PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

51ST PARLIAMENT Subject Page Thursday, 25 May 2006

PRIVILEGE ...... 1969 Matter Raised—Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Coordinator-General ...... 1969 PETITION ...... 1969 PAPER ...... 1969 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1969 Bird Flu ...... 1969 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1970 CityGrid ...... 1970 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1971 Reading Challenge ...... 1971 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1971 Water Supply ...... 1971 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1972 Cyclone Larry, General P Cosgrove ...... 1972 Tabled paper: Letter dated 10 May 2006 from General Peter Cosgrove to Mr Beattie relating to Cyclone Larry Operation Recovery Task Force plans...... 1972 Tabled paper: Media release by Suncorp Stadium, dated 25 May 2006 titled Cyclone Larry Concert not to proceed...... 1973 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1973 Australia Week, Moscow ...... 1973 Tabled paper: Email dated 25 May 2006 from Marty Mayhew to Wendy George titled Updated new markets entered since 1998...... 1973 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1975 Mica Creek Power Station ...... 1975 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Anna Bligh titled CS Energy and AGL Joint Development Agreement...... 1975 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1975 Queensland Health, Regional Accommodation Program ...... 1975 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Stephen Robertson titled Regional Accommodation Program update...... 1976

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2006 Table of Contents — Thursday, 25 May 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1976 Carina Heights, Public Housing ...... 1976 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Robert Schwarten relating to BSIS...... 1976 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1976 Child Abuse, Database ...... 1976 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Judy Spence titled Child Abuse Library...... 1977 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1977 Careers Week ...... 1977 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Tom Barton titled Careers Week...... 1977 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1977 Mine Safety ...... 1977 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1978 Ergon Energy Storm Centre Web Site ...... 1978 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. John Mickel titled Ergon Storm Centre Website a hit...... 1978 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1978 Emergency Services, Disaster Training ...... 1978 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Pat Purcell titled Disaster Training...... 1979 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1979 Law Week ...... 1979 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Linda Lavarch relating to Law Week...... 1979 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1980 Queensland Heritage Register ...... 1980 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Desley Boyle relating to audit of heritage places...... 1980 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1980 ICT Industry ...... 1980 Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Chris Cummins titled Regional ICT Officer Appointments. 1981 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ...... 1981 Report ...... 1981 Tabled paper: Public Accounts Committee Report No. 71 titled Reports of the Auditor-General, 1 July— 31 December 2005...... 1981 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ...... 1981 Report ...... 1981 Tabled paper: Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 76 titled Matter of Privilege Referred by the Speaker on 28 March 2006 Relating to the Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member...... 1981 Tabled papers: Revised Members’ Statement of Interest forms 1 to 4...... 1981 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 1981 South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ...... 1981 Queensland Cancer Fund Relay for Life ...... 1982 South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ...... 1982 South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ...... 1983 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1983 Mental Health Service ...... 1983 Farrah, Mr R ...... 1983 Water Supply ...... 1984 Farrah, Mr R ...... 1984 Water Supply ...... 1985 Farrah, Mr R ...... 1986 Division: Question put—That the member for Moggill be granted leave to table certain documents...... 1986 Resolved in the negative...... 1986 Toowoomba Water Supply ...... 1987 Basil Stafford Centre ...... 1987 Traveston Dam ...... 1988 Farrah, Mr R ...... 1988 Health Services, Rural and Remote Areas ...... 1988 Mental Health Service ...... 1989 Public Housing ...... 1990 Gladstone, Skills Shortage ...... 1990 Gold Coast, Emergency Services ...... 1991 South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan ...... 1991 Gold Coast City Council, CMC Report ...... 1992 Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries ...... 1993 DISTINGUISHED VISITOR, ADDRESS TO THE HOUSE ...... 1993 General P Cosgrove ...... 1993 CORRECTIVE SERVICES BILL ...... 1996 Second Reading ...... 1996 Tabled paper: Ms Spence tabled an erratum to explanatory notes in relation to the Corrective Services Bill...... 1999 Consideration in Detail ...... 1999 Clauses 1 to 17, as read, agreed to...... 1999 Table of Contents — Thursday, 25 May 2006

Clause 18 (Accommodation)— ...... 1999 Clause 18, as read, agreed to...... 2000 Clauses 19 and 20, as read, agreed to...... 2000 Clause 21 (Medical examination or treatment)— ...... 2000 Clause 21, as read, agreed to...... 2001 Clauses 22 to 24, as read, agreed to...... 2001 Clause 25 (Registration of birth)— ...... 2001 Clause 25, as read, agreed to...... 2001 Clause 26, as read, agreed to...... 2001 Clause 27 (Change of name)— ...... 2001 Clause 27, as read, agreed to...... 2001 Clause 28, as read, agreed to...... 2001 Clause 29 (Application for accommodation of child with female prisoner)— ...... 2001 Clause 29, as read, agreed to...... 2002 Clauses 30 to 44, as read, agreed to...... 2002 Clause 45 (Opening, searching and censoring mail)— ...... 2002 Clause 45, as read, agreed to...... 2002 Clauses 46 to 49, as read, agreed to...... 2002 Clause 50 (Phone calls)— ...... 2002 Clause 50, as read, agreed to...... 2003 Clauses 51 to 56, as read, agreed to...... 2003 Clause 57 (Medical examination)— ...... 2003 Clause 57, as read, agreed to...... 2003 Clause 58, as read, agreed to...... 2003 Clause 59 (Record)— ...... 2003 Clause 59, as read, agreed to...... 2005 Clauses 60 to 65, as read, agreed to...... 2005 Clause 66 (Work order)— ...... 2005 Clause 66, as read, agreed to...... 2005 Clauses 67 to 180, as read, agreed to...... 2005 Clause 181 (Parole eligibility date for prisoner serving period of imprisonment for life)— ...... 2006 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes for amendments to be moved during consideration in detail by Hon. Judy Spence...... 2006 Clause 181, as amended, agreed to...... 2006 Clauses 182 and 183, as read, agreed to...... 2006 Clause 184 (Parole eligibility date for other prisoners)— ...... 2006 Clause 184, as amended, agreed to...... 2006 Clauses 185 and 186, as read, agreed to...... 2006 Clause 187 (Which parole board may hear and decide application)— ...... 2006 Clause 187, as amended, agreed to...... 2006 Clauses 188 to 191, as read, agreed to...... 2006 Clause 192 (Parole board not bound by sentencing court’s recommendation or parole eligibility date)— ...... 2007 Clause 192, as amended, agreed to...... 2007 Clauses 193 to 200, as read, agreed to...... 2007 Clause 201 (Amendment or suspension)— ...... 2007 Clause 201, as amended, agreed to...... 2007 Clauses 202 to 204, as read, agreed to...... 2007 Clause 205 (Amendment, suspension or cancellation)— ...... 2007 Clause 205, as amended, agreed to...... 2007 Clauses 206 to 212, as read, agreed to...... 2007 Clause 213 (Travelling overseas while released on parole)— ...... 2007 Clause 213, as read, agreed to...... 2007 Clauses 214 to 217, as read, agreed to...... 2007 Clause 218 (Membership)— ...... 2007 Clause 218, as read, agreed to...... 2008 Clauses 219 and 220, as read, agreed to...... 2008 Clause 221 (Remuneration of members)— ...... 2008 Clause 221, as amended, agreed to...... 2008 Clauses 222 to 234, as read, agreed to...... 2008 Clause 235 (Remuneration of members)— ...... 2008 Clause 235, as amended, agreed to...... 2008 Clauses 236 to 265, as read, agreed to...... 2009 Clause 266 (Programs and services to help offenders)— ...... 2009 Clause 266, as read, agreed to...... 2009 Clauses 267 to 514 and schedules 1 to 4— ...... 2009 Clauses 267 to 514 and schedules 1 to 4, as amended, agreed to...... 2013 Third Reading ...... 2013 Long Title ...... 2013 Table of Contents — Thursday, 25 May 2006

HEALTH QUALITY AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION BILL ...... 2013 Consideration in Detail ...... 2013 Clause 22, as read, agreed to...... 2013 Clauses 23 to 30, as read, agreed to...... 2013 Clause 31 (Code of Health Rights and Responsibilities)— ...... 2013 Clause 31, as read, agreed to...... 2014 Clauses 32 to 85, as read, agreed to...... 2014 Clause 86 (Commission’s investigations)— ...... 2014 Clause 86, as read, agreed to...... 2015 Clauses 87 to 93, as read, agreed to...... 2015 Clause 94 (Commission may conduct an inquiry)— ...... 2015 Clause 94, as read, agreed to...... 2015 Clause 95 (Commission must conduct inquiry if directed by Minister)— ...... 2015 Clause 95, as read, agreed to...... 2016 Clauses 96 to 148, as read, agreed to...... 2016 Clause 149 (Assistant commissioners)— ...... 2016 Clause 149, as read, agreed to...... 2017 Clauses 150 to 233, as read, agreed to...... 2017 Clause 234 (Amendment of s 10 (Appointment of members))— ...... 2017 Clause 234, as read, agreed to...... 2019 Clauses 235 to 239, as read, agreed to...... 2019 Clause 240 (Insertion of new pt 9, div 6)— ...... 2019 Clause 240, as read, agreed to...... 2020 Clause 241, as read, agreed to...... 2020 Schedule 1 (Health services)— ...... 2020 Schedule 1, as read, agreed to...... 2021 Schedules 2 to 5, as read, agreed to...... 2021 Third Reading ...... 2021 Long Title ...... 2021 CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2022 Second Reading ...... 2022 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 2062 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2062 Cyclone Monica ...... 2062 Horstman, Mr G ...... 2063 Beattie Labor Government ...... 2063 Suncorp Stadium ...... 2064 Toowoomba Community Care Transport ...... 2065 Redlands, School Celebrations ...... 2065 Transport Infrastructure ...... 2066 Tabled paper: Copy of postcards to the Lord Mayor, Brisbane City Council...... 2066 Narangba Ambulance Station ...... 2066 Health Services, Central Queensland; Tree of Knowledge ...... 2067 Volunteers ...... 2067 ATTENDANCE ...... 2068 25 May 2006 Legislative Assembly 1969 THURSDAY, 25 MAY 2006

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

PRIVILEGE

Matter Raised—Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Coordinator-General Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (9.30 am): Yesterday, the Premier launched an extraordinarily personal attack upon me vilifying my beliefs as a Christian and then justifying this vilification on the basis that he claimed that I had attacked a public servant in parliament on Tuesday. The Premier’s claim was false as I never attacked the Director-General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Ross Rolfe, who is also the Coordinator-General. I did not even mention Mr Rolfe’s name when I was outlining how the coalition would restructure the Office of Coordinator- General to be a stand-alone position to focus upon driving the infrastructure program in this state. The Premier continued this nasty attack upon me and my beliefs in his press conference afterwards. I refer members to the Hansard on Tuesday to verify that what I am saying about my statement concerning the Office of the Coordinator-General is correct. I have also posted this on my web site— fionasimpson.com.au—so that people can make up their own minds rather than trust the Premier’s myth making. Unfortunately, it seems that vilifying people’s faith and misrepresenting them is now considered an acceptable parliamentary standard for the Premier which demeans his office and this parliament. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, you will be sorry if you continue along these lines.

PETITION

The following honourable member has lodged an e-petition which is now closed and presented—

Stafford Heights, Development Application Dr Flegg from 275 petitioners requesting the House to immediately withdraw the ministerial call in of the large aged care application on the Remick Bushland site, 818 Rode Road, Stafford Heights and return this development proposal for review by judicial process in the Planning and Environment Court to have the community’s voice included and to call upon this government to support its own policies on saving and preserving natural bushland nodes within the urban area.

PAPER

The following member’s paper was tabled by the Clerk— Member for Capalaba (Mr Choi)— • Report on an overseas visit titled Report to the Queensland Parliament on China Mission with the Honourable John Mickel MP Minister for Energy and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Bird Flu Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.34 am): My government has taken a proactive approach to planning in preparation for the spread of avian influenza and a possible influenza pandemic in humans. We have been working closely with the Commonwealth government, other states and territories and local governments to progress our planning. The World Health Organisation has confirmed a family cluster of human cases of avian influenza in North Sumatra in Indonesia. This is the largest reported cluster of cases since the beginning of the avian influenza outbreak in December 2003. There is still no evidence of the efficient spread of bird flu from person to person and so no evidence that a new human influenza pandemic has started. The Australian government is closely monitoring the situation in countries affected by H5N1 bird flu and we are maintaining close contact with international organisations such as the WHO and the World Organisation for Animal Health OIE. The Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong is ready and available to receive and test any samples should the need arise. 1970 Ministerial Statement 25 May 2006

COAG agreed to develop an Australian influenza pandemic prevention and preparedness action plan by mid-2006. The plan will bring together nationally consistent measures which aim to prevent bird flu coming to Australia. It will also identify a coordinated rapid response in the event of a pandemic developing. COAG also agreed to test the national action plan in a national domestic exercise later in 2006. The federal and state governments have been taking active steps to ensure we are as prepared as possible to respond. At the federal level funding has been provided for the domestic health response to help our regional neighbours and to strengthen Australia’s front-line defences against highly pathogenic avian influenza. I will continue to keep the parliament and the people of Queensland informed of developments. As members would understand this is a matter of great concern to any community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

CityGrid

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.36 am): Anyone venturing into the Brisbane CBD will quickly see that our capital, like the rest of Australia, is on the move. Cranes dot the skyline and construction work is visible in every direction. Later today I will be inspecting one of these work sites because of its integral role in providing electricity supply for the coming years. The project involves the laying of 110,000 volt underground electricity cables in the CBD this week. Many members may have noticed the work, which includes trenching in George Street directly outside the Executive Building. This project is a key component of CityGrid—a two-year, $178.5 million joint initiative between Energex and Powerlink Queensland. During May and June, major power cables will be laid in conduits under central Brisbane streets to reinforce the electricity supply to the CBD and inner city suburbs to help meet the growing energy needs of businesses and households. I congratulate the energy minister for driving this program. On average more than 2,000 extra homes and businesses are connected to the electricity supply in south- east Queensland every month—many of these being inner city townhouses or new apartment complexes in the CBD area, which are in my electorate. CityGrid’s main objective is to provide additional electricity supply to the city which, along with other associated upgrade works, will provide greater flexibility to the overall electricity network. There will also be benefits delivered to suburbs including Annerley, Bowen Hills, Coorparoo, East Brisbane, Fortitude Valley, Greenslopes, Herston, Highgate Hill, Newstead, Norman Park, Red Hill, Spring Hill, and many more. The overall project is scheduled to be completed later this year. When finished, the extra network capacity created by CityGrid will be the equivalent of the total amount of power used on the whole of the Sunshine Coast on a normal summer’s day or, to put it another way—with State of Origin fever upon us—the additional capacity from CityGrid will be the equivalent of powering about 120 sold out Suncorp Stadiums on a State of Origin night. Because of its importance, I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard. Leave granted. Work on CityGrid actually began in July 2004 in the Newstead, Fortitude Valley and CBD areas, and it is a combination of new and upgrade work on ENERGEX’s substations and high voltage electricity network that supplies the CBD and surrounding suburbs. Among its achievements to date are: McLachlan Street Substation upgrade—commissioned December 2005 Newstead Substation upgrade—commissioned December 2005 Wellington Road Substation upgrade—Civil Construction on new building commenced December 2005 Dual circuit 110kV underground cables between Newstead and McLachlan Street substations—completed December 2005 Delivery of major transformers to Ann Street substation—April 2005 Dual circuit 110kV underground cables between Charlotte Street substation and Carindale—civil works are 45% complete Powerlink’s work on the project includes reinforcing the high voltage power supply to the Australia TradeCoast region as well as residential areas south-east of the Brisbane River to link with the ENERGEX network. There has also been the delivery of two major 50 tonne transformers to the new Ann Street substation. The current works are part of the second major stage of the project, with cables being laid on a 12.1km route between the CBD and Carindale. 25 May 2006 Ministerial Statement 1971

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Reading Challenge Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.38 am): I am delighted today to be launching with education minister, Rod Welford, the state’s first reading challenge—an exciting initiative for Queensland’s youngest school students. Open to all kids from prep or preschool to year 3, the challenge will help foster a love of reading, boost literacy skills and build upon our already strong literacy record. Queensland’s average reading literacy results, and the results of our top young readers, are among the best in the world. The latest national figures released in March found about 97 per cent of Queensland students achieved the reading benchmark in year 3 and the writing benchmarks in years 5 and 7—the highest percentage of any state or territory. We must build on this record. My government has made no secret of the fact that literacy is at the heart of a student’s ability to learn, and to succeed in school and adult life. That is why earlier this year we launched the comprehensive blueprint to boost student literacy skills in Queensland state schools. The ‘Literacy—the Key to Learning: Framework for Action 2006 to 2008’ is ensuring that every classroom teacher from prep to year 9 has intensive training in the teaching of literacy. Today, through the inaugural Reading Challenge, I am also asking students from prep or preschool to year 2 to read or ‘experience’ 20 books from today until 15 September. Year 3 students meanwhile are being asked to read 10 books. This is not a competition, however, and every student who meets the challenge will receive a congratulatory certificate to mark their achievement. Schools with the greatest number of participants will also be acknowledged. I encourage all Queenslanders with young children to get behind the Reading Challenge, which affirms the essential role books can play in young people’s lives. I am pleased today to also be launching the program at Brisbane Central State School in my electorate. I thank Rod Welford, the minister, for his organisation of this launch.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Supply

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 am): I want to talk about water supply and yield in the south-east Queensland water plan. Where water supply is concerned, size really does matter. Our state is booming, our population is surging and we know we will need at least 560,000 megalitres of water in south-east Queensland each year by 2026. My government is implementing a plan that will not just meet that expected need; it will secure south-east Queensland’s water supply to 2050 and beyond. Later today I will table some details in relation to the water plan project by project and the amount of water our plan is expected to yield. The Western Corridor Recycling Scheme for industry, including power stations, which will be delivered by the end of 2008, will deliver 30,000 megalitres each year. Water efficiency schemes for housing and business are expected to yield up to 30,000 megalitres each year, and the first $20 million program has already been announced. Cutting regional pressure and stopping leaks is expected to yield up to 25,000 megalitres each year. The program is already underway, with a $32 million injection from my government to support local councils. Based on the best information currently available, the Traveston Dam will produce between 120,000 and 150,000 megalitres a year, and the Tilley’s Bridge option on the Logan River will produce more than 45,000 megalitres a year. I stress that we are still to determine whether Wyaralong or Tilley’s Bridge will be built. The desalination plant proposed for Tugun—which is under investigation and subject to a $14 million grant from the Queensland government—could yield up to 45,000 megalitres a year from 2008. With these and other initiatives, all up the plan will provide at least another 300,000 megalitres of water each year from December 2011. The extra water will of course come online incrementally as each of the projects is completed. Our plan is thorough and long term and will meet the needs of south-east Queenslanders for the coming half a century and beyond. We are not taking the easy options now and leaving the tough decisions for future governments. I understand that Greens leader Bob Brown is intending to travel to Queensland this weekend to begin his own campaign against the construction of dams in the south-east. I would urge him to acquaint himself with the facts and our region’s needs before he makes a fool of himself. No amount of goodwill and Green credentials will give south-east Queenslanders water security. We are exploring every option—including recycling, demand management and water saving strategies—but it is a fact that two new major dams are needed to ensure that we have all the water we need for the future. 1972 Ministerial Statement 25 May 2006

Bob Brown will not be telling Queenslanders anything they do not already know. Queenslanders know that building a dam is a tough decision; they know dams have an impact on the people who live locally, that they submerge land and that they have environmental impacts locally and downstream. The Queensland government is not ignoring the environmental impacts of the proposed dams on the Mary and Logan rivers. Just like we did for the Paradise Dam, we will make sure we know the facts and we will work hard to mitigate the environmental impacts. With regard to the Traveston site, Bob Brown ought to know this. The Mary River Valley has been farmed for generations. The principal form of farming over those decades has been dairy farming and, as a result, only small pockets of remnant vegetation remain—less than 10 per cent of the total dam area. This is no Franklin. Of the 920 properties identified within the proposed area of the dam, 672 properties are residential/rural, 36 are used for business and 182 are engaged in primary production. At present the end of system flows in the Mary River—that is, water flowing into the ocean—are 92 per cent of the predevelopment mean annual flow. When the Traveston Dam becomes operational, it is estimated that flow will be 85 per cent of the predevelopment mean annual flow. That is the highest of all catchments in south-east Queensland. That is good news for the estuarine and receiving waters downstream, including those associated with the Ramsar wetland and the Great Sandy Strait. Finally, the dam may impact on aquatic life on the Mary River, including the Mary River cod, turtle and lungfish. However, just as we have done with the Burnett River Dam, mitigation strategies will be the subject of detailed environmental impact studies. We will take appropriate measures like we did with the Paradise Dam. If Bob Brown wants to make a contribution to securing sustainable water supplies for Queenslanders, he ought to be staying in Canberra and sending a clear message to the Commonwealth that they should be getting behind significant recycled water trials like that proposed for Toowoomba.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cyclone Larry, General P Cosgrove Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.44 am): This morning at 11.30 will be a special occasion when General Peter Cosgrove formally addresses the parliament. The general has done a terrific job, a magnificent job, helping communities recover and rebuild from the devastating effects of the category 5 cyclone which hit far-north Queensland earlier this year. He will outline the role of the Operation Recovery Task Force, as well as spell out progress being made in helping families, business and industry get back on their feet. The task force has also developed a range of strategic documents that set out plans to negotiate the continuing complex task of assisting affected communities. The documents identify how the task force and supporting organisations will need to transform in both the short and long term to meet the changing demands of the recovery process. They establish a series of milestones and target time frames for the recovery process and detail the respective tasks and responsibilities of supporting agencies. Interaction between these groups is clearly articulated in a separate governance document. The documents will assist and guide the task force in the recovery process. They clearly demonstrate the high level of planning and coordination in place across state and local governments and community organisations to assist with the recovery effort. Importantly, they give confidence to community and industries in the future of this important region. I table the documents for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Letter dated 10 May 2006 from General Peter Cosgrove to Mr Beattie relating to Cyclone Larry Operation Recovery Task Force plans. I am also pleased to announce that we will shortly hold a function in Innisfail to pay tribute to the efforts of emergency service workers helping in the rebuilding and recovery process after Cyclone Larry. The function will include a barbecue for emergency service workers and their families as well as local entertainment. Further details on the event will be published in local newspapers closer to the event. On other news related to the cyclone, I am sure that everyone would be aware that we were looking at the option of a concert at Suncorp Stadium in June for the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal. We asked Ogden IFC, as the operators of Suncorp Stadium, to investigate this possibility for us. Unfortunately, the combination of the absence of Australian artists overseas during the northern summer and the limited number of dates that the stadium is available due to sporting activities planned has meant that it has not been possible to put together an event that would produce a significant contribution to the fund. However, it was recently announced that music megastar Robbie Williams will be performing at Suncorp Stadium later this year. Today I am pleased to announce that the Major Sports Facilities Authority, which operates Suncorp Stadium, has agreed to forego rental payments for the Robbie Williams concert on the basis that they would have otherwise made the stadium available at no cost for the purpose of staging the Cyclone Larry benefit concert. This is expected to raise an additional 25 May 2006 Ministerial Statement 1973

$250,000 for the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal. These funds will be directly injected into the appeal and will contribute to the ongoing rebuilding efforts of the devastated communities in the affected region. The permission for the Robbie Williams concert has been granted under very strict guidelines, including measures to manage noise, lighting, traffic, transport, parking and crowd behaviour. In recognition of their proximity to the stadium, I am also pleased to announce that Robbie Williams and his team have agreed to provide a priority booking period for local residents for the concert scheduled for 13 December this year. Local residents will be able to buy up to six seats during a special preferential period on 2 and 3 June. This is well in advance of sales being opened up to the general public, which will not occur until Wednesday, 7 June. So the locals will be given priority, and I know the member for Mount Coot-tha, who has been briefed on this, is supportive of this proposal. I am advised that a letter is being sent to all local residents in which they will be advised on how to take advantage of this offer. Tickets will be limited to six per transaction to ensure that as many local residents as possible are able to attend the concert. We are working hard to ensure that the impact on local residents of any concerts at Suncorp Stadium is minimised. I thank Robbie Williams and his promoters for their show of goodwill, and I hope that local residents are able to take advantage of this unique opportunity. While I am disappointed that the benefit concert will not proceed, I am delighted that residents in the cyclone affected region will receive more funding as a result of the Robbie Williams concert to help in the recovery process. In fact, on top of the thousands of generous donations received from individuals and businesses, I believe approximately 15 concerts have been held in support of the victims of Cyclone Larry. In total nearly $19 million has been raised so far through the Cyclone Larry Relief Appeal, and every dollar will help rebuild communities hit hard by one of the worst natural disasters in our nation’s history. I table a news release issued today by Ogden IFC for the information of members. Tabled paper: Media release by Suncorp Stadium, dated 25 May 2006 titled Cyclone Larry Concert not to proceed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Australia Week, Moscow Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.49 am): Austrade says that Australia Week in Moscow from 11 June to 18 June is the most important trade event for Australian businesses exploring growth opportunities in Russia. That is why the Queensland government is the major government sponsor of this export and investment opportunity, forming a bond with the other major government sponsor, the Moscow government. The Queensland government is not alone in recognising the opportunities. BHP has also seen what the advancements in the Russian market offer, particularly in the mining and resources sectors, and has taken an aggressive approach to the market by also becoming a major sponsor and participant. The Queensland government has worked very hard to build strong relationships with significant markets across the world. Russia is the final frontier in that campaign. Since I have been Premier, we have advanced markets in the Middle East, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, India, Egypt, Vietnam, Mexico, Germany—that is North Rhine-Westphalia—Korea, Ireland, South America—that is Chile and Brazil—Israel, Italy—we are working on an agreement with Lombardy—and East Timor. I table that information for the House. Tabled paper: Email dated 25 May 2006 from Marty Mayhew to Wendy George titled Updated new markets entered since 1998. The last significant market that I believe we should be in is Russia and we are taking steps to do that. Last year the Deputy Premier visited Russia as the minister for trade. We will be pursuing these opportunities. The other major Australian sponsor is Firepower, a Western Australian based manufacturer of a range of hydrocarbon based fuel conditioners and high technology machines. That is another example of the recognition of the opening up of the Russian market. We are working to ensure that Queensland companies and the community benefit from the enormous opportunities that the Russian market offers. Exports are responsible for up to one in four jobs in Queensland. So we must export more if we are to maintain and improve our living standard. Australia Week combines a trade show, one-on-one meetings, business seminars, networking events and a cultural program and is the best way to meet interested Russian customers and partners and start doing business in the fastest growing economy in Europe. The first Australia Week in Moscow, held in 2005, led to new deals worth millions of dollars for participating companies. This success has encouraged Austrade to plan for a bigger and better event in 2006. The centrepiece of Australia Week in Moscow 2006 will be a trade show held in the heart of Moscow. This exhibition will provide a unique opportunity to demonstrate the diversity and quality of Queensland products and services in the largest city in Europe, with a population of more than 10 million. 1974 Ministerial Statement 25 May 2006

I advise the House that I will be leading a trade and investment mission to Moscow to take advantage of these export opportunities in order to create more jobs for Queenslanders. After launching Australia Week in Moscow, I will attend the first meeting of the Russia Australia Business Forum. A series of meetings with significant Russian corporations will also be held to further push the ‘invest in Queensland’ message. I will then return to Queensland by way of China where I will take the opportunity of leading a second trade delegation to try to increase our trade with China, which is our fifth largest export destination. Our relationship with the Chinese government and business leaders is strong, but I want to reinforce at senior government and commercial levels the high priority that the Queensland government places on trade and investment relationships with China. During this short trade and investment mission, relationships with Russia and China will be enhanced. Russia’s ambitious program of economic reforms being delivered by President Putin and the aggressive attempts by his administration towards modernising Russia and moving towards full integration into the international community is well advanced and is producing very positive results. It gives us unique opportunities. I seek leave to have the other things that I will be doing as well as the names of a number of the business leaders coming with me incorporated in Hansard. Those people include Andrew Craig from the Australia Industry Group and representatives from Queensland Education Training International and Aviation Australia as well as representatives of a string of businesses including Mincom, which has significant investments. Leave granted. As Russia’s focus turns towards the Asia-Pacific region, it gives Queensland, one of the leading growth economies in this region, a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a strong relationship with one of the major economies in the world today. The reform processes are forcing major industrial restructuring which, when completed, will spur the growth of enterprises that are viable in a global market economy. In addition, many new high-tech enterprises are emerging and a new generation of Western- educated Russian business executives is in the process of contributing to the Russian economy. This presents enormous opportunity to entrepreneurial companies in this state and Australia to forge long term partnerships with these new-age Russian companies. Record oil prices and a doubling of its oil exports since 2000 has allowed Russia repay its debts to the IMF ahead of schedule, and Russia is now looking at a range of global investments, and I will be aggressively promoting Queensland as a sound investment destination. During the mission I will also be encouraging the growth of Queensland exports to Russia and China, especially in the key sectors of mining and mining services, and infrastructure services, including engineering, construction, urban planning, transport infrastructure development and marina development. And I will be promoting the strengths of Queensland’s industries, particularly in our emerging “smart” industries information and communications technology, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing technologies and clean energy technologies, and in our traditionally strong industries, including tourism, mining and food. I will go back to Chalco—the company planning the largest ever Chinese investment in Queensland—to ensure everything is going as smoothly as possible in relation to the Aurukun bauxite project. Whilst in China I will also meet again with the China National Development and Reform Commission—China’s lead agency for overseas investment—with which we have an agreement which makes Queensland and its resources a preferred destination for major Chinese investors. The business delegation to Russia will include business leaders like: Andrew Craig, Director—Queensland, Australia Industry Group; Michelle Allan, Director, Queensland Education Training International; Meredith Gray, Export Development Manager, Rebound Ace Sports; Paul Bredereck, Chief Executive Officer, Aviation Australia. Queensland participants in the Australia Week include: Kerry and Elena Gosse, Managing Director, AIS Enterprises; Allen Vaughn, Vice President, MINCOM; Paul Bull and Meredith Gray, Rebound Ace Sports; Eric van Raas, Teys Bros Pty Ltd; John Watts, Director, Wagner; Stephen Kelly, General Manager, Nippon Meat Packers; Dennis Bouchard, Director, ITAC Australia/Quantum Innovation; Dimity Dornan, Hear and Say Pty Ltd; James Leftwich, Austrex; Darren Anderson, Anderson Industries. The business delegation for China will include a range of senior business people including: Dr Robyn Wallace, The Queensland Brain Institute; Paul Henry, Senior Principal, HOK Sport; John Ward, Chairman, ComEnergy; John Hocken, Managing Director, ComEnergy; Paul Bredereck, Chief Executive Officer, Aviation Australia; Michael Yau, National Liaison Council of Chinese Australian. 25 May 2006 Ministerial Statement 1975

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mica Creek Power Station Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.53 am): This morning, the Queensland government owned CS Energy and the Australian Gas Light Company—AGL—will execute an agreement to undertake a detailed study into the feasibility of entering into a joint venture arrangement to upgrade the 325 megawatt Mica Creek gas-fired power station at Mount Isa. The Mica Creek Power Station provides electricity to Mount Isa for both domestic customers and industry, including the North-West Queensland Minerals Province. My colleague the Minister for Energy, John Mickel, and I as shareholding ministers have approved a proposal to investigate the feasibility of upgrading the plant, together with securing a long-term supply of gas to the region. It is our view that this is excellent news for the people of Mount Isa and for Queensland. Under the terms of this agreement, CS Energy will manage a study to identify the key design and construction aspects of the station, which will be expanded by up to 100 megawatts at an expected cost of between $150 million to $200 million. Once completed in 2010, CS Energy would continue to maintain and operate the facility and staff will continue to be employed by CS Energy. AGL will be responsible for securing a long-term gas supply and delivery arrangements to fuel the power station. Both parties will investigate joint funding and equity arrangements to finance the project. The expansion of the Mica Creek Power Station will involve the replacement of ageing and inefficient generation units. It will result in greater capacity and lower production costs associated with the application of more efficient modern technology. North-west Queensland is abound with mineral reserves. Given the worldwide resources boom, demand for energy in the region is expected to grow rapidly. An upgraded Mica Creek will help to meet this demand, providing producers with a secure and lower-cost source of electricity. Queensland’s exports from the region will thereby become more competitive in the world marketplace. The agreement signed today represents a strategic partnership between CS Energy and one of Australia’s largest energy companies. Mr Speaker, I expect that today’s news will be welcomed by locals. I know that you as Speaker and, of course, the member for Mount Isa are an enthusiastic supporter of the proposed partnership. Today’s agreement relates only to the potential upgrade of the Mica Creek Power Station, which is isolated from the national electricity market. The proposed joint venture is not related to the government’s recent decision to seek private sector involvement in the Queensland electricity retail market. It does, however, demonstrate once again the attractiveness of Queensland to private sector energy providers and the ability of our government owned corporations to work together with the private sector for the benefit of Queensland. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Anna Bligh titled CS Energy and AGL Joint Development Agreement.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Health, Regional Accommodation Program Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.56 am): I am pleased to update the House on another Beattie government venture to bring more doctors to regional and rural Queensland. Earlier this year, I announced an additional $59 million for the regional accommodation program, expanding our total allocation to $91 million. Since then, Queensland Health has purchased 25 houses, units and townhouses under the program at a cost of around $8 million. These homes are in places such as Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Townsville, Warwick, Roma and Emerald. A further 62 dwellings are under contract and another 34 are under negotiation. In total we will purchase or build an additional 420 dwellings. I want to thank the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing and his department for their success in securing quality new housing. Funding of $3.5 million has also been allocated under the program to redevelop the Rockhampton staff quarters, which will deliver an additional 20 units. This program is about encouraging more doctors and other health professionals to take up positions in regional and rural Queensland. Doctors, nurses and allied health professionals who make the commitment to live and work in regional areas for the care of patients should not be disadvantaged. Providing quality housing helps attract and retain doctors and nurses to regional Queensland. In turn, this assists the government to deliver the services that Queenslanders expect and deserve no matter where they live. It also contributes to our recruitment success, with more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals choosing to make Queensland their home. 1976 Ministerial Statement 25 May 2006

It is anticipated there will be some difficulty in sourcing suitable properties in more rural and remote areas of the state. In these cases, we will build new properties to ensure that these districts can access quality and sustainable housing for their staff. This successful program is about lifting the standard and availability of accommodation in regional and rural Queensland and providing a bricks- and-mortar incentive for health professionals to take up positions in rural and regional Queensland. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Stephen Robertson titled Regional Accommodation Program update.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Carina Heights, Public Housing Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (9.58 am): The Brisbane suburbs improvement scheme aims to rebuild public housing communities throughout Brisbane. It has enjoyed particular success in Stafford where the state member Terry Sullivan has championed this community reconstruction. The newly elected and divisive member for Chatsworth has gone out of his way to undermine the very sensible and responsible plan by this government and the Brisbane City Council to achieve good community outcomes. While the member for Chatsworth and Councillor Schrinner have chosen to frighten local residents about property values and standards of living, the reality is that we are trying to provide a decent standard of housing for those who need it while offering long-term residents in Carina Heights an opportunity to move on, in their local area, into more appropriate housing. Carina Heights is a public housing area where there are a significant number of older homes with underoccupancy. Older citizens who have lost spouses and who have lived in this area all their lives are commonplace and the BSIS strategy aims to keep them in the area where they have lived, shopped, gone to church and so on. The member for Chatsworth has undermined the role of the shadow minister for housing, who has not said a word on this issue. The Liberals criticise me because I am forced to house single people in three-bedroom houses, but when I try to create options to keep the elderly in these suburbs the member for Chatsworth opposes it. Therefore, I take it that the Liberal Party policy is to evict elderly residents, throw them out of Carina Heights and out of public housing. There will be no redevelopment of Department of Housing land in Carina or Carina Heights until such time as the Brisbane City Council finalises its planning in regard to this area. I thank Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and Deputy Mayor David Hinchliffe for their support of the redevelopment of Carina, which is in sharp contrast to the grubby, underhanded, dishonest behaviour of the member for Chatsworth. We have agreed that this redevelopment will meet with council’s planning scheme and over the coming months we will work closely with council to achieve a good planning and housing outcome. In the meantime, any construction will be according to current planning schemes. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Robert Schwarten relating to BSIS.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Child Abuse, Database Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.00 am): I wish to update the House on the progress we have made towards establishing a new national database in Australia to help police in their fight against child abuse. Last year, Australia’s police commissioners agreed on the need to set up an Australia-first library of child abuse images. Queensland police have been a driving force behind this initiative. Next month I will be putting the concept of an Australian national victim image library on the agenda at the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. The crime of paedophilia knows no state boundary. All states and territories need to work together to protect our children. Queensland police are playing an integral role in establishing this new library, largely due to the work and reputation of Task Force Argos, which is a national leader in the investigation of online child exploitation. The new library will be designed so that police around the country can use the latest technology to identify victims and their abusers. The database will store images of child exploitation from computers that are seized in police investigations around the world. Many of the images found on those computers are known as ‘commercial’ images that are available on the internet. This new national library will store those known images. This will help police more quickly and easily identify new images of child exploitation, which are likely to be photos of children in new and previously undetected cases of abuse. It will help police identify the victims, remove them from harm and prosecute the offenders. 25 May 2006 Ministerial Statement 1977

On Friday, two Task Force Argos detectives will travel to Canada to attend the 24th meeting of the Interpol Specialist Group on Crimes Against Children. This trip will assist them in the development of this new Australian national victim image library. They will link up with more than 35 countries at this meeting, where they will exchange information, and look at new trends and modus operandi to keep abreast of constantly developing technology and offending practices. They will also meet police working on a joint task force that is attempting to identify children from images seized in a recent international operation, which included the arrest of a Queensland teacher in March. Task Force Argos is working with all states and territories to establish this new national library. It is proposed that the library will be hosted by the Australian Federal Police. A Queensland police officer will be appointed as the project co-manager to work with the AFP for up to six months. This co-manager position will ensure that the interests of the states and territories are represented in the development of a business case for the library. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Judy Spence titled Child Abuse Library.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Careers Week Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (10.03 am): Members who listen to ABC local radio will probably be aware that next week is Careers Week in Queensland. That is because the national broadcaster and TAFE Queensland have teamed up to help inform students and job seekers about Careers Week and our state’s training and employment opportunities. In the present climate of skill shortages, Careers Week 2006 has a competitive edge to it, which I think is terrific! It is a great opportunity for commerce and industry to promote themselves, not only to young people but also to established workers who are considering upgrading their skills for a better job. The old saying about ‘getting them young’ has never been more appropriate, with increasing numbers of young Queenslanders starting their apprenticeships and traineeships while still at school. Queensland can be justly proud of the fact that we lead the nation in offering traineeships and apprenticeships to secondary students. At last count, more than 8,000 year 11 and 12 students were undertaking training. It is the way of the future and the Queensland government has pushed hard to encourage students to give early thought to taking up an apprenticeship or traineeship. Careers Week starts next Monday and runs through until Sunday, 4 June. A wide range of activities have been planned to highlight the many options for careers, employment, education and training. Students, job seekers, employers and the general public will have access to myriad public seminars, conferences and workshops around the state. Events include networking breakfasts, school principals’ forums, Try a Trade events and TAFE workshops and seminars. The week of activities will culminate in the big Courier-Mail /CareerOne Careers and Employment Expo, which is being held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre from Friday, 2 June to Sunday, 4 June. Last year more than 30,000 people attended and this year we are expecting even greater support. I understand that around 8,000 secondary students will be going through the expo next Friday. I urge anyone considering a new career or a career change to visit the expo and check out the many options available. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Tom Barton titled Careers Week.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mine Safety Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water) (10.06 am): It was with great sadness that I read of the five miners killed in a gas explosion in a Kentucky mine in the United States at the weekend. Our thoughts are also with the miners who remain trapped in a flooded coalmine in northern China. Queensland’s world-class mine safety training expertise is helping to make mining industries across the globe safer. As I speak, six officers from the Department of Geology and Minerals of Vietnam are in Queensland, learning all about mine safety management training. The delegation will spend two months in the electorate of the member for Bundamba at SIMTARS, the Queensland government’s industry-leading mine safety research organisation. Here they will learn the latest in mine incident investigation and reporting, and electrical safety in mines. They will be able to take back to Vietnam everything they have learnt and apply it to their own industry. 1978 Ministerial Statement 25 May 2006

The government is also preparing to train staff at the Singareni Collieries Company in India in the operation of our Camgas mine gas monitoring systems. Developed by SIMTARS here in Queensland, Camgas is an ultra-fast micro gas chromatograph used in analysing complex mixes of gas. It can quickly detect dangerous conditions and provide an early warning system against a possible disaster. While I am dealing with the issue of mine safety, I inform the House that the federal government is planning a takeover of the regulation of mine safety legislation. Queensland’s system of regulation of mine safety is recognised worldwide. In the last five years, our lost time injury rate in all mines has more than halved. Our system is based on cooperation between unions and employers, monitored and regulated by inspectors and inspection officers. We undertake regular reviews of the legislation to ensure that the framework for safer mines is continuously improved. The federal government has attacked trade union training, even if it is for training as a safety representative. Workers have to rely on the goodwill of their employer to be able to attend such courses without their pay being docked. We do not want or need a federal government takeover of mine safety legislation in Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Ergon Energy Storm Centre Web Site Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.08 am): I inform the House that General Peter Cosgrove will be in the House today. I thank him for his past positive comments on the role of all energy workers, and especially Ergon workers, in the aftermath of Cyclone Larry. That is why I am pleased to report on Ergon Energy’s efforts to communicate with customers and the media during cyclones Larry and Monica. Under very difficult conditions, Ergon Energy excelled at providing timely and accurate information. Ergon Energy’s innovative Storm Centre web site was a runaway success. It recorded more than 130,000 hits in the four weeks from Cyclone Larry, peaking at 18,000 public hits on day 2 as people monitored the electricity restoration effort to affected communities. The web site attracted interest from people around Australia and the world who were seeking the latest information on the massive restoration effort to cyclone affected far-north Queensland communities. It provided a significant and valuable communication channel to improve communication with customers and other stakeholders. Importantly, Ergon Energy was able to communicate with the large media contingent during this unprecedented time, doing more than 130 media interviews and issuing about 100 media releases and restoration bulletins. The net result was sustained customer and community support, remarkably low media negatives and reduced inbound call centre workload. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the storm centre reduced the volume of media calls to Ergon Energy’s corporate communications staff and calls to the contact centre, as people could quickly access the latest up-to-date information online, freeing up staff to get on with the job. Regularly updated restoration bulletins, detailing response efforts as well as media releases and photographs of the damage caused by Cyclone Larry, received the most number of hits. During times of natural disaster, when there are widespread power interruptions, people want to be kept informed. Experience has shown that a lot of customer concern can be avoided by providing ongoing and updated information on power restoration efforts. I am proud of Ergon Energy’s efforts in response to cyclones Larry and Monica. I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the men and women of Ergon Energy, who led the effort, and of Energex and PowerLink, who ably assisted in getting the lights back on. The storm centre web site at www.ergon.com.au/storm_centre offers information about preparations for the storm and cyclone season, plans for the restoration of power supply, the systematic restoration processes, frequently asked questions, tips on using portable generators, electricity safety and weather information. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. John Mickel titled Ergon Storm Centre Website a hit.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Emergency Services, Disaster Training Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.11 am): The Beattie government has a strong commitment to caring for the safety of all Queenslanders and preparing for and responding to emergencies. This is demonstrated by the government’s continued record funding for the Department of Emergency Services. This funding helps to ensure that our staff and volunteers have the best equipment, vehicles and, of course, training. 25 May 2006 Ministerial Statement 1979

In addition, the Beattie government is committed to ensuring that staff from different agencies and services are trained not only in their own field but also in other fields and in working with each other. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Beattie government’s commitment to the Department of Emergency Services, which is an Australian leader—indeed, a world leader—in ensuring cooperation and engagement between different arms of the emergency services. I am pleased to report that, as I speak, an important training exercise is being held which involves dozens of firefighters and emergency service personnel. The Urban Search and Rescue Category 2 course has been conducted at the Queensland Combined Emergency Services Academy at Whyte Island for the past two weeks. Staff have been learning skills to rescue people from building collapse, incidents caused by earthquakes, landslides, aircraft crashes and terrorist bombs. From midnight on Tuesday, these personnel and visitors from other states and countries have combined to put these new skills into practice in a continuous 48-hour exercise that will conclude at midnight on Thursday. The exercise involves dozens of firefighters from Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Singapore and Hong Kong, Queensland, Ambulance Service paramedics, and special disaster victim identification staff from the Queensland Police Service. The skills learnt during this course are those used by staff who conducted building assessments in areas that were devastated by Cyclone Larry and by the staff who travelled to Banda Aceh after the Asian tsunami. The exercise now underway is a shining example of the high level of training and cooperation within the Department of Emergency Services. Queenslanders can be confident that, should the worst happen, the emergency services will be ready to respond with highly trained personnel. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Pat Purcell titled Disaster Training.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Law Week

Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (10.13 am): It is my pleasure to announce that this week the Queensland government is leading celebrations for Law Week 2006. This year’s theme is ‘Opening the doors to law’. Law Week is a national event that aims to promote greater community understanding of the legal system. Law Week 2006 will focus on legal issues that affect Queenslanders on a day-to-day basis. For example, the benefits of mediation to help people resolve conflict in their lives, encouraging Queenslanders to make a will and the many legal issues that affect young people and consumers. Last Sunday, the Brisbane Magistrates Court held a highly successful open day, with tours of the court complex showcasing its state-of-the-art technology and displays about legal issues and careers. I was delighted to open proceedings in the moot court trials of two fairytale characters, R v Beanstalk and R v Goldilocks, presented by QUT law students. In R v Beanstalk, Jack was charged with murder and stealing. In the second case, Goldilocks was charged with burglary, stealing and wilful damage, after a complaint by the three bears. I thank the Chief Magistrate, Marshall Irwin, for his support and participation in the open day. Law Week is an opportunity to showcase how the Smart State is improving access to justice. The Queensland government has now installed wireless internet access in over 80 courts across the state. This service is believed to be the first of its kind in the world. Yesterday, the Honourable Chief Justice Paul de Jersey launched the new service, known as courts wi-fi, which provides free, fast and safe access to the internet for court users. My department has produced a Law Week education pack which provides resources to assist teachers and students to discuss legal issues, including young people’s rights in criminal matters and their rights and responsibilities at schoolies week. I am pleased to advise that Queenslanders can discuss the themes of Law Week online until 31 May. My ministerial colleague, Warren Pitt, has offered the use of the Department of Communities online forum on the Get Involved web site, for which I thank him. I urge Queenslanders to get involved in Law Week 2006. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Linda Lavarch relating to Law Week. 1980 Ministerial Statement 25 May 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Heritage Register Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (10.15 am): The Mackay Whitsunday region has been chosen to pilot an audit of heritage places in Queensland. Urban development and population growth along our coastline continues rapidly and is placing pressure on the preservation of our cultural heritage. As Queensland continues to grow, older buildings are often replaced by new ones. Some heritage places may be lost if they do not have the protection of heritage listing, while in other cases people may use the heritage argument to try to stop development. By auditing our towns and cities, we can be sure that we have identified our most significant heritage places up-front. Identifying heritage places ensures the development rights and constraints on a property are known up-front to owners, builders and developers. This heritage audit will not stop other places from being added to the Queensland Heritage Register in the future. The Mackay Whitsunday region was chosen for the pilot because it has a good mix of histories, coastal and inland areas, large regional centres and rural communities, and a mix of primary, secondary and tertiary industries. The pilot will look, firstly, at the local government areas of Mackay, Nebo and Mirani before being extended later this year to Whitsunday, Bowen, Belyando, Peak Downs, Broadsound and Sarina. The pilot is the first phase in a $2.7 million five-year statewide cultural heritage assessment. Places that can be listed include houses, homesteads, government and commercial buildings, parks and gardens, churches, memorials and other places of state heritage significance. The Environmental Protection Agency is working with councils, community groups and individuals in the Mackay Whitsunday region to identify places that are important to communities and should be considered for heritage listing. The EPA will assess each place area against the criteria in the Queensland Heritage Act. This information will be presented to the Queensland Heritage Council for consideration for listing on the Queensland Heritage Register. Nominations for the Mackay, Nebo and Mirani areas are expected to be considered by the Heritage Council in June. The Queensland Heritage Register already contains more than 1,400 places, including 216 homes, 124 religious places, 123 memorials or cemeteries, 33 parks or gardens and 241 commercial places. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Desley Boyle relating to audit of heritage places.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

ICT Industry Hon. CP CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs) (10.18 am): Today I am pleased to announce the appointment of two regional specialist information and communications technology industry officers to service the Gold Coast and north Queensland ICT sectors. These officers will play a key role in ensuring the industry’s continued growth by helping promote products and services, both nationally and internationally. They will provide high-quality, free and professional business guidance to regional ICT companies, including information and referrals on product and market development, and funding and investment. The new positions are an extension of the government’s Information Industries Bureau, or the IIB, and will help Gold Coast and north Queensland ICT firms access the full suite of business and industry development programs delivered by the IIB. ICT is one of the Smart State’s key growth industries, generating more than $21 billion annually and providing 62,000 Queensland jobs. As well as being dominated by smaller firms, our ICT industry is significantly regionalised. ICT firms in regional centres face many challenges, including lack of easy access to support schemes, business advisers and, of course, intellectual property specialists. Angelique Richmond was chosen for the Gold Coast position from a competitive field of applications from as far a field as India, New Zealand, New South Wales and Victoria. She will be based at the Gold Coast State Development Centre and bring to the position a wealth of experience having previously worked at Eracom Technologies. The officer appointed to service the north Queensland ICT industry is Duncan Paton and he will be based at the Townsville State Development Centre. Townsville was chosen as a base for this new position due to its ability to service the greater north Queensland region which boasts significant centres 25 May 2006 Private Members’ Statements 1981 of ICT expertise. Duncan also has extensive experience in the ICT industry having held positions in the industry both in Australia and overseas. The ICT industry is booming in Queensland and these appointments demonstrate the Beattie government’s commitment to supporting information and communications technology, especially in regional areas right across Queensland. Tabled paper: Copy of ministerial statement by Hon. Chris Cummins titled Regional ICT Officer Appointments.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (10.20 am): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 71 of the Public Accounts Committee titled Reports of the Auditor-General 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2005. One of the primary functions of the committee is to consider the annual and other reports of the Auditor- General and report No. 71 fulfils this responsibility. Two audit reports dealt with performance management system audits looking at the reliability of systems that produce the performance information contained in ministerial portfolio statements. The committee commends the Auditor-General, Glenn Poole, for the systematic approach he is taking to implementing this aspect of his mandate. I thank the other members of the committee for their continued support. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the secretary and staff for their very capable assistance. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Public Accounts Committee Report No. 71 titled Reports of the Auditor-General, 1 July—31 December 2005.

