and we are proud of it. It is a total investment of more than $1 billion and it shows that this government is serious about retaining our current medical workforce and recruiting more doctors to fill the vacancies throughout the state, including our rural and regional communities. As important as these initiatives are, there is more to boosting our doctor numbers than money. This government is also making significant progress in reforming the organisation of Queensland Health because we want to make it a better employer. Doctors have told us that this must be done. We have listened to the doctors and we are delivering. Not one member over this side of the House— Mr Messenger interjected. Mrs MILLER:—including the member for Burnett, like what we are doing because we will deliver for Queensland. Determined to ensure greater clinician involvement in the running of the health system, last weekend we advertised nationally for highly experienced clinicians to fill the roles of clinical chief executive officers. These roles will be at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Rockhampton Base Hospital and Cairns Base Hospital. When appointed these clinical CEOs will work alongside the district managers and provide vital clinical leadership at these hospitals. Whilst these initiatives put Queensland in a much stronger position to retain and attract doctors from within Australia, the shortage is such that we will still need to recruit overseas trained doctors. In many areas, overseas trained doctors are the medical backbone of our health system, especially in our major regional hospitals. On behalf of the government I thank these doctors for their hard work and their dedication to Queensland. To speed up the time that it takes to get overseas trained doctors who have expressed an interest in working in Queensland actually working in Queensland and treating Queenslanders, last year the government established a work-for-us recruitment team. This team is 100 per cent focused on guiding overseas applicants through the complex maze of registration and practising requirements. In effect, this team’s role is to case manage each suitable applicant according to their personal needs. This will not in any way diminish the rigour of our current checks and balances, rather it will complement existing work. The government is continuing to actively recruit doctors from overseas—targeting the UK, Germany, Canada and New Zealand in particular—with a view to producing a positive outcome for staffing shortages across Queensland. This is a clear demonstration of the commitment of the Beattie government to address the shortage of doctors in the short term, the medium term and the long term. This government is prepared to listen to our clinicians, to take their advice seriously and to deliver solutions in the best interests of our staff and, most importantly, our patients. Those opposite whinge, we work. That is what those opposite do not like: they whinge and we work. The Beattie government will continue working around the clock to develop a medical workforce of sufficient numbers and skill to provide quality health care to the people of Queensland and we will not rest until we deliver it. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.07 pm): Health is one of the most serious issues that we have to deal with in this parliament. The promise by the Premier to resign at the end of this year if he does not fix the absolute mess that he has led the health system into needs to be brought to account. That is what we are doing tonight. We are setting some benchmarks for this Premier. The government is a government of stunts. We see the badges and the yellow ribbons that are an insult to the people of Caboolture and Queensland, but we are going to bring them to account tonight. I will tell members about the mess that we inherited when we took over government after Peter Beattie had been the health minister. We had the worst waiting lists in Australia: 43 per cent of category 1 patients were done on time, leaving some 57 per cent not done on time. We put in place Surgery on Time and within 12 months from 1 July 1996 we took that up to nearly 98 per cent of people having their category 1 operation on time. In the 10 months from 1 July 1997 we took the category 2s up from the mess that they were in when we came to government to somewhere in the order of 80 per cent before the election. In those two years we did almost 13,000 more operations than had happened in the previous two years of the Goss government. That is what the coalition could do and that is what we will do because our shadow minister has a plan, which he has already announced, to put in place boards at the hospitals so that we will get good leadership and management of our hospitals. I want to tell this parliament tonight about some of the tragic things that are happening in our system. We have seen the closure of accident and emergency departments at hospitals like Caboolture, we have seen staff forced out and tonight we heard that 761 staff have resigned in the past 12 months. I think the figure for the past six months was over 500. 166 Health System 15 Feb 2006

The health minister, to use his own words, just does not get it, does he? The problem is that all the money in the world can be put in, but people do not want to work in a culture of bullying, intimidation, cover-up and Labor Party spin doctoring. People want to work in an honest system with decent leadership that starts right at the top with the health minister. They want to work in a system where they are valued, where they are treated as professionals and that realises, like we do, that the patient comes first. Let us look at the Emerald Hospital. My colleague Vaughan Johnson has, in his massive electorate, the Emerald Hospital at the eastern end of his electorate. It deals with almost 300 babies a year. Young families in a booming area now do not have obstetric services at the hospital. It was closed over the Christmas-New Year period and it is still closed. It is absolutely tragic for young families in those areas to lose services like that. Have a look at the mental health unit at Toowoomba. It is one of the major centres for mental health treatment because of the Baillie Henderson Hospital and the 57-bed unit at the Toowoomba Base Hospital. We look after all of south-western Queensland, from Gatton out to Birdsville. We should have eight specialists. At last count, when we brought the matter up in the local paper, Queensland Health came forward and said that it had four specialists. I can tell members that, of those four, one had already resigned and two were on extended leave. So we really had only one full-time specialist when we should have had eight. The rural people in south-western Queensland do not have access to a psychiatrist because we do not have enough specialists. People are languishing in the beds of that mental health unit because they are not being treated by psychiatrists, they are not receiving a proper regime of treatment and they are in there for too long. They are aggressive towards the staff. They attack and bully the staff. Some patients are even waiting to be sent over to the Baillie Henderson Hospital and they are not receiving the proper regime of treatment and care. The staff are devastated. The adolescent ward was closed down with one hour’s notice to families that their young ones were being sent to Brisbane. Orthopaedic services have been cancelled at the hospital because we do not have the surgeons. We are on constant bypass, which is almost unheard of for the Toowoomba Base Hospital. Country people, country doctors and ambulance officers have been told to bypass the Toowoomba Hospital. The other day, it was on bypass all day—even accident and emergency. Do members know how they fixed it? They moved an 82-year-old man from his hometown hospital to Gatton Hospital. His son had to go up and feed him. That is how this government treats the people of Toowoomba and that is what it is doing to people all around Queensland. It is an absolute disgrace how this government has let this system deteriorate. There are wonderful people who work in Queensland Health but the problem is the leadership, from the minister down—the succession of ministers that we have had. It is a Labor Party cover-up. It is the culture, it is the brutality and it is the intimidation. It forces out people like the great director of emergency services that we had about four or five years ago. They are all gone. They do not want to work here. There is only one solution: put us in and we will fix it. Time expired. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (6.12 pm): I am pleased to support the amendment moved tonight by the Premier and seconded by the Deputy Premier which seeks to deny the stunt of the opposition in setting so-called benchmarks. I am happy, as a member of this government, as are all 61 members on this side, to submit to a performance review in 12 months time—a performance review that the people of Queensland will judge at the next state election. The reason that I am happy to be a part of this government when it goes to the next state election is that this government has a $6.4 billion action plan to address the problems in health. Those problems have not been created overnight. Those problems, like most complex problems in government, are a legacy of a number of years. To give members a sense of the dimensions of this issue, the problems that we face across the board—in relation to maternity services, the Caboolture Hospital and the issues around Queensland—relate to the one simple fact that we simply do not have enough doctors. In 1976, the year that I was born, the population of Queensland was just over two million, and 205 people graduated from medical school. In 2004, the year that I was elected, the population of Queensland was just under four million and we trained just 229 people. The idea that this problem has come about in the last five minutes is simply fanciful, misleading and misplaced. I am pleased to be part of a government that has a plan to address these problems in the longer term. That plan starts immediately with the recruitment of more doctors, more nurses and more health professionals. It is a plan to recruit 300 extra doctors, 500 extra nurses and 400 additional health professionals by April next year. As the Minister for Health said earlier today, we are already 64 doctors ahead of where we were last July. We are also 197 nurses and 57 allied health professionals ahead of where we were. 15 Feb 2006 Health System 167

Members on the other side are fixated by the number of doctors who have left Queensland Health over that period of time and are ignoring the net increase. It is like suggesting that the Liberal Party is down two seats because Dr Watson and Mrs Sheldon did not come back to this parliament. It denies the fact that those seats were actually replaced by two other people and there was a net gain. The same argument or the same logic can be applied if they want to suggest that the focus—as is their want—is on the negative issue of the number of doctors who have been recruited to Queensland. Members opposite are the only ones who seem to suggest that we should not campaign for more graduate places for medicine in our universities. They are the only ones doing so, despite the fact that their Prime Minister has accepted the fact. They are the only ones doing so, despite the fact that all states around Australia have accepted the fact, as has the AMA in Victoria and Queensland. I noticed on the weekend that the president of the Victorian AMA, Dr Mark Yates, said in the Melbourne Age that we are way behind now in the number of undergraduate positions for doctors. He said that Victoria needs at least another 250 places and that the government has in fact asked for 240. Even the national president of the AMA admits the problem. He said that Victoria needs more students studying medicine and is quoted in the paper as admitting, ‘We are undersupplied already.’ The AMA, the other states and the Liberal Prime Minister have all accepted the dimensions of this problem as relating to a lack of medical places in universities. Opposition members are the only people who seem to be suggesting that the problem is not in fact a shortage of doctors and that our campaign for additional medical places for Queensland is somehow misguided. They also made suggestions about the training positions available in our hospitals. It is a dangerous exercise, but I have read through the two-page health policy released by the Liberals. I noticed that the policy does not include any commitment to campaign for extra undergraduate places or any identification that extra undergraduate places are needed in medicine. Without reference to how or the dollars attached and without any meat on the bones of the detail, the policy states that they will fund more training positions for specialists. Also, interestingly, that is above the line that says ‘fast-tracking the training of overseas doctors already in our hospitals’. The fact is that there are no easy fixes or quick fixes to this issue. This issue has been a generation in the making and it will take a long time to overcome. In the meantime, this government is getting on with the job of doing everything it can at this point to address the problem and to arrest the issues that we have in the health system. It is also important that we are doing things for the long term. Many people will not be around here in 10 or 15 years time when the extra students that we are campaigning for to study medicine in Queensland hit the stethoscopes in our hospitals. However, that does not mean that it is not the right thing to do now; that it is not the right time to face up to the problems of the past 25 years and to address them in a realistic and sensible way. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (6.17 pm): I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion and to oppose the Premier’s amendment. It has been 330 days since Toni Hoffman’s concerns about Dr Jayant Patel were raised in this parliament. I must congratulate her on being made a national local hero at the recent Australia Day Awards. Her courage meant that lives were saved and that we finally heard the truth. It is 330 days since we finally started hearing the truth about Queensland’s health system. Before that, it was the best health system in the world! It has been 330 days since we found out that the Bundaberg Hospital was almost dysfunctional. The people of Bundaberg and Burnett were dying unnecessarily and being harmed in a sick public health system. Doctors, nurses and allied health professionals were being bullied and victimised by arrogant public servants who were following the orders of arrogant Labor politicians. Which politician— was it the Premier or the former health minister—gave the order for a taxpayer funded, international air ticket to be bought for ‘Dr Death’? We still have not heard an answer to that very important question. The government has had 330 days to get the basics right and implement policies to fix Bundaberg Hospital. The Premier, Peter Beattie, has failed and has forgotten my community. Today, when the health minister announced extra beds for hospitals all around the state—Townsville, Ipswich and Redlands—Bundaberg Hospital missed out yet again. My community was forgotten. Indeed, my community was punished by this Labor government. Today in 2006 our hospital only has 120 beds. In 1989 we had 216 beds. At Bundaberg we have had a decrease in beds of more than 45 per cent while experiencing more than a 40 per cent increase in population, and today we received nothing more than a kick in the guts from the health minister and this Labor government. He talked about access block this morning, and he and the Premier have received enough correspondence from me and visited enough times to Bundaberg now after the ‘Dr Death’ scandal broke to know that Bundaberg is suffering from an endemic shortage of beds and therefore having severe access block. Empty beds are so scarce in Bundaberg that patients are lying in the corridors for more than five hours. Adults are being mixed with children in paediatrics. Sick patients are being prematurely discharged. Medical and surgical wards have an occupancy rate of more than 95 per cent with no surgical capacity whatsoever. There are 30 beds in medical and 30 in surgery and you are lucky if they ever have a spare bed there at all. Peter Beattie and the Labor Party have forgotten the victims of Dr Patel and their families. Peter Beattie and the Labor Party have forgotten the people of 168 Health System 15 Feb 2006