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.23 am): I table report No. 76 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee titled Matter of Privilege Referred by the Speaker on 28 March 2006 Relating to the Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member and I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Report No. 76 titled Matter of Privilege Referred by the Speaker on 28 March 2006 Relating to the Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member. On another matter, I advise the House of alterations to the forms for giving statements of members and related persons’ interests and for making changes, or advising of no changes, to those interests. I table new forms 1 to 4 effective from 30 June 2006. The forms have been altered by the committee in accordance with paragraph 6(5) of schedule 2 of the standing orders. The new forms reflect amendments to schedule 2 of the standing orders relating to the registration of interest requirements which are effective from 30 June 2006. I draw honourable members’ attention to the new form 4, a confirmation of correct particulars form, which will replace the current form 4, the notice of no change of details form. For the assistance of honourable members, the new forms contain explanatory information about registration requirements and the level of detail to be registered. Tabled papers: Revised Members’ Statement of Interest forms 1 to 4.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.23 am): Yesterday in this parliament the Premier tabled another glossy document. Mr Quinn: Complete with photo. Mr SPRINGBORG: Complete with photo, as usual. Basically it is a rehash of the infrastructure plan with a brand new glossy cover on it. I turned to page 59 where it talks about social and community infrastructure. It states there how important a range of services and facilities are, including health, education, emergency services, policing and justice. I turned feverishly to the page titled ‘Ambulance’ and I could not find one. There is no ambulance station listed in it. So I thought that I would rush off and 1982 Private Members’ Statements 25 May 2006 try to find where it mentions new police stations. Under ‘P’ there are no police stations mentioned. I turned to ‘F’ and there are no fire stations mentioned. Not to be outdone, I thought, ‘We are a Smart State. I will go to the web version and I will do a search’. Under ‘police’ there is not one single mention; under ‘ambulance’ there is not one single mention; and under ‘fire’—I thought all my Christmases had come at once—the search found coal-fired power stations. There is not one single reference in this document to the most important infrastructure that we can have in our community: police, ambulance and fire stations. I thought the government for a moment must have been adopting the Phil Gray approach to politics in Queensland. Honourable members will remember that he was the hapless Labor candidate in Gaven who, when he was asked whether we should have more police stations, said we need fewer criminals. Mr Mickel interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Energy Mr SPRINGBORG: This government is adopting the same approach. We will have fewer criminals, not more police stations; we will have fewer fires, not more fire stations; and we will have fewer accidents and heart attacks, not more ambulance stations. Maybe Judy and Pat were away on the day when the Premier cobbled this together. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Please refer to ministers by their correct titles. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will refer to the ministers by their correct titles. It is quite apparent that the government has no intention of cleaning up law and order because there are no jails, either.

Queensland Cancer Fund Relay for Life

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.25 am): On 20 May at 3 o’clock 99 teams of 10 to 15 people lined up at the Central Queensland University for the start of the Queensland Cancer Fund’s Relay for Life. I had the honour to be requested to be the ground announcer for the first two hours. The Relay for Life raised over $200,000. That is not why I want to bring it to the notice of this House. At the start of that relay there were approximately 150 people who lined up to lead the relay off. Every one of those people wore a red sash across their shoulder which showed that they were a survivor of cancer. Most of those people came from central Queensland, down as far as Biloela which is in the member for Callide’s electorate. The significance of those 150 survivors seems to be lost on so many people when we hear the carping and the whining of the opposition in relation to health. Of those 150 people roughly 60 per cent received their treatment from go to whoa from Queensland Health. They received their diagnosis, which is always a disaster, they received their operation, they received their treatment and on Saturday they walked around an oval to show that they were the product of a very, very good health system. I say to this crowd over here who want to criticise Queensland Health: go out and talk to the 60 per cent of the 150 people—which is roughly 90 from our area—who were treated by Queensland Health. Go out and talk to the survivors who received their treatment from Queensland Health. Those opposite ought to stop and think about the way that they treat Queensland Health when we have so many people who are so thankful for the treatment that they received through it. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett!

South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.27 am): The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan released by the government yesterday shows how far this government is off the pace in providing infrastructure in this part of Queensland. It is bad news for the Queenslanders who live down here. When members look through the plan, they will see that there are about 180 major projects contained in it. How many projects were completed by this government last year? Six out of 180. If this government has been asleep at the wheel for the previous eight years, it has been snoring for the last 12 months. When we look through the plan, we find that those six projects represent less than four per cent of all of the projects in the plan. More importantly, by value or by cost they represent less than .5 per cent of the total value of all the projects in the plan. Less than .5 per cent was spent last year in terms of providing major infrastructure. This plan is supposed to be for 20 years, but at this rate of expenditure it will take this mob 200 years to put it in place. If members thought the government was asleep for the previous eight years, now it is snoring and snoring loudly. 25 May 2006 Questions Without Notice 1983

South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.29 am): Since the election of the Beattie Labor government we have delivered for the people of Queensland more police and more teachers, provided infrastructure and quality services for a growing and thriving state and we will keep on delivering for the people of Queensland through the health action plan and the SEQ regional infrastructure strategy. This government is about listening, acting and delivering, and just one example of this was the government’s action to assist those in areas effected by Cyclone Larry. I wish to share some words from one of the volunteer SES officers from Logan on this subject. I received correspondence from Mr Ken Neller, the local controller of the Logan City State Emergency Service. Mr Neller is one of the many SES volunteers from around the state who assisted in the rebuilding of the Innisfail area savagely destroyed by Cyclone Larry. Ken says that, as part of a five- day deployment with the SES to the Innisfail area, he was part of a 50-member task force—all volunteers whose role was to doorknock 10,000 properties and complete surveys on damage, loss of employment and insurance coverage, or lack of it. He said that seeing the damage on TV does not prepare you for the devastation. Piles of rubbish that used to be buildings, house after house with no roof, kilometre after kilometre of power poles bent or snapped over, beds, fridges, clothing, toys—everything that makes a home are now piles of rubble outside every house. Elderly people were trying to clean up their yards on a very wet day. In Silkwood at the primary school Ken says that they were inundated with locals looking for help, reporting jobs that needed to be done at home—jobs that all of us would class as urgent. However, even in this predicament the locals were really friendly, offering accommodation, food and cups of tea. Many residents told Ken that they were pleased with the response of the government to this disaster. With no electricity and no EFTPOS, receiving some cash was extremely important to them. After all, who carries cash these days? It meant food, it meant fuel for the generator, and followed by money going into bank accounts was certainly appreciated and needed. The locals were so appreciative of the government assistance and of the time that so many people gave up to assist. Ken thought he should pass on to us that they really feel the government is doing a lot to help. In 30 years of working with the SES, this would have to be one of the most worthy things Ken has been involved with. I know that we all thank Ken and all the SES volunteers for taking the time to care. Time expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mental Health Service Mr SPRINGBORG (10.31 am): My first question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to his answer to a question yesterday in which he was asked how many insane killers have been given community leave similar to the leave he has revoked for Claude John Gabriel. Whilst he did advise the House that there are some 449 people who are on forensic orders— that is, charged with an offence but have a mental illness—he failed to answer the question he was asked. So I now ask: of the 449 forensic mental patients, how many are killers and how many have been released on community leave under similar arrangements to the leave that was revoked for Claude John Gabriel? Mr ROBERTSON: They are not statistics that Queensland Health collects. I would refer the member to the annual reports provided and tabled in this House by the Mental Health Court, the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the director of mental health in terms of the matters that the member has raised.

Farrah, Mr R Mr SPRINGBORG: I have a further question for the Minister for Health. I refer to insane killer Ross Farrah, who killed his girlfriend Christine Nash but was found to have been insane. Can the minister confirm that earlier this week this killer, Ross Farrah, whilst on daily community leave threatened to kill another woman? Mr ROBERTSON: Whilst I would be more than happy to assist the member, the member should be aware that this matter is still before the courts. It is not appropriate for me, nor the member, to comment any further— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition! 1984 Questions Without Notice 25 May 2006

Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, this matter is currently before the courts. There has been a longstanding principle in this place that no member comments on matters before the courts, lest we in any way be seen to be influencing— Dr Flegg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, take a seat. Member for Moggill, you just simply cannot help yourself. When a question is asked, I demand that members be allowed to ask the question in silence. Likewise, when a minister is answering a question, I demand the same privilege for them. Please try to restrain yourself from interfering in answers when ministers are on their feet. Mr ROBERTSON: Just to assist the member who cannot help himself, I am advised that this matter appeared before the Magistrates Court on 23 May and a further hearing date is listed for 6 June. Water Supply Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is directed to the Premier. The government is undertaking a raft of initiatives throughout Queensland to help address the important issue of water security and supply. Is the Premier aware of any alternative solutions? Mr BEATTIE: I spelt out in detail this morning in my ministerial statement the amount of water that would be provided from the various options. One of the points I want to make very clear—and I do this for everyone who is genuinely interested in this political debate—is that due to the demand in the south-east corner from an extra million people coming here, and because of climate change and drought, we need every one of the options that I have talked about. Do we need recycling? Yes, we do. Do we need desalination? Yes, we do. Do we need to get people to minimise their demand—that is, to use recycling, greywater, water tanks— Ms Keech interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Fix the leaks; yes, I take that. Do we need all of those options? Yes, we do. Do we need two new megadams? Yes, we do. I thank the member for Mount Ommaney for this question. In other words, we need the lot. One of the things we cannot do—we are not God—is make it rain. What we need is a long-term, sensible strategy that will provide for the water needs of the south-east corner until 2050 and beyond. We cannot simply do this in a piecemeal fashion. Therefore, I say to everyone involved in this debate: let us accept that we need the holistic approach that the government has put forward. Let us not have any nonsense. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition believes some of these things are beyond the power of God. Recently he made this point: ‘Rainwater tanks will be mandatory, creating water overnight.’ I have to say that there is only one person who can create water overnight, and that is God. That is the sort of nonsense that we get in this debate, that somehow we can create water overnight. Are water tanks important as part of our strategy? Yes, they are, which is why the cabinet has approved the process of encouraging local governments to install them. At some point we might make them mandatory as well, but the point is that we cannot say that because we have water tanks water will be created overnight. It is a nonsense. That is why anybody who argues that water tanks alone are a solution is misguided. Yes, they are part of the solution but they are not the solution. Just because people have a water tank on the side of their house does not mean that God is going to fill it up for them. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The only way to guarantee what the Leader of the Opposition wants is to put a hose in it and fill it up. That is what he meant—illegally filling up the water tank by a hose late at night. That is what he meant. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: do not believe this nonsense that simply installing a water tank will create water overnight, because it is not going to happen. In terms of dams, dams are linked to rivers, which means inevitably that they have a number of sources for water supply—not just rain but the rivers themselves. It is important that we have a holistic approach. We had the minister for water talking about— Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Leader of the Liberal Party, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students of the Albany Creek State School in the electorate of Everton, which is represented in this parliament by the Hon. Rod Welford. Farrah, Mr R Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer to the concluding remarks of the determining judge, Justice de Jersey, who at the time described Farrah as severely unstable and a highly paranoid schizophrenic and who expressed a serious expectation that a patient review tribunal could not responsibly grant a leave of absence for such a dangerous patient. I ask the minister: why does the Labor government continue to allow— 25 May 2006 Questions Without Notice 1985

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are getting very close to sub judice here. Members should not discuss, either inside or outside this parliament, any matters which are before the criminal courts. Mr QUINN: Mr Speaker, this one is not before the court at the present time. This was a previous case, and I am referring to the judge’s remarks at that time. Mr ROBERTSON: What needs to be added to the member’s question is that Justice de Jersey made that comment when? Not last year, not the year before, not the year before that but on 16 May 1996. The principle— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hold on a second, Minister. Mr QUINN: Mr Speaker, can I finish my question, please? Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, I thought you had asked it, but bear in mind the comments I made a few minutes ago. Mr QUINN: Yes, Mr Speaker. I am referring to this previous case as confirmed by the minister. I will go back to the determining judge’s remarks at that time. He described the person as severely unstable and a highly paranoid schizophrenic and expressed a serious expectation that a patient review tribunal could not responsibly grant a leave of absence for such a dangerous patient. Why does the Labor government continue to allow the release of mentally ill killers onto our streets? Mr ROBERTSON: The point I was making was that that comment was made in 1996. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I warn you under 253. Mr ROBERTSON: That is some 10 years ago. One of the underlying principles for treating people with mental illness is that we go out of our way with support and services with a view to curing those people of their mental illness where that can be achieved so that they can one day return to the community. I am not a psychiatrist and neither is any member opposite, and nor are we fully aware of all of the facts that were before Justice de Jersey when he made those comments. The information I have before me is that in March 2002, June 2002, December 2002, May 2003, November 2003, May 2004, November 2004, May 2005, October 2005 and March 2006 this particular individual was reassessed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and quite appropriately so. The Mental Health Review Tribunal, made up of appropriately qualified people, is in the best position to judge the appropriateness of any individual case and not me, as Minister for Health, and not those opposite. Until today that was the principle that every member of this House agreed to. That is how the Mental Health Act was structured when it came into place in 2001 and 2002. Even when those opposite were last in office they had the Patient Review Tribunal where cases such as this often came up for regular review to determine appropriateness for return to communities. It has been a principle that both sides of this chamber have adhered to for time immemorial until today when— Mr Messenger: Who is protecting the public? Not you! Mr SPEAKER: Take your seat, minister, please. Member for Burnett, I have already warned you under 253. One more instance and you will be leaving this chamber. Mr ROBERTSON: This is a very dark day for mental health in Queensland. Suddenly a chasm opens up on the question of the importance of the rehabilitation and treatment of people suffering a mental illness. I would request and urge the opposition to reflect on the direction in which they are heading with this matter. They risk turning us back 100 years. Water Supply Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Premier. The new South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan outlines numerous infrastructure projects across the region. Can the Premier outline any initiatives that relate to the important issue of water security and supply? Mr BEATTIE: I certainly can and I thank the member for his question. The 2006 version of the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan outlines $65 billion in projects ranging from new hospitals and schools through to roads and ports. It is a very visionary document—the first of its kind in Australia—and will ensure our great state continues to grow and prosper. I must admit that I have been amazed at some of the reports that indicate there has been a blowout of billions of dollars between the 2005 and the 2006 version. I thought I explained this adequately yesterday. But let me do it again. There were approximately 230 projects in the 2005 $55 billion plan. If there were only 230 projects listed in the 2006 $66 billion plan then there would be a blowout. However, there are approximately an extra 120 projects in this version. So obviously the amount of money being invested has grown by $11 billion or 20 per cent. It is pretty simple. It is not a blowout; it is a sign of a government investing in the future of the Smart State. 1986 Questions Without Notice 25 May 2006

Water investment is a perfect example. It has increased by over 117 per cent from $2.3 billion to an expected $5 billion and there is more to come. As I indicated, the total likely expenditure for the two dams is not included. Commitments include $490 million for the two dams and more money is to come. This includes approximately $270 million as part of the Queensland Future Growth Fund, $120 million for the western corridor recycled water scheme; $32 million for pressure reduction and leakage management; $20 million for the indoor efficiency program; and $32 million for the investigation of alternative sources. Over the past year, the Queensland government has also invested around $17 million in subsidies for nine completed council water projects. Our government is serious about infrastructure. We are undertaking the most comprehensive plan in Australia. So even for the two dams we have only allocated $490 million so far, which is only a small fraction of what it will cost. The total for the two dams will be significantly higher than that. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party sought to undermine this plan with their normal negative whingeing. I want to make this point. We did not have details of police, fire and ambos in last year’s document either. We do not have them in this year’s plan as the plan is about detailing the critical infrastructure for delivery of the regional plan and accompanying population growth. I made that clear last year and this year. There are also lots of other agencies not included. Infrastructure related to buildings, Child Safety, Corrective Services, Communities, small health facilities, DPI, NRMW are left out. They are provided for in the budget. They have their own future plans and are not included in this one. That does not mean that there are not plans. I made it clear from the beginning what was central. Those opposite have not been listening for two years on this. They do not understand basic planning and they would rather whinge than be positive. Other significant concept developments like North Bank and Westgate are also not there for the same reason. The structured plan processes for the next few greenfield sites are included in the plan.

Farrah, Mr R Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I seek leave to table a letter from Mrs Patricia Nash, the mother of the woman killed by Ross Farrah. There is no reference in the letter to the matter before the courts. Mrs LAVARCH: I rise on a point of order. It may well be that matters in that letter and matters that are being discussed go to the history of a person who is before the courts. Therefore, I believe that we should err on the side of caution and invoke the sub judice rule for this matter. Division: Question put—That the member for Moggill be granted leave to table certain documents. AYES, 26—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Douglas, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 58—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Cummins, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, E Roberts, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan Resolved in the negative. Dr FLEGG: My question is to the Minister for Health. Only yesterday the Premier told this place that the victims in these cases should be heard. Mrs Nash, the mother of the murdered girl, has written to the opposition to complain about the failure of this government’s mental health system and the fact that under the law she is unable to mention her real fears about this killer to anyone without threat of herself being thrown into jail for two years by the government. Minister, how long will your government victimise the victims in these cases? Mr ROBERTSON: That is not true, and the laws that you refer to, if in fact your interpretation is correct—and I am always dubious about that—were actually passed by this parliament with the agreement of all sides of this House. Miss Simpson: We raised concerns about them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Maroochydore, I warn you under 253. Mr SPRINGBORG: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the minister is deliberately misleading this parliament. Substantive amendments were moved by the opposition to strengthen the Mental Health Act and the government opposed them. Stop misleading the House. 25 May 2006 Questions Without Notice 1987

Mr ROBERTSON: And then subsequent amendments were made to that act which have further strengthened the act, and the opposition agreed to them. So the Leader of the Opposition should not try to twist the record; he is very loose with the truth, and continually so. In relation to this matter, I invite this mother to contact my office and I will be more than happy to meet with her to discuss it. She also has particular rights before the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which were the subject of those amendments I referred to before. As I said earlier, this matter is still before the courts and all members of the House and the media have a responsibility to deal with this matter in a responsible way, which I am committed to doing. As both the Premier and I have said, we have some concerns about the rights of victims or victims’ families in particular cases, and we want to address that. That is why I announced the review into certain parts of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the Mental Health Act earlier this week. I repeat for the record: in relation to this particular individual who has been named today, Mrs Nash, I will be more than happy to meet with her and discuss these issues. If the member opposite wishes to provide me with contact details, we will endeavour to contact her today.

Toowoomba Water Supply Mr WELLS: My question is to the Deputy Premier. I refer to the forthcoming referendum on waste water in Toowoomba and to the coalition’s backflip from its original position of fulsome support for the mayor and recycling. Will the Deputy Premier explain the government’s attitude to the opposition’s policy on referendums? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The National Party policy on referendums was recently clearly articulated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the member for Callide. I think it is important that I share with the House the National Party’s stand on referendums. In the words of Jeff Seeney— If a referendum of the community had integrity and was supportive of the move— that is, recycling water— then the Minister would most likely give his approval. For example, if a referendum was passed with 75% of the community in support of drinking recycled water, obviously the decision for the Minister would be easy. However, if a referendum was only passed with 51% support, the Minister may not think that is sufficient to give his approval ... What can I say? The more things change, the more they stay the same. In the Queensland National Party, 50 per cent plus one does not count as a majority. When is a majority not a majority? When it is a Callide majority, when it is a Queensland National Party majority. Thus has it ever been. When has the Queensland National Party ever had a firm grasp on the fundamentals of democracy? But I think it is fair to say that the member for Callide is taking it to new and previously unexplored heights. For the good old National Party in the good old days, 29 per cent was enough to hold government, but now 51 per cent is not enough to hold a referendum. How far will it go? This is an interesting policy. It requires more than a two-thirds majority, and I wonder how far it will be applied. Will it, for example, hold for National Party leadership ballots in the party room? Will the member for Callide need 75 per cent in the party room? Will they come and claim seats in this parliament if 51 per cent of the electorate endorse one of their candidates? I wonder. Of course, the unasked question is: where do the Liberals stand on this new referendum policy? I dare to predict that they stand where they always stand: one inch behind the National Party—one step behind the National Party on this sort of rubbish. I remember a time when the Queensland Liberal Party was prepared to stand up for the rule of law. This morning we saw them abandon that. The members of the Liberal Party mindlessly crossed the floor with their National Party mates without one ounce of respect for the rule of law. They do not respect a majority in a democracy and they do not respect the rule of law. The more things change for the Queensland Nationals and Liberals, the more they stay the same.

Basil Stafford Centre Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors. Recently, it was reported that a whistleblower suspended on full pay since July last year from the Basil Stafford Centre had received a letter of dismissal. This whistleblower was suspended after alleging that people with intellectual disabilities at the centre were being isolated and locked up for long periods. The group SUFU, which stands for Stand Up For Us, is comprised of members who have loved ones at the Basil Stafford Centre and who can attest to the abuse which has occurred there. How many other people have been suspended from the Basil Stafford Centre? Were they also whistleblowers? Will the minister agree to meet with the Stand Up For Us group to discuss the facts of how their family members have been or are still being treated at the centre? 1988 Questions Without Notice 25 May 2006

Mr PITT: I thank the member for the question. I will answer the second part of it first. Of course, I am always prepared to meet with any group that has an interest in people in Queensland who have a disability. So if SUFU wish to have an interview or a meeting with me, they only need ask. My door is always open. The matter to which the member referred is internal to the department. It is being dealt with in an appropriate fashion by the director-general and the department itself. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

Traveston Dam Mr McNAMARA: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. I refer to the environmental assessments and approvals required before the proposal to build a major dam at the Traveston site on the Mary River can proceed, and I ask: will these assessments and approvals take into consideration downstream impacts, including particularly the Great Sandy Strait? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question and also for his representations to me on this issue. When I left the Primary Industries and Fisheries portfolio I thought I was well rid of the member for Hervey Bay and his very strong representations on issues relating to fishing. However, how wrong I was. I can assure the honourable member and other members of this House that full environmental assessments and approvals will be required for any dam on the Mary River. These are statutory obligations. The Mary River is already subject to water resource planning. Public comment on the Mary Basin draft water resource plan closed in February this year. Water resource plans ensure that water is managed equitably to preserve our quality of life and our aquatic ecosystems. I am advised by the department that end-of-system flows in the Mary River, including the full use of entitlements in the catchment, would be reduced from 92 per cent to 85 per cent of the average annual predevelopment flow after the proposed Traveston Dam is in full operation. I am further advised that the Mary River’s reduced end-of-system flow would remain the highest of all catchments in the state’s south-east. That is great news for the Great Sandy Strait. Any form of water infrastructure cannot be built without an impact. Any dam on the Mary River will have to take into account issues such as the Mary River cod, the lungfish and the turtle. The construction of the Paradise Dam on the Burnett River shows our government’s commitment and track record on minimising environmental impacts. As I told the House yesterday, I have discussed this matter already with the federal environment minister, Ian Campbell.

Farrah, Mr R Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister confirm that after allegedly threatening to kill a woman while on leave, Farrah was approved in March for further community leave? Has the minister acted to withdraw that leave? Mr ROBERTSON: I have already indicated that this individual is currently before the courts in relation to allegations that have been made against him. It is not appropriate for me to comment any further just as it is not appropriate, having been advised that this individual is before the Magistrates Court, that the member should continue to pursue these matters. Mr Seeney: So is he on leave or not? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, I have already mentioned this twice today. You asked your question in silence. You will allow the minister to answer in silence. If there is a repeat of this, I will ask you to leave.

Health Services, Rural and Remote Areas Mr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Can he inform the House of any new projects being undertaken by the government to improve community health services for Queenslanders living in rural and remote areas? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Fitzroy for that question because improving health services for Queenslanders living in the bush is one of this government’s key priorities. We are delivering by improving healthcare facilities in the bush as well as providing financial incentives and better accommodation for doctors, nurses and allied health professionals to work in rural and remote communities. Today, I am pleased to announce that funding for two projects will further provide better quality health services for Queenslanders in rural Queensland. One of these is in the electorate of the member for Fitzroy and the other is at Tambo, which is in the electorate of the member for Gregory. 25 May 2006 Questions Without Notice 1989

The Queensland government is providing $110,000 funding each towards the new multipurpose centres being developed at Wowan-Dululu and Tambo. We are working in partnership with the local shire councils and the Commonwealth to make these new facilities a reality. The Wowan-Dululu project involves the construction of a new multipurpose centre that will provide new and upgraded community health services for the surrounding communities. The member for Fitzroy has been a great champion of this project. The existing centre provides a range of services, including domiciliary nursing, respite care, a doctor’s clinic, an immunisation centre, allied health services, diabetes support, child health services and community health therapists. However, the present building is no longer adequate to meet the growing needs of the centre. The new Wowan-Dululu multipurpose centre will enhance and further expand the current services plus introduce new health and community services for the benefits of the community, especially the aged. Tambo will also get a new multipurpose centre to house essential community health services. It will provide a community focal point for health, government business and general community services in one location and central to town. It will maximise and enhance existing services and further expand services by introducing new health services, including attracting private practitioners. It is expected that the health services will include a women’s health clinic, physiotherapy and massage therapy, podiatry services, a dietitian, aged-care services and a Medicare easyclaim service. These two new multipurpose centres reflect the Beattie government’s commitment to improving health services for Queensland no matter where they live, whether that be in the city, in regional Queensland, or in the bush. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Caloundra, I welcome into the public gallery the staff and students from the South Bank and Toowoomba institutes of TAFE. Mental Health Service Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. Why is his government continuing to let insane killers loose on our streets and gagging the victims’ families from speaking out about the horrendous grief they have suffered and the media from reporting to the public just what is going on under his administration? Mr SPEAKER: I will accept this question, but I suggest to opposition members that they have asked this type of question a number of times today. It is becoming repititious. I will allow this one, but if opposition members ask a similar question this morning I will rule it out of order. Mr ROBERTSON: One of the issues that I do not believe has received appropriate attention in the case that has been mentioned over the past couple of days is that, amongst allegations by those opposite that this government has somehow been responsible for the release into the community of a particular individual allegedly unsupervised by mental health officers, is the allegation that we stood back and did nothing. It is appropriate that the record actually be corrected. We have heard a lot of nonsense spoken by the opposition about the provisions contained in the new Mental Health Act. I remind honourable members that this government introduced a new provision that gives the Attorney-General the right to appear before the independent Mental Health Review Tribunal to represent the interests of the state and the community. When the Mental Health Review Tribunal held a hearing into the case that has received so much publicity, the Attorney-General was actually represented. She put forward a submission to the Mental Health Review Tribunal that the individual who has been named over the past couple of days not be provided with unsupervised access to the community—I repeat, not be provided with unsupervised access to the community. It was the decision of the independent tribunal not to accept that submission by the Attorney-General. Independent tribunals are allowed to do that following scrutiny of the evidence that is presented to them. Therefore, the allegation that this government did nothing is clearly false, because the record shows that the Attorney-General appeared before the Mental Health Review Tribunal and made submissions to restrict this particular individual’s access to the community. The independent tribunal did not accept that submission. I am informed that consideration was in fact given to appealing the decision by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, but the assessment was made that there was insufficient evidence to justify such an appeal. I hope that someone who aspires to be an Attorney-General at some time in the future would understand that when the Attorney-General makes a submission on behalf of the community and the state it is up to the independent tribunal to determine a way forward based on the facts before it. That is the nature of independent tribunals. It is about time that the record started to show that in no way did this government— Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Stafford, I welcome into the public gallery teachers and students of Lowood State School in the electorate of Ipswich West, which is represented in this parliament by Don Livingstone. 1990 Questions Without Notice 25 May 2006

Public Housing Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the minister for housing. My constituents and I appreciate what the minister has done to provide affordable housing in our area and to improve the quality of Department of Housing units and housing through the government’s renewal programs. I understand that local residents in another part of Brisbane have received a letter from the member for Chatsworth stating that the state government is going to evict tenants from their public housing homes. Can the minister inform the House if this is correct or just another example of Liberal Party scaremongering? Mr SCHWARTEN: The member was spot on the money in the last bit of his question. I thank the honourable member for his question. What a sharp contrast there is between his good self and the member for Chatsworth. We are trying to keep the community of Stafford together, and the honourable member has been a champion of that. We have a similar problem in Chatsworth, where older residents occupy three-bedroom homes that they have lived in all of their lives. Their spouses have died and the house is underoccupied or overoccupied—call it what you will—as one person is living in a three- bedroom house. The tories are always asking why we are not doing something about overoccupancy. In Stafford we are doing something. We are keeping that community together. We have worked with the Brisbane City Council, the honourable member has shown leadership and decency on this issue, and we have achieved a very good result. Some of those people have probably lived all of their lives in that area and they are staying. Let us turn to Chatsworth. What has been the response of the honourable member for Chatsworth? He has sent a scaremongering, deceitful and dishonest letter to people to scare them into believing that they will be evicted from their properties. That is not true and the member knows that it is not true. Of course, the member for Chatsworth is the genius who gave the National Party the seat of Gaven. He is also the genius who is masterminding the terrible fear of eviction felt by people in this community. He ought to be ashamed of himself. One cannot get much lower than that. As far as I am concerned, he is lower than the basic wage. The truth is that I showed the honourable member for Chatsworth what we might be able to do in that suburb. He immediately dismissed what I told him and dishonestly pulled the strings on Councillor Schrinner, who referred to slums and so on. This does not represent the Liberal Lord Mayor’s view of the world. He is actually very supportive of what we are trying to do. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The minister’s interjection is quite on the mark, because we have done the same thing in Wynnum and we have kept the older residents in the area. The reality is that the member for Chatsworth wants us to evict the older people from those suburbs, because there is nowhere for them to go. He wants people who have lived all their lives in Carina and Carina Heights to be evicted out of those suburbs so that we can move other people into the houses. That is not how a Labor government works. On this issue the contrast between them and us could not be sharper. We stand for keeping communities together and for rebuilding communities. They stand for tearing them to pieces. This is a disgraceful misuse of the member’s position. I note that in his letter he said how forcefully he has stood up for this issue in the parliament. However, he does not have a policy on improving Brisbane’s suburbs and he does not have a policy on housing.

Gladstone, Skills Shortage Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. After a recent skills shortage audit, hospitality and chef training were identified on a list of trades needed in Gladstone. Gladstone TAFE has offered hospitality courses and run Horizons restaurant, allowing front- and back-of-house training. I have been advised that Horizons is closing. Can the minister review this decision to ensure that area of skills shortage can continue to be addressed in the electorate of Gladstone? Mr BARTON: Yes. The short answer is that I will have a look at that decision taken by central Queensland TAFE. As we are all aware, the Premier and I recently released the new Skills Plan for Queensland and a very significant increase in funding that comes with it, as well as the additional increase of some 17,000 jobs at trade level. The tourism and hospitality areas are included in that. That is one of the focal points that will benefit from those additional positions. We have also provided funding for some 14,000 additional places in the paraprofessional area. 25 May 2006 Questions Without Notice 1991

However, as we are well aware, there are shortages of skilled workers in the tourism and hospitality sector. Through User Choice, we have been working to fund private providers as well as the very extensive training provided by TAFE institutes up and down Queensland. I am not aware of the specifics of the matter that the member mentioned, but I can say that we are actively encouraging the private sector to work cooperatively with us and I certainly go out of my way to support that. I will call for some information on the issue. I will review it and let the member know the outcome. Gold Coast, Emergency Services Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the minister aware of recent comments by the member for Gaven about fire and ambulance services on the Gold Coast? If so, what is his response? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for Ipswich for the question and for her continuing interest in emergency services, unlike the member for Gaven whose shame file I am about to put on the record. I know that the member for Ipswich supports the men and women who work in emergency services and what they do in her electorate. I am aware of the comments of the member for Gaven. He is rapidly building a portfolio—a shame file, if you like—of disparaging comments that he has made about ambulance and fire and rescue services on the Gold Coast. The first item in the shame file of the member for Gaven occurred on 15 March when the ABC reported the member’s comments that people in Nerang had died because ambulances had had to travel from other suburbs. That is a shameful thing to say when it is not true— and it is not true. It is wrong. There is no record of anybody losing their life in that part of the coast because an ambulance was delayed. Secondly, on 7 April, a Gold Coast radio station reported the member as saying that lives were at risk because fire stations were 20 minutes from Nerang. Again, this is wrong. The fire service is meeting its response times and benchmarks in the Nerang area. Could I just say that sometimes it is not the closeness of the station to the fire that saves lives. Smoke alarms and getting people out of dwellings save lives. Sadly, just recently, we have had cases where people have been in a fire three minutes from a station and have not survived. Finally, yesterday a Gold Coast newspaper reported the member as saying that emergency cases were being turned away from the Gold Coast Hospital. Wrong again! Code 1 emergency cases are always admitted to hospital. There is absolutely no truth to any of the member’s claims. There is a demand for a new ambulance station at Nerang. The Beattie government has duly promised a station and is now working on getting that station underway. Meanwhile, Nerang enjoys a world-class service from our firies, with response times well within the benchmarks. It is clear that the member for Gaven still has his training wheels on, otherwise why would he make such slanderous comments? Only two days ago, ambulance and fire officers were again voted the most trusted professionals in the country. It is plainly irresponsible for the member for Gaven to drag the excellent work of our emergency services personnel into his grubby political muckraking. Rather than trying to undermine public confidence in our nation’s most trusted professions, he should concentrate on his own performance. Unlike the opposition, the Beattie government will continue to support this state’s hardworking emergency services men and women. South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan Mr CALTABIANO: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer. As the Treasurer is aware, the Labor Party—by virtue of advice from Treasury and the recent actions of councillors in the City of Brisbane—has changed the way in which major projects are costed in Queensland to include all finance, borrowings, interest, resumptions and approvals in the total project cost. Can the Treasurer advise the House if the Gateway Motorway and bridge project, shown as costing $1.55 billion, has now blown out to in excess of $2.5 billion, with these finance costs included in the total project cost? Further, does the Labor Party position render defunct the already seriously flawed South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, which has increased from $55 billion to $66 billion in one year and will now cost in excess of $70 billion using the new Labor Party finance costing model? Also, will this new costing model be used as the basis for the 2006-07 budget to be delivered in a week’s time? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. In relation to the costings of the Gateway duplication project, as I understand it, the tenders have closed and are currently being assessed. Mr Lucas interjected. Ms BLIGH: It is very bad news for the member, yes. I can assure him that assessment and evaluation of those tenders is still occurring. It is far too early to say what the total cost of the project will be because we are yet to choose or secure a final bidder. What I can say is that, when we do that, when 1992 Questions Without Notice 25 May 2006 we evaluate the cost and when we start to pay for it, we will be paying for it with state money. As I understand it, there will not be one dollar of Commonwealth money. None of the member’s friends in Canberra will be assisting with that major piece of infrastructure. I am yet to hear the member for Chatsworth, in his role as shadow transport minister, say one thing about federal government funding for roads and transport in Queensland. I heard his former colleague the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane—to his credit—calling on Canberra to deliver more, calling on Canberra to recognise the importance of infrastructure such as tunnels, and saying how disappointed he is that Canberra will not come to the party. Well, Canberra will not come to the party. Canberra will not come to the party on the Gateway duplication; Canberra will not come to the party on the Gold Coast motorway, the Ipswich Motorway and many, many other important pieces of infrastructure. In relation to the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, I encourage the member for Chatsworth to look at it in detail. He needs to understand that when we launched the infrastructure plan last year, we made it absolutely clear that the costings were done in 2005 dollars and would be updated every year. Obviously one would expect the costs to rise with the CPI and, on major construction projects, with rises in the Building Price Index. Similarly, one would expect that the plan that we released last year would not be a static plan. We said that it would be an organic and growing document, that we would regularly update it, that we would add projects to it, that we would not be stuck in 2005, that 2005 would be the base line and that every year we would update the costings on the basis of Building Price Index growth and update it with new projects, as necessary. That is exactly what we have done with this document. I applaud the Premier’s decision to release this yesterday. I applaud the fact that this government is prepared to put $66 billion of investment into infrastructure in the busiest and fastest growing part of this country.