Bundaberg and the Burnett. Peter Beattie and his Labor Party have forgotten the nurses, doctors and allied health workers at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. Since Toni Hoffman spoke out our surgery waiting lists have grown, ICU has been downgraded to HDU, acute mental health care has been scrapped, we have lost 16 beds—and the Bundaberg Hospital should be the best hospital in Australia considering what happened there. That is where the meltdown started. It is not. Patel victims are being forced on waiting lists to see specialists. Patients are still being lied to by arrogant bureaucracy hell-bent on covering up and doing the Premier’s dirty work. I refer to the patient that I have written to the health minister about who recently contracted golden staph there. Doctors are being underpaid and bullied. I have just had a letter faxed to me by a group of anonymous doctors, not necessarily from Bundaberg, who say— We dare not put our names to a paper for fear of retribution. Queensland Health has not changed. They say that Queensland Health has not changed. Mrs Miller: Table it! Mr MESSENGER: I will table that letter and also tables showing how much doctors are being paid. Some of the doctors who make up the engine room of accident and emergency in our health services are being paid $23 an hour—$23 an hour! A second-year RMO— Mrs Miller: Rubbish! Mr MESSENGER: Look at the chart! A second-year RMO is being paid $25 an hour. A clerk working for Queensland Health is being paid the same amount. Mrs Miller: Table it! Mr MESSENGER: It is tabled. Time expired. Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (6.22 pm): What we have seen tonight is an opposition with new no ideas, an opposition that will take every opportunity to undermine the public health system in this state and the workforce that is part of Queensland Health. While we are working, it is whingeing. We do not need the three or four negative press releases every day from the opposition. We have moved past that, and we are getting on with the job of fixing the system. But where are its plans? While we are working day and night to fix Caboolture, it is still busy complaining and actively undermining the Caboolture Hospital. While we are getting on with the job of recruiting more doctors and new doctors to Bundaberg, what is the member for Burnett doing? Knocking, knocking, knocking the Bundaberg Hospital and the wonderful people who work there. Mr Messenger: Where’s the new beds? Mr ROBERTSON: I take the interjection, because if there was just a shred of honesty attached to the member for Burnett—just even a shred—he would know that the list of hospitals that I announced today were those hospitals where we could immediately open new beds. How can we open new beds at those hospitals? Because we have the staff to do it. We have the staff to do it. It is not the case that we have ignored Bundaberg whatsoever. But what we have done in consultation with the doctors and nurses at those individual hospitals is very carefully made sure that those announcements are sustainable. So what a load of nonsense. The leader of the opposition party, Mr Springborg, comes in here and talks absolute rubbish to the extent that— Mr Messenger interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: When he asks questions like what is wrong with opening all of the beds that are available in the system, if he were really serious he at some stage would have to acknowledge that in order to open all of the beds that are available in Queensland Health hospitals he needs the staff to do it. What have we been debating for the last month? That there is a shortage of doctors and that there is a shortage of nurses. It is actually not a question of money. We have put $6.4 billion on the table. We have put $1 billion of money into the pay packets of doctors. But we simply do not have enough. Even the Prime Minister admits it. The only people in denial about this are the opposition. And why? Because they are more interested in playing politics than dealing with the truth. The one thing we will never hear coming from the mouths of members of the opposition is ‘federal government’ and ‘doctor shortage’ in the one sentence. They just cannot bring themselves to say it despite the fact that when Mr Horan, the member for Toowoomba South, was minister for health for two years all he achieved in those two years was to increase the number of bureaucrats in Queensland Health by 1,260. That is not a bad effort. That is 630 a year—630 extra bureaucrats a year—yet members opposite come in here and want to be treated seriously by saying that they are going to cut the number of bureaucrats in Queensland Health by 2,000 yet in two years they increased them by 1,260. Despite that, we know that Mr Horan himself as minister had a fight with the federal government. He was actually seeking from Mr Wooldridge, the then federal minister for health, extra places at universities for more doctors. Why? Because, as Mr Horan himself said in his own press release, we are suffering a shortage of doctors. And what happened? He failed. What happens when the Premier goes to Canberra? We succeed where those opposite failed. They failed to increase the number of places at 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 169 universities during the time that they were in office, even though they had their mates in Canberra. It was their own mates who did them over. It has taken a Labor government to actually get the real increases that we need in place at our universities to train the doctors that we need, and the record speaks for itself. Those opposite stand condemned, and they particularly stand condemned in that I listened to what the Premier had to say about the so-called performance targets. They could not even meet them themselves when they were in office. What was the category 1 long waits when they were in office? It was 38.5 per cent. Gee, I wonder how the people of Bundaberg fared under those opposite with 38.5 per cent long waits for category 1. For category 2 it was 40.5 per cent. I do not know how the people of Bundaberg and the Burnett copped 40.5 per cent long waits for category 2 under those opposite, because those opposite were more interested in appointing bureaucrats than looking after patients. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 51—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 28—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Order! All future divisions on this issue will be of two minutes duration. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 51—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 28—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.38 pm to 7.30 pm.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES (OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOUR) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 5 October 2005 (see p. 3225). Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (7.30 pm): Honourable members will recall the introduction of these proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 by the member for Nicklin in October last year. Essentially, these proposed amendments would allow an individual to apply for the termination of a neighbour’s tenancy on the grounds of the tenant’s alleged objectionable behaviour despite the wishes of the tenant and the lessor or agent. The fact is that our cities and towns are now of greater density than they were in the past. That increased density has resulted in people living much closer to their neighbours. I appreciate that, owing to this increase in density, there has been an impact on people’s quality of life, particularly in relation to noise. As this is a problem relating to behaviour and is not a rental issue I do not believe that this amendment bill will resolve these issues and I oppose it—and so does the government—for several key reasons. Firstly, there are existing residential tenancy laws as well as other laws relating to peace, good behaviour, noise pollution, and general community standards. The evidence shows that the measures and safeguards currently in place provide a sufficient solution in the majority of instances. Already the Residential Tenancies Act allows a lessor or agent to take action on a tenant’s disruptive behaviour. They can serve a notice to the tenant requiring the behaviour to cease. If that does not happen within seven days, they can then issue a notice ending the tenancy and apply to the Small Claims Tribunal to evict the tenant if they do not leave. In 2004-05 the tribunal dealt with 206 such applications. That is clear evidence that lessors take action when the situation warrants it. Secondly, there is no evidence to support singling out tenants as the focus of such far-reaching measures. Although the member for Nicklin has labelled these people as the neighbours from hell, it is not always clear which neighbour’s behaviour is considered objectionable. It is a minefield of subjectivity that places unfair power in the hands of some and not others. The ‘neighbours from hell’ label used by 170 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006 the member for Nicklin applies not only to people who rent their homes; this label can apply to homeowners, their children and their guests. Thirdly, throughout 2005 the Residential Tenancies Authority liaised with key residential rental stakeholders representing a cross-section of this sector. Those stakeholders included the Property Owners’ Association of Queensland, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, the Tenants’ Union of Queensland, the Queensland Public Tenants Association, Queensland Shelter, the Caravan and Mobile Home Residents Association, the Queensland Caravan Parks Association, and the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers’ Association. Not one of those parties supported the proposed amendments. The overwhelming view is that the current measures are adequate and that tenancy law is not necessarily the best way to deal with community behaviour issues. Lastly, this year the Queensland government has already undertaken two significant reviews that are relevant to the issues the member for Nicklin is concerned about. This year there will be a full review of the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 and last year my ministerial colleague the Attorney-General announced that there will be a review of laws governing relations between neighbours. The last comprehensive review of the Residential Tenancies Act was carried out 10 years ago. It was a thorough review taking over two years. It involved extensive consultation and discussions with stakeholder groups and resulted in significant amendments to the act in 1998 to ensure that the act remained fair and balanced. Between 2000 and 2003 a more specific review was carried out which considered issues identified by the Residential Tenancies Authority in its administration of the act. A key issue that was considered was the issue of tenancy databases. This work resulted in amendments in 2003, which I brought into this place, for a new provision to deal with listings on tenancy databases. It was the first of its kind in Australia and brought fairness to the system. Last year I thought it was again time to undertake a comprehensive review of the Residential Tenancies Act. It is important that our laws remain relevant and effective. I am pleased to announce that the Residential Tenancies Authority will now begin this important work. The first step will be to give the public the opportunity to have their say. The authority will call for submissions by advertising in the media and on its web site. We are interested in hearing whether people believe that the act is achieving its intended objectives of balancing the rights and responsibilities of lessors and tenants. We also want to know whether there are serious problems that need to be addressed. The RTA will then consult with stakeholders to identify the key issues and report to me on options to address those issues. In my view—and the member for Nicklin is aware of this—the proposed amendments we are debating tonight are premature and potentially counterproductive. In regard to the review announced by the Attorney-General last August, I understand its aim is to modernise and improve the laws governing disputes between neighbours and to encourage the use of informal methods of dispute resolution. The broad scope of this review extends to neighbourhood complaints about noise, property boundaries, parking, the erection or repair of fences and retaining walls, the height of hedges used as a fence, overgrown vegetation, overhanging branches, damage from roots, odour, rubbish and pets. We need to see what comes out of this review. Essentially, it is a matter of balance to ensure fairness for the whole community. There is no value in coming up with bandaid solutions that give only part of the community some options and leave the rest high and dry. I am very concerned that there could be potential, though unintended, consequences as a result of this bill that could result in discrimination against renters and lessors being restricted in how and to whom they rent their properties and even an escalation of neighbourhood issues. It is my belief that this amendment would create more problems than it would solve. With the imminent comprehensive review by the RTA and with existing safeguards in mind, I view this bill as completely unnecessary and short-sighted. Information about how Queenslanders can contribute to the review will be available on the RTA web site or by contacting the RTA. I encourage all members and their constituents to make submissions. In summing up, the government and I personally do not see this bill in any shape or form as anything short of being a bandaid or a perceived bandaid solution that will create more problems than it will solve. In today’s Rockhampton Morning Bulletin there is an article about an 18-year-old man who jumped over the fence and allegedly assaulted his neighbour. It would seem that both of them are homeowners. The bulletin reported that the family of the younger man is offended by his neighbour’s behaviour—the dog mess in the yard, the noise and various other bits and pieces—and this assault was the result. This amending legislation will do nothing to ameliorate that problem. To me, the legislation also smacks of a degree of discrimination against people who rent. Just because people do not have the necessary finance to own their own home does not mean they should be targeted by somebody in the neighbourhood who has the good fortune to own their own home. The suggestion that because people have the money to own a home makes them necessarily better mannered, better neighbours, or more law abiding is something that I think all sides of politics would reject. I think this amending legislation is no solution to the problem. As I have indicated in this speech, we accept the fact that people who rent homes bring with them a necessity for fairness which can be established through the real estate agent having a list of those 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 171 people who are not going to do the right thing. This parliament endorsed the fact that there are tenants who do the wrong thing and, therefore, landlords should be protected from them. There is a reason why people can be listed on that database. I think that is as far as we should ever go in discriminating against people on the basis that they rent. Certainly in public housing tenancies we do not trammel the law. In accepting neighbourhood complaint, we take it through the necessary legal courses to have people evicted. As far as I am concerned, that is where it should end. In my view there is a terribly dangerous precedent to be set here by allowing vigilante behaviour in neighbourhoods against people simply because, for whatever reason, people do not like them because they rent. I think that would be an entirely dangerous precedent for parliament to set and I certainly will have no part in it. We will oppose this. I am quite surprised that the member proceeded with this legislation given that we were having the review. My understanding was—and I may be wrong in my understanding—that the member was happy with the review of the RTA Act that we were having this year. We were happy to have his input and that of the rest of the community. I again say that the government will be opposing this amendment bill. Time expired. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (7.40 pm): The coalition will be opposing the proposed Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill and we will do so on the basis of two principles. The first principle is that peace and good behaviour laws should apply equally to all residents irrespective of whether they own their own home or rent a home. It should not matter what their status is in terms of homeownership: the law should apply equally to everyone. If we go down this path of putting in place a set of laws that applies to renters and discriminates against them, then the question becomes: what other measures will be taken against those who rent for other purposes? I do not think anyone wants to see that. If there is a problem with the peace and good behaviour laws—whether they be renters or homeowners—then that is the law that needs to be adjusted, not some piece of legislation targeting one group within our community. That is the first principle on which we oppose this legislation. The second principle on which we oppose this legislation is that it denies the right of the property owner to deal with the matters affecting his or her property as the owner sees fit, subject to the existing laws. In other words, the onus should fall on the owner of the property—the landlord—if there is a problem with the tenant. That is where the responsibility should lie. It should not lie with a neighbour making a complaint to an independent body against the person renting. That is going far too far and denies the landlord of the right to manage his or her property in a way that they see fit. That is one of the fundamental tenets upon which our system of homeownership and property rights is based. Once we move away from that fundamental tenet then the question arises: what else do we erode in terms of the property rights of a homeowner? If we go down this track then a whole lot of other things can follow as well. I think those two principles are fundamental to this legislation and that is why we will not be supporting it. It raises more questions than it answers. As the minister said, it also opens up the possibility for further litigation. It erodes the rights of tenants and it erodes the rights of property owners. We will be opposing the legislation on that basis. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (7.43 pm): When the member for Nicklin first tabled his intention to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 on 24 November 2004 he gave an undertaking to report back to the House in 2005 to inform members of the level of support for his amendment. As the minister has indicated, no part of the residential real estate sector—none of those organisations representing tenants, lessors or agents—support the proposed amendments. The only support the member for Nicklin found for his amendments was the ‘not in my backyard’ types who seem to support what could turn into vigilante and discriminatory behaviour. The member for Nicklin has not cited any evidence to support the need for this bill other than to say that everyone knows about ‘neighbours from hell’. His proposed bill assumes that neighbours from hell are only ever neighbours who rent, which is blatant discrimination against tenants. As someone who has rented for the last three years, I certainly take offence to that assumption. Tenants come from a range of backgrounds and socioeconomic standings, and I challenge the stereotype that the member seems to be presenting. Disruptive neighbourhood behaviour is not restricted to tenants. Even if it were, tenants comprise about only one-third of Queensland’s population. What about the other two-thirds of society? A possible unintended consequence of the bill is the potential to increase problems already faced by tenants living in public housing, those on lower incomes or those who are identifiable members of minority groups. These tenants can be stereotyped as less desirable neighbours, and this bill would provide opportunities for harassment and legitimise discrimination against people simply on the basis of their type of tenure. Neighbourhood disputes where both parties rent or where the neighbour from hell is an owner-occupier are not considered by Mr Wellington’s bill. Nor does the bill limit who may make the application beyond ‘a person occupying a place near premises’. This could include a range of people 172 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006 who do not necessarily have any higher degree of permanence in the neighbourhood than the tenant being complained about, such as commercial tenants and residents in boarding houses. The amendment bill would also adversely affect the Department of Housing, which is the largest single lessor in Queensland. The bill does not restrict who can make an application to the tribunal and could encourage public housing tenants to lodge applications to terminate agreements for neighbouring public housing tenants. The Department of Housing already has clear procedures to deal with complaints about tenants’ behaviour and believes the current provisions work effectively and are adequate. Importantly, the bill does not balance the neighbour’s right of application with any obligations or responsibilities. The person making the application would be risking nothing, while for a tenant their home is at stake and means incurring costly relocation expenditure. If the application fails there are no consequences for the vexatious applicant, but tenants, lessors and agents may have lost time and money and experienced considerable stress in responding to the application. There is also no capacity for the Small Claims Tribunal to order the neighbour to defray costs the lessor may incur, such as reletting costs or the costs of having the property untenanted while a more suitable tenant for the neighbour is found. The neighbour, for example, may view every tenant as unsuitable because they object to certain types of rental housing, such as community housing tenants, disability services clients or emergency housing programs. There is no requirement on the neighbour to have attempted other reasonable steps to resolve the issues prior to applying to the tribunal. If disruptive neighbourhood behaviour is an issue, any response must apply to the entire community in all types of tenure, including homeowners, purchasers and other occupants of their dwellings, if it is to be effective. I am concerned that the provisions of this bill may ultimately lead to trivial and vexatious complaints and possibly become the first response rather than the last resort. The fundamental right to housing for all Queensland tenants is threatened and it is based solely on differences of opinions— simply because it is considered easier to move the renter than the owner-occupier no matter who is at fault. For these reasons, I do not support the member for Nicklin’s bill. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (7.47 pm): I rise tonight with an appreciation of what the member for Nicklin is trying to achieve. However, I do have a number of doubts as to how the legislation could be applied evenly and fairly. As a member of parliament, I have received numerous complaints about neighbours. Only the other day I was made aware of one neighbour who was renting a house next to a homeowner. When this particular renter became inebriated he would throw rocks and bricks on his neighbour’s roof in the early hours of the morning. The distress this caused the homeowners was such that they began looking for another property to purchase. Fortunately though, with police intervention, the harassment stopped. I also know of another group of people who have visited my office over the years. One day they are the best of friends and the next day they are coming to me wanting to either move them to new public housing or to get the other neighbour moved on. Like a woman scorned, hell hath no fury like a neighbour scorned. I know firsthand how difficult neighbourhood disputes can be but also how personal they can be. This is the difficulty I am facing with this legislation. There is such a fine line and to ascertain who is right and who is not can be torture. Some people may use this legislation in a purely vexatious manner just so that they can get their neighbour for a perceived wrongdoing. I am sure we have all had neighbours from hell at one point in our lives but should the harassment be either verbal or physical it is the responsibility of police to intervene. On this point I have to state that I have had one elderly woman who lived next to a group of young men who partied from dusk till dawn on an almost daily basis. When she rang the police one night, the policewoman asked her whether she herself had approached the young men. The poor woman was petrified and could not believe that the police wanted her, at 65 years of age, to go next door at 2 am to tell a group of young drunk, and goodness knows what else, men to be quiet. Police do have a role to play in putting a stop to unreasonable or objectionable behaviour, and that should be utilised. I know the extent that some people are prepared to go in order to be malicious. That is why I have concerns about this bill. I believe that, had I only been renting my current home, my neighbours would be doing everything they could to get me out. Property damage is another problem which, by rights, should not exist. In many rental properties, the owners pay agents to check on their homes. However, this responsibility is not always taken seriously. Before my mother and I moved to Queensland, her six-month-old house had been rented through an agent. We arrived at the house to find that the outside was a complete disaster. I told my mum to wait in the car whilst I went into the house to have a look. The damage was so bad that I went back to the car and told her not to go in because I knew that it would break her heart. For over twenty years she had saved for that house, and she worked two jobs to do so. When she did enter the house, she was reduced to tears. It took her, me and my cousin six weeks to get it anywhere near liveable. In my view, 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 173 the agent did not carry out their duty. Each month the agent lied to my mother over the phone, telling her what good shape the house was in. I believe that that makes them just as much to blame as the tenants. As I have already said, I know that some people do have dreadful neighbours, but I fear that nasty people could take advantage of this legislation and force someone to move. Like many others, my electorate is facing a housing shortage. Houses at the cheaper end of the market are virtually nonexistent. I feel that while this legislation may fix one problem, it could exacerbate another, that is, the rising problem of homelessness. Currently, real estate agents can access information which indicates a tenant’s history and property owners do have the right to choose their tenants. In an ideal world, everyone would be nice to each other and there would be no problems, but that is not the reality. Even if nine out of 10 complaints were true, I would not want to be the one person who was evicted because my neighbour did not like me, my dog or whatever. Under the current courses available, I have been able to settle the majority of disputes raised with me as the local member. However, no-one will ever will be able to stop people who have insufficient grounds but still try to make life difficult for another person. No legislation will stop that. My advice for people suffering physical, verbal or destructive abuse is to call either the police or the local member; that is what we are here for. Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (7.52 pm): It is my pleasure to contribute to the great show of unity that we have experienced so far in the debate on this bill. I agree with much of the contribution of the member for Gympie, as well as the remarks of the Leader of the Liberal Party and, indeed, the minister. Like the member for Gympie, I think that the member for Nicklin has a reasonable intent, although I do not think that this private member’s bill would achieve what he is hoping for. I think that his intent probably reflects some of the concerns that have been raised by members of his community. As members of parliament, we have probably all had to try to resolve neighbourhood disputes. It can be very frustrating to try to solve what is obviously a deep problem for a number of people without any way of working through those problems. Last week I talked to a constituent in Salisbury who is suffering quite significant harassment from a neighbour. A whole range of unattributable things have happened to that person. Of course, the police cannot deal with unattributable acts because there is no evidence that they have happened, such as with verbal and non-verbal harassment. My constituent has come home to find their property has obviously been entered and their trees have been damaged. However, the police cannot act even though these things are causing great difficulty in the neighbourhood. My constituent has complained to the police about this but they have been unable to do anything. Importantly in this case, both the person who has complained to me and the neighbour own the properties in which they live. Therefore, if passed this legislation would be powerless to address the concerns of my constituent. This legislation fails to deal with those types of complaints. In my office I receive a range of neighbourhood complaints and a lot of them are one-offs. In the past, some of them could have been about me. Many people have been involved in complaints about music being played too loud and too late. Miss Elisa Roberts interjected. Mr FINN: My dog is very well behaved. Neighbourhood complaints can involve people with mild disabilities who live in our communities. Often, the assistance that we give those people involves extra short-term care, helping them if they have run out of their medication or contacting their social worker or their support person to give them assistance. Those people need assisting and not evicting. A lot of the problems that I find in my neighbourhood have some element of that. I share the frustration of the member for Nicklin at not being able to get landlords’ agents to act, ensuring that everybody gets to enjoy our neighbourhoods in peace. A landlord may not have a good agent, but it frustrates me that agents will not assist us sometimes. The bill before the House tonight does not adequately address the problems associated with suburban disturbance. That is its intent, but it fails. Other members have said that the bill addresses one class of people, the tenants. The bill will not assist those not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. That fundamental flaw means that it is bad legislation. It is not a bad neighbours bill; it is a bad tenants bill. For that reason it is inadequate. The bill uses the wrong legislative tool to deal with the problem because the Residential Tenancies Act is fundamentally contract law governing property owners, their agents and tenants. Attempting to use this as a tool to address issues that are outside the scope of the legislation is another reason that it is a flawed bill. Other members have mentioned this but in my mind one of the biggest risks associated with the bill is that it turns the Small Claims Tribunal into a kangaroo court that would be bogged down with trivial and vexatious matters. Whilst the person who makes the claim risks nothing, the tenant’s home is at stake. If the member for Nicklin does not think that that is likely to happen, I suggest that he talks to the 174 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006 police about the cases of the complaining neighbours from hell. Those are the people who complain about every frivolous matter. On investigation, it is often found that they have fabricated some of their complaints. The passage of this bill would give those people an avenue to pursue their frivolities and their prejudices. Appropriate neighbourhood laws have to be based on reasonable behaviour, appropriate levels of tolerance and reasonable complaint procedures. This bill simply inserts a definition of ‘objectionable behaviour’ and gives third parties the right to participate in contract law. Allowing third parties to participate simply undermines the basic tenets of the legislation. It fundamentally shifts the policy and principle that underpins tenancy law. Whilst I acknowledge that the member for Nicklin is pursuing this issue with good intent, there are two ways that he can actually address his concerns. Firstly, the minister referred to the comprehensive review of the Residential Tenancies Act. It is my understanding that this review has very wide terms of reference. It enables consideration of a whole range of issues, including so-called neighbours from hell if they happen to be renting and are covered by the act. Most importantly, recently the Attorney-General requested that her department investigates the scope of a project that reviews neighbourhood laws across the whole of government. The Attorney- General is driving this as a recognition that, as the population of south-east Queensland grows and as population density increases, it is reasonable to expect that potential tensions in neighbourhoods may also increase. The Attorney’s approach is to determine adequate laws that address suburban behaviours across a whole range of whole-of-government laws that affect this issue and across a whole range of stakeholders, including local authorities, community organisations and many others who would be involved. I cannot support the bill because it confuses community behaviour issues with tenancy and contract law issues. I encourage the member for Nicklin and, indeed, all members of the public to participate in the review of the Residential Tenancies Act and future reviews of neighbourhood laws. I cannot support the private member’s bill. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.59 pm): Prior to the commencement of this debate it was my intention to support the legislation. I still support the intent of the legislation in terms of providing protection to people who find themselves in a situation in which an adjoining tenant or a neighbour down the road is particularly difficult and uncooperative in terms of their willingness to allow surrounding neighbours the peaceful enjoyment of their property. I am looking forward to listening to the response of the member for Nicklin to some of the issues raised. However, both the minister and the member for Robina as well as the previous speaker, the member for Yeerongpilly, and other speakers have raised issues that have concerned me in terms of the equitable application of this legislation. In particular, the point made by the member for Robina is pertinent. He stated that peace and good behaviour applies to all, not just to those who are tenants. I think that is probably a very insightful statement. I did not hear all of the minister’s contribution, but it is unclear whether the Residential Tenancies Act review currently in progress will cover issues such as these. They are difficult issues, but they are certainly no less real and no less the responsibility of this parliament to consider and to endeavour to identify solutions. The minister raised the issue of the TICA list and the use of that list to inform rental agents and house owners of potentially problematic tenants. That is fine; that is protection for the landlords, the owners of homes and the agents who will act for them. The legislation that the member for Nicklin introduced intended to give a measure of protection for those who have absolutely no involvement in the approval and acceptance of potential tenants. To that extent I support the intent of his bill. I do not believe the bill is about socioeconomic issues. I do not believe it is intended to target or identify rental situations as those requiring either a lesser regard or a higher level of policing. I believe it is genuinely about providing quality of life for all in the community. Again, the comments from the member for Robina are important. The bill is about behaviour. It does not necessarily mean that everybody who rents is problematic. It often means that those who are unable to pay their rent are not the ones who would be targeted by this proposed legislation. It targets those who do pay their rent, whom rental agents are happy to retain because of that confidence of income but whose behaviour leaves the rest of the neighbourhood in a shambles. There were protections in the legislation in terms of the process that was to be implemented to hear the complaints. However, concerns have been expressed by speakers since the evening began in relation to the potential for vexatious litigation and vexatious complaints. One of the most difficult things we have to handle in our electorate offices is interpersonal complaints. We can find a solution for almost everything else. However, when one person has a set against the other person and it becomes almost irresolvable it is at that point that I can see this legislation being used in a malicious way. I have had experiences in my own electorate of tenants from hell, as this bill describes them. There are also instances of more permanent residents in a dwelling who are difficult to get on with, although I have to say they are probably in the minority. Those complaints are usually along the lines mentioned by the member for Yeerongpilly: loud, obnoxious music played at all hours of the day and night. However, as I said, I believe the intent of the member for Nicklin in introducing this legislation is 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 175 commendable. I believe many people in my electorate would support it 100 per cent. However, this debate has highlighted genuine concerns in terms of the obligation of all people to maintain peace and good behaviour, whether they own, are buying or are renting their home, and that there is a real possibility that the legislation as it currently stands could be used maliciously. Even if the tribunal did not come down with a finding against the person complained about, the very act of having to go through the process is an added trauma if it is unjustified. However, I will be looking forward to the review of the Residential Tenancies Act to see what regard the minister has had for the concerns raised by this legislation and the way in which he proposes to respond to those concerns. We have a lot of good tenants in my electorate and we have a lot of good homeowners. However, I would venture to say that all of us here would agree that if we find a bad one it is a doozy. I look forward to the minister identifying a pathway to address that. I commend the member for Nicklin for bringing this legislation forward. I look forward to his responses. As I said, I intended to support the bill, but on the basis of concerns raised in the debate so far I have changed my mind. I look forward to his summing-up to confirm my position. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (8.05 pm): I am pleased to join in the debate tonight, although I cannot support the bill before the House. I cannot support it for a variety of reasons which have been outlined by various speakers this evening. I do want to highlight the fact that the issues raised in the member’s bill before the House are actually already under review by other bodies. The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Linda Lavarch, has indicated that her department will review current laws governing relations between neighbours to ensure that they are up to date and able to deal adequately with contemporary issues. This review will incorporate all types of tenure and provide more effective remedies than those proposed in Mr Wellington’s bill which, as has been pointed out by numerous speakers, will only deal with objectionable neighbours who happen to rent. In common with members who have spoken before me, I find that form of discrimination unacceptable and I simply cannot support it tonight. It should also be noted that there are already a whole range of actions available that any person can take in response to a neighbour’s disruptive or objectionable behaviour. They include mediation through the Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s Dispute Resolution Branch; contacting local authorities about certain types of noise; contacting the Queensland Police Service concerning disruptive behaviours, noise, use of motor vehicles and criminal activity; and taking civil action in response to violence or threats of violence by seeking a peace and good behaviour order under the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1992. In the case of substantial and unreasonable interference to a person’s use or enjoyment of land, the affected person may even bring about civil proceedings for private nuisance to deal with the matter. The usual remedy sought is an injunction which restrains the further conduct of the behaviour giving rise to the nuisance. Importantly, this option also allows for the potential recovery of damages. The Queensland Law Reform Commission is also reviewing the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1992 and is expected to report soon. To make the changes that Mr Wellington proposes before these two significant pieces of legislation governing communal issues are reviewed and the outcomes known is somewhat premature. It would also give rise to the possibility that the changes could be counterproductive and undermine the existing options rendering them less effective. It would promote vindictive behaviour and simply moves one’s problem neighbour to being someone else’s problem neighbour instead of trying to come up with a solution to the root cause of the problem in the first place. For all of those reasons and others expressed by speakers tonight I oppose this bill. We really do need to wait and see what these important reviews come up with. I encourage the honourable member to take an active role in the review of neighbourhood laws and to help come up with solutions for all elements of the community. I will not be supporting the bill tonight. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (8.09 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 2005. Whilst I sympathise with the member for Nicklin’s intention in this bill I cannot support it. I have been a landlady for some 25 years myself and I think that I have had some of the best and also some of the worst tenants, but mostly they have been average tenants. There is no way that I could support someone else evicting my tenants. We are all aware of the tenants from hell, but the current laws which are enforced by the RTA stipulate the steps which have to be taken by the landlord or landlady if they break their contract. I think there would be many landlords or landladies who would say that the law is more on the side of the tenant and that the tenant can do a lot of damage and get a long way behind in their rent before they can be evicted. Nevertheless, the process is in place and both sides sign the contract at the beginning of the tenancy. Neighbours affected by the tenants should contact the owner or the manager of the property and then the processes can commence. The owner cannot evict a tenant without good reason and, if there is good reason, the tenant is given a notice to rectify and given a chance to do just that. If they do not then there are steps which can be taken to end a tenancy. This can take up to three months and I know that there are some tenants who 176 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006 have learnt the system and become serial tenants from hell. However, as I said earlier, most are good or average tenants who pay their rent and do not do any serious damage. Along with the member for Gympie I, too, have received a number of complaints about bad tenants from constituents. We find that once again the RTA steps have to be taken and sometimes it is difficult to get satisfactory results for all. In my younger days I, too, was a renter and learnt that one has to respect somebody else’s property and other people’s space. It is all about respect and responsibility. Nevertheless, I do not think that this bill is the answer and, as I said earlier, having members of the public interfering with a business deal between someone else and myself is not on and I cannot support the bill. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (8.11 pm): I will oppose the bill that is before the House while acknowledging the member for Nicklin’s good intentions in bringing it to our attention. I believe that there are some elements of the bill that make it totally unsupportable by certainly this side of parliament and I am pleased to see the support from those on the other side as well. I oppose the bill for these reasons: it targets only a certain section of the community and is legislation which has an impost on those in society who are generally at the lower end of the resource and financial spectrum. If we do a comparison of private ownership, private rental and Department of Housing rental with regard to complaints what we find is that the Department of Housing within its own responsibilities has a procedure for monitoring the behaviour of its tenants. What the member for Nicklin is trying to do is to say that private rental should then, through this legislation, have some form of monitoring of tenants. What is not included in the legislation is the vast majority of people who are private owners who would not be covered by any legislation in this same manner. In other words, those who are able to afford their own home are exempt from the ‘neighbour from hell’ scenario that the member for Nicklin has put forward. I had a chance to talk to him earlier in the day and express some of my reservations to him and he said that he would be interested to hear what would happen in the debate tonight. I explained to him that the most difficult cases of neighbour complaints in our office actually involve private owners, because they basically say, ‘Go to hell. You can’t do anything to me. This is my home, it is my castle, I’ll do what I want’. We also have a problem with some private renters, where the owner might be in Sydney and so long as he gets his weekly rent he does not care what the neighbours in Brisbane are doing. The only remedy I have found is occasionally phoning the real estate agent at 11.30 at night when the noise is occurring. The real estate agent can be quite upset about that and says to phone back in business hours and I say to them, ‘Well, if your tenants are causing trouble to my constituents at this time of the night you should be dealing with the matter at this time of the night’. Even then it is often difficult to have a resolution. I can say to the member for Nicklin that if there was legislation which covered all homeowners which provided a low-cost, low-key, readily accessible tribunal in which neighbourhood complaints could be resolved I would support that legislation. In fact, I believe that in our society we are caught between a system which means high cost, high time and high energy, or no solution at all. I will explain what I mean. In most areas where there is difficulty with noise, with the erratic behaviour of someone possibly suffering from mental illness, with behaviour within vehicles and other activities, our only option is to call the police. The police then have to investigate under very rigid circumstances, apply the complexities of the law to that situation and it is high cost, high energy and involves a huge amount of time. I would support something like an extension of a dispute resolution tribunal which was compulsory if one person asked for it to be resolved. At the moment dispute resolution can only take place if both parties agree to come forward for mediation. Generally the dispute means that they are not going to agree and my experience has been that one of the two will refuse to go and there is very little resolution of neighbourhood disputes. This is part of our changing society. When we were a small village and everyone knew what was going on, the consensus of the village would impinge on the particular individual and there would be a strong societal impetus for that person to change his or her behaviour or to modify the behaviour. The notion of the village idiot was well known throughout most of western history. What they were probably referring to was someone who was suffering from a mental illness or disorder of some sort but who was recognised within the village as someone who needed special care. In our large cities we do not have that; we have people isolated from their neighbours. One of the things that Neighbourhood Watch asks people to do is to write down the names of the people living in five houses either side and 10 houses opposite. I have yet to find a Neighbourhood Watch which did that exercise where someone could fill out those 20 names. We have this isolation within our society. We then have conflict. We do not have a consensus way of solving that. If the member for Nicklin had proposed a tribunal which was low key, low cost and readily accessible, where mediation could occur on a no-blame basis, I think that would be positive. However, the legislation he has put forward is discriminatory, particularly against those from the lower socioeconomic and lower-resourced part of our society and I cannot support the bill. 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 177

Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (8.17 pm): Many people tonight have disagreed with the member for Nicklin. I dare say were he not a man of some standing in this parliament he would go home with a fairly bruised and battered opinion of matters tonight. It is also a sign of respect for the member for Nicklin that people have been very measured in their criticism of the intent of this bill. Anyone in this parliament knows that he is a person of integrity and would only come to these conclusions with the best of intentions. ‘Neighbours from hell’ is a very, very interesting term, to say the least. In my preparation for this bill I found out that there is a computer game called Neighbours from Hell, there are a number of documentaries on neighbours from hell and I am sure there is to be a movie coming soon to a theatre near you. However, the whole concept of neighbours from hell is no laughing matter. I would declare myself guilty of having the honour of being one of the few members of this parliament who is constantly harassed by my children to turn down my stereo. My teenage children say that I am rock-and-roll deaf. I love music, being a former musician, so I do tend to have the stereo up a bit loud. I think we have all been undesirable neighbours by someone’s definition, and I might be the worst of them. I must agree with the minister for public works that there are neighbours from hell on both sides of the dividing fence. Whilst I have certainly seen tenants as neighbours from hell, I have also seen homeowners as neighbours from hell, too. A government member: And landlords. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: And landlords, of course. What we are dealing with here—let us make no mistake about this—is human nature. Human nature is, at best, flawed and, at worst, thoroughly objectionable. Clearly, the hardest job for any local member is to determine who is telling the truth. I was interviewed by the media not long after I was elected and they asked me, ‘What is the hardest part of your job?’ I said, ‘To try to figure out who is telling the truth.’ We have all had the unfortunate experience of two competing complainants in our offices, both swearing black, blue and blind that the other person is a lying sod and that they are telling the truth. However, it is very difficult to know that. Clearly, one area that needs adjustment is the need for much more vigilance from real estate agents. If they misrepresent how tenants are behaving in a property, they should be held commercially liable. I would think that real estate agents are getting a bit better in this area. A number of people have put me down as a referee when they have wanted to rent a property. The question always comes up: if you had a rental property, would you rent it to this person? That is, of course, a sobering question. I believe it would be remiss of me not to point out that, from my perspective and my belief system, people need to be treated with respect, grace and dignity, regardless of whether they are renters or homeowners. That does not diminish the experience of people who have suffered mercilessly at the hands of tenants who have trashed their properties. We have all seen examples of that. I am sure that is clearly the intent of the legislation that the member for Nicklin has introduced to this parliament. We all sympathise. I myself have had bad tenants when I owned a rental property. Let me say again that it is difficult to legislate against human behaviour. In fact, many landlords choose to manage their own properties because they believe that they are far more selective than real estate agents and far more proactive in managing those matters. I think that is not too bad an idea. Bad neighbours should be pulled into line whether they are renters or homeowners. There is no case for partiality in the law. Whether people are renters, homeowners or landlords, they need to be considerate neighbours. The member for Stafford talked about dispute resolution and the difficulties faced there. That is very clear to anyone who has had dealings with dispute resolution. I go back to my comments about truthfulness and trying to get the real story. The member for Tablelands has come up with what I call the two Rs, which I think are wonderful. They are respect and responsibility. We need to treat people with respect—whether they are homeowners, landlords or tenants—but we all need to take responsibility as well. If we muck up, we should be pulled into line. It is as simple as that. Members have mentioned noisy neighbourhoods and so forth. However, one interesting thing which really flies in the face of tonight’s discussion is the fascinating concept of people living in a dead- end street having a street party at Christmas time, where all of the neighbours have a few beers and a barbecue. I think it is a great idea. It is a fabulous idea, because it works on the principle that, if you do not like someone, get to know them. Finally, I close my contribution to this bill by again acknowledging my deep respect for the member for Nicklin and for his intentions. However, I cannot support the bill because I believe that it does not have enough safeguards against vexatious complainers. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (8.24 pm): I am delighted to rise in the House to address the Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 2005. At the outset, I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for some parts of this piece of legislation. As some members would 178 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006 know, I have worked with groups in my area such as the St Lucia Residents Association and the Toowong-Indooroopilly Police Consultative Committee to try to find a solution to some of the problems that this bill seeks to address. I thank the member for Nicklin for raising these issues in this place. I thank him for the discussions that we have had about how to make a piece of legislation such as this quite workable. I want to set out why I will not be supporting this piece of legislation tonight. Next week is orientation week at most universities throughout Queensland. At some universities where the student association, student union, student guild or student representative council provides most of the entertainment for students, this may well be their last O week. It could very well be the last opportunity for student organisations to organise events and activities for their fellow students. Let us be clear about this: next week could be the last time that student associations run by students for students organise fun on campus. What concerns me about this is that there will be a clear black hole next year at university campuses where there simply will not be the opportunity for student organisations to organise activities. Quite simply, that means that every student in suburbs in my electorate such as St Lucia, Taringa, Toowong or Indooroopilly, where there are large student populations, will find themselves wandering along to university, wanting to celebrate the beginning of the university year and finding that because of the ill-considered, ideological and dumb policies of members of the National and Liberal parties there are no organised activities on campus. That means that they will organise their own fun. I think that it is in organising their own fun in St Lucia that we have had some significant problems with a very small minority of students. Often these students are not living in rented accommodation. That is why I think this piece of legislation is ill-conceived. Often these students are living in accommodation that has been purchased by their parents so that they can live in it when they move to Brisbane. Some of these young people are 18 years old or 19 years old and they are living away from home for the first time ever. They are living in accommodation where they pay no rent, because it is owned by their parents and, quite frankly, they decide that they will party for the first six months of their university degree. I understand that people like to celebrate the start of the year. But they have to understand that it creates immense problems for some of the more settled people in the community, whether they are families living in St Lucia or people who actually want to study and who are living in St Lucia. I want to make clear that the biggest problem with this piece of legislation is that it creates a situation where, rather than problem neighbours and neighbours from hell being the people who are dealt with, the people who will get the rough end of the stick will be the reasonable citizens who do the right thing—and who think they are doing the right thing—by making a complaint about neighbours who misbehave. I want to mention a situation that was brought to my attention by a member of the St Lucia Residents Association. She approached me after a meeting held by that group at the end of last year. I have to tell members that she raised some quite valid concerns about her absolutely objectionable neighbours. Their behaviour was absolutely atrocious. For a start, these people have not lived in my community for a long time. I think they were US students who had moved to Brisbane to study for a short period of time. While they were here, they intended to party. She asked them quite politely on one occasion if they would not mind turning their CD player down. It was about 11 o’clock at night and she had children who were studying for year 12 end-of-year exams. They gave her an answer that would be quite unparliamentary for me to mention in the chamber, but members can use their imaginations. Things escalated throughout the night. I think her husband eventually approached these people and things did not get any better. The police were called. The police then arrived at this location and visited the people who had been causing the problem, only to have them make a countercomplaint against my law-abiding, reasonable citizen. She had done the right thing. Her family had done the right thing every step along the way, and the immediate reaction of the bad neighbours was to make a complaint against her. The problem she then had was that these people did not have a lot to do with their days. Unlike her, they did not have a family and were not working—they were people who had come here to have a good time. They spent more or less the next two weeks putting together a dossier of complaints about her which, at various times, it was suggested they had provided to the police and circulated amongst her neighbours. I want to make sure that when we introduce a piece of legislation such as this that seeks to penalise bad neighbours the people who do not inadvertently get caught up in it are the good neighbours. I think that is, by and large, the significant flaw in this piece of legislation. As someone who rents a home and as someone who has rented a home for a long time, I can say that certainly not all problems associated with bad neighbours are because of people who rent. It is a common misconception and one that I want to completely and utterly dispel. There are some people in my community who have raised concerns about people in rental accommodation. When people come to the door of my office and complain about bad neighbours, when one looks into the situation one finds that by and large they are not renters but people who are living in accommodation that is either owned by themselves or their parents. With regard to issues of rent, the explanatory notes state— 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 179

But the problem is that a landlord will not necessarily be motivated to take action to protect the neighbour if the tenant is keeping up-to-date, or more or less up-to-date, in the payment of rent. That is a significant problem. It has been a significant problem in St Lucia, in Taringa and in Indooroopilly. There are unscrupulous landlords who could not care a wit who they rent to. They could not care a wit for their community and for their fellow citizens, so long as the money keeps rolling in. I have to say that, as far as penalising bad neighbours, we ought to be looking at penalising bad landlords, too. They are as much a part of the problem as bad neighbours. I want to thank the member for Nicklin for some of the sentiments that he has expressed in this legislation. I think they sum up the views of a great number of my constituents and local community organisations in my electorate such as the St Lucia Residents Association and the Toowong-Indooroopilly Police Consultive Committee. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.32 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions in this debate. I start by acknowledging the contribution made by the member for Indooroopilly, because in his closing comments he identified one of the real keys as to what this legislation is about. It is not about disadvantage. It is not about discrimination. It is about taking action to ensure that some landlords who are not acting as responsible landlords and responsible members of our community have a responsibility to ensure that their tenants comply with the conditions that are contained in their tenancy agreement. Too often we have seen landlords who are purely interested in the financial gain and not interested in the two words that the members for Maryborough and Tablelands referred to—that is, respect and responsibility. The issue has arisen because landlords have been focused on the dollar. They have not been prepared to focus on those two issues that the members for Tablelands and Maryborough spoke about—respect and responsibility. Unfortunately, that has been the key which has triggered me to see how other states in Australia have handled this difficult problem. Tonight member after member has spoken about the difficulties with and their views on my attempt to resolve the problems that are present in our community. I take members back to my second reading speech where I said that we do not have to reinvent the wheel. Let us see how other Australians deal with this problem. Let us perhaps see how South Australians deal with this problem. Let us perhaps see how South Australians have been dealing with this problem for a number of years. In effect, they have been dealing with this problem since 1995. I put to members that the legislation which I have attempted to introduce here tonight, which no doubt will be rejected, is mirrored on that South Australian model. I have listened to speaker after speaker after speaker stand up here and tell us how this legislation has all of these failings, yet if members ever choose to visit South Australia or ever choose to perhaps relocate to South Australia they will see legislation operating that is very similar to what I have proposed tonight. I also take members back to when I first flagged this as a possibility. It was 24 November 2004, so members have had ample opportunity to research this issue, to consult with constituents and to prepare their contributions for this debate. I note that many people have contacted me from places in various electorates such as—not just Indooroopilly—Tarragindi, Mansfield, Caloundra, Sandgate, Toowong and certainly from my heartland, Nicklin. Those letters have been very supportive. Mums and dads, members of our community, have been echoing a very real level of frustration with the way the laws currently operate in Queensland. I also take members to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which has representatives from all sides of the House and from the crossbenches. I remind members that one of the principles that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is required to consider is: does the proposed legislation have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals and the institution of parliament? Time and time again when members are speaking to a bill or putting their contributions forward they quote extensively from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s comments and observations on the proposed bill. What has amazed me tonight is that this committee has prepared a detailed report on this bill but not one member has even referred to it. I will take this opportunity to quote from page 12 of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 11 of 2005. It says— The committee notes that cl.4 of the bill will insert into the Residential Tenancies Act 1994 proposed s.187C, which will enable neighbours affected by a tenant’s objectionable behaviour, as well as the lessor, to seek an order terminating the tenancy. It continues— Given the adverse effects which objectionable behaviour of a tenant of residential premises can have on the rights of neighbours, the fact that tenancies are already heavily regulated by statute, and the lack of any adequate form of redress either under the common law or the present statutory regime, the committee supports— yes, the committee supports— the general thrust of the bill as an appropriate enhancement of the rights of neighbours. It goes on— The committee, however, recommends that the bill be amended to insert a provision to prevent lessors and tenants from colluding to defeat the effect of termination orders obtained under proposed s.187C. What was the amendment I introduced and tabled in the House? An amendment to address that very issue that our own Scrutiny of Legislation Committee identified and which was an oversight when I 180 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006 finally presented the bill to the parliament in Rockhampton last year. Members, please take time after our vote tonight to go back and study our own committee’s report. After I first indicated that the bill would be introduced in November 2004 I certainly had extensive consultations, and I thank the minister and Leader of the House for his willingness to sit down to talk with me about the issues and about the reviews that were happening. I would hope that, as a result of the submissions that have been received from members around Queensland and from the debate tonight, we might see the government’s legislation before the next election. That really is the challenge tonight—let us see what the government is going to do to solve the problem. It should go to the election and tell us what it proposes. My challenge to the Liberals and the Nationals is this, as I stated in my second reading speech: tell us what your alternative is. So often it is easy to come in here and simply criticise. Let us be frank: the government has indicated that its reviews are underway. A number of members from the government side have stated what they intend to put in their submissions and have put forward some suggestions that they are looking forward to seeing in that legislation. My challenge to the Liberal and Nationals—the alternative government for Queensland—is to tell Queenslanders and tell members how they propose to respond to the problems that are certainly present in our community. I acknowledge the willingness of the Leader of the House and the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing to ensure that his staff were able to have many discussions with me about this matter. I thank him for his frankness. I respect his objection to the bill, but it is not about discriminating against people who are disadvantaged. If anything, my dealings with the Department of Housing led me to think that, if the department can deal with this problem so effectively, why can’t private enterprise? My experience has been that the department has acted as a responsible landlord. Time and time again in this House the minister has said that this government will not tolerate tenants being unneighbourly and acting irresponsibly. Time and time again we have heard the government set out the very clear standard that is required. Certainly, in my electorate I have seen the department run a very tight ship and require a very clear standard of behaviour. The department’s representatives have responded to complaints from neighbours. In due course the offending tenant has been evicted. The government says, ‘We will listen to the complaints from neighbours. We will take action.’ Yet in the private sector we may come across a situation where the landlord is not prepared to act as responsibly as the state government is prepared to act and instead simply focuses on the dollars. The minister also identified the need to strike a balance. I draw the minister’s and members’ attention to the concluding comments I made in my second reading speech in which I indicated that much of the substance of this bill could be covered by regulation. Only this morning in this House we were debating a bill and the regulations that will be part of that bill. Time and time again we have seen minister after minister come into this House and justify why the details of legislation are not contained in the bill but in the regulations. Tonight we had the government and the official opposition coming up with those very same reasons. So it is good enough for the government to have the detail of legislation contained in regulations but, no, for a member sitting on the crossbenches they say, ‘That is not good enough. We can’t have it from him.’ I repeat: this legislation is not discriminating against people who rent. This legislation is about responding to a situation in which someone is not prepared to act responsibly and be a good neighbour but who has a pocketful of money and is prepared to keep paying the rent to the landlord who just takes the money, however much it is. I was disappointed to hear speaker after speaker talk about this legislation not being good enough because it is relating to only one class of people—tenants. The insinuation is that the legislation should cover everyone. During the consultation period I received submissions from some groups who said, ‘Peter, we would support your bill if it covered everyone.’ The bill does not do that. It was intended to follow the South Australian example. As I said earlier, if this legislation is good enough for the people of South Australia, surely it is good enough for the people of Queensland. We have not seen a revolt in South Australia. Reference was made that this legislation could start off vigilante behaviour. That certainly is not the case. In my electorate one neighbourhood has experienced ongoing problems with one family. It has been going on for a number of years. The matter has been referred to the former minister for Aboriginal policy and to the police. Speaker after speaker spoke about the opportunities that are available and how the current legislation is so effective and available to solve our problems. The member for Whitsunday went to great lengths to tell us how the system in Queensland is so effective and accessible to Queenslanders. With respect, I say to the member that the system does not work. The member for Robina outlined why the coalition would be opposing the legislation. He said that the peace and good behaviour laws were an appropriate way in which to deal with the problem. He said that this legislation denied people their property rights, which is a fundamental right in Queensland, and it erodes the rights of tenants. With respect to the member for Robina, I say to him that he should read my second reading speech and the report of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and consult with his Liberal counterparts in South Australia and the various parties who are involved in the operation of the 15 Feb 2006 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 181