Gold Coast City Council, CMC Report

Mrs SMITH: I direct my question to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women. While the mayor of the Gold Coast City Council and most of the councillors found no cause for concern with the CMC report into the council, thousands of Gold Coasters thought otherwise. Can the minister update the House on her further consideration of the CMC report into the Gold Coast City Council? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for the question. Throughout this dreadful exercise of the CMC investigation, with all of the complaints and concerns that have been expressed about the council, she has been a strong supporter of her residents, as have our other Gold Coast members. The honourable member is quite correct that there are still very many pieces of correspondence flooding into my office, expressing the lack of confidence of Gold Coast residents in their council. Very many of them are asking me to sack the council. I reiterate, in terms of the CMC report, its findings and its recommendations, that I do not have the authority under the Local Government Act to dismiss the council. I say to the honourable member and to all interested persons on the Gold Coast that my department is still analysing the 19 recommendations in the CMC report and putting a reform package together. However, I have decided that it is only fair to give the mayor and all of the councillors of the Gold Coast City Council a chance to speak to me directly as to their response to the 19 recommendations in the CMC report. Accordingly, the director-general and I will visit the Gold Coast City Council on Friday, 2 June and give the councillors a fair chance to have their say. I take this opportunity to refer to the unfortunate tarnishing of the local government sector across Queensland by all that has happened on the Gold Coast. This is not fair to the very many councils in Queensland which, every day, do a great job with great integrity, with no complaints to the CMC against them. It is unreasonable for them to have to put up with very many changes and extra controls upon their behaviour when they have had nothing to do with the difficulties that have arisen on the Gold Coast. In fact, I recently toured the south-west of the state. I met with 12 councils which are doing excellent things. I will provide members with a brief glimpse of this. Mayor Peter Taylor in Jondaryan is piping recycled waste water into new housing estates for outside use. Mayor Noel Strohfeldt from Rosalie Shire Council engages with his community and is planning a medical centre, a child-care centre and a community centre, with economic development and the community in mind. Mayor Tom Woods from Waggamba Shire Council engages with his residents, with over 15 community meetings held in the last year. Many stories from the 157 councils across Queensland bear on the strength, independence and integrity of the local government sector in this state. 25 May 2006 Distinguished Visitor, Address to the House 1993

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Mr HORAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. In the midst of the savage budget cuts made by the minister’s government to the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, with $39 million slashed over the past three years, I ask the minister to explain the benefit to farmers and fishers of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries sponsorship of Queensland Opera’s production of Romeo and Juliet? Mr MULHERIN: I will take that question on notice and get back to the member in the next day or so. The DPI does great work. If members look at the forecast gross value of production for primary industries for 2005-06 it is estimated at $10.92 billion. This is just under four per cent more than the forecast published in September this year, a remarkable achievement given that more than 60 per cent of the state is drought affected. The primary industries sector is the state’s second largest exporter next to mining. A target has been set of accelerating the gross value of production of Queensland primary industries to $14.4 billion per annum by 2010-11. Queensland posted a record $11 billion gross value of production last year and the latest GVP figures for 2005-06 include: cattle and calves, $3.425 million; bananas, $315 million; fruit and vegetables, $316 million. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired. Minister, you did say you would take the question on notice. Will you be responding to the opposition today? Mr MULHERIN: I will respond under standing order 114.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR, ADDRESS TO THE HOUSE

General P Cosgrove Mr SPEAKER: Pursuant to a resolution of the House yesterday, we invite General Peter Cosgrove to address the House from the floor of the chamber from 11.30 am today for the purpose of reporting on the rebuilding and recovery program following Cyclone Larry. Honourable members, I welcome the general to the Legislative Assembly. Will the Sergeant-at- Arms please admit the general. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The Sergeant-at-Arms met General Cosgrove at the Bar of the House and escorted him to the Speaker’s dais. Mr SPEAKER: General, I think it indicates the respect which this parliament has for you because very, very few people are invited by the parliament to address us. I understand this is your second occasion, which I think speaks for itself. It is my privilege now to invite the Premier to introduce you to the members of this Assembly. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (11.30 am), by leave: It is with great pleasure that I welcome General Peter Cosgrove to address the parliament today on the rebuilding and recovery program being undertaken following Cyclone Larry. Cyclone Larry left a trail of destruction when it crossed the coast of far-north Queensland on 20 March 2006. Many people lost their homes, their livelihoods and their possessions. I was determined to ensure the rebuilding and recovery of the affected communities and that it began as quickly as possible so I asked General Cosgrove to lead the operation and recovery task force. He has done a magnificent job. General Cosgrove immediately responded to my call for help and was on the ground in Innisfail four days after the cyclone hit. I make the point that he left his family and commitments and went immediately to that community. I cannot think of any other Australian who would have done it as quickly as the general did. A lot of work has been done by General Cosgrove and the task force since that time. I have been receiving regular reports on progress, some of which I have tabled in this parliament. Some of the task force activities have included providing advice on the needs of affected communities, coordinating the actions of peak community and business organisations to ensure the most effective use of resources and skills and undertaking recovery action such as accommodation provision and on-the-ground community advice and assistance. General Cosgrove has done an extraordinary job in leading the recovery and rebuilding effort and as soon as he was appointed it engendered enormous confidence within the community. As I mentioned in this House earlier this week, General Cosgrove will no longer be located in Innisfail full time from the end of next month, but he will continue to lead the recovery process and make regular visits to the region. I pay tribute to General Cosgrove and thank him and the other task force members, Sandy Hollway, the Hon. Terry Mackenroth, Ross Rolfe, the Director-General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, who is also with us today, and John Mulcahy, the Deputy President of the Insurance Council of Australia, for their outstanding achievements so far. 1994 Distinguished Visitor, Address to the House 25 May 2006

This morning I outlined the reasons behind the cancellation of the benefit concert at Suncorp Stadium and the details of a $250,000 payment which will be made to the relief appeal. I also tabled the suite of strategic documents that set out the task force agenda and key milestones and target time frames for the recovery process. As members can see from these documents, there is still a lot to be done. The people of far-north Queensland can rest assured that the task force will continue to do everything it can to help those who have had their lives thrown into disarray and get things back to normal. I welcome General Cosgrove to the parliament today and hope his address will provide a unique opportunity for members to hear firsthand about progress in the region from a truly remarkable Australian, and that is exactly what he is. The general did address this parliament in a previous capacity. Parliament actually formally adjourned for that address. This is the first formal time, in the time that Mr Speaker and I have been in this parliament, that we have actually had someone address the parliament itself. I have been reliably informed by the Clerk that the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, attended once but actually sat in the chair the general is in but did not address the parliament. As far as we are aware, this may well be the first time that anyone has formally addressed the Queensland Parliament and I could not think of a better person to do it than General Cosgrove. Mr SPEAKER: I invite the general to address the parliament of Queensland and, of course, the people of our state. Standing orders were suspended as a result of the motion which the parliament carried yesterday so I invite members to welcome the general in the normal way. Honourable members applauded. GEN. COSGROVE: Mr Speaker, I thank the Premier for his invitation and your permission to address this sitting of the state parliament. I can recall on my return from East Timor back in 2000 having the honour of addressing the parliament on that occasion. I will say a few more words about that in a moment. There was another moment in the federal parliament when, rather than addressing the sitting of the Senate as it was at the time, we were invited, as service chiefs, to enter the chamber and to sit along the wall. Another honour given to us. We were very conscious of that. While we were sitting like crows on a fence in chairs set against the wall one of the senators, Senator Faulkner of the Labor Party, came over and said to us, ‘Gentlemen, I have just been talking to my colleagues and we were reflecting on the fact that there are very few parliaments in the world where four fellows in uniform could come in and sit against the wall and we parliamentarians would not be worried.’ On the occasion that the Premier has referred to, it was my privilege to speak to the parliament about an emergency and the efforts by thousands of Australians to resolve that emergency. At that time members, and many members I recognise on both sides of the chamber, had an obvious pride in what I told them about our magnificent men and women and their courage and cohesion, their stamina and their good humour. They also on that occasion showed great relief that the dangerous early days of our challenge appeared to be over but also acknowledged that there was much hard work and necessary vigilance ahead. That hard work and vigilance will be demonstrated in the days ahead. It is therefore with a considerable sense of deja vu that I again stand before you to render a report on another Australian emergency. A little over eight weeks ago a terrible force of nature engulfed one of the most beautiful parts of Australia. Not since Cyclone Tracy and, arguably, not in living memory, had such a destructive wind descended on an Australian community. It was at this time of great danger that Queenslanders were able to reap the benefits of professional competence, from the meteorologists who so accurately depicted the power, the path and the pace of the cyclone to the many hundreds of police, fire brigade, ambulance and SES men and women and countless ordinary Australians who worked to prepare the threatened area for the onslaught. Overall it was a mighty effort which doubtless saved many lives and injuries and mitigated much potential damage. The disaster relief effort launched on 20 March immediately after the cyclone moved away extended until after Easter. Almost immediately after the cyclone had passed on, police, fire brigade, ambulance and state emergency services were on the scene. I am honoured and proud to say that the military were also quick into action. Together with the people living in the region, evacuation, emergency housing, provisioning and expedient repairs became a priority of work, and many hundreds of far-north Queenslanders were assisted in this way. In addition, any hardship cases were immediately assisted with cash grants to buy food, clothing and other necessities. To their great credit, men and women of the state and Commonwealth Public Service stepped quickly and willingly out of their ordinary office based roles and brought their professional services to the disaster victims in shopfront operations the length and breadth of the disaster area. It is now a matter of record that the disaster relief operation was speedily and effectively executed, allowing recovery operations to be undertaken without delay. In relation especially to the relief effort, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the leadership provided to their communities by the mayors of affected shires and councils, especially that of councillor Neil Clarke of Johnstone shire, the worst hit of the local government areas in the cyclone’s path. In the aftermath of highly destructive winds beyond the experience of any living Australian, the mayors, 25 May 2006 Distinguished Visitor, Address to the House 1995 especially Councillor Clarke, were towers of strength and inspiration to their communities and thus to the rest of Queensland and to Australia. As a close observer on the scene and an experienced judge of leadership, I can report to you that they stood tall when their people needed them. Turning to the matter of recovery, I have now been on the job in the far north of Queensland for eight weeks, supported by numerous members of the Queensland Public Service and members of the police, fire and ambulance services. Overall, I consider that the recovery operation is proceeding very well. The Premier has supported me with a highly talented and energetic task force: Mr Mackenroth, whose particular focus is the administration of the Cyclone Larry appeal fund; Mr Sandy Hollway, who had oversight of the recovery effort after the Canberra bushfires in 2003; Mr John Mulcahy, the CEO of Suncorp, representing the insurance industry; and, finally, Mr Ross Rolfe, the permanent head of the Premier’s department. We quickly agreed as a group that the three urgent and main priorities for recovery were repair and rebuilding of houses, support to employment to mitigate against population flight and urgent support to industry of all natures. Many different strands of activities to support these needs are presently underway. Shopfront activities to provide advice and often financial support to disaster affected people have continued and are as much a part of the recovery effort as they were of disaster relief. A major contribution to the repair and rebuilding work has been the creation of a building coordination centre in Innisfail—again, as a form of one-stop shop to assist consumers, insurers and material and labour suppliers to achieve housing repair and rebuilding outcomes as quickly and as economically as possible. The BCC, the building coordination centre, is under the able and energetic leadership of Mr Ian Jennings of the Building Services Authority. I believe he may be with us today. In relation to employment, the state and federal governments have provided substantial support to employers and employees alike. In particular, extending the community jobs program to allow for a rural clean-up project has had the dual effect of not only providing a further number of jobs but also being much appreciated by many farmers with a very small workforce—frequently just their families— presently a very low cash flow and a very big clean-up problem. Industry recovery is led by the major loan and grant available under the umbrella of the natural disaster recovery arrangements. That loan and grant is now at an historically high quantum and has significantly improved qualifying criteria. In addition to the availability of this recovery measure, by a process of close consultation led by state government officials from the departments of primary industry and fisheries, and state development, training and innovation, industry associations and spokespersons have been providing input on potential further recovery measures. The task force is in the late stages of collating these industry sector impact and recovery statements, and developing options for government consideration in relation to industry recovery. The task force’s job is not yet done. My judgement is that important recovery aspects, especially the challenge of rehousing the many hundreds of citizens whose homes were damaged, into habitable, weatherproof homes before the next wet season remains a significant challenge. The outcome to this will largely depend on the number of building tradespeople who can be gathered to that task. In this regard, we should all continue to encourage these skilled Australians to join in the task of supporting their fellow Aussies in the far north. To conclude, let me say how honoured I am to have this opportunity in the seat of government of the great state of Queensland to represent a great and courageous community that is doing it tough but doing it well. We in the task force feel honoured to be associated with them. While much remains to be done to return this part of Australia to its obvious status as a beautiful, peaceful and vibrant part of our nation, a good start is being made. I return to the far north confident in the recovery of the region, for I daily see the courage, cohesiveness and determination of the people of the far north. Mr SPEAKER: General, on behalf of all members of this parliament, I thank you for the address which you have just given us. I know that the people of the north would have been greatly relaxed when the Premier announced that you had accepted his invitation to head the recovery program. The Premier spoke before about firsts in this parliament. Well, there is another first being created. Since I have been the Speaker, it is the first time that during a major address here I have not had to call for order. I think that indicates the depth of gratitude and respect which this parliament has for you as an individual. You are a great Australian. We are fortunate in having somebody like you, the calibre of you, to lead this recovery program. I know that the members who come from those areas, in particular Warren Pitt, Marc Rowell and a few others, can rest in the knowledge that they have an excellent team led by you spearheading this recovery. General, on behalf of the people of Queensland and certainly the members of this parliament, I thank you for the magnificent job you are doing. In particular, as the Speaker of this parliament, I thank you for taking the time out to come and address us this morning. The Sergeant-at-Arms escorted General Cosgrove from the House. 1996 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

CORRECTIVE SERVICES BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 23 May (see p. 1860). Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (11.48 am), in reply: I want to thank all members who participated in the debate the other evening on the Corrective Services Bill 2006 for their contributions. I would like to begin today by addressing a number of the questions raised by the member for Gregory. The member summarised the provisions about court ordered parole and resettlement leave of absence. There will be three parole boards, the Queensland Parole Board, the South Queensland Regional Parole Board and the Central and North Queensland Regional Parole Board. The Queensland Parole Board will consider applications for parole from all prisoners serving more than eight years imprisonment. The regional parole boards will consider applications for parole from prisoners serving between three and eight years imprisonment, and sex offenders and serious violent offenders serving less than eight years imprisonment. The decision about participation in resettlement leave of absence by prisoners serving long sentences will be taken by the Queensland Parole Board. This gives the Queensland Parole Board ultimate control over the structured reintegration of prisoners serving long sentences. Prisoners serving shorter sentences will be able to participate in reintegration leave when appropriate. The member for Gregory spoke about the membership of parole boards. I am pleased that the member will be watching with interest the appointment of members to the new parole boards. I wrote to every current community corrections board member. I invited each member to express their interest in being nominated as a member of a parole board. Many of those expressions of interest received have come from a vast array of communities throughout Queensland. I do not take the member’s point that the membership requirements of the parole boards stipulated in the bill do not represent the community. These are minimum requirements. That means that somewhere that has a higher population of Indigenous prisoners, for example north Queensland, will have more Indigenous parole board members who have an appreciation and understanding of local Indigenous communities. In my two years as the minister for corrections I have been very pleased with the work of our Queensland Community Corrections Board. My observation of their decision making over the last two years is that we have members on those boards who are quite conservative and take their jobs very seriously. It is quite an extensive job. They have to read through the history of each prisoner before making a decision on whether to allow them parole. We are asking them to do a serious and large job. They are performing those functions very well. That is why I have written to each member and asked them whether they want to renominate for one of the new boards. In the first instance I am looking to reappoint those members who express interest in being on these new boards. The member for Gregory has asked me to comment on the issue of prisoners changing their name by common usage. While a prisoner is in custody they will have to use their legal name and it is their legal name that will be used if they are released to parole or placed on the child sex offenders register. Without legally changing their name, they cannot open a bank account or get a driver’s licence. We have felt the need to introduce this provision in the legislation, not because we have had problems in the Queensland prison system but because other states have had problems where prisoners have changed their names whilst in prison. One has even changed their name to that of their victim in one instance in another state. We do not want to have that situation in Queensland. We are making it very clear that this will not be lawful in the future. The member for Gregory spoke about pregnancy termination and a matter he raised in the parliament two weeks ago. The legislation retains the provision to treat prisoners humanely. Refusing pregnancy termination for a prisoner when medical advice states it is in the best interests of the prisoner is not humane. It is not the role of the director-general to question the medical ethics of a doctor before allowing any medical procedure where the practitioner states it is in the best interest of the prisoner. That is indeed what occurred with the case recently. The member for Gregory has asked me to comment on the request to include members of parliament as prescribed persons in relation to privileged mail. The corrective services regulation lists certain persons as being able to receive or send privileged mail. Among others, the regulation includes government ministers as prescribed persons. I will accept the member’s point and will ensure the regulation includes other members of parliament as persons who can receive privileged mail. I would advise any other person or organisation that feels that they, too, should be a prescribed person or organisation to make an approach to me outlining the reasons why. Requests of this kind are considered on a case-by-case basis. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 1997

The member has commented on the provisions relating to rehabilitation. In addition to that mentioned in chapter 1, clause 265 recognises, for the first time, that programs or services must be established to help rehabilitate offenders. We should be very pleased that, for the first time, we are enshrining in legislation the notion that prisoners are entitled to rehabilitation. This is one of the primary objectives of this bill. In relation to the provision of religious services to prisoners, the government has a consistent policy about religious services. Religious services are coordinated by the State Chaplaincy Board. My observation after visiting prisons is that every prison has its own place of worship. We have a great state chaplaincy service that works very hard on behalf of their respective churches to provide religious advice and support to any prisoner in this state who feels a need for their services. I take this opportunity to thank our state prison chaplains for the wonderful work they do in our prisons. The member for Gregory has asked me to comment on whether the workload of the Ombudsman has been considered during the review. The Office of the Ombudsman was consulted during the review of the act. The Ombudsman is not the only body able to investigate complaints made by prisoners. Prisoners will continue to have unfettered access to a range of review and complaint mechanisms such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Health Rights Commission, the Anti-Discrimination Commission and the chief inspector. They are also entitled to complain or put their case forward to official visitors. I think there would be few prison systems in the world where prisoners are given so many avenues for complaint or opportunities to have decisions about their containment reviewed. I am very pleased that we have in our system these layers of complaint mechanisms. If there is any injustice in the system prisoners can turn to someone for assistance and support. The member for Gregory stated that for the first time this legislation will permit the searching of children who are residing with a mother. This is inaccurate. For the first time this legislation places safeguards around the searching of children accommodated with their mothers. The provision has been included to ensure that children are not treated like ‘little prisoners’, and makes it absolutely clear that under no circumstances may children residing in prison be subject to any form of intrusive search. For the first time we are actually safeguarding the rights of these children who reside with their mothers in prison. The member for Gregory commented on the provisions relating to notifying victims of crime of the death of a prisoner. Clause 325(1)(g) asks that the chief executive notify a person registered with the eligible persons register of the death of a prisoner. I would like to thank the member for his comments in relation to resourcing. This is not a legislative issue; however, the member will be pleased to know that a major recruitment drive has been undertaken to prepare the Department of Corrective Services for the additional caseload of community based offenders. We have already gone out and recruited and trained people. Many are already working in our community corrections offices. We are in a fortunate position at this time. We still have an enthusiastic pool of applicants from which to choose. The skills shortage has not, at this stage, affected our ability to recruit and train people. The member for Gregory also raised questions about sexual contact between prisoners and staff and how this is treated. Provisions relating to the disciplining of officers of Queensland Corrective Services, as with all Public Service officers, are included in the Public Service Act 1996. The most notable case of a sexual relationship between a staff member and a prisoner occurred in 1998. It involved prisoner Wade Bartz and a prison psychologist. In this case, the prison psychologist was investigated by the CMC and received jail time for her crimes. Members would be aware of the name Wade Bartz, as he has received plenty of media attention in relation to his escape and his frequent and generally unsuccessful use of judicial review. Like many criminals, he is a serial complainant who manipulates people for his own ends. There is much on the public record about Wade Bartz: his extensive criminal history, his questionable integrity, his litany of frivolous complaints, his dubious conduct while in prison and his habitual manipulation of people. Given this background, I am surprised that I constantly receive a stream of correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition advocating on behalf of Mr Bartz. While I do not wish to preclude members from making representations to me on behalf of prisoners, I would suggest that they take a closer look at the character of some of those prisoners they choose to support before repeatedly putting pen to paper. The member for Gregory raised issues about the deployment of perimeter patrol vehicles. Unlike those opposite, this government supports unions and the rights of workers. We have worked closely with the QPSU on the deployment of PPVs. Mr Johnson: I support unions. Ms SPENCE: I am pleased to hear the member for Gregory say that he does support unions, and I believe he is quite sincere and honest in that statement. I still maintain that there are many members in his party, and in the coalition particularly, who do not support unions, so I do make that distinction. 1998 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

Mr Johnson: Well, I’m not one of those. Ms SPENCE: I am pleased to hear that you are not one of them. Perimeter patrol vehicles predate the massive increase in perimeter security that occurred after Brendan Abbott’s last escape. There have been no escapes from secure custody since 1998, since the Beattie government was elected. This is due, in part, to the fact that aspects of perimeter and internal security have been increased. Since 1998, at no secure centre have prisoners made it past the perimeter razor wire. Therefore, the PPVs have not been deployed to prevent an escape that was occurring. No other state operates armoured vehicles, nor do they have an offensive capability. No other state operates a continuous 24- hour patrol by perimeter vehicles. Instead, they respond to incidents when required. I believe that it is, therefore, appropriate that we review the use of our perimeter patrol vehicles. At the moment, they are generally operated 24-hours a day around the perimeters of our prisons. I am determined that we will continue to work with the union to ensure that these vehicles are deployed in a more sensible and smarter fashion in the future. I would like to thank the member for Gregory and the opposition for supporting the bill. The member for Gladstone asked me to comment on whether a prisoner who has been given a court ordered parole date will still be released on parole if the prisoner has misbehaved during their incarceration. It is not the intention of the government to interfere any longer with court mandated release dates. If a prisoner commits a breach of discipline during their time in prison, they will be dealt with for that breach by prison authorities. If, however, that breach amounts to an offence and the prisoner is remanded or convicted of another offence, then the bill specifically provides that the prisoner will not be released on their court-ordered parole date and will have to go back to court for the court to determine a new sentence and a new parole date. The member has asked me to comment about the criminal history checking of visitors. Visitors will be informed that they will be required to undergo a criminal history check prior to being granted access to a corrective services facility when they ring to make a booking for a visit. Prison security is important and Corrective Services staff have to be aware of the criminal behaviour of visitors. Nobody can turn up on the doorstep of a high-security prison and expect to be let in automatically. I would like to thank other members for their contributions. The members for Sandgate, Glass House and Broadwater supported changes to parole, prisoner classification and the treatment of remand prisoners. The member for Gaven has a unique understanding of the realities of life behind prison bars, and I appreciate the fact that he has brought that experience into this parliament. I thank him for an analytical and well-informed contribution to this debate. The member for Surfers Paradise spoke of the need for programs, education and training for inmates to curb the tendency of some prisoners to reoffend. The government agrees, and that is why we are spending increasing amounts on programs and training. The member for Nicklin raised the important issue of the rights of victims. Much has been said in parliament this week about the need for victims to be heard, particularly when decisions are being made about people who have offended against them. I am very pleased that we are for the first time enshrining in legislation in this state the rights of victims to write to parole boards to have their voices heard. We should be talking about that out there in the public domain to make sure that all victims appreciate they now have the capacity to make representations to parole boards. Many advocates for prisoners appear to forget or negate the effect crime has on innocent members of the public. The member for Burleigh made a valuable contribution. Given the bond between mothers and children, many mothers of prisoners effectively serve every day of their children’s sentences, and it is often harder for those outside than those inside. I regularly discuss the treatment of visitors to prisons with the member for Burleigh, and I have made some changes to the procedures and provided some better infrastructure in the visits areas as a result of our conversations. As the members for Burleigh and Gaven said, family contact and support are valuable in reducing the chances of reoffending when a prisoner is released. I will continue to see if there is more we can do to make the process of maintaining contact with prisoners easier, such as the provision of information to first-time visitors and in looking at the visiting hours. I have also directed members of the department to talk to prison officers who work in the visitors areas of our jails about public relations and their attitude to and treatment of visitors. We can and will be doing much more in the future to make these visits more pleasant for those who must undertake this process. I know there are other members of parliament with close friends or family who have served time in Queensland’s prisons who also have ideas about improving the system. I would welcome conversations with them if they want to approach me at any time. A lot of work has gone into this legislation. It has been a two-year endeavour by my department. We had extensive consultation. I mentioned in my second reading speech that we put out in excess of 13 discussion papers and we received much feedback on them. We also undertook face-to-face consultation with people in communities throughout the state. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 1999

I would particularly like to place on the record of the parliament today my thanks to the director- general of my department, Mr Frank Rockett, and a number of departmental staff who have worked very hard on this legislation, including Fiona Rafter, Tamara Spreadborough, Amanda Dulvarie, Julie Medlin and the many other staff members who have worked so tirelessly on this legislation over the past two years. In particular, I would also like to thank my senior policy advisor, Dr Geoff Allan, for his hard work. He has spent a lot of time talking to members of parliament and informing them about the legislation. I commend this legislation to the House. I would also like to table the explanatory notes. Tabled paper: Ms Spence tabled an erratum to explanatory notes in relation to the Corrective Services Bill. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18 (Accommodation)— Mr JOHNSON (12.09 pm): From the outset, I wish to thank the minister for making references to some of those issues in her summary today. She addressed some issues I raised in my speech during the second reading debate, as well as some issues that other members of the opposition raised. Clause 18 on page 31 of the bill deals with accommodation. Subclause (2) states— A prisoner who is under 18 years must be kept apart from other prisoners who are 18 years or older unless it is in the prisoner’s best interests not to be kept apart. It then states— 1 A young Aboriginal prisoner may be accommodated with older prisoners to enable the young prisoner to be with a family member. 2 A young prisoner may be accommodated with older prisoners at a work camp. 3 A young prisoner may be accommodated with an older prisoner if the young prisoner is at risk of self-harm. That is all very well, but can the minister explain how a juvenile can be kept in an adult correctional facility? I interpret this clause to mean that it refers to all types of prison facilities. The clause refers to ‘a young Aboriginal prisoner’, but it does not give an age. A maximum security prison is certainly not a place for a 16- or 17-year-old. Can the minister clarify that point? I appreciate that the minister was formerly the minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy and would certainly have a sound knowledge and understanding of the issues that confront some of our Indigenous people in prisons today. I also understand some of the issues surrounding our Indigenous people that could relate to this clause. If the minister could clarify this point, I would greatly appreciate it. Ms SPENCE: In this state, 17-year-olds are held in adult detention centres. Generally, they are held in the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, where there is a special wing for juveniles. The 17-year- olds are separated from the mainstream prisoners at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre. On a number of occasions I have visited the 17-year-olds wing at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre. On the last occasion I visited I asked for a repaint and refurbishment of that wing. I am going to that prison in the next couple of months to look at the work that has been completed. I will invite the honourable member when I go there to look at that particular wing. In fact, I invite any other members of parliament to come with me on that day. In the past I have taken a number of members of parliament to the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre with me. It is an interesting prison. It is, of course, a dilemma as to whether to bring 17-year-old prisoners from north Queensland down to the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre away from their communities. So it may be the case that 17-year-olds are held in the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre or Townsville prison if it is for a short period and it is seen to be in those people’s best interests. But generally, we would send them to the special wing at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre. Mr JOHNSON: I thank the minister for her answer. My main concern is that we get the formula right in the correctional system. The system of corrections in Queensland—and in Australia, for that matter—is very comprehensive and complex. Last year I went to the United States and Canada with the minister to see how the prison systems in those countries work. We heard some horror stories about the prison system in the United States. We certainly do not need to use that country’s prison system as a template in Queensland. I make the point that the majority of these people who come down from north Queensland are Indigenous. It concerns me greatly that they are removed from their communities. We know of some of the hardships and difficulties people in those communities are subjected to, especially in relation to alcohol abuse. I know that we are trying to correct some of those anomalies, but I do not think the removal of those people from those areas in question to an institution in Brisbane is a good form of correction for them as they have a different culture from people of European extraction. 2000 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

I am genuinely concerned about the number of Indigenous people we have in our prison system. Some 25 per cent or thereabouts of people who are incarcerated in Queensland are Indigenous. I think we have to pay particular attention to this issue. I ask the minister to clarify this matter. Ms SPENCE: On any given day we would have fewer than twenty 17-year-olds in our prisons. So we are not talking about a large group of people. Probably more than a quarter of those people are going to be Indigenous. I also think that we have to remember that these fewer than 20 young ones are in prison because they have committed very serious crimes. They have not been given prison sentences for minor offences. They are going to be in prison for a long time. When they turn 18 they will be placed with the mainstream prison population anyway. In relation to the issue of bringing Indigenous people down to Brisbane, as I said it may be the case that, if it is in the Indigenous person’s best interests—if they are deemed to be a suicide risk or for some other reason—that Indigenous person will be held in the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre or Townsville prison with the mainstream prison population rather than be brought to the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre. These decisions are made after careful case management by many experts in the department. Those experts take the best interests of that 17-year-old into account when making those decisions about placement. Mr JOHNSON: I do not want to labour the point, but I think this is a very important aspect of this legislation. The minister said that fewer than 20 of these 17-year-olds are incarcerated in our prison system and that once they turn 18 and become adults they go into the mainstream prison system. Do those prisoners from north Queensland continue to serve their prison sentences here or, after receiving help and support from professional people such as medical practitioners and psychiatrists or undergoing rehabilitation programs, do they return to north Queensland where they are closer to their communities, their loved ones and families? Ms SPENCE: We have to appreciate that prisoners get moved around from prison to prison because of decisions made by the authorities. We retain the right to transfer prisoners for a number of reasons. It is likely that a 17-year-old from north Queensland may be moved from the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre and returned to a prison in north Queensland. I am sure that if the department believed that it was in the person’s best interests to be moved north to be closer to their family, that would be the case. I get requests all the time from Queensland prisoners to be moved to other states in Australia to be nearer families. I also get requests from other states to have their prisoners transferred to Queensland. The prison transfer system is quite healthy and operates effectively. Clause 18, as read, agreed to. Clauses 19 and 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21 (Medical examination or treatment)— Mr JOHNSON (12.17 pm): This is a very important clause as it refers to medical examination or treatment. I refer to the ability of medical practitioners and other professional medical people to visit the prison system. In other clauses of this legislation reference is made to the powers of the chief executive in determining the future placement of prisoners. Clause 21 states— (1) A prisoner must submit to a medical examination or treatment by a doctor if the doctor considers the prisoner requires medical attention. In most cases, a prisoner’s first point of contact is the prison warder. An assessment of people will be carried out when they enter the prison system. We know that it is a culture shock for many of those people and that they react in different ways. This clause refers to an examination by a medical practitioner. Are other professional medical people on hand when these prisoners are assessed? These people may enter the system for a short period, such as six months or 12 months, or they may be there for 20 years. My point is that they are human beings. They are people who have been put through the system for a reason. I believe that professional help at the early stages is an important part of their penance, for want of a better word. Will those people be assessed in a professional way, not only by a general practitioner of the prison but also by psychiatric people or people with other professional skills? Ms SPENCE: I appreciate the question. When we think of the people who work in prisons, we think of prison officers. I read recently that about 100 different types of professional people work in prisons. We have psychologists, occupational therapists, different types of medical professionals and a lot of other professionals who work in prisons. When I looked at the well-published case of Cornelia Rau and I drilled down to her treatment in Brisbane Women’s Prison, I found that on average Cornelia Rau saw a medical professional every three days. Either a nurse, a doctor, a psychologist or some other kind of medical professional saw her at least every three days. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 2001

We can be fairly confident that prisoners who require medical treatment get access to that treatment in prisons. They get good dental treatment in prisons. It is often said to me that if you want to get good dental treatment, prison is the better place to be because we look after our prisoners very well in terms of their health needs. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 24, as read, agreed to. Clause 25 (Registration of birth)— Mr JOHNSON (12.21 pm): Under the heading ‘Registration of birth’ clause 25 states— A birth certificate for a child whose mother or father is, or was when the child was born, a prisoner must not— (a) state that fact; or (b) contain any information from which that fact can reasonably be inferred. Does this clause apply to a person serving a life sentence? People whose parents have been in jail for one reason or another can go on to lead successful lives. A couple of such people come to my mind and the minister probably knows some as well. We do not need to make those people carry any extra baggage throughout their lives. We need to let them get on with doing a good job. Will things be different for the child of a person with a serious conviction or a life-term conviction who is never to be released? Ms SPENCE: I am informed that with the registration of births, there would be no difference what sentence a prisoner is serving. The details would not be recorded. Clause 25, as read, agreed to. Clause 26, as read, agreed to. Clause 27 (Change of name)— Mr JOHNSON (12.23 pm): The minister has touched on the issue of change of name in her summary. Clause 27 states— A person in the chief executive’s custody must obtain the chief executive’s written permission before applying to change the person’s name under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003. I take the case of Valmae Fay Beck and Barry Watts, who notoriously murdered Sian Kingi on the Sunshine Coast. Valmae Beck has changed back to her maiden name. What is the case in relation to that person if ever she is released? When such prisoners change their names, is that mentioned when they are released, if ever they are released? Is their former name mentioned? Is it released to the media or only the new name? What is the situation there? Ms SPENCE: Valmae Fay Beck has changed her name to Valmae Fay Cramb. With respect to someone like that, we record both names so that we can keep track of her through the system. In the future that will not be allowed. Prisoners will not necessarily be able to change their names at all. Mr Johnson: So if ever that person is released, they will be released under the name that they have changed to? Ms SPENCE: If the person has changed their name in prison, they will be released under their new name. We would keep a track of their former name in our computer system. That will be on file forever. We keep those details of all prisoners on file indefinitely. Clause 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29 (Application for accommodation of child with female prisoner)— Mr JOHNSON (12.26 pm): Clause 29 relates to the application for the accommodation of a child with a female prisoner. Some time ago I visited the Stuart Creek prison in Townsville. Facilities were in place to accommodate children up to the age of five with their mums. I do not see in the explanatory notes or the bill itself an age limit for a child housed in the prison system with his or her mother. Most of us can remember back to the time when we were five. Has the age limit been extended beyond five? In earlier references to clause 18 we talked about juveniles in prison. We certainly do not want to be scarring those young kids with a life inside at a very young age. Is there a cut-off age at which children are removed from their mothers on a permanent basis and allowed access to their mothers on a visitation basis? Ms SPENCE: The policy position at the moment is that children are allowed to be accommodated with their mothers in prison up to the age of five years. They will be required to leave before they start the prep year of schooling. Not all women in prison are automatically entitled to have their children in prison with them. Those decisions are made by a number of professionals. There is not an automatic entitlement. It involves children up to five years of age. 2002 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

I remind honourable members that someone like Valmae Beck is in prison serving a life sentence. If she is paroled one day, she will be paroled for life. Life does mean life in terms of our observation of her. Clause 29, as read, agreed to. Clauses 30 to 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45 (Opening, searching and censoring mail)— Dr DOUGLAS (12.29 pm): Minister, this clause needs to be unpacked a little. It relates to privileged mail as opposed to unprivileged mail. I refer to paragraph (2). In recent times—the minister may be aware of this—some unusual people have been writing unusual letters which are classified as privileged mail. The difficulty we have is determining whether or not it is privileged. I will give an example of the messages that are sometimes sent. At one stage, we had a group of Satanists in the prison. One person was really rather bizarre and the correspondence was really quite horrific. It was very difficult to understand what the hell was really going on. I had seen this person as a patient a number of times. I found interviewing him to be very, very difficult. I am quite good at it because I have been doing it for a long time; however, I did not get anywhere with this guy. He was very coy. He was a very dangerous fellow—he remains a very dangerous fellow—and his two associates were certainly under his influence. He had a number of other associates outside the prison with whom he was communicating. He was using privileged mail communication to do so. We need to give prison authorities very wide-ranging capacities, particularly in relation to mail. We cannot overlook the fact that sometimes people are in prison on minor charges or maybe for short periods of time, but they are coming in and out as they are recidivists. This particular incident led me to believe that we had to think about this as a longer term problem. Ms SPENCE: This is a new part to the legislation. Prior to the passage of this legislation, Corrective Services officers have not had the capacity to search privileged mail. Today, we will give them that authority. If they reasonably suspect a problem with the privileged mail, they will have the authority to open, in the presence of the prisoner, that particular mail. What we are doing today will achieve what the member wants us to achieve, which has not been possible in the past. Clause 45, as read, agreed to. Clauses 46 to 49, as read, agreed to. Clause 50 (Phone calls)— Mr JOHNSON (12.32 pm): There has been some media attention in recent days on ‘love calls’— or whatever you want to term them—between prisoners and their loved ones outside. As far as I am concerned, those phone calls, regardless of who they are between, are of a personal nature. I hate to think that they could get out into the public forum. I think that what happens in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom and that what happens at home should stay at home. Whilst these people are incarcerated, they are still human beings and should be respected as such. I would like to think that in this situation people will be protected. I would like the minister to comment further on that. This clause deals with the rights of prisoners. The chief executive can allow a prisoner to make one phone call upon admission to a Corrective Services facility. A prisoner, at their own expense, can phone approved persons at approved telephone numbers. That is a good aspect of the legislation. This is also an important part of the process of getting people back into the mainstream system, a part of the process of rehabilitation. Access to family and access to the outside world is probably a very important part of rehabilitation. A couple of nights ago, the member for Gaven and I had a conversation about the importance of access to family members as an aspect of rehabilitation. I was very interested in the comments of the member for Burleigh a couple of nights ago in her contribution to this debate. My point is in relation to the rehabilitation process. Many people live a long way from where their family members are incarcerated and the telephone network is probably their best form of communication. For them, it is the best form of human contact—hearing the other person’s voice. The member for Gaven touched on the issue of postage. However, hearing the voice of a loved one from far away certainly gives you a buzz. I think this is a very important part of the rehabilitation of people in prisons. It is a good part of the program. I ask the minister to discuss with the director-general whether it can be further increased, so that these people have a greater opportunity to have outside contact. I do not intend that we go outside the rules and regulations of the system. However, within its limits, it can be an important part of the rehabilitation process. We need to consider some of the social implications for people inside prisons. We need a humane understanding that people need contact with others, whether it is with a husband, a wife, a parent, a son or a daughter. This is an important part of the rehabilitation process. It is an important part of keeping people informed about what is happening at home in order to help them, at the point they are released, virtually walk back into a normal environment and know much of what is happening. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 2003

Many people who live in my area have had family members incarcerated away on the coast— because of the way the system is in our state—and the telephone is a very important part of their communication links. This is no exception. Ms SPENCE: People would not get the impression that we have a liberal system if they listened only to prison advocates in this state, who claim that ours is one of the toughest and most punitive systems in the world. However, I was interested to learn on my recent trip to visit prisons in Germany that their prisoners never get to make a phone call to anyone—not to their lawyer or to any approved person. They could not believe that in Queensland we allow prisoners fairly liberal access to telephones. It is interesting to learn what is regarded as acceptable in other countries. When I come back I always realise that we actually have one of the most liberal prison regimes anywhere in the world. For example, Germany does not countenance prisoners having their own shower. They have communal showers. I asked why, when new prisons are being built, the showers are not put in the cell with the toilet. I was told that the German public would not accept that—that they would regard that as treating prisoners too well. Germany has a fairly liberal prison system compared to most countries in the world. In fact, prisoners in Queensland can nominate 10 telephone numbers of people who they can phone. I think 10 is quite a liberal number. All of their telephone calls are recorded and may be monitored. Obviously, we will continue to provide prisoners with access to telephones. The fact that we are enshrining this in legislation means that this right of prisoners is safeguarded. I agree with the member for Gregory that it is an important part of the rehabilitation process. Clause 50, as read, agreed to. Clauses 51 to 56, as read, agreed to. Clause 57 (Medical examination)— Mr JOHNSON (12.40 pm) In relation to medical examination, the bill states— A doctor must examine a prisoner subject to a safety order— (a) as soon as practicable after the order is made; and (b) subsequently, at intervals that are, to the greatest practicable extent, of not more than 7 days. Could the minister elaborate on (b) of clause 57 ‘not more than seven days’? That concerns me greatly. As I said earlier, we are dealing with human beings in the prison system and it is absolutely paramount that they be afforded the same medical treatment as people who are on the free side of the prison wall. Could the minister clarify absolutely what the meaning of that section of that clause is. Ms SPENCE: As we see from clause 53, people are placed on safety orders if prisoners are at risk of self-harm generally or for the good order and security of the prison. It is generally people who are going through some sort of a psychotic episode. The fact that we are enshrining in our legislation their entitlement to see a doctor at least every week is sufficient. Apart from seeing doctors, they will be treated by a lot of clinically trained nurses during that weekly period as well. It is not just the doctor who will assess them; we have nurses in our prisons 24 hours a day seven days a week. They will be monitored continually by nurses as well. Mr JOHNSON: I thank the minister for her explanation in relation to this. I appreciate the comments that the minister has made in relation to the prisons in Germany. We live in different jurisdictions and we have different rules and regulations. I honestly believe that there are many people in prisons in Queensland who should not be in the prison system and there are probably plenty on the outside who should be in the prison system. I thank the minister for the comments she has made in relation to people who do need this medical attention. I realise it is other practitioners. I appreciate that it could be psychiatrists or dentists. The important thing is that we do not need to further compound the health problem of that prisoner. It is part of the rehabilitative process of them serving their time that they get out of prison in a healthy frame of mind with a healthy body so that they can fit back into mainstream society as productive citizens rather than as somebody who is fractured in the mind or body because of the prison system. That is the reason that I drew the minister’s attention to it and wanted her to comment on it. Clause 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58, as read, agreed to. Clause 59 (Record)— Mr JOHNSON (12.42 pm): This clause states— (1) The chief executive must record, for each corrective services facility, the details of each prisoner subject to a safety order or temporary safety order. (2) For a safety order, the details must include each of the following— 2004 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

I refer again to the way these prisoners are examined and the register itself. Medical examinations are carried out by the prison system with their own rules and regulations. Section (2)(b) states— whether the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. Again I refer to the system itself and the rehabilitation program that I spoke about earlier. In relation to people of Indigenous extraction, are they monitored any differently to non-Indigenous people in the system? Whilst many of them unfortunately look on prison as a home away from home, some of these people react differently in the prison system and I am wondering what monitoring processes are applied for the safety of these people in question and at the same time what processes are there in place for the monitoring of our incarcerated Indigenous persons. Is their monitoring any different to the monitoring of other people inside prison? Ms SPENCE: Whilst someone is on the safety order they will be monitored probably no differently. While people are on these safety orders it is important to ensure that they have access to official visitors and the visiting chaplains. Often those visitors are Indigenous people. We go out of our way to employ Indigenous people to be official visitors and encourage prison chaplains to be of an Indigenous extraction as well. I suspect they are the only support basis that they get of an Indigenous nature while they are on a safety order. It is very hard to recruit Indigenous professionals, as the member would be aware. Last week I visited Wolston Prison. We are trying to employ two occupational therapists in Wolston Prison. We have had no applicants. It is hard enough to get professionals to work in our prisons without putting an extra burden on us to try to get someone who is an Indigenous psychologist or whatever it may be. It would be very, very difficult. Mr JOHNSON: I have visited Lotus Glen and Stuart Prison and there is a high component of Indigenous people there. As my colleague the member for Gaven and I discussed previously, these Indigenous people certainly like the old system better. I think the old system may have worked better in some instances. I am not labouring the issue in relation to Indigenous people, but it is a very, very contentious issue in Queensland where we have some 5,000 people in prisons and 25 per cent of those people are Indigenous people when they make up some 2 per cent of the total population. I believe we have to look at the prison process. I know that what happens outside is not the responsibility of the minister. As the former minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy, the minister certainly played a role in trying to make a difference there, too, and I applaud her for that. Whether these people are out of jail or in jail we have to make certain that we can make their lot better and work out how we can assist them in mainstream society. When I visited Stuart Prison I was appalled to see the number of Indigenous women in prison for offences such as murder and assault. They were driven there by drunken men in their own communities. The minister is well aware of that. We are only going to further compound these situations if we do not take stock of how we control the situation in the community. That is why I raise the issue. We have a long way to go in relation to it. It is a very difficult issue, I know. It is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. It racks our brains on a daily basis. Last year I was fortunate to be selected by the Premier on a parliamentary select committee to conduct an investigation into the ways and means of trying to address some of the problems on Palm Island. It was a bipartisan approach and the committee agreed that we can keep these people out of the prison system by trying to get the right remedy in place in the community itself. I look at this and think about it continually, I labour on it actually, and wonder how we can get outcomes. The point I make is that this is a situation where we do not need these people to be treating prisons like a revolving door: coming in and staying six months and going out and bashing their families and coming back for 12 months. The culture has to change. I have heard the federal Treasurer, federal minister Mal Brough and other state leaders talk about it in recent days. The minister has mentioned in the past how we are going to house prisoners in the future and the cost of that to the taxpayer. We have to look hard and fast at many of the issues in relation to our prison system. Other agencies within government have to address the problem so that the minister does not have to address it in her role as minister for corrective services. Ms SPENCE: I will make two points. Indigenous people might be a small minority in the general Queensland population but they are a significant minority in the prison population. A quarter of the prison population is a significant minority. In places like Lotus Glen, they are the majority on any given day of the prison population. The other point is that, when people say they liked it better in the old days, I remind people that a lot of prisoners say that to me, too. The old days is when they used to escape. I acknowledge that the prison regime today is a lot more regimented than in the old days. Things were more relaxed in the old days. People got to escape and life was easier in prison in the old days. I am not making a political point; that is the reality. In the old days, we did not have the regimented programs and work available. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 2005

We have a much more structured regime in prison for prisoners these days. I think the regime we have now is better for rehabilitation. I think we are doing a better job on that than in the old days. I appreciate that some people do not like it. Those who are habitual prisoners who have been in and out reckon life was much easier for them in prison when they had much less to do and more time to plot dastardly plans. Clause 59, as read, agreed to. Clauses 60 to 65, as read, agreed to. Clause 66 (Work order)— Mr JOHNSON (12.51 pm): I have canvassed the issue of rehabilitation often in this legislation today. I think work orders or transfers to work camps are one of the most responsible and productive forms of corrective services in this state, and I applaud the previous governments that have brought this in and have made it work. I think we get a genuine outcome from the rehabilitation program. When we talk about the rehabilitation program, I have spoken with many of these prisoners who go out into work camps. As it states in clause 66(3)(a), it is to help the prisoner reintegrate into the community, to ensure the prisoner’s good conduct and to stop the prisoner committing an offence. I cannot agree more with that. I know from time to time that a few people abscond from these work release camps, but on the whole these work programs or work release camps are genuine rehabilitation programs that are working. They are working to the advantage of the person who has been incarcerated in the prison system, but they are also working to the advantage of the integration of those people back into a community sooner rather than later. They are not simply let out of the prison gates saying, ‘You are a free man or woman now; you go on your own.’ The process has been working so well that some of these people want to integrate into the communities where they have been working in work camps over recent years. I want to raise the issue of prison wardens who are responsible for these people and their location to these communities. We need, where we can, to have some sort of permanency for prison wardens. If they are going to be allocated a place to live, whether it be Charleville, Winton or wherever, they need to be given genuine contracts so they can take their families with them and not be dislocated from family life. They need their families to be an integral part of the communities that they live in. In the past I know we have had some dislocation to the lives of prison wardens and Corrective Services people. I know that the minister has visited these facilities in western Queensland and in other parts of Queensland. It is important that I raise this issue today, because it is part of the process of engaging the community with the Department of Corrective Services in getting a genuine outcome. At the same time, I put on record today the wonderful work being done by these work camps and the wonderful work that is being done in rehabilitating those people. Rather than having them housed in a prison in the south-east corner or on the coastal strip, they are out there doing some valuable work for the community. At the same time they are rehabilitating themselves before they are released in communities where they can go about their business and be respected. I think that is an integral part of this operation. I would like the minister to elaborate a little on the issue of the prison wardens. I note that clause 67 concerns the restriction on eligibility for transfer to work camps. I know that there are certain criteria governing what types of people are eligible to go into these work camps. I know that in the women’s system the work camp process has now started. I think that is fantastic because that has only been applicable to male prisoners in the past. A real concern held by a lot of people about these work camps is they think, ‘We don’t want murderers and rapists in our communities amongst our wives, our daughters and our children.’ A lot of people are uneducated as to the type of people they are. Most of these people are petty criminals and most of them are there for very minor offences. I know that the department does very good surveillance on these people before they are invited to participate in work camps. I think it would be very productive if the department did inform on a more regular basis or just comment from time to time that these people are not hardened criminals; that they are ordinary citizens whom we are trying to rehabilitate back into the community. I think it would change the attitude and the outlook of a lot of these people. It would also be a fairer outcome as a part of the rehabilitation process of these people who are working in those camps. Ms SPENCE: To address the issue of prison officers who are work camp supervisors, I agree with the member for Gregory that it is preferable if we can employ those supervisors on the basis that they live in these towns in western Queensland. We, of course, cannot do that. We cannot, because of our Public Service policies, necessarily discriminate in employment, but I understand that we have managed to employ a few local work camp supervisors in at least two work camps in the last 12 months in that area. I agree with the member: if we have applicants who are adequate or very good, then we should look at employing local people for these local work camps. Clause 66, as read, agreed to. Clauses 67 to 180, as read, agreed to. 2006 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

Clause 181 (Parole eligibility date for prisoner serving period of imprisonment for life)— Ms SPENCE (12.58 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 181— At page 128, line 3, ‘period’— omit, insert— ‘term’. 2 Clause 181— At page 128, lines 5 to 7— omit, insert— ‘(1) This section applies to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life.’. I do not need to speak to the amendments. I table all the explanatory notes to all of my amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes for amendments to be moved during consideration in detail by Hon. Judy Spence. Amendments agreed to. Clause 181, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. Clauses 182 and 183, as read, agreed to. Clause 184 (Parole eligibility date for other prisoners)— Ms SPENCE (2.30 pm): I move the following amendments— 3 Clause 184— At page 129, line 29, ‘offence.’— omit, insert— ‘offence; or (c) is serving a period of imprisonment ordered to be served under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 147(1)(b) or (c); or (d) was the subject of a court ordered parole order that has been cancelled under this Act.’. 4 Clause 184— At page 130, lines 1 to 4— omit, insert— ‘(3) However— (a) if an earlier or later parole eligibility date is fixed for the prisoner under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, part 9, division 3, the prisoner’s parole eligibility date is the date fixed under that division; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the prisoner is a prisoner mentioned in subsection (1)(d), the prisoner’s parole eligibility date is the date that was fixed for the prisoner’s release under that parole order.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 184, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 185 and 186, as read, agreed to. Clause 187 (Which parole board may hear and decide application)— Ms SPENCE (2.31 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 187— At page 132, lines 18 and 19— omit, insert— ‘(b) immediately before 1 January 2005, was subject to a reporting order made under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945, section 19; or Note— The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945, section 19 (repealed by Act No. 52 of 2004) dealt with the reporting of names and addresses of sexual offenders.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 187, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 188 to 191, as read, agreed to. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 2007

Clause 192 (Parole board not bound by sentencing court’s recommendation or parole eligibility date)— Ms SPENCE (2.32 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 192— At page 135, line 15, ‘prisoner ‘s’— omit, insert— ‘prisoner’s’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 192, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 193 to 200, as read, agreed to. Clause 201 (Amendment or suspension)— Ms SPENCE (2.33 pm): I move the following amendments— 7 Clause 201— At page 140, line 21, ‘or suspending’— omit. 8 Clause 201— At page 140, after line 24— insert— ‘(4) A written order suspending a parole order has effect for the period of not more than 28 days, stated in the written order, starting on the day the order is made.’. Amendments agreed to. Clause 201, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 202 to 204, as read, agreed to. Clause 205 (Amendment, suspension or cancellation)— Ms SPENCE (2.33 pm): I move the following amendment— 9 Clause 205— At page 142, after line 34— insert— ‘(3A) A parole board is not required to give the prisoner an information notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard if the parole board suspends or cancels the prisoner’s parole order.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 205, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 206 to 212, as read, agreed to. Clause 213 (Travelling overseas while released on parole)— Mr JOHNSON (2.34 pm): I refer to page 147 at division 6 which deals with travelling overseas whilst released on parole. The minister made mention before lunch that once long-term prisoners are out of prison they are on parole indefinitely. I seek the minister’s clarification in relation to the terms and conditions for prisoners on parole being granted leave or given permission to leave the country to go overseas. Ms SPENCE: As it says at clause 213(1), the board may grant leave to a prisoner who is released on parole to travel overseas for a stated period for compassionate purposes in exceptional circumstances. It would rarely happen. It would be more likely for a funeral or family bereavement. That would probably be the only reason a board would grant anyone the right to travel overseas. Mr Johnson: Would those people have to report to somebody during that time? Ms SPENCE: I think that would depend on the relationship Queensland has with that country and the period that the board granted them permission to go overseas. Presumably if it were for a funeral or to see a dying relative it would be for a short period. If it were a country where we had a good relationship we may ask for some reporting requirements. Otherwise we probably would not allow them to go for very long at all. Clause 213, as read, agreed to. Clauses 214 to 217, as read, agreed to. Clause 218 (Membership)— Mr JOHNSON (2.37 pm): This is a very integral part of this legislation before the House today. Whilst it amends part of the 2000 legislation, it certainly conforms with the initial parts of that legislation. I turn now to the formulation of the northern, the central and the southern parole board, which is the 2008 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006 main parole board. I know the minister made some reference in her summing-up of the second reading debate to the composition of the boards. The minister said that there will be some very good people on those boards. I do not doubt that for one half of one minute. At the same time I think it is important, regardless of whether it is this government or any future government, that we put in place a structure that will monitor very closely the make-up of the parole boards. We talk about functions of the board in clause 217. I have been through that fairly closely. I commend the minister in relation to the composition of the board. There has to be at least one Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person, at least one doctor or psychiatrist and at least two women. I think this is a very important aspect of the membership process, but at the same time will the minister be advertising these positions or just looking at the people on the existing boards in order to make up the future boards? Will the minister be calling for applications from interested members of the general public for these positions in question? Ms SPENCE: I have written to all the existing board members—and we have seven boards which we are reducing to three—and I have asked them if they are interested in going on the new board. The majority of them are interested, but a few of them have taken the opportunity to leave the boards. I have probably got enough applicants in the pool of existing board members to appoint those people on to these three boards without looking for anyone new at this stage. I believe these people have done a very good job, so that is why they are getting priority when these three new boards are created. The Queensland board, which is covered in clause 218, will basically be very much the same as the Queensland Parole Board that exists today. It is a matter of reducing six regional boards down to two, which is the challenge for us. I am very pleased that a lot of high quality people have nominated to go on those two boards, so I do not think I am going to have a problem filling those positions. Mr JOHNSON: The one aspect of the clause that I wish to make reference to here today is the parole system itself and the composition of these boards in question. They are a very integral part of the Corrective Services system—there is no doubt about that—from the time the person, whoever he or she may be, goes through the correctional facility to the time they are paroled. There are a lot of different aspects and areas of these parole boards that we have to make reference to. I think we need people in the parole system itself—and the minister would agree with this—who are going to pay particular attention to and understand the interests of the victims of crime and the wider community where that crime has been committed, because these criminals will go back into those communities. The parole boards need to take into account a lot of things, including the history of the crime, whether the prisoners have completed the proper rehabilitation programs, et cetera. All these issues are very important and we need professional people on these boards. They would certainly have to have a good grasp of corrections, a good grasp of the rehabilitation programs and a good grasp of what the communities at large are concerned about—especially the victims, their families and the wider community. There has been a lot of debate in the House in recent days about different people who have committed crimes et cetera, and this is the angst that exists in communities. It is not only relevant in Queensland; it is a national thing. I want to emphasise that we need to have the proper professional personnel on these parole boards so that we get the blend right. If that happens, it will ensure that our Corrective Services operations work satisfactorily. Clause 218, as read, agreed to. Clauses 219 and 220, as read, agreed to. Clause 221 (Remuneration of members)— Ms SPENCE (2.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 10 Clause 221— At page 150, line 10, before ‘fees’— insert— ‘remuneration,’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 221, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 222 to 234, as read, agreed to. Clause 235 (Remuneration of members)— Ms SPENCE (2.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 11 Clause 235— At page 155, line 20, before ‘fees’— insert— ‘remuneration,’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 235, as amended, agreed to. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 2009

Clauses 236 to 265, as read, agreed to. Clause 266 (Programs and services to help offenders)— Mr JOHNSON (2.45 pm): In clause 266, ‘Programs and services to help offenders’, subclause (1) states, ‘The chief executive must establish programs or services’ to do various things. The minister also covered this in her summary today, but there are some other issues that I want to mention today. There has been much debate in recent times about Bibles et cetera being removed from hospitals and schools, but I think an important part of the rehabilitation program is the medical situation in prisons, and I have canvassed that here today. This clause states that the programs or services must be developed ‘for the medical or religious welfare of prisoners’ and ‘to help prisoners integrate into the community after their release from custody, including by acquiring skills’. This is all part of the process of rehabilitation to make these people respect the rights of other people in the community. At the same time, the process makes prisoners aware that they have to do the right thing. I just wonder whether the government has other programs in mind which will better cater for these people and better prepare them for a future in the wider community. I think having basic skills to ensure a healthy mind and a healthy body—not so much a religious skill—will certainly be a contributing factor in that. Does the minister think there will be other programs as part of this process, especially for low- risk prisoners? What are the programs that will help get these people back into the community in a quicker and better way? Ms SPENCE: I will just go through a few of them. Firstly, we have the prison chaplains, and we spend $180,000 paying those prison chaplains. We spend about $800,000 of the Corrective Services budget on paying other non-government organisations to deliver services in our prisons as well. We of course pay for the official visitors. As well, we spend a lot of money—I think it is in excess of $50 million—on rehabilitation programs. We got an extra $5.9 million from the government last December to expand our sex offender programs. We acknowledge that we had some backlog, and some people who were already entitled to receive the program were not able to receive it, so we are expanding the programs as we speak. We are training more facilitators to deliver these programs. These people are usually trained psychologists who have to have extra training on how to deliver a sex offender program, for example. I went to Wolston last week and sat in a class with sex offenders. Those programs are nine months long, and the class I sat in with was halfway through the program. It was an interesting exercise. These guys all talked very openly about what crimes they had committed, why they believed they committed those crimes and where they might improve their personality and character to resist offending in the future. So I do believe it is worthwhile investing the money into those courses, and that is why we are expanding the courses. We have just brought a course from Her Majesty’s prison service in England to start implementing in Queensland. It will be aimed at sex offenders with low cognitive abilities. We really did not have that course in Queensland before this, so we will start rolling that course out once we have people trained to deliver it. The leading expert in the world on sex offenders is Professor Bill Marshall from Canada. We bring him out to Queensland every year to train our psychologists in how to deliver sex offender courses. He is regarded world wide as the expert in this field. So in terms of sex offending we are doing more than we have done in the past. Over the past 12 months we have changed some of our courses. Some of them were outdated and we have found better courses to deliver. So we are going through a period of transition in terms of our rehabilitation programs in our prisons. I think this is a positive period but I acknowledge that, as always, more can be done. Besides providing those courses and programs, the other important issue is to make sure that all prisoners can access useful employment. That is an area that I have concentrated on over the past two years. We have established a special directorate in the department to manage prison employment so that we can improve prison industries in the future. I think we are doing it well, but we can probably do more and do it better. My attention and that of my department is focused on the rehabilitation part of this legislation. Clause 266, as read, agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): As I believe no member wishes to speak to any further clauses, with the exception of the minister’s amendments, with the leave of the House I propose to put the remaining schedules and clauses en bloc. Leave granted. Clauses 267 to 514 and schedules 1 to 4— Ms Spence (2.51 pm): I seek leave to have my remaining amendments Nos 12 to 31 to be moved en bloc. Leave granted. 2010 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

12 Clause 357— At page 216, after line 19— insert— ‘(4) Also, the previous action or thing may be amended, repealed or revoked under this Act.’. 13 After clause 431— At page 243, after line 7— insert— ‘431A Amendment, suspension or cancellation of parole order by corrections board ‘(1) This section applies to a post-prison community based release order (the previous order) that was amended, suspended or cancelled by an order of a corrections board under previous section 150 if the amendment, suspension or cancellation was in force immediately before the commencement. ‘(2) The previous order is taken to have been amended, suspended or cancelled by the replacement board for the corrections board under section 205(2). ‘(3) If, because of the suspension or cancellation, a warrant was issued under previous section 150(2) and the warrant was in effect and had not been executed before the commencement, it— (a) continues to have effect according to its terms; and (b) is taken to be— (i) for a warrant issued by the corrections board under previous section 150(2)(a)—a warrant issued by the replacement board for the corrections board under section 206(1)(a); or (ii) for a warrant issued under previous section 150(2)(b)—a warrant issued under section 206(1)(b). ‘(4) If a warrant had not been issued under previous section 150(2) before the commencement, a warrant may be issued by the replacement board for the corrections board or a magistrate under section 206 for the prisoner the subject of the previous order. ‘(5) If an information notice was given to the prisoner under previous section 150(5) and written submissions given to the corrections board by the prisoner had not been finally dealt with under previous section 150(6) before the commencement, the information notice is taken to have been given by the replacement board for the corrections board under— (a) for an information notice about the amendment of the previous order—section 205(3); or (b) for an information notice about the suspension or cancellation of the previous order—section 208(1). ‘(6) If an information notice had not been given to the prisoner under previous section 150(5) before the commencement, an information notice may be given to the prisoner by the replacement board for the corrections board under— (a) for an information notice about the amendment of the previous order—section 205(3); or (b) for an information notice about the suspension or cancellation of the previous order—section 208(1). ‘(7) If the replacement board changes the decision the subject of an information notice mentioned in subsection (5) or (6), the changed decision has effect despite section 426(a).’. 14 Clause 441— At page 246, line 26, ‘within the meaning of the 2000 Act’— omit. 15 Clause 471— At page 257, after line 12— insert— ‘(1A) It is declared that there is not, and never has been, a requirement to publish any of the following rules of the corrective services rules— • rule 32 (Prisoner construction of electronic or electromechanical devices) • rule 111 (Prescription of Industrial and Community Work Centre, Wacol, as a place for the transfer of prisoners) • rule 172 (Prisoner protection) • rule 223 (Security related training weapons and munition standards) • rule 226 (Standard operational procedures for the establishment of an incident management centre (IMC)) • rule 230 (Management of hostage incidents in custodial correctional centres) • rule 232 (Operation of Barringer Ionscan narcotics and explosives detection unit) • rule 233 (Maximum security unit) • rule 236 (Risk management) • rule 239 (Prisoner escort) • rule 240 (Incident management).’. 16 After clause 478— At page 262, after line 19— insert— ‘Division 1A Freedom of Information Act 1992 ‘478A Act amended in div 1A ‘This division amends the Freedom of Information Act 1992. 25 May 2006 Corrective Services Bill 2011

‘478B Amendment of s 11E (Application of Act to offenders) ‘(1) Section 11E, heading, after ‘offenders’— insert— ‘or agents’. ‘(2) Section 11E(1), after ‘offender’— insert— ‘, or an offender’s agent,’. ‘(3) Section 11E(2), definition offender, other than note— omit, insert— ‘offender means an offender as defined under the Corrective Services Act 2006— (a) who is serving a term of imprisonment for a prescribed offence, or serving a period of imprisonment that includes a term of imprisonment for a prescribed offence, whether the person was sentenced to the term or period of imprisonment before or after the commencement of this section; or (b) who is a detained dangerous prisoner (sexual offender), or a supervised dangerous prisoner (sexual offender), as defined under the Corrective Services Act 2006.’. ‘478C Insertion of new s 42AA ‘After section 42— insert— ‘42AA Matter created for ensuring security or good order of corrective services facility ‘(1) Matter is exempt matter if it is in the possession of, or brought into existence by, the department in which the Corrective Services Act 2006 is administered and is— (a) a recording of a telephone call made by an offender from a corrective services facility; or (b) an audio recording made in a corrective services facility for the security or good order of the facility; or (c) a visual recording of a corrective services facility or a part of a corrective services facility; or (d) a document to the extent that it refers to or contains any part of a recording mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); unless its disclosure would, on balance, be in the public interest. ‘(2) In this section— corrective services facility means a corrective services facility as defined under the Corrective Services Act 2006. offender means an offender as defined under the Corrective Services Act 2006.’.’. 17 Clause 488— At page 265, lines 9 to 11, from ‘give’— omit, insert— ‘make a record of the order committing the offender into custody and give a copy of the record to the chief executive (corrective services).’. 18 Clause 493— At page 268, after line 3— insert— ‘ ‘(6) Sections 160B to 160D do not apply if a court sentences an offender to a term of imprisonment and makes any of the following orders under this Act for the offender— (a) an intensive correction order; (b) a probation order mentioned in section 92(1)(b); (c) an order that the whole or a part of the term of imprisonment be suspended.’. 19 Clause 493— At page 268, line 8, after ‘2006’— insert— ‘, section 205 or 209’. 20 Clause 493— At page 268, after line 12— insert— ‘ ‘(4) If the offender had a current parole eligibility date or current parole release date, a date fixed under subsection (2) or (3) must not be earlier than the current parole eligibility date or current parole release date. Note— See also section 160F.’. 21 Clause 493— At page 268, after line 25— insert— ‘Note— See also section 160F.’. 2012 Corrective Services Bill 25 May 2006

22 Clause 493— At page 269, after line 5— insert— ‘ ‘(4) A date fixed under subsection (2) must not be earlier than the current parole eligibility date or current parole release date. Note— See also section 160F.’. 23 Clause 493— At page 270, after line 14— insert— ‘Examples— 1 O is sentenced to a term of 1 year’s imprisonment on 1 July 2007 with a parole release date of 1 January 2008. O is released on parole on 1 January 2008. On 1 April 2008, O is sentenced to a further term of 1 year’s imprisonment for another offence. A parole eligibility date fixed for O under section 160B(2) must relate to the 2 years period of imprisonment to which O has been sentenced and must not be earlier than 1 January 2008. 2 O is sentenced to a term of 1 year’s imprisonment on 1 July 2007 with a parole release date of 1 January 2008. On 1 November 2007, O is sentenced to a further term of 1 year’s imprisonment for another offence, to be served concurrently with the first term. A parole release date fixed for O under section 160B(3) must relate to the 16 months period of imprisonment to which O has been sentenced and must not be earlier than 1 January 2008.’. 24 Clause 493— At page 270, lines 15 to 18— omit, insert— ‘ ‘160G Court may fix any day of sentence as parole release date ‘(1) If, under this Act, the court must fix a parole release date for an offender, the court may fix any day of the offender’s sentence as the offender’s parole release date.’. 25 Clause 493— At page 270, line 27, ‘If subsection (1) applies’— omit, insert— ‘If the offender’s parole release date is the date the offender is to be unconditionally released from lawful custody’. 26 Clause 493— At page 270, after line 29— insert— ‘ ‘(3) If the court fixes the date on which an offender is sentenced as the offender’s parole release date and subsection (2) does not apply, the offender is taken immediately to be subject to a court ordered parole order— (a) containing the conditions mentioned in the Corrective Services Act 2006, section 200(1); and (b) requiring the offender to report to a probation and parole office as defined under that Act and obtain a copy of the court ordered parole order between 9a.m. and 5p.m. either on the day the court fixes the offender’s parole release date or on the next business day. Examples— 1 The court fixes the offender’s parole release date on a Thursday and the following day (Friday) is not a public holiday. The offender must report to a probation and parole office and obtain a copy of the parole order either before 5p.m. on the Thursday or between 9a.m. and 5p.m. on the Friday. 2 The court fixes the offender’s parole release date on a Friday and the following Monday is not a public holiday. The offender must report to a probation and parole office and obtain a copy of the parole order either before 5p.m. on the Friday or between 9a.m. and 5p.m. on the Monday. ‘(4) An offender who fails to report to a probation and parole office and obtain a copy of the court ordered parole order as required under subsection (3)(b) is unlawfully at large for the Corrective Services Act 2006. ‘(5) A court mentioned in subsection (3) must, when fixing the offender’s parole release date, tell the offender— (a) of the requirement imposed on the offender under the subsection; and (b) of the consequences if the offender fails to comply with the requirement. ‘(6) In this section— court ordered parole order means a court ordered parole order as defined under the Corrective Services Act 2006.’. 27 Schedule 3— At page 304, lines 12 to 14— omit. 28 Schedule 4— At page 319, after line 26— insert— ‘corrections board, for sections 431A(1) and 441(1)(a), means a corrections board within the meaning of the 2000 Act.’. 25 May 2006 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 2013

29 Schedule 4— At page 321, after line 21— insert— ‘early discharge means discharge under section 108(3) or 110.’. 30 Schedule 4— At page 324, line 22, ‘leave.’— omit, insert— ‘leave; (g) leave mentioned in section 72(1)(g).’. 31 Schedule 4— At page 334, line 3, ‘order.’— omit, insert— ‘order; or (c) the prisoner fails to report to a probation and parole office and obtain a copy of the prisoner’s court ordered parole order as required under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 160G(3).’. I want to talk about amendment No. 16, which amends the Freedom of Information Act and inserts a new clause 478B to amend section 11E of the Freedom of Information Act to clarify that the application of section 11E to offenders extends to the agent of an offender. In addition, it also makes it clear that prisoners detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2002 are offenders and, therefore, not able to access risk assessment documents by making a freedom of information application. A new clause 478C inserts a new section in the FOI Act to provide that the following recordings made for prison security or law enforcement purposes are exempt from the FOI Act: a telephone call made by an offender from a corrective services facility, an audio recording made in a corrective services facility for the security or good order of the facility, a visual recording of a corrective services facility or a part of a corrective services facility, or a document to the extent that it refers to or contains any part of a recording. We do not make lightly amendments to the FOI Act to exclude information, but it recently came to my attention that prisoners have been requesting access to recordings made for security purposes. This includes recordings of telephone conversations, other audio recordings taken in a corrective services facility, or visual recordings taken into a corrective services facility. Prisoners have also been seeking access to their own telephone records through the Freedom of Information Act because they know that the recordings contain phone sex. Clearly, it was never the intent of the FOI legislation to allow prisoners to access this material. Unless it is specifically legislated that the provisions of the FOI Act do not apply to such records, offenders will continue to utilise the FOI Act to apply for access. That is why we are moving swiftly to cover this loophole. I am sure all members would agree with me that this is not the kind of behaviour that we want to promote in our prisons. The FOI Act was never intended for that purpose. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 267 to 514 and schedules 1 to 4, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time. Long Title Long title of the bill agreed to.

HEALTH QUALITY AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION BILL

Consideration in Detail Resumed from 24 May (see p. 1962). Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31 (Code of Health Rights and Responsibilities)— Dr FLEGG (2.56 pm): I am a little unclear in terms of the preparation of the code of health rights and responsibilities. The commission has been given two years in which to prepare a code of health rights and responsibilities. Does the minister think that two years is a little bit too long? Does the minister 2014 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 25 May 2006 expect that to be the upper time limit and that the code may be prepared in a shorter period? Could the minister explain the level of enforcement of the application of the code of health rights and responsibilities? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. I am informed that in the past the development of a code of health rights and responsibilities has presented some difficulties. However, this government is committed to implementing a code of health rights and responsibilities. I fully expect the commission to develop a code for my consideration, which it must do within two years. I hope that that may be achieved earlier. I am committed to working with the commission to ensure that a code can be published to provide guidance for consumers and health service providers. The reason we have set the limit of two years is that we have the benefit of the experience of at least three other jurisdictions that have developed similar codes. Those codes do not purport to override other rights or confer absolute rights. I believe that consumers and healthcare providers in Queensland will benefit from having a code of health rights and responsibilities. Clause 34 of the bill sets out the principles that the commission must consider when developing the code. The principles are reflected in codes that have been developed in other jurisdictions such as in New Zealand, where the Health and Disability Commissioner’s Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights sets out 10 consumer rights. Consumers can complain to the commission about a breach of the code. A health service provider is not in breach of the code if it takes reasonable action, given the circumstances, to give effect to a consumer’s rights and to fulfil the provider’s duties. The rights articulated in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights include the right to be treated with respect, the right to be treated with dignity and independence, the right to make an informed choice and give informed consent, the right in respect of teaching or research and the right to make a complaint. Another example is the Northern Territory Code of Health Rights and Responsibilities. It articulates rights that focus on eight principles. There is also the Tasmanian charter, which is currently under review. The two-year period in which to formulate the code is based on the experiences of other jurisdictions, three of which I have mentioned. As I said, I hope that we can achieve the formulation of that code in an earlier time frame but, based on the experience of those jurisdictions, two years has been set aside. In terms of the issue of the status of the code, clause 33(1) requires the commission to make recommendations to me about application of the code. A decision about its status and application will need to be made once a proposed code has been drafted. So, as a minimum, it should be a useful guide to the rights of all health service consumers and a means of educating consumers and health service providers. Dr FLEGG: I thank the minister for that. Is it a guide or a mandatory code of conduct that will have the enforcement of law? Mr ROBERTSON: It really depends on the code itself because of the issues that it will cover. That is why determinations will be made at the time the code is constructed as to whether it is taken to be mandatory or advisory. It really will depend on the issue that the code is being built around. Dr FLEGG: Sorry to labour the point, but it would make a vast difference to drafting the code if it is intended to be mandatory with the force of law or whether it is intended to be advisory. For example, unless there is some direction to the drafters of the code, they would draft something completely different if it were to be an advisory code of conduct, as exists in some areas, from what they would draft if the code actually had to have the enforcement of law. I would think pretty strongly that the drafters of the code would have to have some guidance on whether it was intended to be a legally enforceable code or a guide. Mr ROBERTSON: The member for Moggill has made a fair point. I should correct something I said earlier. It is not intended for those codes to be mandatory. Nevertheless, as the member has quite rightly pointed out, the drafting instructions for the issue that is to be codified, if you like, will determine how it proceeds from there. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 85, as read, agreed to. Clause 86 (Commission’s investigations)— Dr FLEGG (3.01 pm): Clause 86 is a pretty vital part of the bill. It is in relation to the commission’s investigations. The powers to investigate and so forth are laid down in that clause, and I understand those. I see the need for them and I think it is one of the strengths of the bill. The type of matters to be investigated seem to be reasonably clear. Could the minister perhaps detail a bit more for my information the process that the commission would go through in determining that it would conduct an investigation? I understand that we are talking about investigations rather than inquiry powers. 25 May 2006 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 2015

Mr ROBERTSON: I am not sure that I can be of particular assistance in outlining how I anticipate the commission will act, because the commission, being independent by its very nature, is a creature of its own making in how it operates. Rather than try to speculate on how the commission will operate, I think the member’s question is perhaps more relevant for when the parliamentary committee undertakes the review of how the commission has operated in its first year. So, if there is seen to be in the member for Moggill’s eyes or, indeed, any other members’ eyes deficiencies or inadequacies in the investigative powers of the commission, that is what the parliamentary committee can report on in a year’s time. The member quite correctly points out that the powers of inquiry for the Health Quality and Complaints Commission are indeed very wide. As I said, rather than me try to speculate, perhaps when we revisit this in 12 months—if, in fact, we have the opportunity to do so— Dr Flegg: Are you worried you may not be here? Mr ROBERTSON: Then again we just may—that might be the more appropriate time to have such a discourse. Clause 86, as read, agreed to. Clauses 87 to 93, as read, agreed to. Clause 94 (Commission may conduct an inquiry)— Dr FLEGG (3.04 pm): Chapter 8, clause 94 and the successive clauses deal with the commission conducting an inquiry as opposed to the investigation powers that we have just talked about. This is a pretty major part of the bill. It could almost, to a certain extent, have the powers of a standing inquiry— and they are wide powers indeed, as the minister correctly said. Could the minister clarify for us what events would have to take place before the commission instigated an inquiry? In particular, I would like the minister to confirm for us that the commission will have unfettered discretion in its own right to decide what matters it wants to conduct an inquiry into. I know that under clause 95 the minister can direct the commission to conduct an inquiry. But, more particularly, with reference to clause 94, it will be a major step for the commission to make a decision to conduct an actual inquiry per se. I want the minister to confirm that the commission would have the right to make that decision without reference to the minister or the government or anyone outside and what circumstances the minister thinks should trigger the decision to conduct an inquiry. Mr ROBERTSON: The commission certainly has that discretion within the powers that are outlined in the early part of the bill. There is certainly no requirement for the commission to seek the permission of the minister of the day to conduct an inquiry. That would have a significant impact on what we are trying to achieve with respect to the commission’s independence. With no disrespect, the member is asking me to speculate on how this commission may operate. Again, as the member has rightly pointed out, what we have tried to do, based on our experience of particularly the last 24 months, is construct an act and give powers to a commission that reflect the lessons that have been learnt over the last couple of years. I have been on record now on a number of occasions using the example of Toni Hoffman in Bundaberg. Because of the failure of management to act on the concerns that she had about what she witnessed in the operating theatre, amongst other places, under this legislation she would have the ability to go to the commission and lodge a complaint. Based on the circumstances and the facts of the particular matter before it, the commission would of its own motion be able to conduct an inquiry of a type that it itself determines appropriate. So there would be no need for the minister to be involved. Similarly, if Toni Hoffman—and I mean no disrespect by mentioning Toni Hoffman—had come to me as the minister of the day with those complaints, under this legislation I could have referred those complaints, based on the seriousness of them, to the commission or, indeed, I could have directed the commission to conduct an inquiry into those circumstances. That is a deficiency of the previous system where the minister, acting in the interests of the community and based on the facts of what he or she had been told, had no ability to direct the Health Rights Commission to undertake an investigation. So I think that deficiency has been corrected by clause 95. Clause 94, as read, agreed to. Clause 95 (Commission must conduct inquiry if directed by Minister)— Dr FLEGG (3.09 pm): I will refer very briefly to this clause, which follows on from the previous one. Perhaps it is more in the nature of an observation. This clause requires that if the minister refers the matter and instructs that an inquiry be held, the commission must conduct an inquiry. This is one of the few parts of the bill where the commission can be directed externally by the minister. In principle, I have no great problem with it. I note, though, that the minister directs the commission and takes away the commission’s discretion as to whether it thinks it is a suitable matter for it to inquire into. I place that observation on the record. 2016 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 25 May 2006

The issue that concerns me a little—and it has occurred a number of times with the CMC—is that the way political issues work there is a temptation for the minister of the day to flick each and every crisis or problem that arises onto the commission. Politically, they can then say that they have done something about it, that the commission is inquiring into it. My concern about this clause is that unsuitable matters may be deflected to the commission. The commission does not have the discretion to send matters back to the minister and state, for one reason or another, that it does not think the matter should be the subject of an inquiry. Mr ROBERTSON: I would work on the basis that it is better to be safe than sorry. I will just clarify my previous answer with respect to clause 95. I mentioned the powers of the existing Health Rights Commission. I need to clarify what I said in that regard. In fact, the existing Health Rights Commission does have—as, indeed, the minister has—the power to direct an investigation. However, it is not a power that is used lightly. In fact, I am advised that the power in the existing Health Rights Commission for a minister to direct an inquiry has not been used to date. Historically, since the Health Rights Commission has been in existence, even though there has been a power for ministers of the day to direct an investigation, it has not in fact been used. While listening to the member, I was thinking of an appropriate corollary—for example, the CMC. Matters are referred to the CMC, as they should be, on a regular basis. However, the CMC can determine very quickly if a full investigation is necessary or if some more appropriate means of dealing with the matter is considered appropriate. Whilst the minister can direct an investigation, we have the precedent of that directive not being used lightly in the past. In terms of other jurisdictions, the independence of that commission comes to the fore in terms of the extent of investigation that is necessary after establishing the facts of the matter. That is what informs bodies such as the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, the CMC or any other investigative body on the way it will proceed. Dr FLEGG: I thank the minister. I note that that is not how the legislation appears to be worded. The legislation states— The commission must conduct an inquiry relating to a matter mentioned in— various sections are mentioned— if directed to do so by the Minister ... A discretion for the CMC not to inquire or to refer it back to the minister does not appear to exist. Actually, this is probably a significant issue. In relation to health rights, with all due respect I doubt if the minister’s predecessors knew that they had the power to direct the Health Rights Commission to conduct an inquiry. It was widely believed that the Health Rights Commission did not have the sorts of powers that would make that fruitful. However, I would be very surprised if the minister’s predecessors were aware that they had the right to make that direction. There is a fairly significant difference between this legislation and the way the CMC currently works. Mr ROBERTSON: The point I made is probably best explained by clause 99, which outlines the procedures of the inquiry and gives the commission appropriate scope in terms of how it actually proceeds. That is what I referred to. The commission, of its own motion, determines how to proceed in relation to an inquiry. It can be as formal or as informal as the commission determines. Dr FLEGG: I thank the minister for that and I certainly accept his answer. There is still the difference of a direction to the commission. However, it seems to have fairly wide scope as to how to deal with what it is directed to do. Clause 95, as read, agreed to. Clauses 96 to 148, as read, agreed to. Clause 149 (Assistant commissioners)— Dr FLEGG (3.15 pm): This section of the bill probably attracted the widest comment during the second reading debate. I must say that it still troubles me a little. We do not propose to vote against it, but I certainly would have drafted it differently, given the option. In particular, in relation to assistant commissioners—and perhaps to the commissioner—it is very prescriptive about what occupation an assistant commissioner must come from. Quite frankly, I am not sure that occupation is the critical issue for an assistant commissioner. As I said previously, it would be better to direct the composition of assistant commissioners to comprise people with a background in the private health and private hospital systems and people with a background in health care from regional Queensland. The way in which it is prescriptive might actually make it difficult to achieve those particular goals. I particularly emphasise that I think the focus on this bill and on the commission itself has resulted from what followed the Bundaberg Hospital inquiry. Therefore, there has been a very strong focus on its role in the public sector and for public hospitals. However, half of all hospital services that are provided in Queensland are in fact provided in the private sector—that is half—so the private sector is operating a 25 May 2006 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 2017 system that is as big as the hospital system operated by Queensland Health. It is covered every bit as much by this commission as is the public sector. Yet, whilst we mandate representation from certain health professional areas we do not guarantee that half the entire hospital system of the state has any sort of representation. We also do not mandate that regional Queensland has any representation at all. This would particularly concern people from north and central Queensland, who have experienced a dreadful time with the health system—a lot of which, to their mind, is attributable to their remoteness from the decision makers in south-east Queensland. We do not propose to oppose this, as such, because we need to get on and establish the commission and hope that it works well. However, I strongly urge the minister to take into account these vital factors. There is a great danger that the benefits the minister hopes will flow from the commission will be partially lost if we do not allow representations from massive parts of the health system that are covered by this very major piece of legislation and the commission it sets up—in particular, those in regional Queensland and those from the private health system. Mr ROBERTSON: Clause 149 sets out the qualifications for appointment of the assistant commissioners. These were in fact recommended by Peter Forster in his report, so it has a degree of history. Nevertheless, last night I indicated in my summing-up that I am sensitive to the calls by a number of members, including the member for Moggill, to ensure that we strike a balance, as far as possible—whether it be between the public and private sector or between various occupational groups, or appropriate geographic spread. I give the member the assurance that we will do as much as possible to try to establish exactly that balance. As I said, we have about 115 applications, many of which are of a very high quality. We are currently going through them. I am sensitive to what has been advocated. It is important that we send the right signals. It may not be possible that every sector gets a guernsey first time round. It is inevitable that some interests will miss out. It is certainly my intention to, as far as possible, establish balance without compromising quality. Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Minister. There are quite a number of areas in the healthcare industry that would appreciate the assurances that the minister has just given them. I want to correct the minister on the record where he said that these were the recommendations out of the Forster inquiry. I think that the minister is correct when he states that he was looking at some occupational groups. I read Forster very carefully on this matter recently and he was very clear that he envisaged representation to be decentralised and to have representation from regional Queensland. Peter Forster’s report is very, very clear that that is how he envisaged the commission to operate. He was particularly at pains to include those sorts of comments in relation to the fact, firstly, that it should be decentralised and, secondly, that there should be representation from regional Queensland. Those parts of his recommendations— Mr Robertson: And non-practising nurses and non-practising allied professionals et cetera. He actually did mention occupational groups. Dr FLEGG: I pointed out at the beginning that he certainly mentioned some of the occupational groups. In this case the occupational groups have survived through into the legislation, but the decentralised nature and the representation from regional Queensland has not survived through into the legislation. That part of Forster’s vision and those expectations from people in regional Queensland in particular will rely on the assurance that the minister has given here today rather than the wording of the bill. Mr ROGERS: I listened intently to what the minister said on this point and I would implore the minister to seriously consider what I discussed last night. The vast bulk of what the commission has to do is in relation to standards. The experience that we had in what is colloquially known as AGPAL— Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited, which is a standards body—was when we brought in all the representative groupings it was much easier to get consensus. When people were left out it was harder to achieve consensus. The member for Moggill’s point is that it is very important to get the spread as wide as possible and draw all those people in. One would think it would become more unwieldy but in fact it is far easier because it enables the turf to be covered a lot better. The gaps are where the problems are. In particular in the early phase of the AGPAL situation when we did not include certain groupings we found it was very apparent. When we included them at a later stage—this is in the formative stage of setting it up—it was found to be much easier. I would like the minister to consider that and take that on board, in particular when dealing with the issue of standards. Clause 149, as read, agreed to. Clauses 150 to 233, as read, agreed to. Clause 234 (Amendment of s 10 (Appointment of members))— Dr FLEGG (3.24 pm): I spoke at length in my speech in relation to this part of the bill. It does really worry me. It is a very important part of achieving the objectives that are stated for this commission. This is in relation to the appointment of people to help district councils. Yesterday there was a bit of political argy-bargy going on here with the member for Bundamba and others, but the reality is that members will not find anybody outside of this place who thinks that the district health councils have 2018 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 25 May 2006 been strong advocates for their local health district and for getting things right in their local hospital. I am sorry to have to say that but that is the reality. If the system of district health councils had worked we may not even be here debating this bill, but the reality is that it did not work. We all know and have canvassed the reasons why district health councils did not work. My reading of Peter Forster’s idea for this and certainly my own belief is that we are trying to move to an independent commission as far as possible without the parliamentary all-party committee. The vision was that the health commission would nominate the members for the district health councils. On my reading of the legislation, the recommendation from Forster has actually been watered down to where the commission would simply be putting some names up to the minister and the way of dealing with these appointments really would not change very much from what we have seen up until now. This is a pretty serious issue, in particular in regional Queensland where people feel, and I think quite rightly, that they have been disenfranchised from their local hospitals and local health services. They would be uneasy now about the appointment processes for these district health councils. In fact, it is not just regional Queensland; it is all of Queensland that has concerns in relation to this. I am asking the minister if he is prepared to give an assurance that he will appoint those people recommended by the health commission? Or are we to see more of the same where health ministers, be it the current minister or his successors, simply choose the candidates that suit them for various reasons? Mr ROBERTSON: It is inevitable that on issues such as this there is a political argument to be had. I think that I am someone who has been able to demonstrate, over the time that I have been a minister in a range of portfolios, that appointments I make have always been quality appointments. If the member can point out someone I have appointed to an advisory body or government over the six years that I have been a minister in this place who has not been a quality candidate then please point them out. I suspect that the member will not be able to find them, despite the fact that the member continues on with this campaign that if someone just happens to have a Labor Party ticket and sits on a district health council, that is somehow anathema to good governance. The level of discrimination and the inappropriate naming of individuals by the member—his use of this place for base political purposes—continues. That is why, frankly, as useful as the discussion has been today on this point, the member for Moggill and I are just going to have to beg to differ because until he can conduct himself with a much greater degree of integrity with respect to such matters I am not prepared to actually countenance his suggestions. Remembering the member’s contribution last night and his flag-waving exercise about Peter Forster’s report and his alternative policy for hospital boards, I do note Peter Forster’s comments, which I think are worth reading into the record. In describing the deficiencies of hospital boards, Peter Forster stated— ... the most pressing argument against the creation of separate hospital authorities and associated boards today is the unprecedented need to properly integrate public health services across Queensland. That, I think, says it all. Peter Forster went on to state— The environment in which public health services are delivered today is also more complex than when Hospital Boards existed. The range, type and modes of health services delivered are far more specialised and increasingly provided outside of acute hospitals. Local Hospital or Health Boards are no longer relevant or appropriate for the management of health services. What we have decided to do in recognising exactly what Peter Forster had to say about properly integrating public health services across Queensland means that we cannot look locally anymore. We need to put in place structures where services are shared and where patient outcomes are the No. 1 priority. That cannot be achieved in every locality in a diversified state such as Queensland, as the opposition well knows. The more that we can integrate services across-the-board, the better the outcomes will be from a patient safety point of view, which I suspect the member for Moggill knows and understands. That is why Peter Forster made those observations. It is why we have gone down the path of creating those clinical CEO positions: to better integrate across district boundaries to ensure that our patients, particularly those requiring the most acute services, get those services without worrying about the inefficiencies and artificial barriers that are often created through board structures. Before I came into parliament I had a lot of experience with local boards. They were fire brigade boards. I saw the inefficiencies, the duplication and the inability to talk to each other against artificially constructed boundaries. I vowed when I came into this place that I would never be part of a system that allows those artificial boundaries to be recreated. There was an independent inquiry, as has so often been the case in terms of how government services are provided across Queensland. On each and every occasion, boards are found to be wanting in terms of the quality of services that have been offered. The member for Gaven talked in this place about standards. We do not get standards equally applied across a state such as Queensland through the artificial creation of boundaries that boards create. That is why we have gone down the path of establishing emergency department networks—so that clinicians can share their experiences and resources and so that we put in place appropriate protocols to ensure, as I said, that patient safety is our No. 1 priority. That is why I do not think boards are appropriate. It is certainly why Peter Forster did not think boards were appropriate. 25 May 2006 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 2019