South Australian legislation. When the member for Robina leads his party to the next election I hope he will be able to articulate in a very clear and simple way how he proposes to respond to this problem. I urge him to not just simply criticise this legislation but to offer us an alternative. I ask the member for Robina, the current Leader of the Liberal Party and perhaps the next leader of a coalition government, to articulate for Queenslanders his alternative solution. I see the member for Caloundra is in the chamber. Certainly, some of his constituents have written to me about this very problem and how the current system does not work. The member for Redlands said that this legislation could lead to vigilante action. I say again that the regulations would contain appropriate machinery provisions and that an appropriate standard of evidence would be required before any action was taken. The Small Claims Tribunal is a very effective court in Queensland. This legislation is simply another way to try to resolve problems and to settle issues before they get out of hand. The member for Redlands indicated that this legislation could possibly exacerbate any problems. With respect, I say to the member that I do not believe that that would be the case. I believe that this legislation is an attempt to solve the problems. If the bill were passed, appropriate regulations would be drafted to resolve those problems and clarify clearly the standard of proof that would be required to ensure that the system would not be open to abuse and would not be abused. The member for Redlands also referred to how this legislation could impact on the Department of Housing in the way in which it manages its rental premises. I simply say that, when I looked at the South Australian legislation, it was the way in which the Queensland Department of Housing was so effective in responding to complaints from neighbours about some tenants’ behaviour that supported my view. The member also spoke about the possibility of trivial and vexatious complaints being made resulting in people being brought before the courts. I simply reiterate that the regulations would ensure that the standard of proof required would ensure that trivial and vexatious complaints would not see the light of day. The member for Gympie spoke about her experiences. She said that what usually occurs in these situations is that people call the police or their local member. That is exactly what has happened in the situation that has occurred in my electorate. The local police have been to the house in question regularly. Officers of the Department of Child Safety have been to the house in question regularly. The landlord is very much aware of the problem and is simply not interested. The neighbours are aware of the problem. Other neighbours have sold their homes and moved on. Why should neighbours have to sell up and move on because of threats and intimidation? The member for Whitsunday was so articulate in setting out how the current law is so effective but, with respect, I say to the member that the current system is unworkable. People must have a pocketful of money in order to get through the legal system. Ms Nelson-Carr: How come no-one agrees with you? Mr WELLINGTON: With respect, I say to the member that many Queenslanders agree with me. I urge the member to look at the report of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The member for Yeerongpilly echoed the frustration that many people experience. I thank him for his contribution to the debate. He also spoke about how the proposed bill undermines the basic legislation. I urge the member to read my second reading speech in which I say that this legislation extends the rights that are contained in the current legislation. Our current legislation already has basic third-party rights. It is amazing to note that not one speaker identified the existing third-party rights that are available in our current legislation. So I suggest that the member for Yeerongpilly read the bill, read my second reading speech and look at how our existing third-party rights are simply being extended by this proposed bill and that this bill is not a radical transgression, which is his view. The member for Gladstone indicated her views about the need to try to identify solutions. Again I thank her for her contribution. I suppose that is one of the challenges for members of parliament, to try to come up with solutions and to try to progress the debate. I would hope that as a result of this private member’s bill and the many people who have written to me—and I have forwarded that information to the Attorney-General for her review—the government, Liberals and Nationals and my crossbench colleagues will consider how we can try to improve the lot for all Queenslanders and ensure that people act responsibly when they live in our community. The member for Gladstone also raised the issue of the potential for vexatious litigants and complainants. I reiterate that I believe the regulations would adequately ensure that vexatious litigants would not be able to progress their claims. My view is that a very clear standard of proof would be required. It simply could not be a one-off, bad experience. Everyone has parties now and again and everyone has little tiffs with their neighbours. So there would have to be a very clear ongoing series of conduct and behaviour in order for it to be considered inappropriate behaviour. I say to the member for Gladstone that I do not believe there is any potential for vexatious litigants or complainants. The Small Claims Tribunal has a history of being a very effective body in dealing with these problems. I believe that the standard of proof that would be required and contained in the regulations would be adequate to ensure that the problem does not materialise. 182 Residential Tenancies (Objectionable Behaviour) Amendment Bill 15 Feb 2006

The member for Whitsunday spoke about going to the police, taking civil action, reviewing the Peace and Good Behaviour Act, going to mediation or engaging a local authority, taking civil proceedings against a private nuisance, engaging solicitors or taking out an injunction if you know how to do it. I say to the ordinary mums and dads in the street who simply want to live their lives and be good neighbours that the system does not work. I know from my experience that in most situations that the police are involved in they are involved in them regularly. The member for Tablelands spoke about her personal experience and said that there was no way she would allow anyone to evict one of her tenants. She spoke about how neighbours should contact the landlord and they need to have the landlord onside. That is all very well if they are a good landlord but what happens if they are not a good landlord? What happens if the neighbours contact the landlord and the landlord ignores them? The member for Stafford spoke about his solution to try to put pressure on the landlord, phoning the landlord at all hours of the night. I say to the member for Tablelands that that is fine if the landlord is responsible, as I am certain she is, but unfortunately we have a number of interstate and overseas landlords and some local landlords who are not doing the right thing and ensuring that their tenants comply with the provisions of the tenancy agreement. I remind members that section 102 of the tenancy agreement sets out quite clearly that tenants have a responsibility to be good neighbours and section 170 of the existing act provides clearly the powers for landlords to take action. The problem is that we need the landlord, as the member for Indooroopilly identified in his closing remarks, to be willing to take on the complaint of the tenants. We have seen how the Department of Housing is prepared to take on the complaint of the neighbours and be a willing plaintiff in an action against a tenant who is acting unreasonably. As I said earlier, the member for Tablelands and the member for Maryborough both spoke about the need for respect and responsibility. Respect and responsibility apply not just to landlords and neighbours but also to tenants. Unfortunately we have a number of tenants who are not doing the right thing, and I believe that it is appropriate for the government and members of the 51st Parliament to explore ways of improving the legislation. The member for Stafford spoke about how this legislation targets only a certain section of the community. He compared public rentals to private rentals. Unfortunately, my experience has been that some tenants who have been evicted from public housing because the government and departmental officers have responded to complaints about inappropriate behaviour by the tenants end up in private housing. I see that as simply passing the buck. The government says, ‘We’re prepared to take action and ensure that the tenants do the right thing,’ knowing full well that they go into private housing and there is a failing in the current legislation. I congratulate the government, the Attorney-General and the minister for public works and housing for undertaking this review because it is an acknowledgement that the current laws need to be improved. I hope that the government can come up with a tangible alternative before the next election. I repeat my challenge to the Liberals and Nationals: come up with a tangible alternative and do not just criticise. I congratulate the member for Stafford on his suggestion to come up with a low-cost tribunal that is readily accessible. It is good to hear contributions from members who are actually thinking outside the square and not just criticising whatever legislation is before the House. The member for Maryborough spoke about neighbours from hell and his experience. He posed a question about the difficulty that members have in trying to come to grips with who is telling the truth when competing parties are trying to get the ear of the member of parliament. With respect to members, whether they are government members, Liberals, Nationals or whatever flag they want to carry, I believe that we all have a responsibility to try to solve the problems of our constituents and be prepared to come into this chamber and put something on the table for discussion. That has certainly been what I have attempted to do with this bill. The member for Maryborough also identified how people need to be treated with respect, irrespective of whether they are a tenant or a homeowner. He focused on the words used by the member for Tablelands—‘respect’ and ‘responsibility’. I certainly echo those sentiments. The member for Indooroopilly has a very vocal and strong-minded action group in his electorate. That group contacted me once they were aware of the intent of my bill. I urge that group to keep agitating and keep working with their local member to ensure that the government is able to present an alternative to the people before the next election to improve the lot of all Queenslanders. In conclusion, I thank all members who have taken the time to participate in the debate. It is disappointing that more members were not prepared to contribute but made comments from the sidelines. I urge members to review the sentiments expressed by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. If they do not have confidence in the committee, perhaps they need to move some motion or ask, ‘Where do we want to go?’ I believe the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has an important role to play. It was disappointing that after the committee’s deliberations on this matter not one member was prepared to identify any of the issues raised. More importantly, there seemed to me to be a shallow understanding of the bill by some in the opposition, notwithstanding the fact that I flagged the bill back in November 2004 and introduced it into parliament at the Rockhampton sitting in October 2005. 15 Feb 2006 Adjournment 183