Dr FLEGG: I do not propose to enter into a debate with the minister on hospital boards on this occasion, because I have made my views very clear in my speech at the second reading stage. Suffice it to say, I violently disagree with the minister’s statements. Further, I think he has an extraordinarily difficult argument to criticise hospital boards in the way he did and yet support district health councils. He cannot have his cake and eat it, too. The minister just commented about the problems that would be created ‘through the artificial creation of boundaries that boards create’. There cannot be any more artificial boundary than 38 health districts with district health councils and a remote bureaucracy. In fact, having a board to a hospital is not artificial. The hospital is anything but arbitrary or artificial, whereas the health districts are arbitrary and artificial. The reason we are having this debate and that we have debated health for so long is that that system failed. It failed dismally. It let people down not just in Bundaberg, Hervey Bay or Prince Charles but right across the state. The minister has a pretty tough argument to stand in this place and try to justify a system that I do not think any Queenslanders believe has done anything other than fail the people of Queensland. I stick absolutely by our policy in relation to hospital boards, returning some control and some say in what happens at a local level to local communities. The minister gave his usual attack on me in relation to the rare occasion where it is necessary for me to name some people in the course of legitimate political debate in this place. He certainly cannot sustain that in any way, shape or form, because we had the Premier in here naming a public servant yesterday. The member for Stafford regularly attacks doctors at Prince Charles by name. A government member interjected. Dr FLEGG: Go and read your Hansard. There is no need to make a noise up the back. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Member for Moggill, I remind you that we are on the clause. Can you speak to the clause. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The comments that the member made were untrue and offensive. I ask that he withdraw them. Dr FLEGG: I withdraw. I am not sure if the member is denying that he named— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Moggill, you have withdrawn. Please speak to the clause. Dr FLEGG: The issue that the minister raised in relation to Labor Party members being on district health councils conveniently escaped the point entirely. In fact, the minister did not answer the question. What I have asked is: will the minister accept the independent recommendations for the district health council from the health commission? We probably know the answer, because the minister would not get up in this place when he had the opportunity a few moments ago and say, ‘Yes, I will accept the independent recommendations.’ The only reason for not doing that is that they want to make tainted and biased appointments. If the minister meant what he said about this being— Mr ROBERTSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that offensive and untrue, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Will you withdraw? Dr FLEGG: I withdraw. If the minister meant what he said about this being an independent body and its role, then he would accept the independent body’s recommendations for district health councils. I take it, unless he wants to confirm otherwise, that his answer today says that he will not necessarily accept the independent commission’s recommendations. Clause 234, as read, agreed to. Clauses 235 to 239, as read, agreed to. Clause 240 (Insertion of new pt 9, div 6)— Dr FLEGG (3.37 pm): This clause proposes to insert division 6, section 83(1). It concerns the transitional provisions for the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act and is headed ‘Existing members of district health councils’. What it appears to say to me is that on 1 July, when the commission is constituted, all sitting appointments at district health councils cease to be operative on that day. That is my reading of the act. I would like the minister to confirm if I have correctly read the act; that is, that automatically all district health council appointments will terminate on 1 July. If I have correctly read the act, can the minister please tell us what is happening in the short term for district health councils following 1 July? Mr ROBERTSON: That particular provision referred to by the member commences on a date to be fixed. It does not commence as of the creation of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. That is to allow the district health councils to continue operation whilst the Health Quality and Complaints Commission considers nominations for the new health councils. Dr FLEGG: Thank you for that clarification, Minister. It has actually left me more confused than I was to start with. It certainly looks to me from page 122 that on commencement of the commission the member stops being a member under that appointment. If I accept what the minister has said—I find it 2020 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 25 May 2006 to difficult to see it in the bill, but I am happy to accept the minister’s assurance that that is what it means—it would be very important at this juncture— Mr Robertson: Can I clarify something for the member to help him out without impacting on the number of times that the member may wish to contribute. If the member goes to chapter 1 at page 14, clause 2(2) talks about section 240 commencing on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Dr FLEGG: Thank you for that clarification. I am still confused. Perhaps the minister could clarify that we are to have a date proclaimed after which current appointments to the district health councils cease to be applicable. If that is the case, could the minister give us some guidance as to how far into the future this date to be proclaimed will be? What is going to happen to the district health councils following the date when their members all cease to be appointed? Mr ROBERTSON: That will be subject to discussions or consultations with the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. I envisage that the positions on the new councils would be filled by the end of the year. So I am envisaging that it will take a number of months for the commission to put forward names of people to fill those particular positions and have them all in place by the end of the year. Dr FLEGG: Now I am getting enlightened. My understanding is that we are looking at a date in the not-too-distant future on which all district health council appointments currently in force will cease and that the health commission will make a recommendation to basically reconstitute all those positions and that is likely to be completed by year’s end. This is certainly going to impact upon the functioning of the district health councils, if I have understood the situation correctly. It is a fairly major point. Obviously this is going to affect 38 district health councils if the recommendation from the commission is that all positions in all 38 district health councils are to be filled and operational by the end of the year. Can the minister confirm that I have finally got it right? What issues does he see flowing from that? Mr ROBERTSON: That is what we are aiming to achieve. I do not see any issues arising out of it at this point in time that cannot be dealt with. Dr DOUGLAS: The minister has clarified some of my points, but I, too, am very concerned about this point. I raised it last night. I am hearing the minister’s determination to get these district health councils right. I think it is imperative, if the minister is determined to have them, that he gets them right. To be honest, to date they have not been effective. The minister needs to clarify to the members exactly what has just been clarified here, which is that they will be restarting. The minister might not have considered some of the points I raised last night. One is—and I did not go into great detail on this; I know it was a very complicated speech—that these persons need to be taken through an induction process. He needs to explain to them what a quality assurance loop cycle is and what their obligations will be under this new system. I see that there are some querulous looks over there. The district health council members are going to be part of this cycle as well. They need to understand that. I do not think to date they do. In other words, there may be people who go into this without truly knowing what they are going into. These will possibly be different entities to those in the past. I wonder whether the minister has, firstly, considered it. Secondly, if he has not considered it maybe he needs to have a closer look at it. Thirdly, he also needs to consider that an induction process for those new members might be the best way to deliver, in very short order, functioning district health councils. Mr ROBERTSON: I will certainly take on board those suggestions. I can assure the member that district health councils will be appropriately advised and inducted in terms of their roles and responsibilities. Clause 240, as read, agreed to. Clause 241, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1 (Health services)— Dr FLEGG (3.46 pm): I wanted to draw attention to schedule 1 and make some comments on it and see what the minister has to say. It refers to the type of services that are declared health services under this piece of legislation. Perhaps people who have not looked at it in as much detail as we have would be surprised at the very wide scope of services. I was surprised when I read this section by the enormous scope of organisations captured under this bill. I will just mention two that are there, although we could spend all day talking about them as there are so many. They include laundry services, cleaning services, social workers and welfare, and recreational and leisure services. It potentially has tentacles into almost anything people could imagine. One that jumped off the page at me is the inclusion of ambulance services. I take it, therefore, that the commission will have the same powers in relation to ambulance services as it will have with hospitals and other sorts of health facilities. I think this would probably come as a bit of a shock to some people in the emergency services area. There are a lot of ambulance issues that could well become the subject of investigation or inquiry. 25 May 2006 Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill 2021

Other areas that particularly jumped off the page at me were areas such as massage therapy, which is effectively totally unregulated. I may stand corrected, but I am not even aware that there is a register of massage therapists let alone accredited qualifications. There are some pretty enormous reaches here. I ask the minister to comment on the areas that are unregulated or even unregistered and whether I am correct in assuming that the powers of the commission would be the same in relation to ambulance services as they would be for public and private hospitals? Mr ROBERTSON: I am informed that the Health Rights Commission has had the power to inquire into ambulance services since day one. Dr Flegg: Did you know that one before? Mr ROBERTSON: It is does not matter, but the member knows it now. That is the important thing. So he will not have to ask me again. I am also informed that over the years there have been only a few matters with respect to ambulance services that have actually been referred to the Health Rights Commission. Nevertheless, it is an existing power that will carry over to the new Health Quality and Complaints Commission. My answer in terms of the breadth of interest that the Health Quality and Complaints Commission will have is reflected in the fact that we set aside a budget of some $7 million-plus to operate it. That is something that I note some members opposite criticised in the debate last night. We cannot have a broad-reaching Health Quality and Complaints Commission without stumping up some serious dollars to resource it appropriately. Yes, it has a broad framework, but it also has the budget to ensure that it delivers. Dr FLEGG: I thank the minister. I certainly was not critical of the budget because, like the minister, I think a major commission like this must be adequately resourced or it will not meet its objectives. I note the minister’s comments in relation to the Health Rights Commission and its right to inquire into ambulance services. I can tell the minister why the commission has not had many inquiries into ambulance services; I suspect it is because nobody knew they had the right to look into them. Mr Robertson: They know it now. Dr FLEGG: They know it now, that is right. It is well worth placing that matter on the record because these are major services and I suspect this is a huge shift in the way that concerns in relation to things like ambulance services apply. The minister may remember that two patients died last year because of faulty defibrillator leads in ambulances. That would not have been in the minister’s portfolio at the time, but it is likely to be in his portfolio under this legislation. Because ambulances are usually involved in emergencies, those types of acute incidents are not all that uncommon, so one would suspect that this is a fairly major development. The other issue in relation to the inquiries by the Health Rights Commission was that its powers were nowhere near as extensive as the commission that is being set up under this bill. There was a feeling in the community, particularly in the health industry in general, that the Health Rights Commission was an ineffective body in many respects in terms of delivering satisfaction for complainants. I guess that is why it will cease to exist. That also would have been reflected in the types of complaints that were brought before it. In fact Peter Forster was very specific in his report that one of the problems with a relatively toothless Health Rights Commission is that there are so many different complaints mechanisms. The Health Rights Commission was not an exclusive complaints commission, whereas I think this commission will become closer to that. Complaints were also received by things such as medical registration boards and professional bodies. There is one page in Forster—and I cannot remember the page number now—which lists bodies that received complaints. None of those boards really performed their role adequately, so we ended up with complaints mechanisms that were not quite satisfactory. So if the commission is set up and operates as we hope it will and as we have been assured it will, some of these areas will be very, very significant, which is why I think it is appropriate we are noting them today. Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. Schedules 2 to 5, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time.

Long Title

Long title of the bill agreed to. 2022 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 9 May (see p. 1473). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (3.53 pm): The opposition will be very strongly opposing the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. I will go through the reasons for that, specifically some of the technical reasons and the specific reasons in a little while. This bill repeals the following: Criminal Code section 56, which covers disturbing the legislature; Criminal Code section 57, which covers false evidence before parliament; and Criminal Code section 58, which covers a witness refusing to attend or give evidence before parliament or a parliamentary committee. The bill provides that this repeal does not prevent a person being punished for contempt of parliament as defined in the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. The effect of the bill is that, where a person lies before the parliament or a parliamentary committee, the only punishment available is for contempt of the parliament. This applies whether the person who lies is a member of parliament, a public servant or an ordinary citizen. The Attorney-General claims that this amendment is necessary to preserve the right of free speech in the parliament found in article 9 of the English Bill of Rights 1688, which supposedly underpins the parliamentary privilege of free speech. This so-called parliamentary privilege is in itself subject to considerable dispute as to its width and applicability. To see what I mean, members can look at what Sylvia Spong wrote in The reform of parliamentary privilege at 31 and 32, where the Bill of Rights and its historical context is explained for all to see. The right of free speech in parliament is, however, a right that is restricted to an exercise by members of the parliament. What this bill is doing is legalising lying to the parliament and its committees, not only by members of the parliament but by anyone who gives evidence before the parliament and its committees. Members of parliament are able to defend their actions on the floor of the parliament. Public servants and ordinary citizens have no such right. The effect of the bill—by treating lying to parliament as a form of contempt of parliament—means that the parliament is assuming for itself and asserting so far as ordinary citizens are concerned a role of being judge, jury and punisher, which is a role that parliament fundamentally abandoned so far as ordinary citizens are concerned decades ago. The last time the Commonwealth parliament sought to exercise this penal power was in the case of Browne v Fitzpatrick in 1955. Any student of political history knows that case created the greatest of political furore when the parliament asserted a right to act in effect as a court and jail a journalist for impugning the honour and reputation of a member of parliament. Because of the concerns about parliament assuming for itself the role of the court, which hundreds of years of experience has determined should be exercised by an independent and impartial judicial system of determining whether an offence occurs, the Commonwealth eventually enacted the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, which substantially modified the penal powers of the Commonwealth parliament. Yet, in the 21st century, the Beattie government is now proposing to enhance and extend the penal powers of the Queensland parliament so they apply not only to members of parliament but also to all Queensland citizens who interact with the parliament and its processes. We all know that the reality of adversarial politics in Australia is that the government of the day has the numbers to determine any question before the parliament and any of its committees, including the question as to whether any particular set of circumstances constitutes a contempt of the parliament. This bill is seeking to enable a government with control of the numbers on the floor of the parliament to use those numbers to legitimise lying and falsehoods by its members and ministers. At the same time, the government is also being empowered to prosecute and punish any person whose evidence before parliament and its committees it does not like or might find embarrassing. So much for this bill being concerned to protect free speech for any person in Queensland, let alone members of this place. How has the concept of parliament itself acting as court, prosecutor and punisher been regarded? Professor Enid Campbell, one of the doyennes of the Australian legal academic community, when talking about the issue of adjudication of parliamentary offences, has said— There is much to be said in favour of a regime under which persons charged with parliamentary offences may be tried before courts of law rather than within a parliamentary forum. If a court has jurisdiction to try persons on charges of contempt of Parliament, those charged before the court will, subject to any statutory provisions to the contrary, be assured of all the rights and protections afforded to defendants in criminal cases. But when persons are tried before a House of Parliament on charges of contempt of Parliament, they have no legally enforceable procedural protections. The House is not bound by the rules of evidence which apply in the courts. Those charged cannot rely on the privileges against self-incrimination and are not entitled to be represented by counsel. There is no standard of proof which has to be satisfied and the proceedings may be conducted in defiance of all principles of procedural fairness. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2023

When one looks at the provisions in part 2 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, which details the powers and procedures of this House in relation to the issue of contempt, one sees that the comments of Professor Campbell are very apt in relation to both members of the House and the ordinary citizens of Queensland being placed at risk by this bill when they give evidence to this parliament or to one of its committees. Indeed, as Professor Campbell has commented further— The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 reflects an unwillingness on the part of the Legislative Assembly to relinquish its penal jurisdiction or to share it with courts of law. This bill reinforces this government’s view that because it has dominance on the floor of this House, its members are superior to the law of the land and the courts of Queensland. Thus, again, the arrogance of the Beattie government is amply demonstrated by this legislation. I turn to the fundamental claim by the Attorney-General that the existence of these provisions in the Criminal Code limits the right of free speech for members of parliament. That point has been the subject of judicial consideration by the courts in R v Smith ex parte Cooper 1991. Mr Justice Byrne of the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688 must yield to the provisions of specific Queensland legislation. He saw no difficulty in the proposition that freedom of speech for members of the House could coexist with an obligation applicable to all to obey the general law, including the Criminal Code. Even the office of Mr Speaker himself has conceded this position. In Criminal Justice Commission v Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Madonna King 1994, Tony Fitzgerald QC, then President of the Queensland Court of Appeal, referred to a concession in a written submission by counsel for Mr Speaker that concepts of parliamentary privilege give way to contravention of the law or legal rights and duties, and even cited in support these very provisions of the Criminal Code that the Attorney- General is now seeking to repeal. Again, no limitation was seen on the rights of free speech by members of this House in the existence of a general obligation to tell the truth. Therefore, it is clear that prior to the case of former minister Nuttall, which has caused this government to introduce this bill in order to help one of its own out of a problem—which was caused by his own deliberate actions in giving evidence before the estimates committee last year—the legal authority in Queensland and even former Speakers of this House conceded that the existence of these provisions in the Queensland Criminal Code could sit easily and successfully with the power of the parliament in relation to punishment for contempt. That has always been the position in Queensland ever since the Criminal Code of Sir Samuel Griffith was enacted in the late 19th century. Until now, at no stage in the over 100 years since the preparation of the Criminal Code and its passage through the parliament has any member of this parliament, or indeed any government, sought to question that lying to the parliament could be both potentially a criminal offence and a breach of privilege. Over the years, individuals, members and ministers have never had any difficulty in giving evidence to parliament and its committees knowing that if they lie they face potential criminal charges. Yet now, because of the embarrassment caused to this government by the member for Sandgate, we are overturning over 100 years of satisfactory Queensland legislation to get this government out of a political hole and to protect its members, particularly as the estimates committee process fast approaches. Put quite simply, this legislation, which has been introduced by the arrogant Beattie Labor government, will be nothing short of a licence to lie. This government knows that. It will be nothing short of a licence for this government to continue to be absolutely unaccountable to Queensland. It beats me how a government that proclaims to be open and accountable and all things nice and rosy over and over again can come in here and introduce this legislation. The Queensland Criminal Code, as put in place by Sir Samuel Griffith, Attorney-General of Queensland and Premier more than 100 years ago, was a pre-eminent criminal code of its time not only in Australia but also in the Commonwealth. It was used as a model criminal code across the Commonwealth. Not all Australian jurisdictions have adopted the notion of a criminal code. Sir Samuel Griffith presented this Criminal Code and since then, even though it was significantly reformed by the government in the early part of the 1990s, virtually all of its concepts have remained in place. The government of the day that reformed the code, under former Attorney-General Dean Wells and others, saw no need to change these particular provisions. We have to give some degree of consideration and acknowledgement to Sir Samuel Griffith, a pre-eminent and distinguished legal mind, for the decision that he made to place these types of provisions into the Queensland Criminal Code. This government is scared of telling the truth. This government knows that if it tells the truth it will get caught out and be held accountable for its maladministration of government in Queensland. It knows that and it would prefer to have its ministers lie. Mr CHOI: I rise to a point of order. I find the lavish use of the word ‘lie’ by the Leader of the Opposition unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw the word ‘lie’. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Order! There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, ‘lying’ is an unparliamentary term. I suggest you cease using it. 2024 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Mr SPRINGBORG: There is no doubt that this legislation is a licence for members of the government and its ministers to tell untruths with absolute impunity. If this government was comfortable with telling the truth and doing the right thing, why would it come into this place and introduce such legislation? Why would it come into this place and introduce legislation that gives members of parliament the capacity to tell untruths willy-nilly? Why would the government do that? It is a provision of the Criminal Code. Mr Lawlor interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Southport! I will not have people yelling across the chamber. Mr SPRINGBORG: Certainly, the history of parliamentary privilege is extremely rich and has been fought for over the many centuries of our Westminster parliamentary system. We know of the original struggles between King John and those nobles in the 13th and 14th centuries. We also know of the struggles that took place in the 16th and 17th centuries in the parliaments in England which brought about the gestation and the subsequent birth of the parliamentary system that we enjoy today. Over the centuries there has been the beheading of speakers and the beheading of kings at the behest of a parliament that was in conflict with the monarch of the day. Our parliamentary system is extremely rich. Events culminated in the Bill of Rights 1688 from which, by and large, we take our notion of parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech. We have continued to enjoy those privileges and they have been refined in the conventions of this place. We know that what happens in this chamber cannot be impugned by an outside jurisdiction. That was why parliaments were formed—because of the power struggles of the times past where it was important for members to come into parliament and speak with impunity, without some form of impeachment or even to be dragged off to be beheaded or suffer some other fate. We know why this chamber enjoys those privileges. We know that we have the capacity to deal with our own in this chamber because that has evolved over the centuries—700 or 800 years—of parliamentary process. No-one argues against that in any way whatsoever and nor should we, quite frankly. Members of parliament in Westminster jurisdictions have been found to be in contempt of parliament if they deliberately mislead the parliament—most notably in the case of Profumo in the Keeler affair in the early 1960s. I note that that gentleman passed away recently. This parliament itself has had to sit in judgement of one of its own on the issue of deliberate contempt and has found one of its members guilty of such contempt and brought quite a serious penalty against that member. A number of years ago the member for Ipswich West was found to have deliberately provided false information to this place. He basically lied to the place. This parliament sat in judgement of its own through the privileges committee, which made a recommendation to this place and it went on from there. Other members of parliament from time to time have been dealt with by this chamber, and other members have been asked to apologise to this place because they provided information which was subsequently found to be wrong. If we look at the reports of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee—I was a member of that committee and sat through many hearings involving the then Deputy Premier when I was in government, the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, and other members—the committee has found that members have inadvertently misled the parliament and they did the appropriate thing and apologised. So the issue of inadvertently misleading the parliament and apologising and the issue of deliberately misleading the parliament can be judged quite appropriately by members sitting in judgement on their own if it is done in a non-political environment. However, what Sir Samuel Griffith did when he put in place the embryo of the Criminal Code, which was passed by this parliament some 100-odd years ago, was identify the need to treat committees of the parliament somewhat differently to this chamber. There is a very specific reason for that—that is, there is a different dynamic that operates in those committees. We know why that is the case. Committees have a totally different dynamic that operates outside of the robustness of this place because they have a formal process in place where information is prepared, evidence is given and people are routinely cross-examined by committee members. It is a totally different environment. Sir Samuel Griffith foresaw the need to make sure that, given the forensic nature of the committee process in how it involved outsiders in what it was seeking to do on behalf of the people of Queensland, the process covered that specifically without impugning parliamentary privilege. Mrs Lavarch: Why did he have section 57 then apply to the House? Mr SPRINGBORG: It applies to the committees of this place. Mrs Lavarch: And the House. It applies to the Assembly. Mr SPRINGBORG: You can have your say. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Yes, there will be a chance for that during the committee stage. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2025

Mr SPRINGBORG: When the Attorney-General stands up later her interpretation will be able to be advanced at that time. It is very important that, in the forensic process of the committees of this place and in dealing with strangers to this place, the parliament has a process that deals with those people quite separate to how we deal with them in this chamber. As I said, the notion of us sitting as judge and jury to those people I think is something which the parliament has tried to get away from because there are a whole range of rules of natural justice which do not necessarily apply to the environment that we are in here today, particularly in a highly politically charged environment. The case that brought us to this situation that we are talking about today relates to a matter last year when the then minister for health provided evidence to an estimates committee about his knowledge of certain overseas trained doctors. The then minister had the opportunity as a matter of public record to put information to that committee, to clarify information to that committee, and was asked repeatedly about it. The minister of the day chose to provide particular information to that committee which was subsequently then presented to the Queensland Police Service. The Queensland Police Service interacted with the CMC, and the CMC said that there may be enough evidence prima facie to sustain a charge under section 57 of the Criminal Code. That is what the CMC said. The CMC then brought it to this parliament in order for this parliament to resolve what it foresaw as a potential conflict between a contempt of parliament and the provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Code in how it was going to be dealt with. From that moment we knew precisely what was going to happen. A government in damage control—absolutely embarrassed by the debacle of Dr Jayant Patel and the debacle of overseas trained doctors who had not been properly accredited, properly assessed, properly supervised in this state—was very, very keen to minimise the political damage. The CMC was able to look at information external to what we would have seen. It made that particular recommendation based on evidence which was given to it. Frankly, it said that there was a lot more evidence which it was unable to get because of the lack of cooperation of certain people who were involved in that process. If members do not believe what I am saying, I urge them to have a look at the report that the CMC presented in relation to the former minister for health. So this government, in quite a cynical, political and duplicitous way, came into this parliament and moved a motion that the matter not be sent to the DPP, which was one of the options recommended by the Crime and Misconduct Commission, but that the matter be dealt with as a contempt of parliament. However, this government circumvented the normal contempt of parliament processes by accepting what was an extremely weak apology from the member who was the subject of this matter, the member for Sandgate. So the government exonerated that member from a contempt of parliament and also from potential criminal action on that day. We need to reflect on that. Not only did the government quarantine that member of parliament, the former minister for health, from potential criminal action; the government also immunised the member from facing a contempt of parliament charge by accepting his apology without having all of the facts laid out to see whether that member had deliberately misled the parliament. What we saw was a process of political interference not only in the potential criminal actions that could have been taken but also in appropriate contempt processes that would otherwise have followed in a parliament in similar cases. That is when the primacy of this parliament was corrupted by the government of the day using its numbers. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. In other cases, we have seen matters referred to the Speaker; the Speaker then has referred them to the privileges committee; the privileges committee has sat down in a bipartisan environment, looked at the parliamentary precedent and the evidence at hand and then made certain recommendations to this chamber. I have always found that the privileges committee has operated in a bipartisan environment when matters are forwarded to it, and it has always had a view that any precedent which we set will have implications not only for the Queensland parliament but also for other parliaments in the Westminster system. That is the simple reality. When I was on the committee—and I am sure this applies to the current committee—the first thing the committee would do is pick up Erskine May, look at all of the parliamentary precedents and practices that have been set, and look at what has happened in other places not only in Australia but also in Britain and Canada to see what has been done in those places. It is always loath to set a precedent, always very considerate in wanting to follow a precedent and also very wary about the way that it might expose members of parliament to the wrath of the dominant government of the day. That is not the way it was actually conducted last year, when this government tried one of its own. It tried the member for Sandgate and found him to be innocent—whether he was innocent or not. That circumvented a criminal law process which could have been followed. Frankly, in many ways that may have been a fairer environment because if the member had gone through that particular jurisdiction and been cleared, or if this government had done the right thing and referred the matter to the privileges committee to be dealt with as an appropriate contempt matter, then, frankly, there would not be the smell around this issue that continues to be there. 2026 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

My point is simply that this Attorney-General and this government can pontificate all they want about the parliament dealing with these matters appropriately and catching and killing its own. The Attorney demonstrated last year that she is prepared to circumvent the contempt processes of this parliament. Mr Barton interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Can the minister for industrial relations tell me that, by circumventing the normal contempt processes of this parliament last year and excluding the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee from appropriately investigating all the facts behind this matter, they did not politically save one of their own? That is the simple reality. The case of the member for Ipswich West was referred to the committee. Years ago, the case of the member for Nanango was referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. In the case of the then member for Tablelands, in the famous milk-spilling incident, it was the same situation. The cases of the then member for Caloundra, the member for Brisbane Central and others were referred to that particular committee and adjudicated based on the facts of the matter. When that committee considers a deliberate contempt of parliament, it considers the issue with the onus of proof basically being to the criminal standard, not the mates’ standard of this place. That process was circumvented in the case of the member for Sandgate. Given the government’s actions when it sat in adjudication of the member for Sandgate in this place last year, I have absolutely no confidence that its pontification about appropriate contempt procedures being able to be dealt with by this parliament can be followed through whatsoever, because it has proven itself to fail in that. Last year it failed and failed appallingly, because the political process overtook appropriate parliamentary process. That will now be used as a very stained precedent, not only in this state but also within the Commonwealth and Westminster parliaments around the world. There is no doubt about it. That will be reflected on, examined and used. Many jurisdictions that may come to deal with those issues in the future may not necessarily know the circumstances surrounding it and they may take it as some form of reasonable precedent. I think that is extremely unfortunate. I belabour this point because it is very, very important. Last year, the parliament proved itself—because of this majority government and the way that it treated this parliament—incapable of properly adjudicating a contempt matter. There is no way government members can argue against it, because they did that. That was a very, very dark day. The decision was political, it was not independent and it was not factual. For this, the government should hang its head in shame. We are approaching the parliamentary estimates committee process. This government knows full well that once this bill is passed the restraint—the brake—will not be on ministers or anyone providing evidence to that committee, as existed previously. Recently, a person spoke to me who is often involved in preparing information for the government for presentation to the committee—background information from inside the public sector. They sort of joked that maybe they will have a different environment this year, that maybe they could work under different parameters this year than they previously worked under. I am sure that person probably would not, but that is the particular impression that this has sent to a whole range of people. I wonder what problem the member for Hervey Bay has with telling the truth. Maybe it is a personal flaw. I do not know. Mr Shine: What an insult. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member for Hervey Bay can sit over there and laugh and carry on about this not being important, but why is he scared of telling the truth? Why is he scared of provisions of the criminal law that were used once in some 100 years? Quite specifically, they are there for a reason. This government is running away from accountability and running away from telling the truth. When this bill is passed in the parliament later tonight, with the government using its very arrogant and out-of-control majority, it will be a dark day for this place. It will be a green light for witnesses and ministers before parliamentary committees to lie, and it will create two classes of Queenslanders: those who provide evidence before a parliamentary committee who can say what they want to say and not be held accountable under the provisions of section 57 of the Criminal Code, and those outside this place who go before a court or a similar jurisdiction and tell exactly the same lie or untruth and are held accountable under the laws of perjury. This sort of thing, according to the people of this state, creates a divide between the parliament and the people. When members of parliament—who should know better—create a new set of laws for themselves that effectively exempt them from what applies to people outside of this place, frankly, that is when the whole system of democracy starts to tumble into an abyss. I find it hard to fathom why, after 100-odd years, the government has to come in here and just throw this out. I suspect I know why, and that is the parliamentary estimates committees, which will consider matters in the next month or so. The opposition will be very strongly opposing this bill before the parliament and absolutely condemns the government for bringing it before this House. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2027

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (4.27 pm): I rise to make a number of comments in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. The bill introduced by the Attorney-General is simply a blatant attempt to undermine the fundamental democratic concepts that any government would pride itself on. It should not in any circumstances be passed by this parliament. The bill attempts to remove the current sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code because it has been proposed that they conflict with the fundamental tenets of the Westminster system of government in relation to the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech. The Attorney claims that section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 is a re-enactment of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, established by the English parliament, whereby freedom of speech in debates and proceedings in the assembly cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of the assembly. Contrast that with section 57 of the Criminal Code, which states that a person who knowingly gives false evidence in the course of examination before the assembly or a committee of the assembly is guilty of a crime and is liable to seven years imprisonment. This section applies to both parliamentarians and laypersons who are called or appear before the assembly or a committee thereof. This government would have us believe that this section of the Criminal Code is not required, due to the inconsistency with section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and the principles contained in the article in the UK’s Bill of Rights. In fact, the contrary is true. In fact, both are required to maintain the accountability and democratic nature of government in Queensland. Historically, this has always been the case. The Attorney’s premise for introducing the bill is article 9 of the United Kingdom’s Bill of Rights, which was enshrined in section 40A of the Constitution of Queensland Act 1867 when it was amended in 1978. Subsequently, Queensland constitutional parliamentary laws were consolidated in the Constitution of Queensland 2001 and the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 with the same principles being enshrined in these most recent acts. In her second reading speech the Attorney stated— The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provides that the same behaviour is a contempt of parliament, to be dealt with by this parliament. It follows that section 57 of the Criminal Code is inconsistent with a fundamental tenet of the Westminster system, embodied in section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. This tenet is that debates or proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the parliament. A criminal provision such as section 57, which allows the possibility of the prosecution of a member for what that member says in the House, is inconsistent with the principle established by article 9 of the UK Bill of Rights of 1688—a principle expressly preserved in section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Accordingly, the bill repeals section 57 of the Criminal Code to ensure that the principle inherent in article 9 of the Bill of Rights is preserved and reinforced. In essence, that is the crux of the Attorney’s argument for the amendment placed before the House today. However, it certainly requires a closer look at what was the historical and current legal situation here in Queensland and, more importantly, any authorities that deal with this point. Contained in section 45 of the Queensland Constitution Act 1867 is a provision dealing with disturbing the assembly. This was regarded as a contempt of the parliament punishable by a fine according to the standing orders and if the fine was not paid immediately a person could then be confined until it was paid or until the end of the current session of parliament. At the same time, section 53 established an offence of providing false evidence before the parliament which was regarded as a misdemeanour and a person was liable to be sentenced to a maximum penalty equal to the penalty for wilful and corrupt perjury which was 14 years. In addition, section 45 also provided for the offence of refusing to attend or give evidence before the parliament or committee which again was regarded as a contempt of parliament with a maximum penalty in accordance with my earlier statement. We can clearly see that the Constitution Act 1867 in Queensland existed at the time that the principles of article 9 of the United Kingdom Bill of Rights existed and the legislation provided penalties for anybody who committed certain offences and that those penalties existed outside the confines of the assembly itself. Those same offences found their way into the Criminal Code Act 1899. It is important to remember that the Criminal Code was also drafted at a time when the principles of article 9 of the United Kingdom Bill of Rights existed and that, I repeat, is the cornerstone of the Attorney’s argument here today. Additionally, it is important to comprehend that the code was drafted by Sir Samuel Griffith and he, of all people, would have been acutely aware of the principles of article 9 irrespective that those sections became part of the law of this state and have remained so since 1899. It is interesting to read what the Attorney-General of the day had to say when discussing the Criminal Code draft. He refers to sections 56 and 58 as follows— I next draw attention of honourable members to new sections dealing with offences against the legislature—sections 56 and 58. They are provisions taken from codes in force elsewhere and the government included both of them in accordance with the suggestion of the commission. Of course it is for honourable members to say what their views are with regard to them in committee. The commission referred to the royal commission which was established by the government of the day to examine and report on the completeness of the draft code. It therefore appears that these sections at least—sections 56 and 58—were not unique to Queensland at the time and existed elsewhere. 2028 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

In addition, they were inserted into the Criminal Code at a time when the principles of article 9 were well and truly in existence and would have been known to the members of the commission. As stated, those sections, as well as section 57, became part of the criminal law of this state as of 1899. As a consequence, the criminal law has incorporated the sections as part of the law of Queensland for well over 100 years. This parliament at an earlier time, with the knowledge of the existence of the Bill of Rights, passed the legislation. It deemed that such action was critical to the proper and effective operation of government and to maintain the integrity of this House. This continued until 1978 when section 40A was inserted into the Constitution Act 1867. That section provides that the— Powers, privileges and immunities to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Legislative Assembly and the members and committees thereof shall be such as those defined by any act or acts so far as those powers, privileges and immunities are not inconsistent with this act and until certified, shall be those powers, privileges and immunities held, enjoyed and exercised for the time being with the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its members and committees so far as those powers, privileges and immunities are not inconsistent with this act or any act whether held, possessed or enjoyed by customs, statute or otherwise. Accordingly, when that bill was passed the parliament did not attempt to remove the sections of the Criminal Code that we are debating here today. Those sections continue to operate even though the principle of the article referred to by the Attorney was now enshrined in legislation here in Queensland. Section 40A is a restatement of the law as it stood under article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The next amendment occurred with consolidation of the various pieces of legislation in the Constitution of Queensland 2001 and the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. Section 8(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 states— The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the Assembly cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the assembly. Section 8(2) states— To remove doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) is intended to have the same effect as article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688). As such, the act specifically enshrines yet again the terms of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. In 2001 this parliament did not remove the terms of sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code at that time. I will return to that shortly. We therefore come back to the same starting point—that is, article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688. The parliament did not at the time of the passing of the bills in 2001, as I said, attempt to amend the Criminal Code. One cannot argue that the Attorney simply forgot the legislation existed. One cannot argue that the amendments would have been undertaken if the sections had been brought to the attention of the House. These sections have existed since 1899 and whether they had been utilised in the past is of no consequence. However, if we accept the Attorney’s argument that article 9 is in essence the crux of the proposed amendments, we have to consider whether any case law exists on the question of privilege and the role of courts in that arena. In particular, are there comments in relation to the chapter 8 provisions of the Criminal Code? The short answer, very clearly, is yes. In the determination of the matter of the Criminal Justice Commission and Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Madonna King, President Fitzgerald of the Court of Appeal was dealing with questions concerning the disclosure of documents before they had been authorised for release by the parliament. In the course of the judgement the president, at page 9 of the documentation I have, made the following comment— In any event, in a supplementary written submission received after the conclusion of oral argument, it was substantially conceded by counsel for the Speaker that there is sometimes a statutory basis for court proceedings in relation to conduct which breaches parliamentary privilege as well as contravenes the law or legal rights or duties. See, for example, Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code. In this case, this House, by the actions of the Speaker, conceded the relevance of sections 56, 57 and 58. More importantly, it established the compatibility of the precept of article 9 and the Criminal Code. It established judicial acknowledgement of the existence of sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code as an adjunct to the rights of this House. In addition, the president referred to the Supreme Court decision of R v Smith in which Justice Byrne made this comment— The court will not lightly infer the implied exclusion by statute of ‘the ancient and essential privilege of freedom of speech in parliament.’...yet the privilege yields to the extent it conflicts with the act. If, unlikely though it is, the privilege otherwise constituted an obstacle to enforcement of the statutory right, it gives way here. There is clear authority for privilege to be overridden where an act stipulates it is to occur—that is, despite the existence of the legislation as touted by the Attorney. As a consequence, given the historical basis there is no impediment to the terms of the Criminal Code coexisting when one considers that they deal with very different matters. Both are serious, but both are distinct. The changes to the Constitution Act do nothing more than repeat the existing law and do not, on the cases that I have referred to, impede the continuing operation of sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code. To argue otherwise flouts common sense and reality. Let us turn to the real reason we are here today. It is because this government finds itself in the ludicrous position of having to protect one of its own. As a consequence, the Criminal Code is now going to be amended to remove protections for the proper and effective running of government in Queensland that have for well over 100 years been part of the democratic process of this state. The Labor Party is 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2029 not doing this out of a necessity to enhance the democratic rights of individuals. Rather, it is doing so to protect itself from further attack. By doing so, it also reduces the protections offered by the criminal justice system for a person who is charged under one of these sections. In an article by Enid Campbell entitled ‘Adjudication of Parliamentary Offences’, she writes at page 178— There is much to be said in favour of a regime under which a person charged with parliamentary offences may be tried before courts of law rather than within the parliamentary forum. If a court has jurisdiction to try persons on charges of contempt of parliament those charged before the court will, subject to any statutory provisions of the contrary be assured of all the rights and protections accorded to defences in criminal cases. But when persons are tried before a house of parliament and charged with contempt of parliament, they have no legally enforceable procedural protections. The house is not bound by the rules of evidence which apply in the court. Those charged cannot rely on the privilege against self-incrimination and are not entitled to be represented by counsel. There is no standard of proof which has to be satisfied and the proceedings may be conducted in defiance of all principles of procedural fairness. By removing the right of access to the criminal justice system, the House, in essence, places itself, in effect, as judge and jury. That is not the role of this parliament. As I made very clear in December last year, this parliament’s position is not as a judicial body. If we are going to maintain the distinction between the various levels of the government, then the judiciary must always be separate from the parliament. This is also one of the cornerstones of our style of government. The Commonwealth faced a similar situation in 1959 in the Browne and Fitzpatrick privilege case involving articles being printed in the Bankstown Observer culminating in Browne and Fitzpatrick being required to appear before the bar of the chamber on 10 June 1955 to answer charges brought against them. On a motion from the Prime Minister of the day, both men were convicted to 90 days in jail. Appeals to the High Court and the Privy Council were unsuccessful. I would have thought that this parliament would not have wanted to be engaged in such matters, given the nature of the work undertaken in this House. Proceedings in relation to criminal matters should be dealt with more appropriately in the criminal jurisdiction. Finally, if one considers the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, one must look at section 47 of that act which deals with the overlap between the general criminal law and offences punishable by the Assembly. In essence, the section deals with the fact that a person’s conduct can be both a contempt of the Assembly and an offence against another act. In those circumstances, the person may be proceeded against for either but not for the same offence on two separate occasions. Indeed, the Assembly may by resolution direct the Attorney-General to prosecute the person for the offence against the other act. In particular, I refer members to the same article by Enid Campbell when she details in great length the convoluted nature of section 47 of this act. The concern here is quite clear: that this House has been asked to remove certain provisions under the Criminal Code that have been in existence since 1899, but at the same time section 47(1) provides to this parliament the option to proceed in a criminal matter for offences that could exist under other acts. If the government is going to be consistent, then it needs to deal with both matters, not just the one. It cannot have two bob each way. If one then turns to the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, section 36—an act that was brought into this House by this government—we find as footnotes to section 36 particular reference to sections 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code. It is simply inconceivable that this government prepared this piece of legislation, ticked off on the terms of the draft bill, brought it into this House, incorporated the terms into the explanatory notes and now says, ‘We didn’t know it existed.’ This is its own bill, and this is the bill that this government put together and said, ‘Here are examples of where sections 57 and 58 are clearly applicable.’ This bill was brought into this House by the Premier of this state. The Premier of this state therefore acknowledged at that time the importance and relevance of sections 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code because he endorsed the terms of the bill. This government is now trying to hoodwink the people of this state by saying, ‘Oops, we got it wrong. We didn’t really know what was going on. We’re so dreadfully sorry. We’ll correct the mistake that we made and that we perpetuated for the last five years.’ The simple reason they are doing that is this: they have been caught in their own petard. They have been found out in the estimates committee process. It has also been found out that what they did back in 2001 is an absolute conviction for their own knowledge that they are trying to wiggle out of now. They have been found guilty by their own stupidity. It is simply one more example of the stupidity of this government. Can you imagine attempting to overturn your own provisions when you acknowledge their very existence a mere five years ago and highlight them as a shining light for what exactly the section is supposed to achieve? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! The member will address his comments through the chair. Mr McARDLE: I certainly will. I apologise to the chair. Honourable members interjected. 2030 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Mr McARDLE: The peanut gallery up the back—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the peanut gallery up the back. Sections 57 and 58 are clearly recognised by the government in its own legislation. What a backflip! It is all because it cannot admit that it was wrong before the estimates committee. This whole House and the people of Queensland now have to cop it sweet that this government is going to say to ministers, ‘It’s okay if you don’t tell the truth, because we’re going to protect you by putting this through the parliament. She’ll be sweet. Say what you like.’ The bill is an absolute disgrace and should never, ever have come before this House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.46 pm): I rise to participate in this debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006, with the objectives of the bill to repeal sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for justice and Attorney- General have clearly outlined the opposition’s position on this bill and have given detailed legal background as to why we are taking the stance that we are, and that is to vigorously oppose the bill itself. Government members interjected. Mr COPELAND: I think it is very telling that throughout both of those contributions we have had consistent interjections from members of the Labor Party— Government members interjected. Mr COPELAND: And we continue to get persistent interjections. It shows the contempt that this Labor Party has for this parliament and it shows the arrogance of the members of the parliamentary Labor Party. That really underlines the very existence of this bill in the first place. Everyone is well aware of the history of why we are debating this bill. Last year in the parliamentary estimates committee for the estimates committee hearings into the Health portfolio the then minister, Minister Nuttall, got himself into a whole heap of trouble based on the evidence that he gave before that parliamentary estimates committee that was subsequently contradicted by the then deputy director-general of the health department, Dr John Scott. This matter has been debated at some length both when parliament was recalled at the end of last year and during the address-in-reply speeches last year after the budget. The estimates committee hearing of that day took a completely different turn to what everyone expected because of the answers given to the committee by then Minister Nuttall. Given the opportunity, and reminded about section 57 and the consequences of providing misleading evidence to a committee, the position still was not clarified and the contradictions between Minister Nuttall’s evidence and Dr Scott’s evidence stood on the record. That clearly led to the allegations that the minister lied to that parliamentary estimates committee. The then director-general and deputy director-general, Dr Steve Buckland and Dr John Scott, found it necessary to do a video address to all Queensland Health staff explaining what had happened in the estimates committee, and quite rightly saying that they had to tell the truth before that estimates committee. They were not able to lie to the estimates committee. Certainly that is why the contradictory evidence was given by Dr Scott. It subsequently led to an exhaustive investigation into the whole matter by the CMC. That proceeded without the full cooperation of all those involved. This included limited cooperation from then Minister Nuttall and the claim of privilege by a number of his advisers. The CMC found that there was enough evidence that the allegations should be tested in a tribunal of fact, to use their words. The allegations were that then Minister Nuttall lied to the estimates committee. Rather than test that evidence in a tribunal of fact or a court of law, the government decided that it should be dealt with here on the floor of the parliament, without having been to the MEPPC, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined. It was treated as a contempt of the parliament without going through any of the usual procedures for a contempt of the parliament, that being the matter going to the MEPPC for recommendation. After the sorry saga we saw when we returned to debate this matter and the government using its arrogant majority to protect one of its own rather than having the evidence tested in a tribunal of fact, the Attorney-General or the Deputy Premier—I cannot recall who, but certainly the government—flagged that they would be repealing these sections of the act. That is exactly what we see now. The government has brought this bill in to repeal sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code. There is a difference between appearing before a parliamentary committee and lying or providing false evidence to that parliamentary committee and providing false evidence or lying to the parliament. The allegation that was made against then Minister Nuttall was that he lied to a parliamentary committee. This parliament has a number of parliamentary committees. It has estimates committees, but it has a whole range of other parliamentary committees as well. These sections of the Criminal Code provided—before this bill passes this parliament—that any evidence given to those parliamentary committees by members of parliament or members of the general public had to be true and that there were ramifications under the Criminal Code if it was not true. I think that is the expectation that everyone in the community has. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2031