I thank the members of the public throughout the length and breadth of Queensland for their contributions. I say to them that it is disappointing that we have not been able to get the result that we wanted. But let us hope that the contribution of members of the public and the debate on this bill will focus people’s attention and minds on the predicament and the problems that this bill has attempted to address. I certainly hope to hear the Liberals, Nationals, Labor Party members and members of the crossbenches tell all Queenslanders how they propose to solve this problem if they are not happy with what I proposed. I commend the bill to the House. Motion negatived.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.00 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Upton, Miss L Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.00 pm): Tonight I rise with a great degree of satisfaction to talk about a book written by Maryborough author Leah Upton. Leah aspired to be a writer from a young age. At 21 years of age, she has completed her first book which is entitled A to Z in Australia, and a brilliant book it is. The idea for the book was first conceived over three years ago when a local resident suggested that Leah write an Australian alphabet book for children. The Maryborough resident had said that she could not find a good alphabet book anywhere. Leah did some research and found that there are Australian alphabet books on the market, but she felt that there was room for another, more comprehensive all-Australian compilation for each letter of the alphabet. She envisaged a book with a difference, intended to cater for the very young as well as primary school children and tourists. Through a friend, Ms Upton heard about the Regional Arts Development Fund, which is designed to support local artists and cultural projects. She approached the RADF committee with the idea of an Australian book for children and applied for funding. The local RADF team were impressed with her presentation and enthusiasm for the project. They supported Leah through its development, including paying illustrator’s fees, graphic artist fees and research costs. The illustrator for Leah’s book is Mrs Nancy Daniel, a local professional artist and retired schoolteacher. Almost every week Leah would visit Nancy at her home in Dundowran and they would discuss the book and look over the beautiful watercolour illustrations that Nancy had been working on for the project. Her charming paintings make for a very attractive book that people of all ages will enjoy. Leah worked on the book on her days off from her pharmacy job in Maryborough. The process of writing and developing the idea of A to Z in Australia was full of challenges and learning experiences for this young author. It was approximately three years in the making. In order to meet RADF deadlines, Leah had to self-publish the book, registering the publishing name Woodie Stuff Australia. A to Z in Australia was printed in December 2005 by Queensland Complete Printing, Nambour, with a first print of 3,000 copies. The printing costs were funded by RADF on an earn-back arrangement and Leah has been given 12 months to pay back RADF. During the past few weeks she has been taking the book to local markets and so far has sold a little over 150 copies. The book is selling for $20 through Leah’s company Woodie Stuff Australia. Her dream is to eventually market the book Australia-wide as well as overseas. Leah Upton hopes that her testimony of achievement will show other young people, especially those involved in the arts, that hard work does pay off and that dreams can come true. The book is a reflection of Leah’s passion for Australia. Miss Upton hopes that A to Z in Australia will create community awareness and appreciation for our great country, and its wonderful and unique culture. I have a copy of the book here. Members can come and see me for details. It is an absolutely fantastic book. ACCES Services, Employment for Refugees Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.03 pm): There is little to compare with the value of giving training, skills and support to assist people to find employment. When we translate this to our refugee community and consider the deprivation and conditions under which many have lived prior to arriving in Australia, it is nothing short of life transforming. ACCES Services in Logan was born out of the old Skillshare program and in recent years has devoted its mainstream services towards settling newly arrived refugees. It is here that our Logan community truly shines. Along with the dedicated work force, many volunteers assist across all services to help families adjust to their new home. Heroes include people such as Noelene Clamp, who is widely known as ‘mum’ to the refugees. 184 Adjournment 15 Feb 2006

Our refugees from the African nations are a highly visible and colourful part of the community. They show great enthusiasm to get ahead. In 2003 the Hon. John Mickel and I attended their first full- day seminar to discuss issues of gaining access to education, training and employment. These are highly motivated people. They quickly gain skills in the English language and then are hungry for information regarding how they can access the workforce. Many have now been very successful. It is now mid-February and already this year I have attended three functions at ACCES. One was a graduation of 13 participants from a community jobs plan, 11 participants of which had already gained employment. A second function launched a further CJP program and a third function launched their own driver training scheme, which will assist many to become independent and will take away a very significant barrier to employment for many, that of transport. I would like to pay tribute to Karen Struthers, the member for Algester, who is now taking on one of the most worthy of professions, that of motherhood. She spent a great deal of time assisting this community to develop a strategy for training and employment. Debbie Crompton from the Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations has also been a vital link, while the Logan Institute of TAFE offers accredited training such as a Certificate II in business, computer operations, office skills, child care and aged care. This intensive program of real, on-the-job training, mentoring and support, senior first aid training, then assistance to find work and ongoing support is proving very successful. ACCES has come a long way in recent years. Much of that time has been under the leadership of Gail Kerr, who is on secondment at the present time. Daniel Zingifuaboro is one of our foremost Sudanese community leaders and he now holds the management position at the centre. Team coordinator David Browning and project supervisor Paul Bilal guide the job programs. Of course, those programs are greatly dependent on the participation and goodwill of employers and local organisations such as the Logan City Council, Career Keys, Crestmead, Beenleigh and Kingston East community centres, Civic Solutions, Interlink Housing and Support, the Murri and TI Network and the PCYC to name but a few. Rural and Regional Public Transport Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (9.06 pm): I bring to the attention of the House a very important issue that has caused a lot of grief in western Queensland, which is the loss of the bus services between Townsville and Mount Isa. Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, very little is offered in the way of public transport in western regions, unlike the metropolitan areas where bus, train and taxi services run at frequent schedules. The Greyhound bus company has cut its services from 24 to 14 services per week due to the fact that the government will subsidise only night-time services and not the most vital daytime services. The western towns of Balfes Creek, Homestead, Pentland, Torrens Creek, Prairi, Hughenden, Richmond- Maxwelton, Neila, Nonda, Julia Creek, Cloncurry, Mount Isa and Tenant Creek are now left with inadequate levels of public transport services. It has reached the point where our elderly are forced to wait at bus stops at all hours of the night when travelling to Townsville for specialist medical treatment and doctors appointments. Another concerned group is boarding school students and their parents who drive long distances from their properties to town in the middle of the night so that they can pick up or drop off their children. There are also concerns that tourism is diminishing. Travellers are missing the opportunity to see those towns attractions during daylight hours. Those bus services are the lifeblood of rural and regional Queensland. They are absolutely vital for the survival and the existence of our small towns. Without the services, those regions will perish. That is why it is important to have the services restored and upgraded. We already know that the south-east corner is facing infrastructure problems because it cannot contain the influx of people pouring into the region. If the government does not support services and infrastructure in rural and regional areas, people from those communities will leave the area in droves, putting greater pressure on the metropolitan areas. For this very reason it makes economic sense to maintain services in our rural and regional areas. That is why the people of north-western Queensland are calling on the state government to support and assist in increased daytime subsidies to get those services up and running again. Health Services, Broadwater Electorate Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (9.09 pm): In 2004 I ran a petition titled ‘Is your GP extinct?’ calling on the federal government to listen to the concerns of residents within the electorate of Broadwater regarding the lack of doctors available in our area. The petition was signed by mothers, elderly residents and young people wanting direct access to GPs in their local area. The petition was supported by a number of working doctors in my electorate who met with me and brought to my attention how busy the medical centres are in which they work. The petition acknowledged that 15 Feb 2006 Adjournment 185 decisions regarding district of workplace shortages such as at Runaway Bay fall within the federal government’s jurisdiction and it called on the federal government to review the area of need policy to ensure that the Runaway Bay area, which includes residential areas of Coombabah, Biggera Waters, Labrador and Paradise Point, can benefit from more doctors being encouraged to work in the area. District of workplace shortage assessments are based on figures available to the workforce distribution section. These are reviewed every three months based on population data, medical practitioner numbers within an area and Medicare billing information. This week I contacted a number of medical centres in my electorate that believe this method is completely flawed.This week I have spoken to a number of medical centres which actually advised that this method does not take into account the fact that a number of the doctors in the area, particularly in the Southport area, are plastic surgeons or specialists. Therefore, it is reducing the capacity for them to actually benefit from being an area of workplace need. To this day, two years on, a medical centre in my electorate employs three full-time doctors and is open seven days—all day Saturday, 10 am to 1 pm on Sunday and to late on Thursday nights. It is always fully booked with people trying to get in all the time. They are getting requests from new patients every day and the doctors are working under extreme pressure. The medical centre doctors have applied multiple times for an exclusion from the area of needs restriction but have been unsuccessful. Furthermore, I am informed that there is no direct contact with the Department of Health, only faxes to and from the applicant medical centres. I believe this is an issue of importance that I have raised in the House tonight. Eighty per cent of patients attending this medical centre are bulk-billing patients who could not afford to go anywhere else to see a doctor. Many children and pensioners in the area are forced to wait a substantial amount of time to get an appointment or are forced to visit a non-bulk-billing medical centre if they cannot get in. Other doctors in my electorate tell me that they are run off their feet due to the fact that they are the only doctors working in the area of high growth and, indeed, high need. Today in this House Liberal and National party members have done nothing but laugh and carry on about what they see is an issue from which they can hope to reap political gain. Yet not one of them will tell their federal counterparts about the real pressures that are impacting local GPs and, indeed, the people of Queensland.

Surfers Paradise Brass Band; Magic Millions Racing Carnival Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (9.12 pm): I would like to take the opportunity this evening to express my gratitude to the past and newly elected committee and members of the Surfers Paradise Brass Band. Earlier this month at the group’s 18th annual general meeting I was proud to be made a patron once again, along with the Mayor of the Gold Coast City Council, Ron Clarke, Councillor Susie Douglas, and my predecessor as member for Surfers Paradise, Lex Bell. The Surfers Paradise Brass Band has established itself as an icon of our area, regularly delighting audiences at local eisteddfods and community performances. Last year the band won the regional band contest and was placed third in the state competition. I would suggest that it is not the accolades that this group has to its name that it is most proud of. As noted by the immediate past president, Paul Radford, the success of their band, and any brass band, relies heavily on the ability to develop junior players into competent musicians. The Surfers Paradise Brass Band effectively does this through its Training (No 2) Band. Week in, week out this group invests time and effort into developing young aspiring Gold Coasters into notable brass musicians. It is a nurturing atmosphere and an atmosphere indicative of the electorate—an atmosphere that is not always highlighted as existing on the Gold Coast. An integral part of this group that I would like to acknowledge are the parents, friends and other supporters of the band. These are the people who bring cakes, slices and drinks to the rehearsals, sell tickets for their concerts, run raffles and are at the front of every one of the band’s performances. This support network is something that makes not just this group stronger but also the greater community. I would like to formally congratulate the outgoing committee on a great year. I say congratulations to Paul Radford, Sarah Stephensen, Alan Trueman, the conductor who says this is going to be his last year, Kim Bitossi and the committee. It is a time consuming job and their efforts over the last year should not go unrecognised. I say congratulations, too, to Gordon Richmond and the newly elected committee. I would like to wish the Surfers Paradise Brass Band all the best in achieving their goals for 2006 and winning their grade at the upcoming nationals in Brisbane. On another matter, I would like to congratulate those involved in the coordination of one of the biggest events on the Gold Coast annual calendar. The recent Magic Millions Racing Carnival, held at the Gold Coast equestrian facility, brought the nation’s eyes to our area once again. Speaking about the final day of racing, the Gold Coast Turf Club’s chairman, Bill Millican, understandably ecstatic with the event and the patron turnout, said, ‘Many came to see, and just as many came to be seen. But either way, the 18,000-plus crowd shows just why the Magic Millions is clearly Queensland’s premier day of racing.’ 186 Adjournment 15 Feb 2006

Mr Reeves: Peter Lawlor did a great job down there. Mr LANGBROEK: Peter Lawlor, the member for Southport, is a great member of the committee. My assistant electorate officer has told me that many of his friends who have moved interstate to work come back to the Gold Coast for the carnival each year. It is a great thing to be affiliated with the carnival and the most progressive regional race club in the country. I am a firm believer that this success, along with the strong administration of the club, comes down to the facility being located in a centralised and accessible area of the Gold Coast.

Rotary Club of Yeppoon, Housing Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (9.15 pm): Tonight I would like to pay tribute to a group of people on the Capricorn Coast, the Yeppoon Rotary Club and, more specifically, their success in relation to the provision of low-cost housing or affordable housing on the coast. Back in the mid-1970s when Yeppoon only had a population of approximately 5,000 the local parish priest suggested to a group of people that they should try to acquire some land and build affordable housing. At that time Queensland Housing, then the Housing Commission, did not assist with lower cost housing. The group of people consisted of many aged people. In 1988 they acquired land and commenced constructing single-unit dwellings for people who were unable to obtain other accommodation. They raised their money through bingo and a variety of other activities. In 1988 they approached the Rotary Club and, because of the age of the committee at that time, they handed over these houses and $90,000 and asked the Rotary Club to take over the trusteeship of Birdwood Estate. The Rotary Club has continued to construct houses and today they have 23 single-unit houses, six duplexes and one triplex. Around the end of 2004 they decided that they would construct some affordable units for older retired people and people living on their own. Last Saturday afternoon I had the pleasure of attending at Birdwood Estate when they opened the first eight units. These eight units are valued at approximately $1.2 million. They are single self-contained units and they are a very attractive set of units. There is still further land available to construct another eight units. I look forward to working with the Rotary Club in trying to acquire the finance to continue that work. All in all, they have provided good accommodation on the Capricorn Coast. Although the Department of Housing has now taken up the slack in relation to providing low-cost and affordable accommodation, I say to the Rotary Club of Yeppoon and their forerunners who raised all that money: congratulations on a job well done.

Bundaberg Base Hospital Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (9.18 pm): When the Premier and his ministers visit Bundaberg next week I demand that they allocate more resources and open more beds at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. Since 1989 bed numbers at the Bundaberg Base Hospital have decreased by 45 per cent and the population has increased by more than 40 per cent. A population of around 80,000 is serviced by only 120 beds. Today we heard the health minister announce more beds for Queensland public hospitals except Bundaberg. Does this government have a conscience? Bundaberg Hospital has had to cope with the biggest health disaster that this country has ever seen. Now this vindictive arrogant Labor government is out to punish the people of the Burnett and Bundaberg by denying us extra beds and once again risking the lives of our families. How can one trust a political party which has such a cruel, vindictive and heartless streak? How can one trust a government which said in 2003 that we had the best health system in Australia, we did not need a royal commission into health, it would cost too much money, flew Patel out of the country before Toni Hoffman’s allegations could be investigated and has a health system dominated by spin doctors, not medical doctors? How can one trust a government which says that we have the best paid doctors in Australia but pays junior resident medical officers, doctors who are the engine room of emergency departments, just $23.45 hourly and $25.47 hourly? Senior resident medical officers, third- year doctors in our emergency departments, are paid an hourly rate of $27.32. An executive support officer working in Queensland gets paid the same as a first or second year doctor. A resident medical officer earns $53,000. This is what the doctors say to me in a letter today— We daren’t put our names to paper for fear of retribution. Queensland Health has not changed, the culture has not changed. We are writing this plea to seek your assistance in making the parliament aware of Queensland Health’s gross indecency in relation to the remuneration of doctors in the public hospital system. Attached are the current wages categories for medical officers in Queensland Health and definitions for each category. These rates include the 4 per cent wage increase awarded at the end of last year. For comparative analysis current wages categories for nurses and administrative officers are included. Our junior and principal house officer level doctors have been and are still receiving less than clinical nurses and administrative officers level 4 who more often than not have no tertiary qualification and above. Additionally, these doctors— Time expired. 15 Feb 2006 Adjournment 187

Narashino City, Memorandum of Agreement Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (9.21 pm): I want to say a few words tonight about a special relationship that has been developing between the people in my electorate, and indeed the city of Brisbane, and Narashino City in Japan. Last week I had the pleasure of hosting a delegation of representatives from Narashino City which was led by Mr Hasegawa, who is a senior officer in the environment department, and also six other delegates from both the department of environment and the department of education from Narashino City. The delegation formed part of a regular program of visits and exchanges between Narashino City and Brisbane. It is one that my local councillor, Councillor Kim Flessor, along with officers of Education Queensland, Brisbane City Council and one of my local schools have been actively involved in promoting. Last week I had the pleasure of hosting a lunch on behalf of the Speaker for this delegation and that was gratefully received by them. By way of background, approximately four years ago the Brisbane City Council, Education Queensland and Narashino City signed a memorandum of understanding based on promoting educational and environmental exchanges between our two cities. As I have indicated, since that time there have been a number of visits of delegations from Narashino City and city council based delegations and school based visits from Brisbane back to Japan. In October last year, along with the members for Burleigh and Gaven, I had the opportunity to visit Narashino in conjunction with a trade delegation led by Desley Boyle. We took the opportunity to again build on the relationship that has been developing for some years. The environmental exchange between our two cities is based on the existence of wetlands which are staging points for the migratory birds which fly from Alaska, through Japan and other countries and down to Australia, staying at the Boondall Wetlands and progressing further south. Both communities, Narashino and indeed my electorate at Boondall Wetlands, support this exchange agreement on the basis that these migratory birds have in a sense developed a strong linkage between our two countries and between the people of the two countries. The exchanges between the two cities have now evolved to one where students from Earnshaw State College, which is based in my electorate, and Yatsu Minami Elementary School, which is based in Narashino, now have regular exchanges, both online exchanges and also written exchanges, where reports in both Japanese and English are sent and translated by the students. Next year— Time expired. City of Caloundra Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (9.24 pm): Yesterday and today the Minister for Health and the minister for water attacked me for, in essence, standing up for the rights of the people of Caloundra and ensuring that their needs are met on a daily basis. The simple reason we have to do this is that it is quite clear that the Beattie government cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted to put words into action. It cannot be trusted to put the plans that it espouses to the people into action on the ground. The people of Queensland are, in fact, starting to learn this more and more every day. Since 1998 this government has neglected Caloundra on a daily basis. Unless people such as me continue to hound it to achieve what it has to achieve to make Caloundra a more livable place we are going to achieve nothing. We only have to go into the recent past to understand this clearly. Look at the Caloundra Road debacle. At this point in time that road carries 25,000 vehicles per day. It is a central road into the city of Caloundra and it will not be upgraded from a two-lane road to a four-lane road until the end of 2009. That road is a central road into the city of Caloundra and to the Sunshine Coast and that has been completely ignored by this government. The second theatre at Caloundra Hospital was not opened for a period of seven years after it was constructed. That theatre is still not fully operational. That is another case of neglect of Caloundra by the Beattie government. It was left up to us to bring forward the Cairncross rail corridor to a realistic time line. We had no help from the members for Kawana, Glass House and Noosa. They were not able to stand up and have their voices heard because they are cowered by their Labor machine and are not able to stand on their own two feet and fight the battle that they should fight for the Sunshine Coast. They cannot do it. We are going to do it. The member for Maroochydore and I are going to do it because no-one here is going to do it for us. The transport issue on the Sunshine Coast is an absolute debacle as a consequence of this Labor government’s neglect for the basic necessities of the people. Those members opposite do nothing to assist. Police numbers on the Sunshine Coast are another woeful example of this government’s absolute abuse of the people who live in that area. There has not been one Labor Party member who has stood up for those people. Not one member from Kawana, Noosa or Glass House has stood up for those people. The only reason they have not— An opposition member: They are lazy. 188 Adjournment 15 Feb 2006

Mr McARDLE: Exactly right. They are lazy. They do not care. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! The member will address his comments through the chair. Mr McARDLE: The members of this government have no compassion for the people of Caloundra; they simply do not care what happens there. It is left to the coalition team to put together a plan to provide for those people. We know from past history that we cannot turn to this government for any form of support whatsoever. This Labor government does not deserve to hold seats on the Sunshine Coast under any circumstances. Fitzgibbon, Ms C Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (9.28 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this adjournment debate. Often all we hear from members on the other side of the House are horror stories. I would like to talk about a very special story from my electorate of Mansfield. Some two weeks ago Cathy Fitzgibbon, a constituent of mine who lives in Rochedale and who is a diabetic, had a turn while she was in her swimming pool. Her two daughters, Emily, who is in grade 4, and Madeleine, who is in grade 2, virtually saved her life. However, they would not have been able to save her life without the great Queensland Ambulance Service communications centre. Emily lifted her mother’s head above the water while Madeleine, who is in grade 2, rang the communications centre and started speaking about the issues. While they were doing that, unfortunately Madeleine became more upset. So she had to take the phone to Emily, who was still holding onto her mother. At one stage, she had to tell Madeleine to go further away so that the communications centre could really get a description of where they were. For some 10 minutes or so the communications centre spoke to Emily, talking her through the problem. At one stage they asked if she could get her mother out of the water but she said that, no, she was too heavy. However, they were able to save their mother’s life. The ambulance came through in that time and the communications centre kept going until the ambulance arrived to help Cathy. It ended up being a great story, with Cathy fit and well. I have been lucky enough to be at St Peters, Rochedale, a great Catholic primary school in my electorate. They often talk to kids about the important issues of pool safety, CPR and those sorts of things. Those talks to their students came good. The experience was further upsetting for the Fitzgibbons because Brian, the girls’ father and Cathy’s husband, was overseas at the time. Thankfully, Brian is back home, very proud of his daughters and happy that his lovely wife is still alive. I congratulate Brian. For those who do not know him, Brian is very well known in Brisbane circles as the proprietor of Fitzgibbon Hotels, particularly the Glen Hotel. He is a great bloke and the Fitzgibbons are a great family. I take this opportunity to congratulate them. Last year the Glen Hotel was named hotel of the year by the Queensland Hotels Association. This is a great story about two young children who are heroes in our local area. Also heroes are those at the communications centre and the Queensland Ambulance Service. I congratulate the minister and the department on their great work. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.31 pm.