I was involved with this at the time. A lot of people have talked to me about this issue and the procedure the government has followed to take these provisions out of the Criminal Code. The general public is absolutely bewildered, they are dismayed, that the government is proceeding with this. Mr Shine: How many people have spoken to you? Mr COPELAND: An enormous number of people, the member for Toowoomba North. As I said, I was involved in this at the time. It received an enormous amount of publicity. Barely a day would go by when people would not talk to me about it. They were saying that the expectation is that anyone appearing before a committee should tell the truth and there should be serious ramifications for not telling the truth. This is the first time that we have had a problem. The reason we have had a problem is that a minister got caught out. That is why we are here. A minister got caught out. All of a sudden we have had this reaction from government—that is, we need to change the law so that it can never happen to one of their ministers again. That is what this is all about. It is absolutely no coincidence that we are debating this today, the second last sitting before the budget is brought down and we go into the estimate hearings. There is no coincidence in that. Not this year in the estimates committees will we have the same controversy as we had last year. Not this year will ministers get into trouble if they do not give accurate evidence to those committees. After the carriage of this bill—and it will pass through the House because the Labor Party has the numbers; we all know that it will go through—it means that come estimate committee hearings ministers will be able to say what they like and have no fear that there will be any ramifications. I think it is a really sad day for this parliament that this bill is before the House. It really shows what this government is all about. It shows that it is not open and accountable. The Premier stands up every other day saying that his government is open and accountable. Mr Davies’s commission of inquiry report found that all of the evidence suggests otherwise. This government is not open and accountable. It never wants to be open and accountable. This proves that it will not be in the future. Queenslanders will remember this. They will see this for what it is. It will portray the government in the light in which it should be portrayed. The government stands condemned for doing this. This will go down in the history books as a very dark day in Queensland history. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.55 pm): I rise to oppose the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. Sadly, the legislation further undermines, I believe, the credibility and the reputation of the member for Sandgate. Back in December he did not take the opportunity to have concerns investigated independently. Further, I believe the community now sees that his party’s government is undermining the parliamentary process to ensure the situation does not arise again. In December I said that I had a lot of regard for the member for Sandgate as the Minister for Health and enjoyed working with him. It would have given me a great deal of satisfaction to see the process followed through as per the community expectation and to see him come through that process unscathed if indeed there was no case to answer, as he said. At the time parliament was recalled in December my community wanted the member treated as anyone else would be. They remain of that view and see these amendments as parliament attempting to ensure parliamentarians are a group set apart. They did not accept the process then. They have expressed opposition to the arrogance that this bill replicates. I will not be supporting the legislation. Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (4.56 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. Mr Lawlor: So you’re in the right place. Mr ROGERS: I am indeed. It is going to be a good afternoon. This bill aims to abolish sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code. Although under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 members and nonmembers will continue to be liable to be dealt with for contempt of parliament solely this is not sufficient. This bill will remove the liability and accountability of parliamentarians who give false evidence before the Legislative Assembly. In effect, it is giving politicians a licence to lie. Although this bill claims to be driven by the need to assure the people of Queensland that parliament operates in the same way as the House of Commons, the federal houses of parliament and other Australian state and territory parliaments, there is something more sinister behind these amendments. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr ROGERS: I like the effects. I believe it is important for members of parliament to feel free to speak without fear of prosecution. However, parliamentarians should not feel free to mislead or give false information when addressing the Legislative Assembly. Removing sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code will give members the right and protection to lie in this parliament. It is unreasonable and unjust to expose members of the public to rules which do not apply to members of parliament. It is undemocratic that members of the public who have to attend 2032 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006 and give evidence before the parliament may be subject to a criminal offence carrying seven years imprisonment whilst a member of parliament is not. We are not above the law, nor should we enforce or condone rules which hold us above the very people we represent. This bill fundamentally declares that the current government has one rule for them and one for the rest of Queensland. Merging the roles of the Queensland legislature and judiciary is wrong and unparliamentary. The powers, rights and immunities which make up parliamentary privilege should not condone lying. This bill will remove the accountability of members to behave and address the parliament honestly and appropriately. Using parliamentary privilege to lie is unparliamentary and dishonourable. This bill will allow parliament to become its own judge and jury, which I solemnly disagree with. This legislation makes it legal to lie knowingly to parliamentary committees. We cannot expect these amendments will communicate fair judgement when currently the parliament is controlled by such a majority. We cannot rely on this government to be diligent in its own investigations of its own mates because we know how unreliable and suppressed its information is. People living in every electorate across Queensland deserve fair and honest conduct from their parliamentarians and these amendments do not enforce that. Offences will now be dealt with in-house with the stench of concealment which we have suffered so long from the Beattie Labor government. I am insulted by this legislation in that it allows the public to accuse us of lying and there is very little we can do about it, as this bill has made it legal. Then again I ask: if it is now legal to lie, is it actually lying? Lines such as ‘protecting free speech’ and ‘parliamentary privilege’ should not be used to defend dishonest and inappropriate behaviour in this House. This charade has been brought about to protect Labor mates and it is sending the wrong message to the communities we represent. Lying should not be allowed or excused anywhere in the community, yet I am shocked that here in the House we will condone it. I will stand firm on my position and reject these amendments as they do nothing but give politicians a licence to lie. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.00 pm): I have stood in this place on many occasions and on a few occasions I have said how ashamed I was to have to even be here debating such bills. I rise today to speak against this Criminal Code Amendment Bill. I cannot express enough how poorly this bill reflects on the House. I cannot remember an occupation which has been held in lower regard in the people’s perception than a politician, and today this House has convinced me that they have been right all along. How pathetic does this piece of legislation make politicians out to be? It is not enough that we have parliamentary privilege, where if anyone in here thinks they can get away with it they can tell a lie. Oops, I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker Lee: it was unparliamentary to use such a word and it is not acceptable in these hallowed halls. So I will withdraw it; instead I will say that there are those who are inclined to tell an untruth, or perhaps the House would prefer the terms ‘falsehood’ or ‘fib’ or perhaps that they in fact ‘misled the House’. In this place, people who do these things are not liars at all, are they? They are tellers of untruths, or perhaps they have a tendency to be economical with the truth, or perhaps they are merely tellers of factual inaccuracies. A lie is a lie in any currency in the world that I know. I am a simple person. In my mind and the minds of the people, those who do what I have spoken about are nothing more or less than simple liars. I checked my dictionary today just to make sure the definition had not been changed since I looked at it last, but I had not got it wrong. There it was in black and white. All of the terms I used were matched and crossmatched and they all met the criteria of that little three-letter word. This is a shameful piece of legislation and it deserves to be totally condemned by all and sundry. All I can say is that perhaps all these tellers of untruths and tellers of factual inaccuracies did not get enough impact counselling when they were children. For members who do not know what impact counselling is, it is a simple smack. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (5.02 pm): I am pleased today to speak on this Criminal Code Amendment Bill and express my disappointment and dismay at the legislation. I am not going to go into all the details and the background of the bill; I believe the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General did a very good job of doing that. Obviously section 57 of the Criminal Code was a response to several decisions of the Privy Council way back, and no doubt for a very good reason. Also, Queensland has no upper house— Mr Barton: Not since 1922, sunshine. It’s been a long time. Mr HOBBS: That is right, and that is all the more reason we have to become more accountable. Every other state in Australia has an upper house. I notice that the minister’s second reading speech and the explanatory notes state that the other states have an upper house so we should have that as well, but we are different up here. We are not exactly the same as other states, and I think we need to be more accountable here because we do not have that upper house. Lying to parliament is a serious offence, as is lying to a committee. In many instances, committees are involved with gathering evidence and details, and that process needs to be even more transparent and committee members need to be able to get the facts. Why would we want to have a 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2033 committee, be it an estimates committee or another committee, where people lied to us all the time? They can do that now with this legislation; they could not do it before, and they should not have been doing it before. Basically, the government is legalising lying, for heaven’s sake. I refer to the minister’s second reading speech, which states— Section 57 of the Criminal Code provides that any person who knowingly gives false evidence, in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly, is guilty of a crime and is liable to seven years imprisonment. I personally would not want to see anyone go to jail, but it has to be a serious offence. Ms Croft: What are you trying to do, then? Mr HOBBS: What I am saying is that we hope it would not get to that situation, and it should not have to. At the end of the day, we have to make sure that people have confidence in the process. There is no process there, and people will have no fear of lying. If there is a penalty, then let us hope they tell the truth—and that is what should happen. The government lies in this House regularly, but what it is doing now is enshrining it in legislation. Government members interjected. Mr HOBBS: It happens all the time, and government members know it as well as I do. There is no use saying anything different. Government members do it; they have made an art of it. Now the government wants to enshrine it in legislation. It is a disgrace—a total disgrace. The government has a majority of 40 in the House. What more does the government want? Do government members want to lie as well? Surely the government can run the state with a majority of 40 without having to bring in legislation that allows lying to continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! Member for Warrego, the term ‘lie’ is an unparliamentary term. I suggest you find another word to use in its place. Mr HOBBS: That is a very good point. We are likely to have very series mistruths told in estimates committees. Let us assume this legislation does not go through the House and we go to the estimates committee process. Will we have confidence that the information provided by the ministers and the departmental people is accurate? We could probably say that, yes, it will be. We could gather figures and facts and provide information to the public on the basis of information collected from the estimates committee. When this bill goes through the House, it will be very difficult to go out and do that. There is no guarantee or assurance that the information we will get in the forthcoming estimates will be true. That is quite a serious matter. I do not think it augurs well for any government to put itself in a position like this. Is there something that the government is afraid of? Is there something that the government may be hiding that it does not want us to find out? It is quite extraordinary that the government can introduce legislation that legalises lying. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (5.08 pm): It is interesting that the member for Nanango has left the chamber. I wish she had stayed, because if ever there was somebody in this parliament who was lucky that the criminal provisions were not put against them it is her. Under section 56 of the Criminal Code, anybody who gets up to the mischief that she did in front of this parliament—and there is plenty of evidence of it—and behaved in the disorderly manner in which she did— Mr Barton: It is on camera. Mr SCHWARTEN: It is on camera. There is plenty of evidence of it. We all remember it. It was a criminal offence under section 56 of the Criminal Code. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that her episode of tipping milk all over the front of the parliament really should constitute a criminal offence, but that is what the law says. Can members imagine what would have been said if, after the member and her One Nation mate did what they did, we went to the police and had her charged under section 56 of the Criminal Code? Can members imagine what the conspiracy theorists would have said? I do not think that any member of this chamber believes that we dealt with that incident improperly. The parliament dealt with it. Why did we not use section 56? The answer is that nobody thought we should. It was thought that the parliament should deal with the parliament’s business. Did the member’s action set a good example for anybody in the community? Of course it did not! It was the sort of behaviour that if a kid got up to we would say how terrible it was. And it was terrible. It was disgraceful. It was a waste of food. It sent all the wrong messages. But was it a criminal offence? Section 56 says that it was. I do not think it was at all. That is why, in my view, the law must be changed. We have to remember that when I came into this parliament estimates committees were an absolute farce. What used to happen in the Tory days was that there would be a little debate in here about the estimates. No-one was questioned. There was no cross-examination of people. But this is the law that applied then. So it never, ever had any relevance whatsoever to what happened in estimates committees. 2034 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

The Goss government changed the estimates process. It made them more meaningful. But it was never taken to put people under oath. If people tell lies under oath, they are guilty of perjury. It is as simple as that. I have been before two royal commissions and I can tell members that at those royal commission you swear to tell the truth. If you go before a royal commission and not tell the truth, you are dealt with under the judicial process and you go to jail for up to 14 years. This is not the process of estimates committees and, as far as I am aware, it is not the process of estimates committees anywhere in the Westminster system. It is not what John Howard does. Heaven knows the mendacity that came out of the children overboard inquiry. How could any Tory stand in this House and talk about people not telling the truth? I note that the Prime Minister never comes before those committees, but he did have reason to. The reality is that those people go before those committees and they have no section 56 to guide their conduct—and neither does any other member of any parliament in Australia. The member for Warrego suggested that people can go before these committees and lie with immunity. That is what John Howard has in Canberra. That is what the federal parliament has in Canberra. That is what every other state has. This furphy about Queensland not having an upper house has absolutely nothing to do with it. These sanctions are not required by the parliament because the mother of all parliaments says that that is the case. The parliament deals with the parliament’s business. That is the case wherever and whenever. I have heard a number of members in their contributions talk about going before a court of law. The testimony that people give before a court of law is given under oath. If they tell lies, they go to jail. It is as simple as that. If somebody who holds a position such as I do misleads this parliament, there are serious ramifications. In the case of former minister Nuttall, he was the first to admit it. He said in this place that it was his inadvertent misleading. He copped a pretty big fine for that—$50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year. I do not think anybody could suggest that people who inadvertently mislead committees have no sanction against them. He lost $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year. None of the opposition’s mates in the tree clearing industry who rape the land have gone to jail. As far as I am concerned, they have committed far worse criminal acts than somebody who inadvertently misled an estimates committee—and that is the only evidence we have. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a deliberate action which, of course, is the wording in the act. I am not a lawyer, but I do know about the parliament. The parliament is a place that is only as good as the members who are in it. The fact is that the members on this side of the House take their ministerial roles very seriously, unlike the member for Warrego who was hunted out of the cabinet along with a few of his mates because of their behaviour. He is the last person who should come into this chamber and lecture me or anybody else about conduct. He was removed from the Borbidge government ministry and he knows why he was removed from it, as were some of the other ministers of that government removed. So let us not have any of those sorts of shenanigans from those opposite. The suggestion that this somehow legalises lying is the most offensive suggestion of all. It is absolutely without any basis whatsoever. It is a fictitious statement. It has no basis in fact. I notice that the media has been in a frenzy about this legislation legalising lying. I read a contribution from a columnist that said something like, ‘You can come down to Parliament House and steal things.’ Let me tell members that if anyone steals anything from this parliament, that is a criminal offence just as if a person steals something from Woolworths. And so it should be. The reality is that there is no immunity for people to break the law in this place at all. If any member of this parliament tries to do that, then let them see how they get on. The fact of the matter is that this sanction is a quirk of history. In the 100 years of the Criminal Code, it has never been applied until now. It was applied for a political purpose to deflect attention away from the incompetence and lack of policy of an opposition that is struggling for relevance in the community. An opposition member interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN:I thought I heard the member speaking, but it was obviously two half-wits knocking together. I am not going to take up any more of the time of this parliament. There is no sanction in this parliament for people to tell lies or mislead committees. I defy anybody to prove otherwise. This legislation is no sanction by this government to do that. How the parliament dealt with that recent matter I referred to is how the parliament must always deal with matters. That is how parliaments throughout Australia, including the federal parliament, deal with matters. The members opposite should apply everything that they say about this parliament to their mates in Canberra. All we are seeking to do is to have the same rules that apply to them apply to us. So if the members opposite are saying that we are legalising lying, they should say John Howard is legalising lying, too. That is what it means. Let all the media commentators say the same thing. Mr Wilson: One rule for their mates, a different rule for us. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2035

Mr SCHWARTEN: Absolutely. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. The classic born-to-rule attitude of the Tory has slithered to the top yet again. Members opposite have talked about the Westminster system. The mother of all parliaments does not do this. We do not need to do it. I commend the Attorney-General’s bill before the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.18 pm): The Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006 is something that this parliament should never have seen. It is a disgrace that we are standing here debating making one law for the population of Queensland and another more lenient, get-out-of-jail-free-card law for members of parliament. I can tell members that, unfortunately, members of parliament do not have a terribly good reputation in the community. I can tell members why. Because of contemptuous acts such as this bill. Government members have the unbelievable and unmitigated nerve to get up in the parliament of Queensland and tell the four million people in Queensland that one law applies to every single one of them—a law which means that they can be punished severely if they give false evidence before a parliamentary committee and they can go to prison—but that is not good enough for this government. This government wants to put in place a separate special law, a mate’s deal, for the 89 members of this parliament that would exempt them from a law that applies to the other four million people in Queensland. There can be contributions like the one we were just subjected to by the member for Rockhampton. They can do it all they like because not one of those four million people in Queensland believes that they should have a law that can send them to jail for giving false evidence to a committee and that this government should pass a bill to make 89 people exempt from that law so that members of parliament do not have to live up to the same standards as the four million people in Queensland. If a separate law is going to be made for members of parliament, it should be to put in place a higher hurdle, not a lower hurdle. It should not be watered down for members of parliament. Mr Wilson: Why don’t you abolish parliamentary privilege? Dr FLEGG: If anything, members of parliament should be living up to the highest ideals, not changing the law to enable them to live up to the lowest ideals whilst at the same time hypocritically telling the men and women in the streets of Queensland that what is a jailable, criminal offence for every one of them is allowable for members of parliament and that they can be let off. That is why the opposition is disgusted by this bill. That is why we will be opposing this bill. I note the interjections from those opposite, particularly from the member for Ferny Grove. I say to those members that they should go out and tell their electorates why they want a more lenient law for themselves. Mrs Lavarch: It applies to the mums and dads in your electorate as it does to you. Do you want any member of your electorate before a committee, if they were ever accused, facing seven years jail? Mr Lawlor: They just don’t get it, do they? Mr Wilson: Read the bill before you get on your feet. Ms Nolan: They are treated the same. You have the facts of the matter wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! Dr FLEGG: Thank you. It is a pretty sad day in Queensland when we hear ministers and members over there trying to defend watering down a law where members of this House can give false evidence before a parliamentary committee and get away with it. There is an old saying that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is the attitude, quite rightly, in an egalitarian society like Queensland. That is why the people of Queensland are so cynical when those at the top in government want to water down the law to protect themselves. It goes right to the root of public confidence in this institution. Mr Wilson: What about tactical lying? Dr FLEGG: That is exactly what we are talking about, except I am not allowed to used the same word as in the interjection. Mrs Lavarch: You have no credibility. Mr Wilson: I didn’t know you were talking about lying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the House will come to order. I do want to hear the member for Moggill’s contribution. Dr FLEGG: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, it goes right to the root of public confidence in this institution. With the coverage that this bill has had in the media and in the minds of people, there is only one view outside of this chamber—that is, the people at the top, the people in government, are making up rules for themselves so that they do not have to face the consequences when they do the wrong thing. It is as simple as that. They can interject all they like. They can interrupt all they like. Nobody outside of this place is going to accept this sort of change to exempt members of the government from the consequences of wrongdoing. 2036 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Mr Deputy Speaker, I note your earlier ruling that the word ‘lying’ is unparliamentary. That is why I have not used it. But we are talking about false evidence. The people of Queensland do not believe for a minute that parliamentarians should be let off for giving false evidence to parliamentary committees. This issue arose during an estimates committee. The estimates committees in Queensland are quite different from the estimates committees that are conducted federally. In fact, the opposition’s ability to question the budget, the departments and the ministers at estimates in Queensland is fairly restricted. We get time to ask only a small handful of questions, trying to extract the real detail. If you look at how the government presents its budget documents, you will see that the vast majority of important information about the accountability within the budget is not apparent or not even present in those documents. We have time to ask only a small handful of questions. We do not have the opportunity for the supplementary and follow-up examination that happens in the federal parliament. The member for Rockhampton was rabbiting on about John Howard and the federal parliament. He should go and have a look at the estimates process in the federal parliament and understand what accountability before parliamentary committees is all about. On this side of the House there is a lot of frustration trying to get truthful answers out of ministers. There is a lot of frustration because the answers are often evasive, often irrelevant and often what is absent from the answer is more important than what is present in the answer. With that small bracket of questions that we are allowed to ask, the skill of the ministers in not answering a question is bad enough. But this legislation, which will remove from the Criminal Code the sanction that would apply to the giving of outright false evidence before those committees, is unconscionable. To suggest that the criminal activity of presenting false evidence to parliamentary committees should be a matter for trial by parliament—somebody must have dreamt that up. The process in parliament, as every single person sitting here knows and can attest to every day—and every person in the streets of Queensland knows—is a numbers game. It is a numbers game in this House. If we remove the sanction that exists on the giving of false evidence before a committee, the government, by virtue of its numbers, becomes exempt and members are able to give false evidence when they wish to. I heard somebody talking about a two-tiered system. I think it was the member for Rockhampton. There is no doubt at all that there will be a two-tiered system in this place: there will be the rule that applies to government members and ministers giving evidence before a committee and there will be a whole different set of rules that apply to crossbenchers or opposition members who may, for any reason, be giving evidence before a committee. This is a fact of political life in Queensland. Under our system, naturally, a government that has the numbers has, by virtue of those numbers, the right to govern. But there is no way under the sun that, simply because the government has the numbers, a two-tiered system of justice should be allowed for people who give false evidence before parliamentary committees. You can see why the government wants to pass this bill. You can see why the government will use its numbers to ram these unacceptable measures through. It wants a two-tiered system of justice. It wants one rule for itself and a totally different rule for members who are not part of the majority in this place. This bill has been prompted by a single event. A single event has prompted the government to move to protect its members from being charged when they give false evidence to parliamentary committees. This has been prompted by the government’s response to a single event involving one of its members. It intends to change the law for everyone and forever on the basis of something that happened that it did not like. I noted the contribution by the member for Rockhampton in which he referred to section 56 of the Criminal Code. He had a pretty aggressive go at the member for Nanango. He made it clear that he did not believe that section 56 of the Criminal Code was ‘right’. I think that was the exact word that he used. Yet in the debate he tried, in effect, to support a position that legalises the giving of false evidence to a parliamentary committee. ‘I do not think it should be an offence,’ he said. ‘It should be tried by parliament,’ he said. Of course the member for Rockhampton would want these matters tried by parliament! The member for Nanango is not part of the majority in this place. The government could choose what penalty it wanted to apply to a member who is not part of the government party. Of course it would want that. It can then determine what it will do to members on this side of the chamber. Nobody with a sense of fair play or natural justice would believe that our political system should allow people on this side of the House, who are in the minority, to be tried on a matter of false evidence in a situation where their political opponents have the numbers to decide the consequences. Nobody outside this place would be convinced that the result of those matters being heard before the parliament would not be vastly different for an opposition member than for a member who sits on the government benches. Members opposite should get off their high horses and start to be more realistic and honest about why they want to water down the law to protect their own members. They will simply be able to walk into this place and exonerate any sort of behaviour. The estimates process will degenerate. It is difficult 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2037 enough with the very limited questioning that is allowed, but it will degenerate to the point where opposition members will be tearing out their hair at the obfuscation faced when trying to get any sort of answer on the budget. Really, it is unbelievable that we are here arguing—and seeing people on the other side speak with a straight face—that we should in fact have one rule for government members—that is, to be tried by their own members—and another rule for opposition and crossbench members. I heard the member for Rockhampton ridicule an earlier argument— Mr Seeney: He is bitter and twisted. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection by the member for Callide, who is erudite and right on the money, as always. The member for Rockhampton attacked the argument that in Queensland we have no upper house and that, therefore, when we talk about trial by parliament we are in fact talking about trial by government. Contrary to what the member for Rockhampton said, it is extremely relevant that this place has no upper house. In other constituencies, this sort of matter would be well and truly a matter involving members of the upper house. That would provide a much greater capacity to impartially consider matters of false evidence to a committee. Mr Shine interjected. Dr FLEGG: I ask those members who are interjecting, such as the member for Toowoomba North, what they are afraid of. They do not need this bill if they intend to tell the truth to parliamentary committees. If they do not give false evidence, they will not be charged under section 56 of the Criminal Code or anything else. This watering down of the provisions is, purely and simply, for one group of people—those who want to, and would, give false evidence before a parliamentary committee. The self- righteous interjections from the other side are answered simply by the question: what are they afraid of? The answer is that they are afraid of being caught out giving false evidence. I noted the member for Rockhampton’s vitriolic attack on the honourable member for Warrego, who has given many years of faithful service in this place. The member for Rockhampton gave us the exact reason we are standing here arguing against this bill. After condemning the member for Warrego from the government benches—appointing himself chief judge, jury and executioner—he went on to exonerate the member for Sandgate. He went on to be judge and jury for the member for Sandgate. He did not condemn the member for Sandgate as he did the member for Warrego. Instead, he excused the member for Sandgate. The member for Rockhampton decided and stated in this place a few moments ago that the member for Sandgate inadvertently misled the committee. The issues involving the member for Sandgate were never heard in a court of law. We see here why the government wants these changes. We have already heard from the government benches that if something involves an opposition member they are condemned but if something involves a government member they are excused. They would love that proposition to apply to the charge of giving false evidence before a parliamentary committee. They want to be judge, jury and executioner. Of course they do. It allows them to excuse their own. The member for Rockhampton went on to say that this parliament is only as good as the people in it. That is a rather good quote, actually. I quite like that one. I might keep it for later use. It is the one point of the member for Rockhampton’s presentation that I actually agree with. This parliament is only as good as the people in it. On that basis, why change the rules to allow members a lower hurdle and allow them to get away with providing false evidence to a parliamentary committee? He went on to make his usual vitriolic attack on the opposition, and none of it even deserves comment. In reality, this is not being changed for the opposition; this will let the government off the hook. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.38 pm): I rise to oppose the Criminal Code Amendment Bill before the House which removes the sections of the Criminal Code that cover the conduct of committees in parliament. One of the central issues in this debate is the reason this section is sitting in the Criminal Code. It has been there for 100 years. During that period of time we have had a number of revisions of the Criminal Code and also, of course, the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and presumably a number of amendments to that act as well. This section of the Criminal Code has remained during that period of time. Why? The reason is that this parliament and those who enacted the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Queensland Act over a number of years sought to treat members of the public who come before parliamentary committees in an impartial way. In other words, this parliament never took it upon itself to judge members of the public and be the jury as well. It set the members of the public aside and decided that when someone comes before a parliamentary committee and does give false evidence then there has to be an independent process that looks at whether proceedings should be launched against a member of the public. In other words, it gave them some sort of due and considered process. It did not want to be the judge and jury for private members of the public. That is why that section was inserted in the Criminal Code to start with. At the same time parliament took the view that if members of the public were to be 2038 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006 treated in that way then ministers also ought to be treated in the same fashion. That is why that section of the Criminal Code applies to private citizens and to ministers of the Crown. Parliament took the view that parliament ought not be the judge and jury for private members of the public. It is as simple as that. This section of the Criminal Code has been used in the past against a member of the public. Did we see the government of the day rushing in to change the piece of legislation? No. The proposal to change the legislation was not brought before this House until a government minister was caught by the act. If members go back through the records of the parliamentary committees they will find a Public Accounts Committee where evidence was taken from a private citizen. That evidence was suspected to be false and misleading and deliberately so. The committee referred that matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for further investigation. If my memory serves me correctly, the DPP wrote back and said that there was no prospect of a successful prosecution and the issue was dropped. That was an instance where this section of the Criminal Code was used against a private citizen or had the potential to be used. As I said before, no-one in this House decided that that was unfair at that time. It was only when a minister of the Crown was caught by the sections of the act that this government then worked itself into a lather of sweat and said that the code was inconsistent with the proceedings of this parliament itself. Those opposite should not come in here and say that ministers are being treated unfairly; it is one rule for the public and another for the ministers. It was put into legislation as a matter of consistency; it is a way of treating members of the public and ministers who appear before committees fairly and equally. There could not be one rule for the members of the public and another for the minister. The view was taken that they would both be treated the same. This nonsense about parliamentary procedure and the processes of this House being somehow in conflict with the Criminal Code is just that: nonsense. As I said before, it has been used before. I oppose the removal of this section of the Criminal Code because if this section is wiped out and there is a suspicion that a member of the public has misled a parliamentary committee what will happen? We have to, in fact, make the judgement ourselves on whether that person is guilty of a contempt of parliament. Not only are we now setting ourselves up to judge ourselves, which in this chamber everyone understands is the right and due process, but also if a private citizen submits evidence to a parliamentary committee which the committee thinks is deliberately misleading or false then this chamber will have to set up a process to investigate the private citizen. That is the reality. Mr Wallace: As other parliaments do. Mr QUINN: Other parliaments may do the same, but that is not the history of this parliament. This parliament has taken a more even-handed approach to the issue because the private citizen is involved. That is the nub of the question here: that is the history of this chamber treating private citizens differently to how we treat ourselves. That is the reason I oppose the changes to the legislation—because it sets up private citizens in terms of their behaviour to be judged by this chamber and I do not think that that is the right thing to do. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (5.45 pm): Honourable members have heard members of the opposition telling them that this is a law to allow politicians to lie to parliament. That is an untrue proposition. Section 57 of the Criminal Code states— Any person who in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly ... The honourable member for Robina acknowledged the fact that this applies to any person. He went on to argue that it was a good idea that any person should be able to come to parliament and say whatever they liked at peril of their liberty. What I put to honourable members is that it should not be at the risk of their liberty that people come to this place. A democratic, participatory, representative government such as this should not put peril of liberty as an impediment to coming here. This section states— Any person who in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly, or before a committee of the Legislative Assembly, knowingly gives a false answer to any lawful and relevant question put to the person in the course of the examination is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years. This means that every public servant who appears before an estimates committee, every private citizen who comes and gives evidence to any of the many committees of this parliament, anybody who goes before a regional meeting of the Public Accounts Committee or some subcommittee led by a minister that is inquiring into the facts of any matter, gives that evidence at peril of their liberty. It is very convenient, from a political point of view, to say that this is a law which, having been applied once in respect of a member of parliament, is a law that relates to members of parliament. It is false, however, to say that. It is simply not true. If honourable members in this House just a moment ago stood up and said that this is a law to give politicians the right to lie in parliament, if they were to say that, for example, and if some mischievous member of this House was, during the committee stage of this debate, to ask them a question and they answered it confirming that that is what they said it was, then 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2039 they would be lying to parliament because they now know that it says ‘any person’, not ‘politicians’. If they lied during the committee stage of this parliament, then some mischievous person could refer them to the CMC, which could choose to have them prosecuted under section 57. Any parliament is a ferment—a hothouse—of ideas. Any parliament is a place where people express their point of view with a certain degree of vehemence. It is always a place where there are contradictions to somebody’s point of view. People who hold a contradictory point of view might very well want to insist that the other person was lying. That situation will happen all the time. This could happen to private citizens just as easily. Imagine some regional meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, to take the example that the honourable member for Robina gave, and somebody from some company gave a representation as to a certain way of doing things and a rival said, ‘No, that is untrue. It is false and it is deliberately misleading. They are knowingly giving false evidence.’ They could be prosecuted. It would be so easy to do. This is a section of the Criminal Code which is so easy to pervert to an injustice. The reason that it was put in is that in the mid 18th century the Privy Council, hearing a case that came from Newfoundland, said colonial legislatures did not have power to punish people for misbehaving in the House. They had the power to keep order but not the power to examine people for past contempts and have them fined or jailed. Colonial legislatures subsequently gave themselves that power. Queensland gave itself that power, but Sir Samuel Griffith put this in the code because that was the law at the time. Since then, colonial legislatures often did that, and Australian state legislatures and the federal legislature have used that power. This is a different power—the power to punish for contempt—but I put it to the House that a power like section 57, which can be used against private citizens or against the people who govern, will be used against private citizens. This is a power that puts private citizens at risk, not politicians. Let me give the House some examples. In respect of the power to imprison for breach of privilege, in 1870 the South Australian parliament sent Sergeant Major Patrick McBride to jail for a week for sending a letter to a member of parliament alleging that he had lied. In 1994 the Western Australian parliament imprisoned Brian Easton for one week for sending to parliament a petition containing allegations against another private citizen. In 1955 the Australian parliament sent Raymond Fitzpatrick and Frank Browne to jail for 90 days for alleging that a member had engaged in corrupt schemes relating to refugee migration. When we have an offence which consists only of the use of words, and that offence can be committed either by members of parliament or by citizens, who is going to bear the brunt of that? Do we seriously think it is going to be members of parliament? Never in the course of human government has it been the case that such a law has been used against the governors; it has always been used against the governed. However expedient it might be for the opposition to say that this is a law that is being used to protect parliamentarians or to say that we should have a law that allows parliamentarians to be liars, I say to this parliament that this is a law which has bad foreboding for the people of Queensland and bad foreboding for democracy. It is a law like any other law which is written to apply to both the governed and the governors that is going to affect primarily the governed, not the governors. Let us have a look at the reason why it has been traditional for freedom of speech to be absolute in parliament. The reason for absolute freedom of speech is the democratic principle itself. Ask yourself the question: if the people are not going to be the arbiters of what is received as true in a society, who is going to be? If somebody comes in here and tells a fib, then they will be sent to the privileges committee. They will be punished—another reason, by the way, that the proposition that removing this gives politicians permission to lie is not valid. They do not have permission to lie. Politicians, even without this section, are the only people in the country in respect of whom there is a formal process to deal with them if they lie. That is appropriate, and there should be such a formal process. If we have somebody other than the voters as the arbiter of what is going to be received as true in democracy, we tread on really dangerous ground. Let us say that the arbiter of truth is going to be the CMC. Let us say that the CMC will be the ones to determine whether something said in here is true or false. The people do not vote for the CMC. The people do not have any recourse. As much as politicians are disliked in this country—and what else would we expect from a place that started as a convict colony where the governors were also the jailors?—people who think, ‘Let’s put politicians in peril of their liberty,’ should think while they are saying that what they are doing is supporting the passing of power from people they control into the hands of people they do not control. If it were to be the CMC, an unelected body, then the people would no longer have power. If it were the executive arm of government or part of it, like the CMC, that was determining whether something that was said in here was true, then the people would no longer have control. If it were the courts—and we trust the courts because our courts are independent, they are honourable, they are discreet, they are bound by centuries of precedents and statutes, and they are sticklers for what is right and proper— Mrs Lavarch: And they’re impartial. 2040 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Mr WELLS: And they are impartial. We trust the courts. However, if the courts were to become the arbiter of truth and of the things that were said in here, do you think there might ever be a government that would think about stacking the courts? Could that ever happen? Could our democracy be eroded in that way? Of course it would. Courts can be stacked. They have not been but they can be, and in some democracies they have been. That is how democracy gets eroded. That was part of the measure of erosion of democracy that Hitler implemented—stacking the courts. Courts can be stacked. If we have any arbiter of truth other than the people, we move away from democracy. That is why the Bill of Rights said that the proceedings of parliament will not be impeached in any place outside of parliament. That is why the Parliament of Queensland Act, section 8, states— The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the Assembly can not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Assembly. It goes on to state— To remove doubt, it is declared that— the above subsection— is intended to have the same effect as article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688) ... That was the whole reason for it. The honourable member for Thuringowa just gave an example of a member of parliament who was hung, drawn and quartered. What was his name? Mr Wallace interjected. Mr WELLS: He said that he went to his death asserting the privileges and independence of parliament. That sort of thing led to the Bill of Rights 1688. The whole point of it is that the people, not somebody else, should be the judge of what is true and what is false. It is all very convenient for the opposition, because the person who happens to have been the occasion for the activation of this long-moribund section of the Criminal Code was a government minister. It is all very convenient for them to make a political issue of it and to dog whistle out into the community saying, ‘This is a law that has the effect of allowing politicians to lie.’ Politicians do not have the capacity to lie with impunity because, if they do, the voters can visit retribution on them. In any case, in the meantime they will have a process in here that you would not get anywhere else. To have this section remain in the Criminal Code would be a serious risk to democracy, because now that it has been activated, now that we have brought this ghost out of the dungeon that it was in for 100 years, then it is not just going to haunt ministers of the Crown. It can be used against anybody. Once we activate one of these things—one of these anachronistic, archaic sections—and start wielding it like a sword, then it is going to have the same effect as a machine gun. I would like to sum up in this way. It is simply not true to say that this is a law that gives politicians permission to lie. It is simply false. Honourable members should examine their consciences before they say it. Political commentators should examine their consciences and their commitment to democracy before they say it. If they want to go on saying it, maybe they would like to come and say it to a parliamentary committee and maybe all sorts of things might happen then. Democracy is about the people making these judgements. It is not about any other body or any other organisation that is capable of being stacked making those judgements. Once we start on the slippery slope and start taking away from the people the power to make decisions and to be the arbiters of what is true and what is not true, it leads to very nasty places. Hitler was criticised once for banning political parties. He was criticised by the then fading opposition in Germany on the basis that he was biased. The Fuhrer said, ‘But, my people, I am not biased; I have banned them all.’ That is a very long way down the slope from a society that starts to relocate the capacity to arbitrate what is true and false out of the hands of the people and into the hands of people who can be appointed and institutions that can be stacked by governments. It is a very long way down the track but it is that track. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.01 pm): I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. I congratulate the member for Murrumba on the contribution he made to this debate. I quite often enjoy the contributions made by the member for Murrumba because he makes those contributions from an intellectual level that many other government backbenchers would struggle to reach. I would say to the member for Murrumba that, while I disagree with some of the conclusions and while I believe that some of the assumptions upon which that argument was based are flawed—and I will in the course of my contribution to this debate point those out to him—I need to congratulate him on the way he made the argument. I think it was well done, sir. It stands in stark contrast to the contribution made by the member for Rockhampton. One of the great shames about the contribution made by the member for Murrumba is that some of the other government backbenchers who are so full of self-importance because they can sit in this chamber and yell interjections did not even listen. The member for Southport, one of the most brain dead members of the government backbench, did not even listen. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2041

Mrs Reilly interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! The member will withdraw that statement. It is unparliamentary. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw. The member for Southport, one of the more common interjectors who often makes inane and senseless interjections, would have done well to listen to the contribution made by the member for Murrumba. Let us move to the substantive part of the bill and ask ourselves what the bill does and why we are here. I will deal with the first one of those questions. That is the point at which we should start the examination of any piece of legislation. We should ask ourselves what the bill does and why it is here. I suggest that what this bill will do is somewhat different to what a large number of speakers in this parliament this afternoon have suggested it will do. This bill has nothing to do with threatening the privilege that we as members of parliament enjoy. It does not suggest that the privileges that any of us enjoy in debates such as this should be lessened or taken away. It does not suggest, as the member for Murrumba suggested, that those of us who come to debates such as this do so with a threat to our liberty. That is not what this bill does. That is what has been construed, but it is not actually the case. What this bill does is take away the situation where any of us can be held accountable for the evidence we give before a parliamentary committee. I believe the word ‘evidence’ is the one that makes the critical difference. It does not suggest for a moment that what we say in here during the course of normal debates is going to be subject to some test of truth for which we can be brought before a criminal court to face. But what the relevant section of the Criminal Code, which this bill sets out to delete, holds is that when we are called, like every other citizen of the state, to give evidence before a parliamentary committee we have an absolute obligation—an obligation that is consistent with that of a citizen who has taken an oath—to ensure that we provide the committee with the truth. If we give evidence that is not truthful then we are liable to be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. That is what that section of the Criminal Code does and this bill seeks to take that away. It has been suggested that it should be taken away so that the parliament could take whatever action it considered necessary against a member who was found to be giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee. Let us be very clear: it does not threaten the parliamentary privilege that we all enjoy and that I agree is a very important part of parliamentary democracy, irrespective of which side of parliament one is on. It is incredibly important that parliamentary privilege be retained and protected. Even though it is abused at times—there have been examples where parliamentary privilege has been abused—it is very important that each of us, as members of parliament, has an undeniable and unthreatened right to come into this parliament and raise issues on behalf of our constituents without fear of prosecution and without any threat to our liberty, if I can quote the member for Murrumba. We need to be able to do that to ensure that issues that would otherwise remain hidden are brought to light. It is better that we tolerate situations where that privilege is abused from time to time so that it can be available to members of parliament who legitimately raise issues that otherwise could not be raised. But the section of the Criminal Code which this bill seeks to omit does not threaten that privilege. That is the truth of the matter. If any other government member wants to make a sensible contribution to this debate, the challenge that I extend to them is that they should stand in this parliament and illustrate how that section of the Criminal Code threatens parliamentary privilege in a debate like this on any subject. The section applies to any member of this parliament, any member of this community, any Queenslander who has occasion to give evidence to a parliamentary committee. It is about giving evidence. It is not about participating in a debate. It is not about putting the pros and cons of an argument one way or another and stretching the argument to suit one’s own particular purpose in that debate. We all do that as debaters, irrespective of what forum we are debating in. It is a skill that all of us have developed in our progress to this place. But it is a world removed from a situation where one sits before a committee and gives evidence. It is extremely important we ensure that the evidence given to a committee is absolutely true, and that is what that section within the Criminal Code was intended to do and that is what it has done up until now. The government is suggesting that we do not need this section of the Criminal Code. The government thinks that if parliamentarians, ministers or members of the public appear before a committee and give false evidence, it should be the parliament that is responsible for exercising some sort of retributive power. In reality, we all know that that will not happen if that person is a member of the government, because this parliament, like all parliaments, is governed by numbers and split into a government and an opposition along those lines. Any government will protect its own. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind about that: a government will protect its own. Nobody could be naive enough to suggest that a member of the opposition who stands in judgement before the government will get the same treatment as a member of that government who appears in the same situation. 2042 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

That is what the minister and members of the government who have spoken in this debate are suggesting. They are suggesting that as a member of the opposition I would get the same hearing from the government as a member of the government and that we would be judged on the same basis. Of course that would not happen. I would not expect it to happen, and I do not think anybody else would either. There is a suggestion that the parliamentary privileges committee can exercise that power on behalf of the parliament. In a perfect world, one could almost accept that argument because the parliamentary privileges committee is supposed to be a bipartisan committee, but the government still has the numbers in any parliamentary committee. Mrs Lavarch: But it doesn’t find all the time against opposition members. It actually listens to an argument and has a considered opinion. Mr SEENEY: That is absolutely true. However, it is drawing too long a bow to suggest that the powers that are exercised by a parliamentary privileges committee can provide the same constraints on a member of the public or a minister as those that exist in the Criminal Code which this bill seeks to omit tonight. That is the whole point. It is not the same and it certainly cannot be considered to be the same. To illustrate that, let me move to the next question that I posed at the beginning of this contribution. Let us look at the situation that brought about the debate here tonight and this bill being introduced into the House. That situation in itself illustrates that fact better than I probably could. We are here because of what happened when the then health minister gave evidence before the committee. He was not participating in a debate in this House. He was not exercising his rights under parliamentary privilege to raise issues on behalf of his constituents or on behalf of somebody in Queensland who had been aggrieved in some way. He was not performing that role that all of us as parliamentarians have. He was appearing before a committee and he was giving evidence to that committee. The minister was asked a particular question 15 times. There can be no suggestion—even though the member for Rockhampton tried to make this suggestion—that the evidence he gave was given inadvertently. It was suggested that it was given inadvertently after it was found to be false. There can be no suggestion in my mind or the mind of any fair-minded person that such evidence was given inadvertently. The then health minister was found to have provided false testimony to the committee. It was a very different situation; it was a world removed from taking a position in a debate in this chamber that may or may not be challenged by another member of the House. It is a completely different situation. He clearly gave false evidence. What action did the parliament take that would illustrate the argument the government is putting forward tonight that it should be the parliament that assumes this responsibility? What action did the parliament take in that instance that would prove that it can provide a right and proper constraint on members from undertaking such a course of action? We all remember what the government did. We all got called back for a special sitting at the start of the Christmas holidays. Parliament was recalled at enormous expense, and for what? Parliament was recalled so that the government could absolve its wayward minister. That is what happened. The government recalled the parliament and we had a special sitting, and the government used its numbers in the parliament to basically acquit the then minister who had been shown to have provided false evidence to the committee. If the minister and the members on the other side of the House had any integrity at all in bringing this bill to the House, they would support this bill with an example of how the parliament moved against that minister in that instance. But the parliament did not move against the minister. Quite the contrary, what actually happened with then minister Nuttall destroys the argument that is being put forward by the minister and the members of the government in supporting the necessity of this bill. The parliament did not respond appropriately; it did not even refer the minister to the privileges committee. That is the point I wanted to make to the Attorney-General when she suggested to me that parliament has a privileges committee to deal with these things. The parliament did not even refer the minister to the privileges committee. The parliament, using the government’s numbers, said, ‘The minister has apologised and has moved to the backbench. We should accept his apology and his plea that his misleading of the committee and his provision of false evidence to the committee was inadvertent, so no further action need be taken.’ That situation in itself, as intolerable as it was to us on this side of the House, serves to illustrate that it is necessary to have this particular section within the Criminal Code. Without it, there is no constraint on any minister, just as there was no worthwhile constraint on the then health minister. The member for Murrumba said in his contribution that it was wrong to suggest that this bill made it right for members of parliament to tell untruths. I do not believe that is true. But this bill provides members of the government the certainty that, if they choose to give false evidence when they appear before parliamentary committees, because the government has the numbers in the House the parliament will protect them from the prosecution that otherwise would be launched against them under this section of the Criminal Code. That is very much a step backwards in the operation of this parliament and democracy in this state. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2043

It is notable that no other members of the government are prepared to stand in this parliament and join in this debate to try to justify the government’s position of bringing this bill to the House. In that special sitting that was held towards the end of last year, the government was prepared to use its numbers in the House to protect a minister who had been found to have provided false evidence to the committee. Tonight, this government is prepared to use its numbers to ensure that ministers of the government are protected in the future. But very few members of the government are prepared to stand in this chamber and speak in this debate to justify the government’s position to the people of Queensland. That in itself is an illustration of how confident they are of their positions. This bill should be rejected. Time expired. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (6.21 pm): I rise to speak to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. I vehemently oppose this legislation and all the other members of the coalition also vehemently oppose it. Government is ultimately about accountability. That is why we are all here. The government should be accountable to the people of this state whom it represents. But the government should also be accountable to the members of this assembly. The stated intent of this bill certainly does not go against that principle of accountability. That stated intent is honourable. It is to have the same effect as article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. Article 9 provides that the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of parliament. There is absolutely no doubt that freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege must be protected and preserved at all costs. It forms the basis of our democracy. In essence, parliamentary privilege is the freedom of the House to conduct its proceedings without interference from outside bodies and without interference from the courts. To a certain extent, the immunities and rights that attach to parliamentary privilege flow from article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. Article 9 allows members of the House to speak freely in the House without fear of subsequent legal action on the grounds of libel. Within parliament the rights and privileges of all members are overseen by the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, which has as one area of its responsibility the ethical conduct of members. That is consistent with the tenets of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and the intent of article 9. It is in tune with the democratic tradition of checks and balances in government and it is an intrinsic part of a member’s right to freedom of speech within the House. However, there is a huge difference between maintaining freedom of speech to protect a member from libel and using freedom of speech to knowingly give false answers to the House or to a committee of the House. It is the difference between privilege and contempt. We should give very careful consideration to this difference. Members of this House have privileges that must not be abused. The ethics committee monitors and reports on suspected breaches. No doubt, inadvertent breaches are an occupational hazard in the high-pressure environs of the floor of the House when a member perhaps has had no time in which to properly undertake research in order to construct an answer. But that is not the concern of this bill. This bill is concerned with a member knowingly and willingly giving a false answer to a lawful and relevant question to the House or to a parliamentary committee. A major concern is when this conduct occurs in committee hearings. There is no defence for the indefensible. Inadvertent slips or mistakes are inevitable and forgivable. They have often happened. But deliberately misleading and false behaviour is avoidable and it is inexcusable. There can be no acceptable reason for such behaviour, and such breaches of privilege should be punished to the fullest extent by this House. We in this House operate in a very robust and sometimes very entertaining environment. Often no quarter is asked for or given. But implicit in the dealings of this House is an expectation on all members in this House of honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour. As members of this parliament, we are responsible and accountable to ourselves, to our fellow members and to the public of Queensland. Just as we support freedom of speech, so should we decry the abuse of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a right of the members of the House. The expectation that at all times we are honest should be balanced with the responsibility that goes with it. We cannot have one without the other; otherwise the proceedings and the deliberations of the House become open to suspicion and open to derision. All that occurs in the House can become tainted and open to question. If this bill is passed—and I have no doubt it will owing to the numbers in the House—the removal of sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code will remove the powers of the court to decide if a false answer has been given to a lawful and relevant question to the Legislative Assembly or to a committee of the Legislative Assembly. This bill will also subsequently remove the court’s ability to impose punishment if a charge is proven. All members of this Legislative Assembly have taken an oath of office or made an affirmation of allegiance in which they sincerely promise or swear to perform the duties and responsibilities of a member to the best of their abilities and according to law, be it the law of the land or the law of the parliament. 2044 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Sitting suspended from 6.29 pm to 7.30 pm. Mrs MENKENS: This amendment sends the wrong message to the community. It sends a message that Queensland politicians and public servants are above the law of the land, and this is totally incorrect. I have heard tonight quite a lot of spirited debate on this bill. I have heard it said that this legislation brings us into line with the Commonwealth parliament and with other states. But, as opposition members have said, this is a unicameral parliament. We do not have the backing of a second house of parliament. I have heard it said that no other parliament has a section 56. That is fine, but there again we do not have a second house of parliament to give us that accountability. Regardless of how righteously the government supports this legislation and how great its argument is, ultimately it will be the constituency, the people of Queensland, who will judge us as members of parliament. It is rather difficult when we consider what the average person thinks of politicians. Very sadly some years ago I looked at an Australia-wide survey of who people trust the most. Ms Molloy: Your mum. Mrs MENKENS: You trust your mum. The people who came out at the top of the list of who was trusted most— Mr Langbroek: Dentists. Mrs MENKENS: Yes, dentists were up there, weren’t they? If I rightly remember—and correct me if I am wrong—ambulance personnel were at the top. Ms Molloy: And nurses. Mrs MENKENS: And nurses were up there and dentists were up there, too. Mr Rickuss: Where were politicians? Mrs MENKENS: Politicians were way down at the bottom, and that is tragic. Public servants were also at the bottom. Having been one of each, that was not very encouraging for me to see. But that is the perception of politicians out in the community. It is a tragedy, and this legislation is not going to help that perception. This bill is about perceptions in the community, be they right or wrong. We cannot put government members and public servants above the law of the land. That is a dreadful message to send. Tonight we have heard, as I have said, quite a few speeches in this debate. The Attorney-General is a very genuine person. She has brought this legislation to the parliament. Looking at the speaking list, I am quite astounded at how little support she has from government members on this bill, as the member for Callide commented. We heard a very learned speech from the member for Murrumba which I enjoyed. I did not agree with it all, and I probably did not follow it all, either, but it was an extremely good speech. I certainly congratulate him for that. It was well done. I note that the other two government members who will speaking—how can I tactfully put this—would probably be described as the hard hitters of the other side. I am not sure how much their participation is going to add to the government’s support of the bill. However, we will wait and see. I feel very sorry for the Attorney-General. She is out there. She has put this bill up. She is going to be known as the Attorney-General who brought this bill into parliament. And where is all the hot air from that side of the parliament? Who is supporting her? Nobody. Why? Because they do not want to go back to their constituency and say that they have voted for this bill. It is all about perceptions and they do not want their names on it. Mr Malone: They’ll vote for it. Mrs MENKENS: They will vote for it, but they will not speak on it. And why not? As I say, I feel sorry for the Attorney-General. Mr Hopper: They aren’t intelligent enough to make a contribution that the Premier can trust. Mrs MENKENS: Is that what it is? Thank you. I take that interjection. However, I am disappointed from that perspective. We have heard quite a bit about the fact that the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee will make the judgement on the rights and wrongs of any issue. I question the ethics of why a parliamentary committee can be seen to be making a judgement on citizens and public servants. I query the processes that are going to be involved in that. Supporting freedom of speech does not condone, allow or excuse knowingly false or misleading information. It is the members’ responsibility, individually and collectively, to assist and support the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee in ensuring that these amendments do not alter the expectations of what constitutes ethical and honest behaviour. We do not want to be seen to impugn the integrity or alter the public’s faith in how elected members carry out their duties and meet their responsibilities. I am extremely concerned about the perceptions in the community and the effect that this bill will have and is having on the community at large. To that extent, I cannot support this bill. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2045

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (7.37 pm): I rise to speak to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006, a bill to repeal sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code and no longer make it a crime to intentionally lie in and to parliament—the Beattie government’s ‘licence to lie’ bill. I am actually not sure what is more infuriating about this—the arrogance of the bill or the argument being mounted by those opposite to justify it. To attempt to justify ‘lying’ and ‘disturbing the legislature’ by calling on legally enshrined doctrines of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege is a big stretch— even for this government. This government should not be allowed to hide behind statements such as ‘this will bring Queensland into line with the position in the House of Commons and parliaments in other states’ when it is the intention, not the position, that makes this bill so questionable and so objectionable. The immunity afforded through parliamentary privilege has taken centuries to evolve, but the interpretation of it has been so skewed in the government’s attempts to justify this bill that one could not be blamed for thinking that it needs another few centuries to get it right. Let us get clear what the intention of parliamentary privilege really is. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, as many other members have mentioned, contains one of the privileges of the Senate and of the House of Representatives under the Constitution. Article 9 states— That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. The justification of this privilege is thus—that a member of parliament should be able to speak in parliament with impunity and without any fear of the consequences because ministers might be inhibited in the performance of their duties and might be led, by the fear of possible consequences, to refrain from proper, open and democratic procedure. Privilege promotes open dialogue, discussion and debate of issues, as it is thought that, through more open discussion expressed in parliament by elected representatives speaking without fear of reprisal, better results will be achieved for the community that the parliament serves. Therefore, there is sound policy behind parliamentary privilege. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights is mirrored in section 8(1) of the Parliament of Queensland Act. That also states that debates and proceedings of parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in a court or place out of parliament. Before labelling sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code, which this bill seeks to remove, as inconsistent with this privilege, one must look to the intention of those sections. What becomes apparent is that these sections are justified by sound policy as well. Despite being, at face value, inconsistent with each other, the intention of these sections and the intention of parliamentary privilege are complementary in their pursuit of upholding the processes of parliament and democracy. Let me explain this consistent aim to ensure that the processes of parliament are effective and efficient. Section 57 of the Criminal Code provides that any person who knowingly gives false evidence in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly or a committee is guilty of a crime and is liable to seven years imprisonment. Section 56 relates to disturbing the legislature. Section 58 relates to witnesses who refuse to attend or give evidence before parliament or a parliamentary committee. The justification of this bill draws attention to the fact that these sections can no longer operate because article 9 states that ‘proceedings in parliament should not be questioned in any place outside of parliament’—for example, in a court of law. However, the intention of these sections is to seek to uphold the processes of parliament. Using section 57 as an example, false evidence given to the Legislative Assembly or one of its committees can potentially derail and delay its process. By making it a crime to knowingly give false evidence—to intentionally lie—the section sought to ensure the efficiency of the parliament. Lies can corrupt and delay the proper processes of parliament and that is what section 57 sought to make punishable. Sections 56, 57 and 58 sought to make disruptions to the parliamentary process punishable. Let us recall that the intention of parliamentary privilege is that a member of parliament be able to speak in parliament with impunity. Therefore, ministers will not be inhibited in the performance of their duties in facilitating the parliamentary process. Parliamentary privilege was always intended to allow a member to speak without fear of reprisal to the better end of the parliament’s roles and processes. It was never intended to allow a member to intentionally speak untruths without fear of reprisal to the detriment of the parliament’s role and processes. Sections 56, 57 and 58 exist in the Criminal Code to ensure that the efficiency of parliament is not corrupted by lies and is not corrupted by an unreasonably wide interpretation of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which this government seeks to justify. This bill needs to be seen for what it is: a licence to lie and a retrospective one, at that. The passing of this bill will make it no longer a crime to intentionally lie to a parliamentary committee, which brings into question the whole point of committees, which seek to obtain the truth. The institution of the committee can be corrupted and its operation delayed. This bill does nothing but compromise the processes of parliament. 2046 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Parliamentary privilege was never intended to compromise parliament or to be used as a shield by a consistently naughty government that does not want to get into trouble anymore. Parliamentary privilege was developed to enhance, not compromise, the processes of parliament and its committees— not bastardise it. Terry Sweetman of the Sunday Mail said it well. I will share with members his thoughts, which are undoubtedly shared by others, if not most Queenslanders. He stated— By moving to amend the Criminal Code to allow ministers to lie with impunity to parliamentary committees, the government has taken the concept of political honesty to new levels of elasticity. This moral plasticity flows from the case of a certain former health minister of the Beattie government who gave his misleading answers to a Budget Estimates Committee, leading the Crime and Misconduct Commission to recommend that the parliament decide whether the former minister be prosecuted on a criminal charge (which the Criminal Code provides) or be dealt with by his parliamentary peers. The government, not surprisingly, took the soft option. Had the parliament opted for a criminal action, the prosecution would have had some difficulty in demonstrating intent, with the likely defence revolving around unintentional error, bad advice, momentary inattention or even stupidity. Either way, the public would have been well served by the hearing that, if nothing else, would have been a public test of this government’s incompetence. Terry Sweetman went on to state— Contrary to the views of the Beattie government, many Queenslanders would relish the prospect of ministerial honesty being placed on trial in a court of law, independent of political influence, as opposed to a stacked court of political expediency. The practical exercise of accountability in this House cannot be afforded in any government with a majority. It is not independent and it is influenced by politics. One doctrine that the Beattie government cannot manipulate to justify this bill is the separation of powers. Queensland Labor has often made a play that this side of the House did not understand it pre- Fitzgerald and does not understand the separation post-Fitzgerald. However, this bill is indicative of the opposite—that, in fact, it is Labor that needs a tutorial on the separation of powers. The separation of powers has always reminded us that by keeping the legislature and judiciary separate adjudication in our courts cannot be dogged by political influence and is why the courts are the only way to achieve truly independent judgements. This is also why suggestions that prevailing contempt provisions to deal with questionable parliamentarians by the parliament itself—which may be in the midst of a majority government—are sufficient are very wrong. By removing the option to take lying, disruptive and absent parliamentarians to court, the effectiveness and efficiency of the committees and institution of parliament are put in doubt. This bill will mean that members and nonmembers are subject only to the jurisdiction of the Assembly for contempt of parliament. The bill seeks to make the Assembly a court, a parliament judging its own and its own constituents. I know that the shadow Attorney has made points about this, as recently as during the extra day’s sitting that we had, that this was not a place where we should be judging the constituents of Queensland. I have already made the point that this situation disregards the separation of powers. Even if one was still to believe that the punitive powers of parliament to deal with parliamentary contempt could fulfil the aims of sections 56, 57 and 58, one must recognise the concerns of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in regard to those powers. The committee notes that the granting of exclusive jurisdiction to the Assembly to prosecute for contempt of parliament leaves people vulnerable to punitive punishment with little, if any, scope for judicial review. The committee recommends that the Assembly’s power to imprison be clarified to ensure procedural fairness. The punitive powers themselves, afforded to the parliament for contempt, require amendment. It is quite astonishing that this government, the government that has been responsible for the health, water and transport crises in Queensland, a government bereft of moral or legal qualms, should so lightly turn its back on absolute honesty in public office, something it is always so scathing about when criticising past coalition governments. How questionable is the conscience of a government that would employ the doctrines of freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege for its own political cause—to justify the untruths that it has already told the people of Queensland? By introducing this bill, the Beattie government is safeguarding itself against the future lies and scandal it will continue to give to the people of Queensland. Surely, any perceived conflict between the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Queensland Act should have been resolved in favour of the rule of law and the separation of powers. There is only one truth about this bill—it is a shocker. I will be rejecting this bill and its unconscionable intention. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (7.47 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. I will not be supporting this bill. I listened intently to the contributions of speakers on both sides of this House during this debate. While listening to those contributions, I reflected on a recent contribution by the Leader of the Opposition to a debate on another bill. He stated that if the coalition was elected to form the next government of Queensland he would retrospectively approve the controversial Links development in the Maroochy shire on the Sunshine Coast. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2047

I listened to speaker after speaker who do not support this proposed bill. They have spoken passionately about the reasons they will not support it. However, I have not yet heard one speaker from the non-government side of this House state—as the alternative Premier of this state said on another matter—that if they were to form part of the next government of Queensland they would retrospectively support the Links development. I would ask members of the Liberal Party and the National Party or any other non-government member who intends to speak to this bill to please tell Queenslanders and this parliament—if they want to be consistent in their passion and opposition to what the government is proposing in this forum—what their position will be if they happen to win the next election, whenever that might be held. In response to the question I have just asked I will put on the parliamentary record that if I happen to have the privilege of being re-elected to represent my constituents of Nicklin in the next parliament I will support any proposal to put this law back to what it was prior to this bill coming into force. When the remaining Liberal, National, Independent and One Nation members who have not spoken rise to speak to this bill I would simply ask that they please reflect on the view that at some stage in the future we will be going to the Queensland people for an election, be it in 12 or six months, and if the alternative Premier of this state has been able to speak so passionately in this House about the reasons why he will retrospectively approve the controversial Links development in my electorate and in the Maroochy shire— An opposition member: Be relevant. Mr WELLINGTON: I will be relevant because we are talking about consistency. I only reflect on a speaker who spoke passionately recently about the need to be consistent. Following that same theme about the need to be consistent, if members of the alternative government want to be consistent about the reasons this bill is so wrong they should come into this House and tell Queenslanders whether the alternative government—the Liberals and Nationals—would amend this law and return things to the situation that prevails now. I will support that. I am on the parliamentary record as supporting that. There has been a lot of emotion and very strong words used in the debate on this bill. I believe that the current legislation puts a very clear onus on ministers when giving evidence before estimates committee hearings to tell the truth and be up-front. I believe it has also put a very clear onus on departmental staff, when they are invited to respond to questions that are raised at estimates hearings, to be up-front and to answer questions as honestly and as truthfully as they can. I believe that is the most important principle. As a number of speakers have already observed, this bill is being debated in the last sitting week before the budget is brought down and before we go into another estimates committee hearing process. Recently I studied some comments made in the past by previous ministers when questions have been asked about the requirement to answer questions at estimates committee hearings. I note that a ruling was made that ministers had the discretion to answer those questions in whatever shape or form they chose. I believe that we need to ensure ministers answer those questions, not just in whatever shape or form they believe they want to answer them, but also as truthfully as possible. I believe that is a most important principle. Estimates committee hearings are unique in this parliament. We have only one house of parliament. I believe there needs to be a very clear requirement on ministers to answer questions that are put to them in relation to issues in their budgets and within their ministerial responsibilities—to not just answer them in whatever shape or form but to answer them as truthfully as possible. There is a difference between ministers answering questions in estimates committee hearings and ministers coming into this chamber and speaking. I believe that there is a distinction that needs to be drawn. In the short time that I have had the privilege to be a member of parliament and represent my constituents, I can recall seeing ministers come into this House distressed when they have suddenly realised they have misled the House. I can recall very vividly ministers coming into this House lodging an apology and correcting the record. I believe the current law is appropriate. I believe it places a very clear responsibility on ministers to answer questions in the estimates committee hearings as honestly as possible. I think many people wish that the unfortunate incident which has prompted this bill to eventuate had never happened, but the reality is that it has. I think it has focused many members’ attention on the importance and the ramifications of ministers and their roles. I do not intend to speak any further on the matter, but I reiterate that I will not be supporting the bill. I reiterate that if I happen to have the privilege of being re-elected to represent my constituents I certainly will support any attempt to amend the law to return the status quo. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (7.53 pm): It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise this evening to speak to the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. As I look across the chamber and think back on my 16-odd years in this place, I think about the great men and women who have come to this place before me and those who will probably come after me. The 89 elected representatives of the 2048 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006 parliament of Queensland are put here by our constituency to represent them in an honest, open vein and to do the best we possibly can for those people in a transparent, honest way and identify with the truth at all times. I want to reiterate some of the sentiments expressed by the member for Nicklin. None of us are perfect and from time to time we do make mistakes. I have been a minister, too, and I know that ministers can make mistakes. I believe that when we err or if we are in doubt we have to correct that by proper process. I do not think changing legislation is the proper way to cover up a mistake of that magnitude. At the end of the day, I believe that an open apology to the parliament or the people is the appropriate process—not changing the legislation to cover the few who do misrepresent the parliament. It is important that as elected members of parliament we recognise that we are the legislators. We are the people who make the laws that govern this state for the people of this state to uphold. If we are going to make those laws in the democratic, free process that we are all accustomed to—thank God—in this state and country, I do not think we should be changing legislation to protect those of us who do make the laws. There are other ways and means. As previous speakers have said here this evening, ours is a unicameral parliament. One of the most important factors we have in this state—it is the same in the other states, for that matter—is the media. The media will certainly cast a close eye over the goings-on in parliament. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, will also keep a close eye on what the government is doing. Members of the government are responsible for changing laws to move with the times and the democracy that we live in. In the last 72 hours we have changed legislation in relation to the police powers and responsibilities and corrective services. Who are the arbiters of the law? The arbiters of the law are the courts. The court system is the process that we put in place through the laws of this parliament. The courts are also the arbiters of the truth. We rely on the courts to put in place the legal process through which we make laws for the people of Queensland to uphold and abide by. I believe that honest legislation set by honest, transparent government is the way to go. I ask tonight: what sort of a government are we identifying with today when it puts in place protective legislation that will cover for a mistake? Whether it is an honest mistake, a ruthless mistake or a blatant mistake, whether the person is acting honourably or dishonourably, I believe the way to correct that is through an honest, open apology. But we are elected to this place to represent the people of our electorates. They want honest, decent representation, and no-one condones fabricating of the truth. Fabricating of the truth is not the example we should be setting for the electorate or the wider community of Queensland. As was said here today, the 89 of us represent a population of over four million people, and we want decency for those four million people. We can only give them decency through honest, open legislation, through the proper management of the budgetary process, and through open, accountable management of that process. That is precisely why the budget estimates process was put in place by the Goss government. I think it is an accountable process. The other side of reckoning is to make certain that the minister of the day gives an accurate assessment of his or her portfolio when answering questions. It does not only stop with the minister of the day; it also stops with the top bureaucrats responsible for those departments in question. Then again it comes back to that open, honest, transparent government that we are all looking for. It is something that the Premier of this state goes on about on nearly a daily or weekly basis in this House. I believe that is what the people of Queensland are asking for. This is putting members of parliament on a different level from those people who elect us to represent them, and that is not fair. We are elected to represent our constituents and to answer questions which our constituents ask of us in an honest, transparent way. That is what they ask us to do here. They make representations to us. I bet there is not one member of parliament who has not had a letter or a couple of phone calls from a constituent today seeking support or help in some matter. If members do not get those sorts of requests on a daily basis, they are not very accessible members of parliament. I know what the workload is as a member of parliament, and I think the other 88 members know as well. From time to time we are selected to be ministers in government, and no doubt the ministers of the government of the day will know exactly what I am saying here. That puts us into another echelon of responsibility. When I say ‘another echelon of responsibility’, that means that our responsibilities are at a higher level again. We must be so aware, so understanding of what our responsibilities are in our portfolio. But at the same time we must be getting that level of support from the bureaucrats who are the executive officers and the executive managers of those respective departments. Not one minister can know everything that is going on in a department. If there is anyone in this House who thinks they do, they are pretty smart operators. At the end of the day, it comes back to the democratic process of which the parliament, the Public Service, its departmental heads and those responsible for the different levels of government agencies are all a part. They are all accountable to the people of Queensland. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2049

I say today that we are accountable to our electors. I say to the members of the Labor government this evening: how are they going to go out there to their constituency and sell to them precisely what the changes in this legislation mean? It means that there are virtually two laws. Those opposite can say that we are following suit with Canberra or with the other states, but we are a unicameral parliament. We are a stand-alone house of parliament and it is a different situation totally. That has been the case since 1922 and it looks like it is going to remain that way. I believe that the media, with the freedom that they have in this state and in this country, certainly keep an eagle eye on the proceedings and the operations of the parliament. At the same time, I believe we have responsibilities to our constituency to make certain that we lead in an open, honest and accountable way. As children, we are taught to tell the truth. Now, as members of this parliament, we must lead by example by making certain that we uphold the truth and uphold the law in the best interests of the people of Queensland. We should be upholding the traditions of trust that have been bestowed on us. It takes a lifetime to earn trust but it can be lost in one half of one second. That is an important thing to remember as we go through life. The real issue here, as I see it, is that with this legislation, if parliamentarians abuse democracy, trust and respect, those examples are given to the general public. They are examples that I do not believe we should be setting for our young people. Again, our young people are the most vulnerable people in our society, and I believe that they have enough obstacles in front of them already. It is paramount that we recognise that. I urge the Attorney this evening to make certain that she exposes to the people of Queensland exactly and precisely what the context of this legislation is, what it is going to mean and why she is doing it to the people of Queensland. This is something that cannot be condoned by the general public. They will not condone it. I say here tonight: it is no good hiding behind legislation. It is no good hiding behind the four walls of this chamber, because the electorate is very intelligent, and they will certainly make their thoughts known when it comes to the ballot box at the next state election. I can assure the Attorney that we on this side of the House will make known to the people of Queensland precisely what this arrogant, irresponsible government is endeavouring to do with this legislation before the House tonight. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—NPA) (8.07 pm): I wish to speak to this amendment bill relating to the Criminal Code. We do not intend to support this bill, nor should any member in this House. There has been extensive discussion tonight about a decision to repeal sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code. These are pivotal points of the Criminal Code that ensure that, when truth is sought, there is no impediment to reveal that truth. There has been extensive discussion tonight in parliament about legal aspects and the legal ramifications of repealing these sections of the Criminal Code. These ramifications will have extensive effects in the community in relation to values, truth and the ability to believe what has been said at law, whether it is a discussion about integrity or not. Mr Nuttall, the member for Sandgate, has failed in his capacity as an elected member of parliament to ensure that his constituents— Mr NUTTALL: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under standing order 234, I find those remarks offensive. They are untrue, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Dr DOUGLAS: I withdraw. He knowingly provided false information and misled a committee of this House— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! Member for Gaven, you have withdrawn comments and then continued to proceed. I ask you to withdraw the further comments that you made and refrain from continuing in that line. Dr DOUGLAS: I withdraw. The integrity of the committee process was directly challenged, compromised and impeded by these actions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gaven, you have been asked to withdraw comments that were contrary to standing orders. You have withdrawn twice and now you have done it again. I ask you to withdraw the last comment you made and simply refrain from this line of speech. Dr DOUGLAS: I will withdraw. The decision of this Labor government to repeal sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code is viewed by the community with abject horror. These actions tonight are the direct consequence of the courageous action of Dr John Scott GP, public servant and great Queenslander, who put himself and his career on the line. I say to members tonight that the minister is incorrectly comparing the powers, privileges and immunities of the English House of Commons and the Commonwealth with those of the Legislative Assembly. They are not the same as the Queensland Legislative Assembly and its committees. Interestingly, the Code of Ethical Standards of the Queensland Legislative Assembly emphasises to members that misleading is a wider concept than making incorrect statements. A totally factually correct statement can still be misleading. Further, members may sometimes make incorrect or misleading statements in the House without actually intending to mislead the House. 2050 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

My great-grandfather was John Douglas. He was the member for Maryborough. He was a Scottish immigrant. He was initially elected to parliament to represent Port Curtis in 1863. He was Premier from 1877 until 1880, when he was found guilty of a very extraordinary breach of privilege by the parliament. He had sent the Brisbane Courier information. He was a journalist for the Courier because politicians of that time were not paid. That is how he earned his living. The information sent to the Courier was information given to a select committee which was investigating alleged corruption by the McIlwraith family—the Leader of the Opposition at the time was the head of the family—Arthur Palmer and others. They had arranged overseas railway and shipping contracts. These were corruptly obtained. Nothing much has changed. Despite the fact that standing orders forbade publication of evidence before it was reported to parliament, he did it. He refused to apologise even after the assembly had voted that he was guilty of contempt. He thrived after the event. He became an administrator based in the north. Many sons, grandsons and great-grandsons have gone on to become Supreme Court judges, politicians and solid Queenslanders. He told the truth even though it ended his career. He gave up everything for the truth. Mr McIlwraith, the Leader of the Opposition who was chasing popular support and saying things that were against Queensland’s interests, became Premier. John Douglas was using land sale revenue to expand railway construction totally for the advantage of the public. Unknown to the public, the McIlwraith family—the incoming Premier was Mr McIlwraith—was secretly awarding itself lucrative railway and shipping contracts. John Douglas told the truth, but he knew that in breaching privilege his career was at its end but that the public interest had been protected. He realised it was a service for public good. Do members know who supported him most? Sir Samuel Griffith. Do members understand how revered he is in terms of our Constitution and our parliament? I refer the minister to pages 273 and 276 of Hansard of the Legislative Assembly of 3 August 1880. Griffith gave a detailed explanation about how we might explain why John Douglas had done what he had done. Griffith went on to write the Criminal Code. I believe the provisions that the government is attempting to repeal tonight specifically cover this situation. I totally reject the member for Rockhampton’s view that it was not a deliberate act. Both sides of this House take their conduct seriously. For 1½ hours Sir Samuel Griffith defended the integrity of John Douglas. For those who may remember, members’ speeches used to able to go for 90 minutes. The motion to find him guilty of contempt was passed and he passed on into history. In his parting speech, John Douglas said that he desired to treat with reverence the forms of that House. If he had broken them, he had broken them deliberately with a set purpose and not on any trivial grounds. He had done so so as to conserve what he believed to be their higher interests and higher privileges. It was from no desire to obtain passing notoriety. It was not necessary for him to do that. He had a reputation which he desired to preserve above all things, but he also desired to preserve what he believed to be his rights before the law and in the House. He hoped he should on every occasion uphold the principle of authority but be careful how he submitted to any imposition of authority which was not backed up by the law. Griffith said that removing Douglas from the House was simply committing an act of lawless violence similar to mob violence. Mr Griffith went on to say that he would wish to stop an apparent misunderstanding. He wanted the House to understand this. The then Premier, Mr McIlwraith, had implied that in the House there was no proof to punish and challenge contempt committed outside the House. He would point out, however, that the House— Mr O’BRIEN: I rise to a point of order. Under standing order 236, relevance, this is beyond the pale. It has turned into a history lesson. It is of no relevance. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! The House will come to order. We will settle down for a moment. I do not believe that there is a point of order. However, I will make this point to the member for Gaven: you have to refer your comments to things included in the bill. While, strictly speaking, I do not believe there is a point of order, I can understand the member for Cook’s concern that we possibly do not need a history lesson. I will leave you with those words. Dr DOUGLAS: These powers were conferred by the act. What became of this—remember that this was 1880—was the Criminal Code. The rest is history. Griffith wrote the code—it came along—and tonight the minister, after less than a detailed approach, is trying to water down the law. The minister is, as Griffith has said, taking us on a lawless, violent path. I say to those opposite: you are doing an act which is not a bit more justified in the eyes of the law than would be an act of a mob of people rushing into the House and driving honourable members out of it. Douglas’s offence was that he told the truth after giving evidence to the committee. He was guilty of contempt and he passed into history. What has occurred here is that we are attempting to change the Criminal Code to reverse what has been written into it. What the government is trying to do is remove 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2051 this law. I say that mob violence rules. Those opposite all stand condemned if they vote for the bill. It is disgraceful. They are bringing great discredit to this magnificent institution. I believe it is nothing short of vandalism. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (8.17 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill. I have a great deal of concern, as other speakers on this side of the House have. I will go over some very basic issues. As we represent our electorates we always strive to be accountable. That is the fundamental for being a member of parliament. The greatest thing we as members of parliament cherish and hold dear is our credibility. I am just wondering how we can go back to our electorates and answer the questions that will be asked of us. We will be asked how we were able to pass through this parliament legislation that allows members of parliament to sit before a committee and not necessarily tell the truth. That is a fact. That is exactly what this is about. The reality is that that is what we are talking about. Those opposite can go on with the fancy legalistic arguments in this House but they will not cut it with the general public. They will not cut it in our electorates. Most members would say that most of our constituents would say that members of parliament lie, anyway. I have to assure members that there are people across-the-board who look up to members of parliament. They understand that we are doing a difficult job and most times under extreme circumstances. We all have people come into our offices from time to time who are at the very end of their tether. They rely on us to give them support and head them in the right direction. I believe that this bill will make things even more difficult. I believe that we will lessen our credibility very substantially by passing this bill. We will make our job far more difficult. There is no doubt that members on the other side of the House will come out with some fancy press releases et cetera that indicate that this is no different to any other jurisdiction throughout Australia, but the fact remains that the Queensland parliament is far different to any other state parliament or the federal parliament for that matter. Queensland really does not have any accountable mechanisms in this parliament in terms of a Senate or an upper house to question the decisions of the government. In actual fact, the committee system itself is flawed because the committees are made up of four members of the government and only three members of the opposition. So at the end of a day if a vote is taken in a committee, as happens from time to time, the government will always win the argument. I can remember when we set up the committee system in the Queensland parliament in 1994. There was a lot of contention at that stage about whether the system was going to work. The reality was that it did not matter so much what the departments or the ministers said because, at the end of the day, if there was a debate or if the process was questioned, the government ultimately had its way. I can remember some of the estimates committees that I sat on in that first year. Indeed, in most cases, the truth was not necessarily a big part of the answer with some ministers. Answers were certainly given, but they were not necessarily answers to the questions. The answers were very rambling and convoluted and did not necessarily relate to the questions put by the committee. That was the accepted way in those days of getting through the committee process. I have to say that the committee system has become a bit more focused nowadays. Indeed, I have gone from being very sceptical to thinking now that it is an effective way of questioning the departmental process and it is a fairly effective mechanism even for the ministers to understand what is happening within their own departments. If we are going to have a process where ministers can deliberately misrepresent the truth when giving evidence to committee hearings—which will happen—there is little point in continuing with the committee process. The reality is that if the committee reports that come out do not necessarily bear any resemblance to the truth of what is happening within the department, what is the point of having a very expensive committee process? We really are taking a backwards step, and passing this legislation really does reflect on all of us. The member for Nicklin made a very passionate speech about what he would like to happen if the opposition were to gain government. I can assure him, as others would, that accountability and credibility are a big part of being a member of the Queensland parliament, and we would inevitably do the right thing if we were in that position. The issue of freedom of speech and being able to robustly represent our electorate in this place is a very important part of being a member of the Queensland parliament, but that has got nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation we are putting before the House. There is no reason why we cannot have robust debates in this place or why answers to questions without notice should be stifled. This legislation will not change that. As has been said on almost a daily basis, the position we had before this legislation allowed ministers to answer in the way they saw fit. So this legislation will not stifle the debate. We are not ensuring that ministers are able to embellish the truth when they answer the questions in the parliament every morning. But the reality is that we are changing the fundamental way in which we handle our estimates committees and the committees of the parliament. I believe that is a shame; I really do. 2052 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

This legislation we are passing will reflect on all of us, not only those on the other side of the House. The public are reasonably apathethic and I suspect that, with all the goings-on in the media right now, the government hopes this legislation will slip through without too much media attention. But there are people in our electorates who do read Hansard and who do listen to reports that come out of this parliament, and they would be absolutely horrified to think that we are passing legislation that allows ministers and members of the executive to not necessarily tell the truth in a committee hearing. I can expand even further, even though I have not done a lot of research on this bit. The reality is when we place a question on notice in this place, is it absolutely necessary that that will have to be answered truthfully? When we ask questions on notice pre committee, have the answers got to be strictly legit and in accordance with all the protocols? I have to say that there are not too many speakers on the government side of the House tonight to defend those positions. At one stage, we had a fairly tumultuous period in the Queensland parliament where we saw ministers in the National Party actually go to jail for misrepresentation. The member for Murrumba mentioned the liabilities that arise when coming to this place. I can tell members that 20 years ago people went to jail because they came to this place, and they served a jail term. It was not necessarily because they did something wrong; it was because when a new government came into this place they changed the rules. That is a whole different ball game to what is happening here tonight, but I have to assure members that there is a longstanding convention in this parliament that credibility is everything, and we have to maintain that. As I said before, I believe we will go backwards, and irreversibly so, when this legislation is passed. It really is a shame that there are no more government members to try to defend the government’s position tonight. With those few words, I oppose the legislation. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (8.27 pm): I rise this evening to oppose the removal of sections 56, 57 and 58 from the Criminal Code. Whilst I support the rights and immunities which are collectively referred to as parliamentary privilege, a line has to be drawn when a member of parliament knowingly gives false evidence during a parliamentary proceeding. There is no doubt that we as members of parliament require some level of protection, simply due to the nature of our jobs and the politics involved. If we did not have certain protections in place, we would all be sued left, right and centre. However, lies should not be vindicated automatically. If a parliamentarian commits a criminal act, he or she should not be above the law if that act is in the form of false information or evidence given intentionally. If we are made exempt, then so should individuals who perjure themselves in a court of law. Currently, such an act can lead to up to 14 years in prison, as set out in the Criminal Code. In all fairness, we should also take away the penalty to individuals who make false complaints to the police. We are all aware, particularly in our roles, that we are provided copious amounts of information from other members, constituents, lobby groups and the media—the list goes on. Sure, it is possible that we may genuinely forget something in the course of a proceeding; we are, after all, human. But to change an event on purpose to alter an outcome should not be accepted. I would put money on the fact that if every woman in this House was asked to write a list of the most important qualities they were looking for in a partner, honesty would be very close to the top. Why do we expect anything less of our House of parliament? I am a great believer in truth and justice, and I have been devastated by some members’ willingness to lie to save their skin in this House, but they will face their maker when their time comes. It should not matter that members of parliament in other states and territories or countries are protected from criminal action if they knowingly tell an untruth. Let them be dishonest. Why don’t we in Queensland be the honest state and show the rest of Australia and the world that we have nothing to hide? It is time that we took the lead and stopped blindly following others. Let them follow us. My mother has often said to me that I have always been too honest for my own good, but I do not care because I can sleep at night. I have no doubt that honesty is the best policy and members of parliament should be the first to set that example, not hide behind laws that allow us to be crooks without penalty. I want to be part of a parliament that says to the world, ‘We don’t need your laws because we have nothing to hide.’ What better legacy could we leave for the people of Queensland? Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (8.29 pm): The reputation of the Queensland parliament will forever be stained by the actions of this Beattie government in introducing this bill and using its numbers to force its passage through the parliament. This is legislation introduced by the government, but the speaking list shows that the member for Rockhampton, the member Murrumba, the member for Stafford and then the minister in reply are the only government members who will speak to it. This government is trying to sell this legislation to the people of Queensland, but only those government members are speaking to it. That is an absolute slur on the Attorney-General. The government backbenchers have been told to sit back and let the thugs do it—let the people with the experience try to sell this legislation to Queensland—because they know that the attack— 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2053

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Darling Downs, I do not think that the word ‘thug’—and I assume you are referring to members on the government benches—is parliamentary language. Mr HOPPER: I will withdraw that word. I do not mean to use words like that in this House. I have respect for the House and I apologise. The government backbenchers have been told not to speak and instead rely on the likes of the member for Rockhampton, who is the big gun in the Labor Party. We have all seen how the member for Rockhampton— An honourable member: Who? Mr HOPPER: The member is the big gun. There is no doubt about that. The member for Rockhampton knows how to speak in this parliament. I know that the member for Murrumba now sits on the back bench, but he has previously been a member of the ministry. He knows his job. He can be relied upon to deliver a speech in this House in support of legislation that his party has introduced to this House that it does not believe in. We do not believe in this legislation, either. The government will realise that when we call for a number of divisions during the consideration in detail. This bill is a licence to tell untruths, to mislead, to be mischievous, to be devious—you name it. This bill is a cover-up for members of parliament. It is a breakdown of the basis upon which this parliament has been formed. This institution was built on respect. That is why members cannot walk into this institution without wearing a suit coat. This bill is saying that members can do what they want to do in this House but nobody else can do that. It is a slur on the justice system. We are seeing in Queensland a reversal of the basis upon which parliaments were formed in the 15th and 16th centuries. Mr Speaker, I know the respect that you have for the House and I know the respect that you have for the chair. Back in the 15th and 16th centuries, parliament considered itself to be a court in competition with the King’s Court. It had the power to punish, including the power of imprisonment. Through this bill, the Member’s Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee will, in effect, become a substitute for Queensland’s courts. This bill states that a committee of elected members will become a substitute for Queensland’s courts. The Attorney-General should hang her head in shame for allowing such legislation to come before this House. The Attorney-General may shake her head, but that is exactly what this bill is about. What a vote of confidence in the Queensland judiciary by the first law officer of the Crown in Queensland! Can the Attorney-General tell this House why she has no confidence in Queensland’s judges and jurors being able to determine whether a person has committed a criminal offence by lying to parliament or a parliamentary committee? That is what this bill is doing. It is saying, ‘I have no confidence except for when we have the numbers in this House and we can form a committee and be judge and jury.’ That means that the government can come in here and do what it likes. That is an absolute disgrace to this institution to which I was elected. The judiciary of Queensland must be squirming with the failure of the Attorney-General to defend its independence and impartiality. What a vote of no confidence in the Attorney-General’s own Director of Public Prosecutions to be able to determine whether a person who lies to this parliament should be subject to criminal charges! If the Attorney-General does not have confidence in an institution that she is supposed to represent and defend, I think she should resign and allow an Attorney-General to be appointed who will tell this government that it can have confidence in the system that is in place in Queensland. This legislation erodes confidence in our systems and the opposition vigorously opposes it. The Attorney-General says, by introducing this bill, that she is protecting the freedoms of this parliament, particularly the right of free speech. Free speech has never been a freedom to lie in this place, yet by introducing this bill the Attorney-General is allowing that to occur. Members have spoken in their contributions about free speech. Free speech is not the right to tell untruths. That is why the opposition is bitterly opposing this bill. Sir Samuel Griffith introduced these provisions to the Criminal Code over 100 years ago. Since that time, every government, including Labor Party governments, has been able to operate effectively with these provisions in the Criminal Code. Yet this Beattie government now finds these provisions unacceptable. This is further proof that the Beattie Labor government has reduced the standards of behaviour in this parliament to its lowest level in 100 years. Only yesterday we saw what the Premier did to the member for Maroochydore, Fiona Simpson. That was desperate politics. We have seen more desperate politics with the introduction of this legislation. The member for Maroochydore is a beautiful, Christian woman who was degraded by a Premier who is in trouble. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let the member be heard in silence. 2054 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Mr HOPPER: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for that. The reason the members opposite are interjecting is that I am hitting a raw nerve. When a leader is in a desperate situation, he stoops to taking drastic measures. That is exactly what we saw occur yesterday. This legislation is a further breakdown in the standards of this House. It flows from the top, through to the government ministers and on to the government backbenchers—right through the whole Labor Party. Yesterday, we saw desperate politics when the member for Maroochydore was totally degraded by a Premier who is in trouble. That will do him no good whatsoever, because the people of Queensland know exactly the standards and the morals of the member for Maroochydore, Fiona Simpson. I stand by those comments. Back to the bill— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. Mr HOPPER: The embarrassment of the Labor Party over this legislation is amply demonstrated by the lack of Labor speakers on this bill. Members opposite are only too willing to get up in this House and speak in support of one of the government’s latest media stunts. When there is a media stunt, we can hardly get on the list for Labor speakers and the bill will last all day. What do we see tonight in this bill? We see them hiding behind the old guns of the Labor Party—hiding behind the member for Rockhampton and the member for Murrumba. Then the member for Stafford will come in and finalise the debate. What do we hear now? Deathly silence because of the embarrassment of the government members in this House. If free speech in this House were under real threat, we would hear Labor member after Labor member telling this House how free speech were under threat and how the bill will preserve the long- established liberties of this House. That is exactly what we would hear. They are, however, conspicuous by their absence and failure to speak. I can assure members that the opposition will not let this bill escape through tonight. We will be dividing on this bill and all members—including all of the Labor backbenchers—will be required to put on the public record how they vote on this legislation tonight. They will be required to record whether they, as members of parliament, are in favour of legitimising the telling of untruths to parliament. That is exactly what they have to do when they vote on this bill tonight. They are going to say, ‘I agree that this legislation will allow me to tell untruths under privilege in this House.’ This bill is completely unnecessary. It will be a blot on the Queensland parliament for decades to come. The members who support this bill will go down in history as those who denigrated the reputation of this House. This House has built that reputation over the last 100 years at least. We heard the member for Gaven speak about his grandfather or great-grandfather. I know that he is very proud of the fact that he is the 4th or 5th generation of a member of parliament who was the Premier of Queensland. This House was built on integrity. That is why we have the laws that we have in place in this House. What do we see by this legislation tonight? We see an absolute breakdown of integrity. The Attorney- General should hang her head in shame. No longer can anyone in the community have any faith in the members of this House— Ms Nelson-Carr: No, not people like you. You were an Independent. Mr HOPPER:—in particular, members such as the member opposite squawking who will put their hand up and vote for this legislation. Members of the community will no longer be able to have faith in their elected members under this law because this law degenerates, degrades and perverts the responsibilities of members of parliament. Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (8.43 pm): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. Since joining other members in this place on 27 September 2005, it has really been a roller- coaster of gaining experience and knowledge of the processes and also making an assessment of the culture of this place. The parliament is and should be a pretty robust place, and only today we heard from the minister for public housing— Mr Schwarten: Public works, actually. Mr CALTABIANO:—public works and housing, Mr Schwarten, say things like people were going to ‘frighten local residents’, ‘grubby, underhanded, dishonest behaviour’, ‘scaremongering, deceitful and dishonest’, ‘masterminding the terrible fear of eviction’, ‘disgraceful misuse of the member’s position’. Only today did we hear that sort of language from a minister of the Crown. Is it untrue? Absolutely it is untrue. Did he make those statements knowing that they were untrue? Absolutely he did. Is that actionable under section 57? Of course not. It is absurd. It is an absurdity that that would be actionable under section 57 as purported by the Labor Party because he knew it was untrue, he said it was untrue and it is part of the robust nature of this chamber. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I did not know it to be untrue. It was not untrue. I find the remarks by the honourable member— Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Member for Chatsworth, resume your seat. Mr SCHWARTEN: I find the words used by the honourable member offensive and untrue, and I ask that they be withdrawn. What I always say in this parliament is true. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2055

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chatsworth. Mr CALTABIANO: I withdraw and find it quite amazing that the so-called bullyboy of the House has a glass jaw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will withdraw. Mr CALTABIANO: He has a glass jaw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will withdraw unconditionally. Mr CALTABIANO: I just did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You did not. Mr CALTABIANO: I withdraw. I am surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Leader of the House, the minister for public works and housing, would have a glass jaw when it comes to matters before this House that I claim, quite rightly in my view, do not meet section 57. But the minister has a glass jaw on that. And isn’t he entitled to have a glass jaw on those matters? Of course he is. That is part of the process of parliament. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find that reference— An opposition member: You give but you can’t take. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will have order in the chamber. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a debate about the truth. I ask the honourable member to stick to the truth, and I ask him to withdraw his untruthful statements. Mr Horan: Let the Speaker decide. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Toowoomba South, I am the Speaker. Mr Horan: Read the standing orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am the Speaker and I will interpret the rules, thank you very much. I don’t need your advice. Member for Chatsworth, you will withdraw. Mr CALTABIANO: I withdraw. Ms Nelson-Carr: You’ve got a big bald patch, too—a huge bald patch. Mr CALTABIANO: That is an enlightenment from the member for Mundingburra. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the member in silence. Mr CALTABIANO: What an enlightenment from the member for Mundingburra, commenting on people’s appearance in a place like this. A person like the member for Mundingburra— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chatsworth, are you going to address the matters before the House? Mr CALTABIANO: I will, absolutely. I am just taking the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will address the matters before the House. Mr CALTABIANO: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am just taking the interjection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will address the matters before the House. Mr CALTABIANO: I am entitled to take an interjection surely, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am making a ruling. You will address the matters before the House. Mr CALTABIANO: So your ruling is that I cannot take interjections. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will address the matters before the House. Mr CALTABIANO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Seeney: He can take an interjection before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Callide, are you reflecting on the chair? Mr Seeney: No. I am just making a comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you reflecting on the chair? Mr Seeney: Not at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please do not reflect on the chair. Mr Seeney: I would never do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. Don’t do it again. 2056 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Mr CALTABIANO: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister Schwarten coined the phrase ‘legislating lying’ in his contribution earlier today. We have a unicameral system of government in Queensland. The government of the day has the absolute and unfettered power of this place, and through this proposed change the courts will no longer have any role in the conduct of members. The green explanatory notes make it very clear, and the member for Callide made this exact point, that section 57 of the Criminal Code provides that ‘any person who knowingly gives false evidence’—and that is the key phrase, ‘knowingly gives false evidence’. I quoted the comments of the minister for public works and housing earlier—words like ‘disgraceful misuse’, ‘masterminding the terrible fear’, ‘scaremongering, deceitful and dishonest’. They were not knowingly giving false evidence, because evidence is a different test from the speeches in this chamber, and the robust nature of the privilege given in this chamber allows the minister to get away with those untruths in his statements in this place with impunity. Why does he get away with them with impunity? Because we have a unicameral system of government and there is no accountability beyond this chamber. There will be no accountability for any minister of the Crown, including the Premier, if this bill passes tonight. That is, in essence, what this debate is about. It is about accountability to the people of Queensland and to the parliament of Queensland. The ‘Achievement of the Objectives’ section of the explanatory notes refers to the bill repealing section 57 of the Criminal Code to ensure that the principle inherent in article 9 of the Bill of Rights is preserved and reinforced. For members, this will bring Queensland into line with the position in the House of Commons, the Commonwealth houses of parliament and the parliaments of other states and territories. One difference between the Commonwealth parliament and the parliaments of other states and territories is that they all have an upper house. They all have a house of review. If ministers are caught lying at estimates committees, they can be exposed in the Senate under a Senate investigation process. They can be exposed by the upper house for their dishonesty in the lower house. They can be exposed by an upper house with a capacity for review. We in this state do not have that. As the Leader of the Liberal Party pointed out when he spoke on this bill, that is why this section has not been repealed, despite many reviews of the act over many, many years. That is why section 57 remains as part of the Criminal Code and that is why it has an impact in the parliament of Queensland. We do not have an upper house to keep the ministry in line and keep some sort of review of the unfettered power of government. This parliament has an estimates committee process and standing committees that, when they sit, demand that the evidence brought before them is the truth, whether it be from ministers or any member of the public. This is the context that should frame the debate. So how did we get here tonight, debating the repeal of the only truly punitive measures that exist in a unicameral system of parliament—those measures that exist in the Criminal Code? The health issue is, of course, the nub of this whole debate, as is the conduct of this and previous Labor governments in their attempts to conceal the truth when it comes to the health of Queenslanders. That is the nub of why we are here today repealing section 57 of the Criminal Code. We know, of course, that the history of the Labor Party when it comes to the management of health in this state bears no second. It is the worst-performing government in Queensland’s history. Do members know which is the second-worst-performing government? The Goss government. The two worst-performing governments in Queensland’s history, when it comes to the management of health and the cover-up and the concealment of deaths of Queenslanders in our public hospital system, are Labor Party governments. It started when Goss was elected to office—the slow and deliberate decay of our health system. Who was the last health minister in the Goss government? It was Mr Beattie himself. We all remember the 100-day listening tour that ended with the loss of the election, the closing of wards, the doctors that were leaving and the patients who were not receiving treatment. We had review after review after review. The Hirst review said that there was a problem with bullying of doctors. Then Mike Horan came along and went about the task of sorting out the problem. He did a magnificent job of bringing the waiting lists down and opening up our hospitals. Mr Reeves: Return to the bill. Mr CALTABIANO: This is what the bill is about. It is about a former health minister who was put up under section 57. Why did he get there? Because of the health crisis in Queensland—the health crisis caused by the Labor Party in this state, the absolute and abject mismanagement of our health system by the Labor Party and successive Labor governments. It is a trait of the Labor Party. It cannot manage the health system. What happened when ‘chunder bucket’ Wendy Edmond came to office? She started the culture of bullying that Mike Horan had to stop. She mastered the culture of bullying for nurses and doctors in Queensland. That is when the real rot set in. We had a cabinet whose members were in government only a couple of years earlier and knew the consequences of failure in the health system because they 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2057 lost government. So they began the art form of bringing truckload after truckload of documents through the cabinet room to conceal and cover up the failings of the health system, the demoralisation of the entire Public Service and the attacking of whistleblowers. It was a matter of denying the evidence, burying the facts and shooting the messenger. That was the code of the Labor Party that has led to us today— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Member for Darling Downs, if you are going to interject, go to your assigned seat. Mr CALTABIANO: That has led us to being here today in the embarrassing position of debating the repeal of section 57 of the Criminal Code. In the past eight years 500 beds in our hospitals have closed and 40 maternity wards across Queensland have closed. Queensland has a young, vibrant community that desperately needs those maternity wards. There are more than 34,000 people on waiting lists— Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I ask the Deputy Speaker to consider whether this is relevant to the bill in question. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Darling Downs, I have told you before: if you are going to interject, you should go to your chair. I will make the decision on this, not you. Mr CALTABIANO: More than 108,000 people are on secret waiting lists—waiting to get on waiting lists. ‘Management by madness’ was the mantra of the ALP when it came to health. Is it any wonder that it was finally caught out through an estimates process. That estimates process had real teeth. Ms Nelson-Carr: What does this have to do with the Criminal Code? Mr CALTABIANO: I will tell the member for Mundingburra what it has to do with the Criminal Code. The government was finally caught out because of the strength of section 57 of the Criminal Code. A minister was caught out not telling the truth to an estimates committee. That is how they were caught out. That is the relevance of this. Mr NUTTALL: I rise to a point of order. I rise under standing order 234. It is quite obvious that that was a reference to me. I find the remarks untrue. They are offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr CALTABIANO: I withdraw them. Let us look at the estimates committee process that actually led to the investigation and the reference to section 57 of the Criminal Code. Let us look at the conduct at that estimates committee, because this is the nub of the whole issue of why we need section 57 of our Criminal Code. Mr Copeland stated— Minister, I follow on from your statement regarding the shortage of qualified doctors and specialists within the Queensland Health system. Mr Nuttall stated— No, I said in Queensland and Australia. Mr Copeland stated— In Queensland and Australia and specifically the shortage and the difficulty in attracting them to work for Queensland Health. Report after report that has been delivered to your government, including, for example, Cherrell Hirst’s report into maternity services, has been highly critical of Queensland Health and the fact that good people have been driven away from Queensland Health. What are you going to do to address that inherent culture that is driving good people out of Queensland Health and making it impossible to recruit new people into that system? Well, hello! What did the Davies royal commission and the Morris royal commission find? Exactly that, six months later. Mr Nuttall stated— It is called the Forster review, and that is why we are having the review by Peter Forster. So, we had the Hirst review, which found bullying and a culture of intimidation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chatsworth, I remind you that the bill deals with the removal of several clauses in the Criminal Code. I hope that this is relevant to the removal of those clauses. Mr CALTABIANO: I thank you for your leniency in allowing me to get to the point, because there is a point to this argument. This is what caused this bill to be before this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please get to the clause. Mr CALTABIANO: Thank you very much. Mr Copeland asked— So you had no plans to do that before the Forster review started? Mr Nuttall stated— Madam Chair, I am trying to answer the question ... I will not go through it in detail. Mr Nuttall states in the second paragraph— In order to address that, money is not always the answer. 2058 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

That is what Mr Nuttall said. So, his $6.3 billion health fix is not really a fix because money doesn’t matter. Mr Nuttall stated— I am put in a position where I am asked to increase salaries, and we will do that, and the Premier has stated that. Mr Copeland— Minister, I refer to your statement about the process of recruiting overseas trained doctors. It was reported in the Courier-Mail on 30 April this year that— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chatsworth, you said that you would come to the point of the bill. Rather than reading previous Hansard transcripts, I hope you will come to the point of the bill. Mr CALTABIANO: I am getting there, because this is very important. Mr Nuttall’s position was that he did not know about the widely held concerns in relation to the proficiency of overseas trained doctors who were streaming into Queensland. Nor did he know, he said, about the worries over lack of screening of their qualifications because, he said, nobody—not his director-general, Steve Buckland, his head of services, Dr John Scott, nor any of their underlings—had told him. Mr Copeland asked— About the training, the concerns over proficiencies, the registration of those doctors coming into Queensland or any of those issues regarding OTDs as you were quoted as saying? Mr Nuttall answered— I stand by the statement I made. Mr Copeland asked— You were never ever briefed? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chatsworth, I would remind you that this matter has already been dealt with as a matter of privilege before this House. Therefore, I would ask you to be very careful about your comments and ensure that you are not going over those matters of privilege that have been dealt with by the privileges committee. Mr CALTABIANO: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Nuttall answered— I stand by the statements I made. Then, of course, Dr Scott was asked about his understanding. Dr Scott stated— Certainly, my understanding is that in discussions that I had had with the minister’s office and with the minister in the past, either on the basis of one to one or in concert with other officers of Queensland Health, the issues had been raised. Any ordinary Queenslander reading the transcript of the estimates committee, which was repeated in the Courier-Mail and is freely available, could only conclude that the minister knew that he had been— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This matter has been dealt with by the privileges committee. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrego, I am in the chair, not you, and I will make the decisions in this House. Be very careful, member for Chatsworth. Member for Warrego, be very careful. Mr CALTABIANO: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chatsworth has the call, member for Beaudesert, and I thought you would know that. Mr CALTABIANO: I will conclude this section of my remarks by saying that the consequence of that estimates committee process led to actions under section 57 and led to this parliament having a special sitting. We are here today because the Labor Party do not ever want to see section 57 used against a minister to bring them to account for whatever reason ever again. Some very interesting views were expressed by the members of the Labor Party who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up this evening and make comments. The member for Murrumba in particular said a lot of very interesting things. He said that members put at peril their liberty if we do not get rid of section 57. As I read out before, Minister Schwarten does not seem to be too worried about putting himself at risk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will call ministers by their proper titles. Mr CALTABIANO: The minister for public works and housing—my apologies—did not seem to be too concerned about his liberty or his rights earlier on today when he was using the language that I used before. The Labor Party does not seem to have any problems in standing up in this place and telling the people of Queensland that it is going to build dams, spend money on roads and bridges, and allow uranium mining when, of course, it has no intention of doing any of those things. The member for Murrumba went further and said that the voters will issue retribution on them if they lie. If that is the case we are in for a very, very interesting election in a few months time when we go to the polls. If the member for Murrumba is right and the voters issue their retribution, as he has invited them to do, he will probably not be joining us after the next election. He said democracy is all about— Time expired. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2059

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.03 pm): I want to make a number of comments which I think put this in perspective. The first thing I want to say is that it is pretty clear that the members of the opposition want to filibuster so that they come back here tomorrow. The Leader of the House and I have had a discussion. My concern is that we need to start at 8.30 in the morning and I am not going to have the staff of this parliament finishing in the wee hours just because of some filibustering. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the floor and the Premier will be heard. Mr BEATTIE: I make the point that the staff of this parliament are employees and I believe that they need to be given appropriate— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: This is just typical of the rabble opposite. They are into personal attacks. They never want to say anything positive. Those opposite have to be the greatest whingers of all time. Mr CALTABIANO: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr CALTABIANO: I will wait until the Premier has resumed his seat. I take personal offence at that remark and ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: The Premier did not direct it to you personally. Mr CALTABIANO: I take offence under standing order 234 and ask that that remark be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Take your seat. He did not refer to you personally. Mr BEATTIE: That is typical. Those opposite have no understanding of the privileges of this parliament. The Liberal Party used to stand for principle and the institution of parliament; it no longer does, nor does it stand for the rule of law. There are staff in this parliament who deserve to be treated with courtesy. Hence I have agreed with the Leader of the House that when I finish my contribution we will adjourn and we will meet tomorrow. Of course I have no concerns at all about the government’s position on this amendment. I fully support it. We are happy to come back here and debate it tomorrow because what we are doing is sensible and is consistent with the principles of parliaments in the rest of Australia. If the opposition had a serious point, what is it? Let us look at the precedents. If there were any sense of argument in what the opposition is talking about, then we would find jurisdictions federally and in the other states with a similar provision. Are there any in application? The answer is no, there are not. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The rabble opposite who seek to destroy the institution of parliament should at least have the courtesy to listen, like we did in terms of their contribution. Let us talk about the Commonwealth. Mr Seeney: You haven’t listened to any of it. You haven’t been here. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide! Mr BEATTIE: The member for Callide may know that there is a thing called a television. I will introduce him to the 20th century one today. Let us look at the issues here. Is there a valid case for what those opposite are saying either here or in some of the media commentary? The answer is no. What is the position of John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister? Does the Commonwealth have a similar provision? The answer is no. What is the position federally? The giving of false or misleading evidence by members and nonmembers can be punished as contempt of the Senate or the House of Representatives, but there is no legislation making it a criminal offence. What is good enough for John Howard has got to be good enough for the Queensland parliament. What is good enough for the National Party federally has got to be good enough for the Queensland parliament. If there is validity in the argument of those opposite, then why aren’t John Howard or the National Party doing the same thing? It is an open and shut case and those opposite know it. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: The Senate does not have a criminal offence and nor does the lower house. Let us not have any more hypocrisy. Is there a position federally that supports the view of those opposite? The answer is no. Frankly, that is the end of the argument. But there are more examples. In relation to the United Kingdom, the advice I have been given is this: it is clear that a member who gives false evidence on oath in parliamentary proceedings would in any case be protected by parliamentary privilege against any criminal proceedings. In the mother of all parliaments is there a similar provision? The answer is no, no and no. So there is no provision in the Commonwealth and there is none in the mother parliament. They are the two precedents—none—that is, no similar provision in either of these parliaments. 2060 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 25 May 2006

Let us move on to New South Wales. What is the New South Wales provision? A Privy Council decision in 1886 held that the powers of the Legislative Assembly do not extend to the punishment of contempt or the unconditional suspension of a member during the pleasure of the Assembly. New South Wales has never enacted general powers to punish for contempt of its parliament. Whilst there are sections for dealing with the giving of false sworn evidence, these do not apply to members, which was what was always intended in Queensland until the opposition sought to distort it. Consequently, there are no provisions which purport to make members of the New South Wales parliament subject to criminal sanctions for knowingly giving false evidence. So we have the Commonwealth, we have the United Kingdom and now we have New South Wales, none of whom agree with the position taken by the opposition. Let us move on to Victoria. The Constitution Act 1975 provides that every person examined under oath before the Council or the Assembly who wilfully gives false evidence shall be liable to penalties for perjury. The Crown Solicitor is of the opinion that the act protects members from criminal action. So, are members subject to this? The answer is no. We have the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom, New South Wales and Victoria— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs and member for Warrego, please have some courtesy. Take your seats and allow the Premier to continue in silence. Mr BEATTIE: Let us move on to South Australia. The Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 makes it an offence for a public officer to act improperly and makes it an offence to make a false statement under oath, with the penalty being perjury. However, there is no provision about the powers of a house or a committee to place a person on oath to give evidence. Importantly, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 specifically provides that nothing derogates from parliamentary privilege. Therefore, it appears that even if perjury offences can apply to giving evidence on oath in parliament it cannot apply to members. I turn to Western Australia. Western Australia adopted Queensland’s Criminal Code with some alterations, and section 57 was adopted in its entirety. The act goes on to provide that the House can direct the Attorney-General to prosecute any person instead of proceeding summarily. However, the Crown Solicitor’s opinion is that the section that enables the House to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute is drafted in a way where it appears to apply to nonmembers. Western Australia adopted our section 57 and yet its Crown Solicitor says that it does not apply to members; it applies to nonmembers only. Therefore, section 57 of the Western Australian Criminal Code could be construed as applying to only nonmembers because the House could not direct the Attorney-General to prosecute a member for a breach of section 57. When they took our act, they determined that it applies to nonmembers, not to members. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been fairly lenient when I have been in the chair tonight. There are members on my left-hand side who are trying to make a mockery of this parliament. I have had enough. I am going to start asking people to leave this chamber. Have you all got the message loud and clear? Mr BEATTIE: Let us move to Tasmania. Although Tasmania adopted the Queensland Criminal Code, substantial modifications were made. Section 57 does not appear in the Tasmanian code. In the ACT, there is no legislative equivalent to section 57 of the act. What does this summary really prove? What it proves is that there is no application in any of those jurisdictions that I referred to that would apply section 57 to a member. It is an absolute nonsense and, frankly, some of the media commentary on this is nothing but simply an antipolitical, antigovernment position. There is no foundation. I challenge the National Party, the Liberal Party and any media commentators to find any jurisdiction in Australia that applies a similar provision to section 57, because there is none. Let us not have any more nonsense about this. It is a dishonest argument that is put forward by those opposite for nothing more than cheap political purposes to target a former government minister. That is what this is all about. It is about personal denigration—nothing else. Anyone who comes in here and tries to put forward a credible, ethical argument has none, because where is a similar provision in the Commonwealth? Where is a similar provision in the United Kingdom, the mother parliament? Where is a similar provision in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania or Western Australia? It does not matter who wants to score cheap political points—whether they are an Independent member or not. The reality is that this provision was never meant to apply to members. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply dishonest. I am not interested in the dishonesty and the fraud that exists in this place. The reality is that this provision was never meant to apply to members of parliament, and that is a fact. Those two jurisdictions which applied our provision when it was drafted by Griffith, who was a great Premier of this state and a learned jurist, have applied it in such a way that it does not apply to members. That is a fact. It does not matter how those opposite try to interpret it for some silly reason. That is a fact. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is doing so for some cheap political purpose— either to grandstand in their own electorates or to be party political, and that is the end of it. 25 May 2006 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2061

The final point I want to make is this: if those opposite want to take these provisions to their final extent, have a look at section 56. Section 56 of the Criminal Code provides that it is a misdemeanour to disturb the Assembly. Half the National Party would be in jail tomorrow if that were the case and some of the Liberal Party as well. What a nonsense! A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. And the member for Nanango and others who poured milk down the front of this parliament. A government member: You would be in jail. Mr BEATTIE: She would be in jail under this provision. The member for Nanango would be in jail, yet she is one of the people who has the hypocrisy to come in here and oppose this amendment. She would be in jail. The reality is that we are absolutely consistent on this. Members of parliament should have the ability to express their views, which is what the parliament was designed to do. Find me one legislature in Australia that implements section 57 or section 58 the way those opposite want. These are antiquated pieces of legislation that were designed to protect the parliament in an era that is different from today. They were never meant to apply to members. They were meant to apply to nonmembers who come here to disrupt the parliament or its committees. Frankly, the lack of understanding in the political debate by members of parliament about privileges and the law is nothing short of appalling. If we have this sort of ignorance about these institutions, then God help us, because we are supposed to uphold these institutions. If they believe in these institutions, they have to understand them. There is no excuse to sit here in an uninformed way. Members of parliament have an obligation to learn about the parliament, understand the traditions and understand the history. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I say to the member for Lockyer: ignorance is no excuse. He has an obligation to inform himself. Being ignorant of the law is no excuse. Being ignorant of the traditions of this place is no excuse. Frankly, there used to be a day when the conservatives actually stood for the institutions. When I grew up, the conservatives—the Liberal Party in particular—actually stood for something. The Sir Gordon Chalks of this world were great Queenslanders who made a very significant contribution. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr BEATTIE: People like Sir William Knox as well, I agree, made a significant contribution to the public life of this state. I did not always agree with them, but Sir Gordon Chalk was one of the great Queenslanders who led the Liberal Party. If they had Sir Gordon Chalk in here, he would be appalled at the ignorance and the cheap point-scoring we are seeing from the Liberal Party. The National Party has always been a waste of time when it comes to institutions, but the Liberal Party would have stood for something. Frankly, I find it an appalling state of affairs that those members do not understand the law. The ignorance of the traditions of this parliament is simply appalling. I know that those opposite are going to try to score cheap political points. I understand that, but they have an obligation to learn about this parliament and its institutions. If they do not, then they are not worthy of being a member. For God’s sake, look at what applies in the rest of Australia. Do not come in here with knee-jerk reactions. Get some information, some education and learn about this parliament, of which those opposite are supposed to be learned members. At the end of the day, we will support this legislation because it is right. It is about time that we got rid of some of these anachronistic provisions that have been around since Adam and Eve were in shorts. It is about time that we had some modernisation. We should do some of that to the standing orders as well. This is about modernising the operations of the Queensland Parliament and, frankly, it is long overdue. Debate, on motion of Mr Beattie, adjourned. An honourable member: You should be ashamed of yourself. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Beaudesert, you have sat there tonight challenging— Mr Reynolds: The member for Beaudesert is a liar. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Child Safety, show some courtesy to the chair. I was on my feet. Mr REYNOLDS: I apologise, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Beaudesert, you have sat there all night trying to provoke the minister for public works and housing. I would ask you to refrain from doing that in the future. 2062 Adjournment 25 May 2006

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.18 pm), by leave: I move— That notwithstanding the sessional orders, the House at its rising do adjourn until 8.30 am on Friday, 26 May 2006 and that the order of business be in accordance with the document circulated in my name— Friday, 26 May 2006 From 8.30am—9.30am— Prayers Messages from the Governor Matters concerning privilege Speaker's Statements Motions of Condolence Petitions Notification and tabling of papers by the Clerk Ministerial Papers Ministerial Notices of Motion Ministerial Statements Any other Government Business Personal Explanations Tabling of Reports Notices of Motion Question Time (for remaining time until 9.30am) 9.30am—1.00pm— Government Business 1.00pm—2.30pm— Lunch break 2.30pm—until Adjournment moved— Government Business Motion agreed to. Mr Lingard interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Beaudesert, I ask you to leave the chamber under standing order 253. Whereupon the honourable member left the chamber—

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.19 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Cyclone Monica Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.20 pm): This morning we heard from General Cosgrove about the efficiency of the Cyclone Larry disaster relief effort. I must say that the swiftness of the Premier and Prime Minister in visiting our area within a few days of the disaster is to be applauded. A month later, and further up north, another cyclone, Cyclone Monica, crossed the coastline with less intensity but with far more rain attached. This caused major flooding throughout the cape. It caused much more damage than has been seen in living memory. Grazing homesteads were flooded, hundreds of kilometres of fence lines were destroyed and hundreds of cattle have been washed away and drowned. There is just one major bitumen road in the cape and it goes only as far as Cooktown. The rest are dirt and gravel, including the other major route to Weipa. Every one of these roads has suffered major damage and for the past month none have been trafficable. They are only now starting to dry out and road repairs are just beginning. The cape is the size of Victoria. One can only imagine the huge problem the Cook Shire Council has on its hands. I am sure this council will need some special bridging funds to help its cash flow as it waits for natural disaster funding to come through. Tourism has been badly affected due to the state of the roads, and that will continue for some time yet. A transport company based in Mareeba which conducts 100 per cent of its business in the cape has had its business affected due to the road conditions. It employs 12 people but has not been able to move a single truck for over a month. 25 May 2006 Adjournment 2063

Mr O’Brien interjected. Ms LEE LONG: Thank you very much, member for Cook. It is unlikely to be able to conduct its normal business for some months to come. However, the desperate circumstances facing cape businesses and operators do not appear to have been recognised yet by this state government. The packages available to Cyclone Larry’s victims would go a long way to helping those affected by Cyclone Monica, from grants and concessional loans to Newstart assistance and Centrelink payments. They are all desperately needed. Mr O’Brien interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Cook, allow the member to make her address to the parliament without these interruptions. Ms LEE LONG: I will quote from a letter I have received from a grazier. He describes the situation this way— Fence lines have been destroyed by the fast moving flood waters. This involves many kilometres of fencing, used to control stock and protect ecologically sensitive areas. A huge physical effort and cost will be involved in rebuilding these fences. It will take a long time to complete and rebuild and I doubt that many people will be able to meet this unexpected huge cost for fencing materials and labour. Cattle herds have been thrown into chaos, the cattle were either swept away and drowned in the floodwaters or swam to the available high ground. The flood waters enabled crocodiles to move away from their normal habitats and attack cattle, particularly calves and smaller or weakened stock. It will take many months to find the remainder of these herds, sort out branded cattle and get back to a breeding cycle. He summed it up this way— Without government assistance, recovery will be impossible. It is important that the hardship now facing those in the cape is not forgotten or brushed aside as being a normal event. I call on the Beattie government to help all those in the cape affected by the devastation. Horstman, Mr G Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (9.23 pm): Tonight there is a soccer match being played between Australia and Greece. Last night we had the State of Origin match. I would like to bring to the attention of this House the passing of a great man from my area—Graham Paul Horstman—who excelled as a junior in both soccer and Rugby League. When he was old enough he went to Rugby League. Graham was born in Rockhampton on 16 July 1954 and he went to Lakes Creek State School. He then went to North Rockhampton High School and, because he had more opportunity to represent his town, his area and his state, he chose Rugby League over soccer. He was a very good player in both codes. In the early 1970s Graham was chosen to represent central Queensland. He also represented Queensland country. Owing to the attitude of Rugby League authorities at that time, he never made it into the state side. Graham married in 1978. He and his wife, Leigh, had four children—Megan, Riley, Corey and Daine. Sadly Corey predeceased his father. Graham played for the Fitzroys. I know that the member for Beaudesert is not in the House, but he played when he was a teacher in Rockhampton. Graham played for the Fitzroys and in 1973 and 1974 he led that side to a Rockhampton Rugby League grand final. He was the only one of six people in 52 years to win the prestigious Ollie Howden Medal in Rockhampton. He did not win it in successive years. He won it in 1973 and 1977. Graham continued to play football, but his great love became Rugby League. He coached club sides and Emmaus College. Most of the teams he coached went on to win premiership games. Graham worked on the railway for 36 years. He was a fitter on the railway. It is only in the last eight months that he found that he was suffering from motor neurone disease. He suffered very badly with the disease and passed away on 16 May 2006 leaving his wife, Leigh, and children, Riley, Megan and Daine, to mourn him along with the many hundreds of people whose lives he touched. I would like to say to his family and to those many people who knew him and thought very highly of him that Graham did not only play on the football field but he played on the big field of life. Many hundreds of people attended his funeral. This world will be a sorrier place for his passing. Vale, Graham Paul Horstman. Beattie Labor Government Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (9.26 pm): First the Beattie Labor government gagged whistleblowers; now it is gagging victims of crime. We have seen it all in this parliament under the current government, but this morning highlighted the legacy of suppression and concealment which is the Beattie Labor government. The common factor in the ‘Dr Death’ overseas trained doctors scandal, the health crisis and the Caboolture emergency department closure is cover-ups by the Labor government. The conspiracies which have been revealed in the last year about this government have been shocking. In addition, every day revelations add up to the filling which is the Beattie government stuff-up sandwich Queensland has had to chew on for the last seven years. 2064 Adjournment 25 May 2006

Queensland’s health services are at an all-time low and morale in our public sector is immense. It is no wonder. If Labor cannot blame the federal government or the opposition, it blames the public sector. Instead of being committed to delivering on its so-called open and transparent governance, this government continues to switch back to the devil it knows. The only commitment this government has is to itself, and we have seen this throughout the development of the health scandals. Yesterday in parliament the Premier and every single Labor member said that victims of crimes committed by mental health patients should be heard and yet today they voted to gag a mother who lost a daughter under those circumstances. It was only last night that we debated the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Bill and the government claimed that complaints resolution was its focus. But in the House today the government is covering up admissions and complaints about mental health. It was astonishing to see Labor use its majority to refuse the Queensland coalition the right to table a letter. I did not realise democracy could be such a numbers game, but sadly in this parliament it is. People should have the right to complain about the appalling state of the mental health system in Queensland and the subsequent trauma the Queensland public has endured. Further, the distraught mother of a murdered girl who had been traumatised by Queensland’s appalling mental health system should have the right to express her views on the ordeal to the member for Moggill and for them to be tabled in the parliament. The government has suppressed the letter because there is so much this government has hidden, so much it is afraid of. It cannot afford for this information to get out. What does it know about the case that it is afraid is going to be revealed? Why is this letter being withheld from parliamentary records? This government is a government of deceit and suppression. It is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of the people in this state. It is reprehensible that this Beattie Labor government would use its numbers to gag a parliamentary question. It is typical of its stunts and deception. If the Beattie Labor government is low enough to gag whistleblowers and victims of crime, I can only imagine what the future holds for Queensland under the Beattie Labor government. It has completely lost touch. Labor is no longer able to get the priorities right for Queensland and it has shown this with its ludicrous one minute’s silence for a convicted drug smuggler, its astonishing religious education amendment and now by not allowing victims of crime to be heard. This shows just how out of touch the Beattie Labor government really is.

Suncorp Stadium Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (9.28 pm): Earlier today, the Premier made two announcements about Suncorp Stadium. Regrettably, it has turned out to be impossible to feasibly hold the benefit concert for the Cyclone Larry victims at the stadium, and the prospect of a benefit concert at Suncorp has now passed. I again place on the record—as I did prior to and during the legislative debate about permitting a regulatory regime for concerts—that I believe there are cogent public policy arguments in favour of permitting a regulated number of concerts at the stadium. As I said at the time, I hold this view outside of the context in which the bill came before the House. The Premier today in public comments has reinforced that the legislative change remains sound policy—a view he expressed during the debate in this place. For reasons of equity in my mind, the stadium should not be the domain of the football fan to the exclusion of all others. For the record, it is worth stating that the legislation did not of itself limit the application of the proposed use to any one context, a fact borne out in the debate at the time. The fact of this cancellation actually reinforces one of the key points I made during the debate. As the stadium is now fully tenanted, the opportunity for concerts is necessarily limited. The impossibility of finding a feasible window midseason to hold the cyclone benefit concert demonstrates the point precisely. I suspect rare will be the time when the three concerts per year limit will be approached. The time required for set up and pull down necessarily circumscribes the windows of time in which concerts can be held. Today’s event demonstrates that point precisely. This year we can realistically expect only one concert—Robbie Williams, who is scheduled for Wednesday, 13 December. The Premier also announced this morning that local residents will have an early opportunity to purchase tickets for this concert, and I welcome this initiative of the stadium. It is unfortunate that it has turned out that it is not feasible to hold the cyclone benefit concert at the stadium, but it does not deny the underlying point and the basis of my support for the amending legislation we debated here last month. It also remains the case that the experience of a concert at the stadium will be instructive in determining a range of issues that attend the use of the stadium. I remain keen to base future directions on the experienced reality, not the imagined reality. The decision to dedicate the foregone rental charge that would have otherwise applied means that the victims of Tropical Cyclone Larry will still derive a substantial and material benefit, and I am sure there will be no argument from any member of the House on that front. 25 May 2006 Adjournment 2065

Toowoomba Community Care Transport

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (9.31 pm): Since 1996, the Rotary Club of Toowoomba has run an absolutely magnificent service called the Toowoomba Community Care Transport Inc. In that time, with the assistance of HACC funding and through Transcare, which is a subset of the Anglican diocese of Brisbane, they have provided transport to elderly people throughout the city who are unable to access public transport or unable to get to medical appointments. This service has become necessary because the role of the Ambulance Service has changed dramatically over the last decade or two. Years ago, the Ambulance Service would pick up people and run them to the doctors and so forth; that no longer happens.

This service has been underway for all that time, and it is an absolutely fantastic service. I can attest to the work that these volunteers do. The volunteers and drivers do a marvellous job; they even provide their own vehicles. This is the sort of basic community service that makes a city, town or community come together and look after their elderly members who have done so much for the community in the past and need a helping hand in their senior years.

The most recent contract through Transcare has been changed from the normal period of one year to only three months. It appears now that the HACC funding will no longer be provided to Toowoomba Community Care Transport through Transcare and they will have to simply run on their own funds until the service runs out.

I would like to give the parliament some statistics on Toowoomba Community Care Transport. Every year, they do approximately 4,000 HACC referred transports, for which they have been reimbursed $18,200 each year by Transcare. Each of these transports involves an average distance of 11 kilometres and requires an average of 55 minutes of volunteer time. The estimated value for each service is $25.35. Therefore, HACC through Transcare have been the recipient of $100,000 worth of service for only $18,200, courtesy of the organisation and their volunteers. In addition, they are getting 18 to 20 extra referrals per month from HACC and they also receive referrals from elsewhere.

I call on the minister to give urgent and serious consideration to this group to ensure that HACC funding is provided. This is a preventive service that helps old people keep healthy and looks after those people who deserve it. It is provided by volunteers, who give hundreds of thousands of dollars of benefit to the government and our community through their work and by using their own cars. I plead with the minister to look into this as a matter of urgency and see that this minuscule amount of funding continues to be provided to Toowoomba Community Care Transport.

Redlands, School Celebrations

Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (9.34 pm): Last Saturday night, I had the pleasure of attending the celebration of 125 years of Redland Bay State School. We were able to compare and contrast how education has changed and evolved over the last 125 years. We reminisced about how Redland Bay State School originated in the house of a local resident, and yet today it is a thriving community of over 800 students.

I would like to congratulate the significant people behind the organisation of this event: the principal of Redland Bay State School, Mr Dion Coghlan; the deputies, Kathy Lacey and Alan Bunce; and the extremely hardworking P&C, including president Ron Goodman, secretary Anthony Spittle, treasurer Nicole Black and vice president Allan Hicks. Because of the amount of effort involved in planning, coordinating and running this event, the P&C were assisted by a standing subcommittee. I would like to put on record the thanks of the Redland community for the work done by Chris Kidd, Linda Minnelle, Patricia Rowe, Stephanie Pearce, Stephanie Meggit, Helen Hinwood and Sue Taylforth.

It was really interesting to hear students who attended the school back in the 1930s and 1940s reminisce about their time at the school and how education had changed. They spoke about the old slate boards and the old ink wells. During the night, they read out from the discipline register the events that had caused people to get the cuts in the past. This included the offence of racing horses on the way to school. Unfortunately, during the night I was dragged up to receive the cuts because I was allegedly talking during one of the speeches. Like all good students, I stood up, went to the front, warmed my hand and copped the cuts for the egregious acts that I committed.

Also last weekend we celebrated with the Faith Lutheran College community their Funfest. This is one of the best fetes conducted by any school in my electorate. I would like to congratulate the principal, Anthony Mueller, and the P&C president, Mr Graham Hodges, on their work and the work of their committees for planning and running such a great event. 2066 Adjournment 25 May 2006

Transport Infrastructure Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (9.37 pm): The Labor Party are up to their old tricks again when it comes to their phobia of building infrastructure. A key linkage in the Brisbane transport system is the Hale Street bridge, a bridge that is critical to the development of West End to allow a new community living in high-density accommodation to be developed. This 10- to 20-storey environment at the end of Merivale Street is essential to cater for a large proportion of Brisbane’s population growth. West End is a great place to live and there should be more people enjoying the great lifestyle that this inner-city location provides. It is close to the city—in fact, within walking distance—and has train, bus and ferry public transport in abundance. The only problem with living in West End is getting in and out of the place in a car. The Labor Party’s mess that is the Melbourne Street area and the Victoria Bridge fiasco with the bus lanes, and of course their opposition to the Hale Street bridge, means that getting in and out of West End is becoming even more difficult. Coping with the population growth of our state’s capital city is all about building the infrastructure to support the growth. It is all about accommodating the population in the right place. West End is the right place and it now needs to have the infrastructure support. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane, when elected, proposed a link between Coronation Drive and Merivale Street and upon election had his plan tested, with the result being that a new bridge is required to link Hale Street to Merivale and Cordelia streets. This great project has, since it was developed, been opposed by the Labor Party. They do not want to build any bridges; they have for eight years been sitting on their hands in this place, and for 13 years in City Hall, and built nothing. Now they are actively opposing another great piece of infrastructure. I have already exposed the efforts of the member for South Brisbane through her administration of the Gambling Community Benefit Fund, funding the scurrilous postcard campaign using public funds to oppose a bridge for the crazy left-wing political reasons. This is it here, and I table it again. Tabled paper: Copy of postcards to the Lord Mayor, Brisbane City Council. The latest postcard is from the member for Indooroopilly. Finally, there seems to be somebody in the Labor Party who has the guts to say, ‘Yes, I oppose infrastructure development in Brisbane.’ The Labor Party has produced this misleading antibridge piece of propaganda, again undermining the efforts of our civic leader to get Brisbane moving. The Labor Party in this place simply hates building things that will make people’s lives better: no new roads, no new train services, no new bridges, no new water storages, no new hospital beds and the list of infrastructure failures go on and on. The opening line of the postcard states— Campbell Newman’s Hale Street Bridge Plan includes—lengthy disruptions on Coronation Drive during construction. The government’s primary reason for not doing something about traffic congestion is that it might cause minor temporary disruption during the construction phase of the project. If this is the Labor Party approach, then it is little wonder that it has not built anything for eight years. I say to Campbell Newman: go forward and push on for the sake of all the residents of Brisbane, particularly the new groups of residents who will be living in the current industrial area as the urban renewal front progresses through this area and the new residential towers are constructed. We all support the new bridge over Hale Street, that is, everybody except the members of the Labor Party. Narangba Ambulance Station Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (9.40 pm): Tonight I wish to inform the parliament of progress in the construction of the Narangba ambulance station on Oakey Flat Road near Kinnaird Park in my electorate of Kallangur. The station was a commitment that I made at the last state election. I am pleased to see that construction has commenced and is progressing well—in fact, so well that construction is now ahead of schedule. The objective of the station is to meet the needs of the increasing population growth in the Narangba-Burpengary area and to ensure that appropriate response times to call-outs are maintained. The site chosen is important because it is directly accessible to three major roads connecting Caboolture, Deception Bay and Petrie. It also provides good access to the Bruce Highway. The station has the strong support of the Caboolture Shire Council. It has recognised the enormous growth potential for the Narangba area with newly developed community infrastructure in place to support this growth pattern. In fact, only last year the Narangba Junior Rugby League Football Club was established near the same site at Kinnaird Park. The mayor of Caboolture tells me that Narangba is the fastest growing area in Australia. In only its second year, this football club is fielding seven teams, which is a clear indication of the growth that is occurring in this area. With construction of the ambulance station underway, the local community is looking forward to its completion. In fact, many inquiries have been made to my electorate office about the station. On that basis, I spoke to the minister and suggested that a sign be placed at the construction site so that 25 May 2006 Adjournment 2067 residents are aware of the time of the completion of the project and can measure its progress. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the minister because that sign has now been put in place. It is able to inform the local community of exactly what is going on at this site. I welcome this station and, certainly, the local community welcomes this station. Through the construction of this station, response times will be improved. The station will meet future growth. Importantly, it matches other community infrastructure in the local area. The building will provide facilities for community education and meetings of local community groups, thus connecting the service to the Narangba community. I think that is a very important part of this sort of infrastructure in communities such as Narangba. The provision of this station will also mean vastly enhanced skills and intervention levels to provide the best possible patient outcomes for the community and improved patient transport services delivery. Health Services, Central Queensland; Tree of Knowledge Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (9.43 pm): Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the centralist Labor policy in health is not working in western Queensland. Queensland Health should be ashamed of itself and its management strategies of health services in western Queensland. A regional director based in Brisbane hardly represents the needs and the worth of the health services in central Queensland Health. This regional director should be based in Rockhampton to cover the region, which encompasses the central highlands and the central-west area. When I talk about health services in central Queensland, I am referring to services such as the flying surgeon service and the flying doctor service and support services such as flying gynaecologists and ophthalmologists—the whole lot. We are again losing doctors from western Queensland because of the uncertainty and the poor management strategies of this centralist Labor government which is trying to direct its services from Brisbane. I hope that the Minister for Health is well aware of the unsatisfactory situation that is taking place in Queensland Health at the moment. Three doctors are going to leave western Queensland in one half of one minute: Dr Neil Chorley from Augathella, Dr Vinny Joshi from Blackall and Dr John Loch from Springsure. I wonder what sort of replacement program the government has in place to fill the voids that will be created when these three doctors go. I can assure members that they are going to be big voids to fill. At this point we need to put in place a policy to eliminate the culture of fear that currently exists in Queensland Health. Those people—whether they are doctors, nurses, or whoever—should be allowed to work as professionals in the capacities in which they are trained and should not be subjected to criticism and evaluations by people who are not expert in the area of health. Those doctors and nurses should be allowed to get on with the business of delivering professional health services to those people in western Queensland who need them so much. In the minute I have left to me, I want to speak about rural tourism. Tourism in western Queensland has just been dealt a real death blow by some gutless coward who committed the despicable act of pouring poison on the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine. The Tree of Knowledge is very important to tourism in western Queensland—to the whole of Australia, for that matter. The Australian Labor Party was founded in Barcaldine after the great shearers’ strike of 1891. Not only that, the United Graziers Association, which is known as AgForce today, was also founded there. Councillor Pat Ogden, the president of the ALP in Barcaldine, and Councillor Robbie Chandler, the Mayor of Barcaldine, tell me that if that act has done anything, it has united forces not only in Barcaldine but also in western Queensland. I hope that gutless cur—whoever he is—gets a gutful of grog one day and spills the beans so that the police can apprehend him and bring him to justice. All he has done is commit a gross injustice on the people of Australia and democracy. Volunteers Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (9.47 pm): Since the parliament last sat I have been involved in three significant Ipswich events: the Ipswich Chamber of Commerce has celebrated its centenary; Ipswich Meals on Wheels, which was Queensland’s first, celebrated 50 years; and Mark and Gail Edwards, who are friends of mine and wonderful people, celebrated 15 years service to the Ipswich Region Community Church. The three events were different in that they represent milestones in business, community and church but they share a common thread in that they mark a continuing spirit of public service. I speak about them tonight because it concerns me that, as people become busier and more individualistic, that spirit of community and public service is under threat. At all three events I spoke to the people involved and asked them what made them do the things they do. Mark Edwards told me that the sense of community service was something that he, through his family, had learnt. He told me that he felt compelled to help what he called ‘the least’. Chamber President Craig Thomas said to me that he was drawn to ways in which he could help people and make a difference. A number of the Meals on Wheels volunteers told me that they had an extraordinary sense 2068 Attendance 25 May 2006 of fulfilment from going to people’s homes and making sure that they were OK. They said that in many cases the Meals on Wheels volunteer was the only person those old people saw all day. The thread that runs through all these people is the joy, the warmth and the spirit of helping other people. I raise this matter because it concerns me that that spirit is under threat. Even in Ipswich, which has a far higher rate of participation in volunteer organisations than do many other places, some organisations tell me that they struggle to find volunteers. Therefore, my call tonight is for people to volunteer; to embrace the spirit of helping others. The influential academic Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone laments the loss of the public. His American research identified that the rate at which people joined organisations, be they churches, business groups or bowling leagues, peaked in the 1950s and has been declining ever since. Research in Australia shows the same trend, which is exacerbated by a city-country divide in that about 42 per cent of people in regional areas volunteer compared to 10 per cent fewer people in the cities. We live in a materialistic society but we know in our hearts that no fulfilment can be found there. For instance, research shows that if our neighbour gets richer we will become less happy. But if our neighbour becomes happier—say by getting married—we become happier, too. On top of that, if we help our neighbours to become happier, the fulfilment delivered to us will be magnified. The best thing that any of us can do for our own happiness is to help someone else—to give them security or joy. That cannot be bought, but it is within our power to attain. I urge the people of Ipswich— indeed, the people of Queensland—including the people who move to these areas, to get involved in community, to maintain the spirit of public service and to help others. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.51 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Caltabiano, Choi, Clark E, Clark L, Copeland, Croft, Cummins, Cunningham E, Cunningham N, Douglas, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Keech, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Livingstone, Lucas, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Quinn, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts E, Roberts N, Robertson, Rogers, Rowell, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan C, Sullivan T, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson