PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Wednesday, 1 March 2006

ABSENCE OF MEMBERS FOR TOOWOOMBA SOUTH AND REDCLIFFE ...... 361 PETITION ...... 361 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 361 Sizzler Restaurants, Rat Poison ...... 361 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 361 Goods and Services Tax Revenue ...... 361 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 362 Australian Fisheries Management Authority ...... 362 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 363 State of the State ...... 363 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 367 First-Aid Courses ...... 367 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 367 Telstra ...... 367 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 368 Bird Flu ...... 368 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 368 Wolffdene Dam ...... 368 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 369 German Festival ...... 369 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 369 Queensland Health, Rural and Regional Accommodation ...... 369 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 370 QPRIME ...... 370 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 371 Gas Industry ...... 371 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 371 Child Protection ...... 371 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 372 WorkChoices ...... 372

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2006 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 1 March 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 372 Water Security ...... 372 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 373 ICT Industry, Government Contracts ...... 373 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 374 Public Transport System ...... 374 TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT OF QUEENSLAND ROAD RULES) BILL ...... 374 First Reading ...... 374 Second Reading ...... 374 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 376 Poole, Mr R ...... 376 Comments by Federal Minister for Health ...... 376 Beattie Labor Government; Gaven Electorate ...... 376 Irish Migrants ...... 377 Prince Charles Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 377 Telstra ...... 377 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 378 Gaven Electorate ...... 378 Gaven Electorate ...... 378 Taxation Inquiry ...... 379 Poole, Mr R ...... 380 Goods and Services Tax ...... 381 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 382 Gambling Community Benefit Fund ...... 382 Queensland Rail, Emergency Buttons ...... 382 Health Advice Hotline ...... 383 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 384 Pacific Motorway ...... 384 First-Aid Courses ...... 385 Gold Coast Stadium ...... 385 Shared Service Initiative ...... 386 Police Resources, Toowoomba ...... 387 Queensland Ambulance Service, Roma ...... 387 Telstra ...... 388 RETIREMENT VILLAGES AMENDMENT BILL ...... 389 Second Reading ...... 389 Consideration in Detail ...... 402 Third Reading ...... 407 INALA SHOPPING CENTRE FREEHOLDING BILL ...... 408 Second Reading ...... 408 Consideration in Detail ...... 416 Third Reading ...... 416 DRUG LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 416 Second Reading ...... 416 PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM ...... 427 RACING (RACE FIELDS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 438 Second Reading ...... 438 ADJOURNMENT ...... 460 Horse Riding in National Parks ...... 460 2006 Parliamentary Year ...... 461 Wild Rivers Legislation ...... 461 Disability Advocate, Ipswich ...... 462 Co-You Corporation, Currumbin Valley ...... 462 School Leaders; Lions Youth of the Year Quest ...... 463 Courier-Mail Article ...... 464 Logan PCYC ...... 464 Mirani Cluster Schools ...... 465 Caboolture Rugby Union Club ...... 465 01 Mar 2006 Legislative Assembly 361 WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2006

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

ABSENCE OF MEMBERS FOR TOOWOOMBA SOUTH AND REDCLIFFE Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (9.31 am): I wish to advise the parliament that the member for Toowoomba South and the member for Redcliffe are representing the opposition at the funeral of the Leader of the Opposition’s father.

PETITION

The following honourable member has lodged a paper petition for presentation—

Department of Child Safety, Procedures Mrs Menkens from 109 petitioners requesting the House to review the Department of Child Safety’s handling of a matter. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sizzler Restaurants, Rat Poison Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.32 am): The events surrounding the food tampering at Sizzler’s restaurants in Brisbane are a disgusting attack on one of this state’s most popular family restaurants. Police are investigating who was responsible for putting rat poison in Sizzler’s salad bars, which is an act of criminality. I am told that the amount of poison found in the samples tested by Sizzler makes it unlikely that anyone will have suffered serious harm from this criminal act. However, the attacks on Sizzler, the families who eat there and the people who rely on the restaurants for their income raise a larger question, and that is: should restaurants advise their customers of an attack of this nature? Should there be mandatory reporting, for example? No-one doubts that Queenslanders have a right to know if there is a real and immediate risk to their health which can be averted by avoiding a particular establishment. This must be balanced, of course, by the welfare of the employees, the hundreds of Queenslanders who rely on Sizzler for their income and the likelihood of any deliberate tampering occurring again. In other words, we have to be careful about hoaxes. A public announcement of potential risk, no matter how low, has the potential to destroy jobs. As a community, we need to find a balance between the right to know and the need to protect jobs. The Minister for Health, Stephen Robertson, is seeking an urgent meeting with the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association to begin discussion on this very issue. That meeting will discuss the toughening up of the Food Act including the introduction of mandatory reporting, forcing restaurants to hold samples of contaminated food to allow Queensland Health to conduct urgent testing, and new protocols to ensure restaurants have clear guidelines to follow if they are the victims of suspected food tampering. This would include information on when Queensland Health and the Queensland police are to be informed. This shocking criminal act is an attack on hundreds of Queenslanders. We will work with the restaurant and catering industry to ensure we do all we can to protect Queensland diners from this type of illegal activity. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Goods and Services Tax Revenue Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.34 am): The Commonwealth Grants Commission will release its 2006 update report today at 5 pm. The Treasurer will comment in more detail on this report this afternoon but, as I have already indicated, our share of GST revenue is set to be substantially slashed. Ironically, because we lead the country in economic growth, we are set to be penalised. Money will be siphoned off to other states and territories that are not performing as well as Queensland. The new figures will make a mockery of the whingeing by New South Wales and Victoria that Queensland receives favoured treatment. I am certainly not happy, but our government will continue to support the system of horizontal fiscal equalisation used by the Grants Commission. The grants are determined by a formula that takes into account a number of factors, and it is independent, it is fair and it is equitable. However, this certainly is not the case when we look at other revenue sources from the Howard government. 362 Ministerial Statement 01 Mar 2006

In the vital area of specific purpose payments, we are set to receive $269 million less than our per capita share this financial year. Given that Queensland accounts for nearly one-third of Australia’s population growth, we should be receiving a higher per capita share of specific purpose payments, and certainly not less. I offer two key examples where we are being ripped off. Firstly, I table for the information of members a table comparing the relative contribution to public hospitals over the 10 years from 1998-99 to 2007-08, covering the current and previous Australian Health Care Agreements. In that time, the state contribution will increase from $1.069 billion in 1998-99 to $2.369 billion this year and reach $2.857 billion by 2007-08. That is a cumulative increase of 158 per cent, or equivalent to an average annual growth of 11 per cent. Over the same period the Commonwealth contribution will increase from $1.046 billion in 1998-99 to $1.602 billion this year and reach only $1.812 billion by 2007-08. That is a cumulative increase of only 73 per cent or about six per cent per year. Whereas in 1998-99 the Commonwealth funded nearly 50 per cent of our public hospitals in Queensland, by 2007-08 that share will have fallen to less than 40 per cent. The second example is the key area of infrastructure. The Commonwealth has dramatically reduced its commitment to infrastructure in the past 10 years or so. In 1993-94 the Commonwealth funded, either directly through its own expenditures or as a result of capital grants to state and local government, a total capital budget of nearly $9.5 billion. This represents about 2.1 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product. By 2003-04 under the Howard-Costello government that total capital budget plummeted to only $7.5 billion, less than one per cent of the gross domestic product. In Queensland its contribution to our state capital program has dropped from 28 per cent in 1993-94 to a miserly six per cent this financial year. The Howard government is ignoring the needs of the fastest growing state in the country. It needs to recognise the remarkable growth in the Smart State and play its part in providing services and infrastructure for Queenslanders right across the whole state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Australian Fisheries Management Authority Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.37 am): Responsibility for detecting, apprehending and processing illegal foreign fishing vessels rests with the Commonwealth government. The Navy and Australian Customs Service—that is, Coastwatch—detect and apprehend foreign fishing vessels while the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has the responsibility for processing the crews, collecting evidence and, if necessary, prosecuting individuals. For many years the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has contracted state Fisheries staff to deliver these important services on a cost recovery basis. In Queensland, these services are currently being performed by the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. After April this year, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority will be directly delivering these services, with Queensland no longer involved. The authority’s response headquarters for foreign fishing vessels will be located in Darwin, and it plans to station three staff on Thursday Island. We are concerned that the change may reduce the work being done in this area at a time when the problem of illegal fishing is in fact increasing, not decreasing—and you would know that, Mr Speaker, as the member for Mount Isa. Last year the number of foreign fishing vessels detected in Australian waters increased considerably, with 280 apprehensions and 327 legislative forfeitures. These involve seizing the catch and gear but releasing the vessel and crew. Already in 2006 there have been 47 apprehensions and 29 legislative forfeitures. Of these, 16 apprehensions and 18 legislative forfeitures were in waters off Queensland. I understand the vessels have been mostly of Indonesian origin and the species they are targeting is usually shark, with the shark fin attracting prices between $100 and $120 a kilogram. Another worrying issue is that it has been estimated that less than 10 per cent of the illegal fishing vessels are ever caught. In Queensland, foreign fishing vessels are being seen in increasing numbers in the southern parts of the Gulf of Carpentaria, more recently in eastern Torres Strait and even the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I am aware that the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments are extremely concerned that, far from this problem being solved, things actually appear to be getting worse. Mr O’Brien: Out of control. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection from the member for Cook because this is right off his coastline, and he has firsthand experience of it. The Queensland government and the fishing industry have made difficult and costly decisions in recent years to ensure that our fisheries are sustained. Failure by the Commonwealth to grapple with illegal fishing head-on will be disastrous for the Queensland fishing industry and our future fish stocks. 01 Mar 2006 Ministerial Statement 363

We have a new federal fisheries minister, Senator Eric Abetz. The senator needs to look beyond Canberra to our significant northern waters, which should be his highest priority. I signal to the federal government today that we will be pursuing this matter directly. Unless we get some significant improvement in services we will make it a very, very public issue because, frankly, I think our fishing services, our fishers across the state, are entitled to better protection, and so is our Barrier Reef.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

State of the State Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.41 am): I want to provide an update to the State of the State report that I gave to the House when parliament sat last. For a decade now the Queensland economy has outperformed the Australian average, and this financial year, to 30 June 2006, is not expected to be any different. We are looking at growth of 4.25 per cent for the year compared with three per cent for Australia as a whole. Trend unemployment is running at five per cent— less than half what it was in 1997 and less than the 5.2 per cent rate recorded by the rest of Australia. Moody’s have just confirmed the state’s international AAA credit rating, the highest possible, and business investment continues to boom, rising 5.4 per cent in the quarter to 30 September 2005 and 11.3 per cent for the year to that date. That is why, in terms of growth, my government has prepared the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 and the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. We are looking at more than 230 projects in south-east Queensland worth up to $55 billion, the largest such program outlined in Australia since Federation. In the first 10 years, that investment will total $35 billion. That is such a large commitment that some have questioned whether the engineering and construction sector has the capacity to deliver it. While there will inevitably be pressures in the short term as firms adjust to the workload, I am confident that the market will respond to the opportunities before them and gear up as quickly as they can. Today I will be addressing the Property Council lunch, and during that lunch I will advise that the government understands that this gearing up process will be much easier if industry has a clear understanding of the timetable for delivering the various projects and is confident that agencies will keep to that timetable. Managing such a timetable across a broad range of projects is a complex task, and that is why the Coordinator-General has set up a program management office for the infrastructure plan. It is a high-powered task force made up of private sector program management specialists and government officials who will drive the implementation of the plan. They will not only monitor their progress but also help find solutions to any issues that arise to ensure that the projects meet their objectives and are delivered on time and on budget. The program management office will pay particular attention to the scheduling and sequencing of projects to ensure that there is an even flow of work across the years to reduce any strain on supply markets. The government is gearing up to ensure that the SEQ Infrastructure Plan rolls out like clockwork. We will be refining the infrastructure plan on a regular basis, with a 2006 version due to be released in mid-May. In terms of my report on the State of the State, I also include information on transport infrastructure, the Gold Coast Cruise Terminal, the Townsville Ocean Terminal, the Brisbane Cruise Terminal, the Tennyson State Tennis Centre development, North Bank, Wacol Westgate, the review by the minister for local government of the Integrated Planning Act or IPA, and a range of other matters. I seek leave to incorporate all those details—which I will address to the Property Council—in Hansard for the information of all in the House. Leave granted. I know the Property Council has raised concerns about how we compare on property prices with other states, but I think there are other factors that need to be considered. Per capita collections of State taxes in Queensland are estimated at $1,735, compared with the weighted average of the other States of $2,163. NSW and Vic residents estimated to pay $584 and $331 more per capita in State taxes, respectively, than Queenslanders in 2005- 06. This does NOT include the benefit Queenslanders receive from our $500 Million Fuel Subsidy Scheme! The overall tax burden of other States is forecast to be 25% higher, on average, than Queensland in 2005-06. Queensland’s transfer duty rates continue to compare very favourably with rates in other jurisdictions. Even with the increases commencing 1 July 2006, Queensland’s transfer duty for transactions between $250,000 and $1 million will be the lowest in Australia. The transfer duty here on (non-first) home purchases is significantly lower than other States. And the transfer duty on a median priced capital city first home is amongst the lowest in Australia. Amongst the States, Queensland has the highest effective land tax exemption threshold for individuals, and the second highest for companies. In a media statement last month, the Property Council’s Robert Walker noted that Brisbane is on the verge of a construction boom. 364 Ministerial Statement 01 Mar 2006

He said: "The twin impacts of rapidly rising demand and rising rents have been the trigger we have been waiting for. "Queensland is definitely the place to invest, and we are already seeing investors and developers from across the country turning their eyes to Brisbane." In 2005, Queensland’s population reached 4 million people and we’re expecting one million more new Queenslanders in the south east corner alone by 2026. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last month show that Queensland’s population grew by 75,900 people in the year to June 30, 2005, making us by far the fastest growing state or territory. We’re looking at more than 230 projects in south east Queensland worth up to $55 billion, the largest such program outlined in Australia since Federation. In the first 10 years, that investment will total $35 billion. That’s such a large commitment that some have questioned whether the engineering and construction sector has the capacity to deliver it. While there will inevitably be pressures in the short term as firms adjust to the workload, I’m confident that the market will respond to the opportunities before them, and "gear up" as quickly as they can. The government understands that this "gearing up" process will be much easier if industry has a clear understanding of the timetable for delivering the various projects, and a confidence that agencies will keep to that timetable. Managing such a timetable across a broad range of projects is a complex task, and that is why the Coordinator-General has set up a Program Management Office for the infrastructure plan. It’s a high powered taskforce, made up of private sector program management specialists and government officials who will drive the implementation of the plan. They will not only monitor their progress, but also help find solutions to any issues that arise, to ensure the projects meet their objectives and are delivered on time and on budget. The Program Management Office will pay particular attention to the scheduling and sequencing of projects to ensure there is an even flow of work across the years, to reduce any strain on supply markets. So the government is gearing up to ensure the SEQ Infrastructure Plan rolls out like clockwork. We’ll be refining the infrastructure plan on a regular basis, with the 2006 version due to be released in mid-May. This version will include a full update on progress and further detail regarding the future program, including a couple of new categories of infrastructure. In the meantime, we’re getting on with the job. The government has made significant capital investments in the first six months of 2005-06 and is well on the way to achieving the record $8 billion of capital investment across the state announced in the budget. Transport infrastructure is a major component of the infrastructure plan and we’ve spent more than $30 million on four major road projects so far this financial year—upgrading the Bruce Highway between Boundary Road and Caboolture, the Caboolture Northern Bypass, Hope Island Road upgrade, and the Nerang Broadbeach Road upgrade. Submissions from potential partners have just closed for the delivery of rail projects worth $665 million, which Queensland Rail proposes to complete between 2009 and 2012. They include: Caboolture to Beerburrum duplication, Robina to Reedy Creek extension, Corinda to Darra third track, and the Beerburrum to Landsborough duplication. One method of delivering infrastructure is through Public Private Partnerships. My government has been steadily advancing this method of application and, while some might like to see the pace quickened, these are complex arrangements and we need to ensure the state is getting value for money, particularly with the first few projects. I have been pleased with the results to date. The Southbank TAFE PPP is a good value for money outcome—coming in some 7 per cent below comparable public sector projects. The Axiom consortium is developing a good relationship with the TAFE and construction of some of the 11 new buildings is underway. There is a wide range of other projects where we are working with the property sector to try to find smart ways to deliver new services and achieve positive outcomes for the economic development of Queensland. These are also, in my view, a form of public private partnership. I will give you a few examples: The Gold Coast Cruise Terminal We commenced in October last year an Environmental Impact Statement process in accordance with the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. We have consulted widely on the Terms of Reference, and the technical studies to support the EIS will commence in the near future. Also, in October 2005, the State commenced a two stage competitive process for a Gold Coast Marine Development Project (cruise terminal, marina and tourism development). We have received 9 Expressions of Interest, which are currently being reviewed. It’s anticipated a Preferred Developer will be nominated before the end of this year. These represent a mix of successful Gold Coast developers and prominent national players—a real vote of confidence in the project. 01 Mar 2006 Ministerial Statement 365

The proposed redevelopment represents a balance between public space and recreational and tourism facilities. The development consists of: A preservation program for Doug Jennings Park and the western arm of the Marine Stadium The provision of recreational facilities for public use A protection and enhancement program for Federation Walk and nature reserves in the Seaworld Drive area A cruise ship terminal Construction of a marina facility for super yachts, recreational and commercial vessels The development of 6.2ha of State land south of Seaworld. Construction of the cruise terminal should commence in 2008 and be completed by 2010. The Townsville Ocean Terminal My Government has approved a development agreement with Tabcorp and Consolidated Properties as preferred developer for the project which will include the terminal as well as a residential/tourism development. The proponents are now working on the Environmental Impact Study, & negotiating contractual and planning arrangements with us for the project. It is anticipated the ocean terminal’s construction will commence in mid-2007 and be completed by mid-2009. The Brisbane Cruise Terminal Following a competitive bidding process, the State has entered into contractual arrangements with Multiplex, for the development and operation of a cruise ship terminal at Hamilton. Multiplex is responsible for delivery of the ‘Portside Wharf’ project, which includes up to 400 residential units, and commercial/ retail facilities in a $350 million development. The cruise terminal will be owned by Multiplex and will be capable of operating as a base port or transit stop for cruise ships of up to 270m in length, navy vessels and super yachts. Construction of the cruise ship terminal and the first stage of the associated residential and retail facilities is proceeding on track and is expected to be complete around the middle of this year. The Tennyson State Tennis Centre Development This year, construction is expected to commence on a new major sports venue, the State Tennis Centre at Tennyson. This development marks a new era for tennis in Queensland, and will provide a 7,000 seat, international-standard centre court, and 22 match and training courts. It will be home for the Queensland Academy of Sport’s tennis program. The site of the former Tennyson power station is currently being redeveloped by Mirvac, following a competitive bid process in 2005. The Tennyson Riverside Development involves the construction of the State Tennis Centre, as well as several apartment blocks adjacent to the tennis centre, providing high quality residential accommodation on the Brisbane River. It has recently been announced that the land adjacent to the Tennyson site will be released by the State Government for development through a competitive process, following the removal of existing State Government buildings in a few years time to alternative facilities. This land will be used to provide complementary recreational facilities to the State Tennis Centre as well as providing a mix of commercial and residential opportunities. North Bank The Northbank project will revitalise the Northern side of the Brisbane River, parallel to the existing South East Freeway. Northbank will include a mixture of public use, commercial, retail and residential spaces, and be designed to enhance use and appreciation of the River. Northbank will be designed to complement the existing Southbank development, and will further enhance Brisbane’s reputation as the ‘River City’. Numerous community consultations and workshops have been undertaken, resulting in the development of the Northbank Preferred Strategic Plan. The plan envisages the project being delivered in a series of stages, with the initial stage extending from the Victoria Bridge east to Alice St. Stage One of the Northbank project is currently at Expression of Interest stage. Four submissions were received and these are now being evaluated by The Coordinator-General’s team. A decision on the short list is expected to be made by the Government in about 4 weeks. Detailed site investigations of the site and river bed are now underway. The tourist vessels currently located at North Bank are also being relocated during this next month. The site is being cleared to enable these investigations to be undertaken immediately. A condition survey of the SE Freeway is also to be undertaken. However, the City Cat Ferry Terminal will remain operational and pedestrian and cycle access maintained through the site. Wacol Westgate As you no doubt are aware, The Government is investigating options for developing the Westgate site west of Brisbane, bounded by the Ipswich Motorway, Centenary Highway, Wolston Creek, Brisbane River, and Woogaroo Creek. It contains about six kilometres of undeveloped riverfront and prime land for high quality residential and community use at the entrance to Brisbane’s Western Corridor. We have been consulting widely with the community and other stakeholders to prepare a strategic plan which will make the best long term use of the area and ensures transport infrastructure will be available to serve the needs of forecast population levels over the next 20 years. The project team is evaluating feedback from the consultation and deriving an amended strategic plan to be considered further by the Government. A draft strategic plan is expected to be released for a further 3 month stakeholder consultation program in about 3 months time. The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan contains a number of projects which have potential as PPPs, and the government has been carefully assessing them. Today, I can tell you that we are considering a range of projects which the government will explore as potential PPPs over the coming year or so. 366 Ministerial Statement 01 Mar 2006

The list of impending South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan Transport Projects to be assessed under the Value for Money framework include: • Airport Link ($1.5 billion). This business case is scheduled for completion mid-2006. • Toowoomba Range Bypass ($680 million). The business case will commence once timing and conditions of federal funding of $10 million are finalised. • Springfield to Darra road and rail corridor ($760 million). This is being investigated as a package project. • A decision in relation to a possible early start to the business case for the Gold Coast Mass Transit project ($490 million) project will be made shortly. • Eastern Busway ($530 million). The business case will commence during 2006 once route options become clearer from public consultation. In a range of key social infrastructure projects, business case assessments will commence during 2006 on: • The Sunshine Coast package of schools ($791 million). • Western Corridor package of schools ($315 million); and, • Gold Coast Hospital ($500 million). The business case will commence after health service requirements have been identified. I’m sure you will be pleased my government has moved to improve the operation of the Integrated Planning Act (IPA). Planning Minister Desley Boyle will hold a summit meeting of interested parties on March 14—organisations including the Property Council have been invited to attend. In addition, written submissions will be accepted up to the 31st of March. The Act has been in operation for nearly eight years and it was intended to streamline the approvals process for new developments. Previously, a development could require up to 60 different approvals from local authorities and government agencies. The act requires local authorities to put in place a blueprint setting out the rules for development in their region, but we’ve still been hearing complaints about bureaucratic delays and complex processes. Now, faced with the State’s unprecedented growth, we clearly can’t move forward in that sort of environment. We must fix the IPA, make it more efficient and simpler. At the same time, we want to clarify planners’ and councillors’ roles and responsibilities. Industry organisations, conservation groups, Queensland Law Society representatives and representatives from local government and state agencies will be invited to attend and put their views forward. You will be aware that, on February 1 this year, I relinquished the portfolios of Treasury and Sport in order to more fully concentrate on dealing with the fundamental issues facing the people of Queensland. Demand for water grows with the population and when that’s combined with the worst drought on record the situation becomes extremely serious. So I’ve established a special taskforce to deal with water infrastructure, which primarily includes staff from the Office of the Coordinator-General and the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water. Staff from other government departments and agencies will be seconded as required and this agency will work with a team of project managers from the private sector with expertise in the efficient delivery of major projects. This new body’s immediate priority is the accelerated delivery of essential water infrastructure in south east Queensland. Its task will be made easier as a result of amendments to Queensland’s Water Act, passed last November, which give the state government increased powers to deal with any future water crisis, ranging from the imposition of water restrictions to implementing long term projects like dams and major maintenance programs. We have already announced two major projects in the south east that could provide an additional 110 million litres of water a day, about 10 per cent of the combined daily average consumption of water from the Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine Dams. These projects are the Cedar Grove Weir on the Logan River near Jimboomba and a water recycling system that would supply the Swanbank Power Station and, at a later stage, perhaps Tarong. They’re expected to be in place by 2008 and they may be complemented by other possible projects outlined in the Stage Two Interim Report of the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy, including: Regional desalination on the Gold Coast, Recommissioning both Enoggera Dam and Lake Manchester, Investigating the possible use of minor aquifers for emergency supplies around Brisbane, Regional pressure reduction and leakage management, and Possibly mandating rainwater tanks in new homes for toilet and external use. The Coordinator-General has also declared the $250 million Southern Regional Water Pipeline proposal a "significant project" and he will coordinate all approvals necessary to ensure its progress. This project would enable efficient water transfers between Wivenhoe Dam, the proposed Wyaralong Dam, Cedar Creek Weir and possible future desalination facilities and existing supplies on the Gold Coast. The project would take 10 years to complete and it would create a network of pipelines supported by three pumping stations and connection points between the Hinze and Wivenhoe Dams. That would allow south east Queensland to respond efficiently to drought shortages and supply the booming growth corridors linking Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Logan and Beaudesert. So far I have not mentioned the state of the Queensland health system. It’s one of those issues that affects all sectors of the population, while at the same time involving each sector of government— local, state and federal—and underpinned by some very serious philosophical considerations. There are a number of ongoing issues, not the least of which is the Australia-wide shortage of health professionals. 01 Mar 2006 Ministerial Statement 367

We have undertaken several measures to address this problem, including advertising for health professionals internationally and putting pressure on the Federal Government to increase the numbers of places available at universities for Australians wanting to work in health. Our health action plan sets a clear direction for Queensland. We’ve committed $6.4 billion over five years to renew services, systems and structures. In the next 18 months, we’ll be recruiting an additional 1,200 staff for the public health system, including 300 doctors, 500 nurses and 400 allied health professionals. These measures should alleviate current shortages, but we’re also planning for the long term future, including funding some medical school places with a bonding arrangement to ensure they spend some time working in regional Queensland. We face significant challenges ahead in providing the levels of infrastructure and services needed by a rapidly growing State. But I’m confident that we will meet those challenges because the government is providing good leadership and planning, the private sector is providing world class expertise and we have a strong economy.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

First-Aid Courses Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.44 am): The Minister for Emergency Services, Pat Purcell, today will highlight the importance of first-aid courses. More than 70,000 Queenslanders completed first-aid training last year to provide a vital lifeline in times of unexpected and life-threatening emergencies. I understand a number of those people have already put what they have learnt into practice, having saved the lives of their children, parents and most often the lives of complete strangers. Saving a life can be a personally rewarding community service, and I commend those in our community who have taken the initiative and learnt how to do it. Today at Parliament House the Queensland Ambulance Service is launching its new suite of first- aid courses. As a government, we are committed to creating a safer, smarter Queensland, and the Ambulance Service plays a critical role in achieving that. These training courses have undergone a comprehensive review and feature the very latest in life-saving techniques and clinical applications. I therefore believe it is timely to encourage more Queenslanders to enrol in this training so they are best equipped to save lives in an emergency. First-aid training is an investment in the future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Telstra Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.45 am): I want to draw to the attention of the House my concern about the recent report in the media that Telstra is planning to reduce the number of payphones in the national network by 5,000 phones. This news is very concerning to my government as it will reduce Queenslanders’ access to basic payphone services which are vitally important to many people in the state, particularly in rural and regional areas. While it is true that the number of mobile phones and the mobile phone coverage throughout Australia has increased in recent years, not all sectors of the community have access to a mobile phone. Mobile phone users continue to use payphones when their mobile credit or phone battery has run out or when they need to make important calls and do not want to be cut off unexpectedly. Even ownership of a mobile phone is no guarantee that there will be network coverage, and that includes some CBDs. For many people, especially the elderly, who do not have access to a home phone or mobile phone, payphones fulfil a crucial role in providing basic communication services within rural, regional and metropolitan areas. In its quest to improve profitability at all costs, Telstra is threatening the provision of a basic telecommunication service to the general community. Telstra should be aiming to improve telecommunication services throughout Australia, not reducing services. It is incumbent upon the federal government to protect the rights of people to have access to these basic, but essential, payphone services. The federal government needs to take the appropriate steps to ensure that Telstra continues to provide minimum essential telecommunication services to all areas. My government would therefore support an urgent review of the Universal Service Obligation Payphone Location Criteria to ensure that the community is not disadvantaged by Telstra’s cost cutting. This latest plan by Telstra to reduce the number of payphones is another example of why my government has opposed, and will continue to oppose, the full privatisation of Telstra due to concerns about reduced service levels. 368 Ministerial Statement 01 Mar 2006

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Bird Flu Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.47 am): The threats of outbreaks of avian influenza overseas in recent years have increased the need for governments to have a worldwide plan for the possibility of an influenza pandemic occurring. I made it clear that the Queensland government has been working with key stakeholders regarding this. I would like to table information in relation to that and incorporate details in Hansard so that members are up to date about the plans. Leave granted. There have been recent reports on the spread of avian flu into Europe and there is a potential for migratory birds to introduce the disease into this country. However, at this stage, we have had no reports of the H5N1 subtype in wild birds or domestic poultry anywhere in Australia. But there is a possibility that migratory birds could bring the disease here, and poultry farmers are implementing biosecurity strategies so that if that does happen, they can reduce the risk of it entering domestic poultry flocks. The Queensland Government has made information available on the internet to inform Queenslanders of the facts. The first fact sheet talks about how we are preparing for a possible pandemic. Other fact sheets deal with avian flu in humans and frequently asked questions about avian flu and about pandemic flu. This information can be accessed by going to www.qld.gov.au then click the health and communities box, then click on “health” and finally, click on “avian influenza”.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wolffdene Dam Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.47 am): Finally, I notice that we have had some nonsense about the history of the cancellation of the Wolffdene Dam. I table for the House a Hansard record in relation to it, together with the Water Infrastructure Planning and Development Plan 1997-1998 to 2001-02. I seek leave to incorporate a statement in Hansard for the information of all members. Leave granted. It is time to set the record straight about the Wolffdene Dam. The National Party has been saying that plans to build a Wolffdene Dam should never have been cancelled but that it is now off the radar. The State Coalition Government had the chance to include the Wolffdene Dam in its planning between 1996 and 1998. In July 1997 it released its unfunded Water Infrastructure Implementation Plan. The list of projects in the plan does not include any mention of a dam at Wolffdene. The plan was handed down by the Member for Warrego as Minister for Natural Resources. The Liberal Leader was in Cabinet. When the Member for Warrego was sacked from Cabinet in February 1998, the current Opposition Leader became Minister for Natural Resources. He did not do anything to put the Wolffdene Dam back on the agenda. The fact is three successive Queensland Governments have rejected the proposal to build the Wolffdene Dam. The Wolffdene Dam proposal was a poor option. Governments of both sides have recognised that. Studies undertaken since it was first proposed have indicated original estimates were ambitious. The Labor Party is blamed or credited—depending on your perspective—for not pursuing the Wolffdene Dam. It was Liberal Leader Angus Innes who moved a motion in this place prior to the 1989 State election demanding the then Government “not proceed with the construction or planning of the Wolffdene dam in any way, now or at any time in the future”. Mr Innes cited “social upheaval” and “environmental and social impact” for his opposition. And, anyway, the Liberal Leader said that there was no evidence that the dam would be needed until the year 2050. Mr Innes, with the support in this Parliament of new Howard Government Minister Santo Santoro, made the strongest commitment of all on Wolffdene Dam—a binding, long-term core promise. Mr Innes said in moving the motion against the dam and I quote: “The Liberal Party wishes it to be clear that it will not support, now or in the future, the building of a dam at Wolffdene”. So let us have no more theatrics and hand-wringing from the inheritors of the Innes declaration—the Member for Chatsworth and others in the Liberal Party. No Party in this Parliament supports the Wolffdene Dam. Only my Government—only Labor—has a comprehensive plan, involving new water infrastructure, to secure water supplies for south-east Queensland. Only my Government—only Labor—has the genuine commitment to work with local councils to secure water supplies for south- east Queensland. The Opposition has no credible planning policy and no genuine commitment to providing water solutions. 01 Mar 2006 Ministerial Statement 369

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

German Festival Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.48 am): This week Queensland plays host to its first official German Festival, and it stands to benefit from the business networks, trade alliances and friendships made during the coming six weeks. At the festival launch this Thursday evening, I will officially welcome a delegation of leaders from 10 major German organisations. With its 82 million people, Germany has the second largest population in Europe behind Russia and has the world’s third largest economy after the United States and Japan. Obviously there are significant opportunities for reciprocal investment arrangements. More than 15 years after reunification, the emerging modern Germany’s economy is stronger than ever and could provide Queensland with the opportunity to access many commercial opportunities in central and eastern Europe. Led by Bavaria’s Vice Minister from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Dr Hans Spitzner, a delegation to the festival includes members from the German Aerospace Centre, the German Engineering Federation, and the Bavarian Tourism Marketing and Foreign Trade Promotion. There are also industry representatives from the mechatronics, biotechnology, new materials and geodetic satellite navigation sectors. Bavaria is recognised as a leader in high-tech knowledge based industries and, like Queensland, is the powerhouse state of its own nation. As Queensland moves forward under our Smart State strategy, Bavaria benefits from its high-tech offensive. This festival is a catalyst for partnerships between the two states. From a Queensland business perspective, the major event of the festival is Friday’s Trade and Technology Showcase. Our German visitors will see Queensland’s world-renowned capabilities in the aviation industry, computer software, communications, mining industry services, satellite technology, biotechnology and medical research. The Queensland government has identified the key German target markets as medical and scientific instruments, satellite navigation, avionics and aviation, clean coal and new energy technologies, and information and communication technology. This festival follows our successful trade mission to Germany in November when nine Queensland companies participated in Medica, the premier European medical forum, creating significant interest in our medical and scientific innovations. The festival is not just about trade and investment opportunities, it is also an opportunity to share in German culture, art, music and literature. The festival will include a series of classical music concerts, theatrical performances, poetry readings and tours of early German settlement in Queensland. The minister for sport will be pleased to know that local football fans will also have the chance to catch a taste of world cup fever that is about to strike Germany in June. The festival will include soccer tournaments, goal shooting competitions, a ‘planet football’ photographic exhibition and screenings of soccer movies that will provide a slice of the approaching world cup excitement. The finale will be the Festival of German Films at the end of April. This festival, coupled with the modern Germany web site, is about changing the perceptions that we have of each other. I thank the German consul general to Australia, Dr Guenter Gruber, who has been a tireless worker to make this festival a success and I thank his government for selecting Queensland as the venue for this very significant event. I can assure them that they will not be disappointed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Health, Rural and Regional Accommodation Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.51 am): In the Beattie government’s $6.4 billion health action plan we announced that $32 million would be spent purchasing quality accommodation for regional Queensland health staff. The funds form a crucial part of our plans to attract the best possible health professionals to our regional hospitals. It was in a direct response to concerns expressed about the quality of accommodation for our country doctors, nurses and allied health staff. I am pleased to inform the House that we have poured an extra $59 million into the regional accommodation program. That brings the total funding to some $91 million and significantly increases our original target from 80 to 280 homes throughout regional and remote Queensland. When this rollout is complete we hope to house more than 420 Queensland Health staff, mostly doctors and nurses, in convenient and comfortable dwellings we have either built, purchased or renovated. Much of this additional housing stock is required for relieving medical and nursing staff, medical superintendents, directors of nursing and permanent clinical staff in areas of need. Queensland Health currently owns some 600 homes but many would fall short of the quality expected to attract good doctors and nurses to our state. Since the initial announcement, my department has completed a detailed assessment of accommodation needs across the state, but we 370 Ministerial Statement 01 Mar 2006 aim to provide new and better housing on our books in areas from Goondiwindi to the Torres Strait. Priority has been given to regional and remote locations, particularly where there is difficulty in accessing readily available rental accommodation. In locations where no suitable housing stock is available and on the market a construction program will be implemented. This is about lifting the level of accommodation to an appropriate standard, a standard which will not disadvantage those doctors and nurses who make a commitment to live and work in regional and remote areas for the care of patients. I anticipate to have the first nine units and seven houses under contract soon, depending on suitable stock being available on the market, and a further 30 houses and units under contract by the end of March. This is one of many measures the Beattie government is undertaking to support our regional health services. It follows the announcement of an urgent program to replace equipment at our hospitals and the trial of clinical CEOs at Rockhampton and Cairns hospitals to provide clinical leadership in those districts and surrounding areas. It also comes on top of significant pay increases for senior doctors in our rural and regional hospitals. For example, medical superintendents with right of private practice at small rural hospitals now receive an inaccessibility incentive on top of their other payments and benefits to live in rural and remote areas. The inaccessibility incentive payments range up to $41,400 a year depending on the remoteness of their location. All of these initiatives demonstrate that our government is getting on with the job of rebuilding our public health system whether one lives in the city or the bush.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

QPRIME Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (9.54 am): I am pleased to be announcing today a new tactical weapon for police in their fight against crime. Next month the Queensland Police Service will implement a new statewide intelligence network. This intelligence network will be implemented alongside the rollout of a new information management system designed to make it faster and easier for police across the state to access information when investigating crimes. The new system will significantly reduce the time police spend to enter data in their computers. For example, if an officer is processing an arrest for an offender on a drug possession charge, they will type the offender’s details in the computer once, instead of filling in more than 20 different forms as they do currently. This single computer entry will then instantly update all electronic files held by police on that offender. This new system is called the Queensland Police Records and Information Management Exchange, or QPRIME. So far, this government has spent more than $35 million on QPRIME. Once fully operational, QPRIME will replace 230 different databases and indices used to store police information into one state-of-the-art system. The first stage of QPRIME’s rollout will take effect in April. For the first time, all police officers will have the IT capability to share critical information anywhere, anytime. For example, police will have immediate access to more than 350,000 mug shots, 470,000 offender entries, digital boundary maps and advanced geographical information systems. Officers will also have instant access to files on missing persons, sudden deaths, traffic accidents and complaints and Crime Stoppers files. The new streamlined information system will also break down the distance between police in different corners of the state and further assist police to prevent, detect and solve crimes at a neighbourhood, regional and state level. Police officers in Gympie, for example, will have access to the same information as officers in Cairns. Police will also be able to use QPRIME to ‘flag’ any vehicle, person or address in Queensland. This means that if a person of interest to Brisbane police is stop-checked by police in Townsville, intelligence officers will be immediately alerted and this information will be recorded. In addition to helping our frontline police, this system will be used to link more than 340 officers who are involved in gathering and analysing intelligence information. The second phase of the system’s rollout, which will commence early next year, will allow the intelligence network to study crime trends from a whole of Queensland point of view. In terms of crime- fighting, this will provide police officers with a one-stop shop for information about offenders, repeat incidents and crime trends. For the first time, police will be able to log on to the one computerised system in order to immediately obtain and share information. And for the first time large-scale crime trends in any part of the state will be identified in real time, instead of retrospectively. This will help the police to identify crime hot spots and target problem areas at certain times of the year when crimes may typically increase. 01 Mar 2006 Ministerial Statement 371

As members well know, the fight against crime has no finish line; it also has no borders. Considerable police resources are spent tracking offences and offenders between regions. The Queensland Police Service’s new intelligence network represents a big investment in community safety and should make it even harder for criminals to commit offences on the run.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Gas Industry Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (9.58 am): The gas industry in Queensland has come a long way in recent years, thanks mainly to the government’s initiative with the 13 per cent gas scheme. The 13 per cent gas scheme was a major plank of the May 2000 Queensland Energy Policy and I am pleased to advise the House that it has significantly increased gas demand in the state and led to major industry development. The 13 per cent scheme requires liable parties to source 13 per cent of the electricity they sell in Queensland from gas-fired generation and it has played a major role in the rapid growth of both the natural gas and the coal seam gas industry by increasing market demand for gas. In 2000, when the 13 per cent scheme was announced, total market demand for gas in Queensland was less than 65 petajoules a year and the coal seam gas industry was in its infancy, with commercial production of just two petajoules or three per cent of that gas. This year, we expect total market demand for gas in Queensland to exceed 120 petajoules and coal seam gas will produce over 50 petajoules of that gas. Coal seam gas reserves now exceed 5,000 petajoules. I am advised that this figure will increase substantially as a result of major drilling programs being undertaken by coal seam gas producers. But the worth of Queensland’s gas industry can be demonstrated by more than just these hard figures. We have only to look at the new players in the Queensland gas market and the activity in financial markets around gas to realise that investors see it not just as a viable industry but also as a long-term investment prospect. Just last week Santos announced a $1.5 billion plan to develop its oil and gas assets in western Queensland by the end of the decade. Origin Energy has also affirmed its commitment to gas in Queensland through its recent $70 million buy-out of Pangaea Oil and Gas’s coal seam gas assets. This is in addition to the development of the Spring Gully gas fields where Origin has already spent in excess of $200 million and has committed to spend an additional $100 million. If the Spring Gully power station development gets the go-ahead, Origin will spend a further $870 million. It is clear that as a direct result of the 13 per cent gas scheme initiative, investment dollars are pouring into the state’s gas and power industries largely in regional areas, such as the Darling Downs and north Queensland, and they are benefiting from the infrastructure and jobs they bring. It is ironic that those opposite opposed this scheme and actually voted against it in this place. It is now being very clearly demonstrated how short-sighted and wrong they were. We are committed to continuing to grow the gas markets. As a clean-burning fuel, gas will play a large role in helping Queensland meet the challenges of providing for increasing energy needs while reducing our greenhouse intensity. Right now, there are over 2,000 megawatts of gas-fired generation projects in Queensland in various stages of development or consideration, including AGL’s proposal for a power station in Townsville. AGL’s proposed Townsville power station is to be fuelled by conventional natural gas supplied from the PNG gas project, and this highlights that it is not just the coal seam gas industry that benefits from the 13 per cent scheme. New gas supply sources for Queensland, support for Queensland gas producers, new gas infrastructure, new gas-fired generators and an improved greenhouse gas position—these are great outcomes for Queensland and all evolved from the 13 per cent gas initiative.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Child Protection Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.02 am): Six January was a very auspicious day for the Department of Child Safety and the Beattie government. That day signalled the second anniversary of the CMC report into foster care and saw the release of the Beattie government’s report Progress in reforming the Queensland child protection system. The report details the significant improvements and major reform achievements associated with the implementation of 89 of the 110 CMC recommendations. Since then we have bedded down three more and work on the remaining 18 recommendations is well advanced. 372 Ministerial Statement 01 Mar 2006

Two years into our three-year reform agenda, child protection in Queensland has been transformed and life for children taken into care is much better. They now have education support plans specifically designed to improve their personal and academic development and those with behavioural and mental health problems are receiving interagency therapeutic support services. Child Safety, Queensland Health, Disability Services Queensland and Education Queensland are working closely together to help children in care heal the hurts of the past and equip them to better manage the challenges of everyday life. New Child Safety directors in 10 state government departments are coordinating a whole-of- government response to child abuse and neglect. Children in care are monitored regularly through a community visitors program as well as by Child Safety officers and, importantly, the children themselves have a say in their case management plans. There have been major changes ranging from an extra 470 front-line staff, improved service delivery and partnerships with other agencies, to better management and information systems and a changed organisational culture. Staff also have better training, professional development, peer support programs and state-of-the-art decision-making tools to ensure reliable, consistent and quality decision making for children. The Beattie government has confronted the shortcomings of Queensland’s child protection system, as identified in the CMC report of two years ago, and through a very substantial injection of funding and hard work has turned that system into one of the best staffed and best resourced in the country. This leads to much better outcomes for children and young people in need of protection. While each and every reform is significant, to me the greatest and most pleasing changes can be seen in how the system now strongly supports Queensland’s most vulnerable children and young people. On behalf of the Beattie government, I say congratulations and heartfelt thanks to all staff in the Department of Child Safety, our valued foster-carers and kinship carers and our community partners for a job very well done. We look forward to another year of reform.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

WorkChoices Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (10.05 am): It has not taken long, has it? The ink is barely dry on the Howard government’s WorkChoices legislation and we have the first reports of employers seeking to take advantage of workers and cut their wages and conditions. Management at US owned Dana, a company based in Melbourne making auto parts, has revealed plans for their workforce, including: a five per cent pay cut for 350 existing workers; a 20 per cent pay cut for new starters; the loss of rostered days off and income protection; and cuts to redundancy pay and injury top-up pay. It can do this because WorkChoices allows it to do this. This is what happens when fairness is ripped out of the system and the no-disadvantage test that protects workers’ wages and conditions is taken away. It is perfectly clear now why the Prime Minister refused to guarantee that no workers would be worse off under WorkChoices. So we can forget all that gumph we heard from the federal government during its $55 million advertising campaign about a fairer system with conditions protected by law. This is the federal government’s grand vision for industrial relations revealed in practice—cuts to wages and conditions and new entrants to the workforce made to accept substandard conditions or not get the job. This is not a good sign of things to come. The Beattie government, along with other states, is taking High Court action to challenge the validity of the Howard legislation. The court will begin hearing these challenges concurrently on 8 May. Our legal advice is that there are strong grounds to argue that WorkChoices is unconstitutional. This is just the first step in our fight against these draconian laws. I again say to Queensland workers: we will be presenting a strong case on behalf of workers and their families.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Security Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water) (10.07 am): I have come from officially opening a three-day conference for Australian water experts. Water ’06 is being held during a momentous period for Queensland’s water security. Last week, briefings were held for the prospective planners, designers and builders of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme. The government has already committed $20 million for the project, which is a partnership with SEQWater, Ipswich and Brisbane councils. 01 Mar 2006 Ministerial Statement 373

Last week, I officially launched construction of the 220-kilometre Burdekin to Moranbah pipeline. Some 40 kilometres of pipe has already been delivered. Work on the $4 million upgrade to the Fred Haigh Dam spillway is now underway. We have committed to spillway upgrades for the Bjelke-Petersen, Borumba and Tinaroo Falls dams. The Council of Mayors South East Queensland met last Friday and strongly endorsed the proposal for a regionwide water planning authority, reaffirming support for the strong partnership with our government. Work with the councils on the development and implementation of the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy is progressing well. The Queensland government is committed to securing future water supplies for all water users—households, communities, businesses, industry and the environment—across the state. The Queensland Water Plan and our commitment to the National Water Initiative clearly show our genuine commitment to water security. Unfortunately, there is a stark contrast between the government’s hard work and the National Party’s ineptitude. The National Party has announced a plan to establish a new water bureaucracy that would require local water users to pay for the upkeep of dams. More water boards will not provide an extra litre of water. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. That is untrue. I find the minister’s dishonesty offensive and I ask that he withdraw it. Mr PALASZCZUK: I withdraw. However, the National Party’s plan would increase costs of storing and delivering water that would ultimately lead to higher prices for the valuable resource but not improve the supply of water. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. That is untrue. I find the minister’s dishonesty offensive and I ask that he withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Callide. Mr PALASZCZUK: For example, who would pay for the upgrade at Fred Haigh Dam under the National Party plan? It would be the local water users, or it simply would not be built. Our government is funding this work by reinvesting its dividend from SunWater. Under the National Party plan, how many water boards would be required to agree on a project such as the Burdekin-Moranbah pipeline? The answer is too many. When the people of Queensland are looking for partnerships and cooperation on water, the National Party wants to divide. The National Party does not have a plan for water security. It has a plan for water disunity.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

ICT Industry, Government Contracts Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (10.10 am): I am pleased to announce this morning that two Smart State firms have recently been awarded multimillion-dollar contracts with the state government. Underwood based communications firm Pivit has been engaged by the Department of Housing to supply and manage a ‘triple-play’ fibre network within the award-winning Kelvin Grove Urban Village. Pivit has secured two contracts involved in providing network services to the urban village—an $895,000 contract for network installation and another giving it supply and management rights for five years with a further five-year option. Pivit will provide voice, broadband internet and TV—both free-to-air digital and free-to-air satellite services—to village residents. Pivit will also maintain the network within the village and manage customer service, including help desk services and billings. In fact, under the contract, residents will be able to make free phone calls to others living within the village. The services will be delivered by Pivit through Kelvin Grove Village Connections, a business registered by the Department of Housing. All residents and businesses at the village will have the choice to receive their telecommunications services through Kelvin Grove Village Connections or through other providers such as Optus or Telstra. This initiative, like the urban village development itself, is another concrete example of the Queensland government’s Smart State Strategy. Data 3, another local ICT firm, has secured a two-year contract worth more than $8 million to provide specialist industry expertise to help manage the state government’s computer software assets. Following a comprehensive tender process carried out by the Office of Government ICT, Data 3 was appointed to assist the Queensland government manage Microsoft software licences for the core state government agencies. Data 3’s response to the tender was innovative and offered real value to the Queensland government. Under the arrangement, Data 3 will work closely with the Office of Government ICT and agency staff to review the software asset management processes within each agency and work with them to achieve industry best practice. As part of this improvement plan, Data 3 will keep a whole-of-government software licence register and will operate a licensing helpdesk to assist government staff on a one-on-one basis with licensing and audit queries. 374 Transport (Amendment of Queensland Road Rules) Bill 01 Mar 2006

The Queensland government is committed to working with local firms to ensure that they get a share of the $1 billion spend on ICT services. The ICT Industry Work Group, which I chair with the minister for IT policy, Chris Cummins, was formed in January last year. The work group collaborates with Queensland firms identified by the industry regarding government procurement and industry development. This industry group has been successful in building a stronger partnership between industry and the government. I table a copy of a recent Courier-Mail article which quotes ICT industry expert Paul Campbell, who started in the sector more than 20 years ago, as saying, ‘We’ve made more ground in the last six months than I’ve seen in my time in industry.’ The next work group meeting will be held on the 28th of next month.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Public Transport System Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (10.14 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this government reverses the last eight years of neglect and offers Queenslanders a real public transport alternative with a safe, modern and efficient rail service as part of a fully integrated public transport system.

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT OF QUEENSLAND ROAD RULES) BILL

First Reading Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (10.14 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 1999. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (10.14 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Queensland Transport has identified road crashes as the largest single cause of child deaths across Queensland, with six children under the age of six being killed and 312 being seriously injured whilst passengers in motor vehicle accidents in 2004 alone. A significant factor contributing to this figure is child passengers whose parents or carers are not using an appropriate restraint for the child’s height and weight. Of the 318 children killed or injured in 2004, 301 had a fitted child restraint and 93 per cent of these children were positioned in their restraint. However, RACQ research has identified that up to 58 per cent of child restraints used in Queensland are fitted incorrectly. The current regulations contained in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 1999 provide that children under the age of one are to be restrained in a suitable approved child restraint. Children who are at least one year old but less than 16 years old must be restrained in a suitable approved child restraint or occupy a seating position fitted with a suitable seatbelt. Nowhere in the legislation is it recognised that height and weight determines the type of restraint that should be used, nor does it regulate the sale, hire or installation of restraints. This allows unsuitable and unsafe restraints to be sold and installations to be conducted by people who are not qualified to do so. In seeking to reduce the rate of child fatalities in Queensland that are a direct result of an unsuitable child restraint being used or installed incorrectly, this bill increases the age for the use of a suitable approved child restraint from one year to seven years and contains provisions that regulate the sale, hire and installation of child restraints. This is done through the requirements for businesses to be accredited and its staff to have completed a recognised qualification in the fitting or installing of child restraints. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Reasons for the Bill Despite research indicating that over 90% of parents and carers are familiar with the importance of children wearing child restraints, the incidents of child restraints being inappropriate for the child’s height and weight and/or being installed incorrectly in a vehicle are extremely high. In the 1999 RACQ Report, Child Restraint Advice and Fitting Service in Queensland, research indicated that for children under the age of 3, 40% of parents and carers were found to be using an incorrect restraint for their child’s height and weight. In children aged 4 to 7 years, this figure rose dramatically to 58%. This dramatic increase is attributable to 94% of parents and carers believing that adult seat belts are suitable for children under the age of 7 despite that these children should still be in an appropriate child restraint. For children weighing between 14 and 26 kilograms, which is from approximately 3 to 7 years old, they should continue to be restrained in a child harness or a booster seat until they are an appropriate height and weight to use an adult seatbelt. If a child is too small and is restrained using a seat belt that touches their neck, this will do more harm than good to the child in the case of an accident. 01 Mar 2006 Transport (Amendment of Queensland Road Rules) Bill 375

In addition to parents and carers using the incorrect restraint for their child, there are problems with the installation of child restraints. Installation is more than simply selecting the right restraint for the child and putting it in the vehicle. The child restraint being used must also be suitable for the vehicle in which it is to be installed and determining this often requires professional advice. Industry professionals have identified one of the most common situations where installation faults occur is with parents or carers who drive 4WD vehicles. Despite the restraint selected for their child being suitable for the child, it is often too big for the vehicle and therefore cannot be installed properly. Unlike a traditional family car like a Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore, a 4WD has significantly less space behind the seats which is particularly problematic with the use of infant capsules and frequently leads to installation faults. However, these faults are not restricted to capsules with convertibles and harnesses that also have a high rate of installation faults. The Queensland Ambulance Service has found installation problems in more than half of all baby capsules they have inspected while RACQ research found that 30% of child restraints surveyed in South East Queensland had one or more installation faults and of these, 75% of the faults were lifethreatening in the event of a road accident. Despite these staggering numbers and the risks posed to children from incorrect restraint installation, 35% of parents and carers indicated they would never seek professional advice with the installation of child restraints and 78% believing that child restraints are easy to install. Industry professionals and baby store specialists understand the importance of correct fitting and installation of child restraints and will give advice advocating this to their customers. However, only 20% of parents and carers purchased their child restraints from a specialist baby store and then only 15% of sales staff were seen by parents and carers as being ‘very well informed’ about the restraint’s use and installation. Furthermore, child restraints are available for sale or hire in a variety of outlets across the state ranging from automotive stores to supermarket and variety stores where staff would frequently have less knowledge about restraint use and installation. Overall, there is a very high rate of employees selling and installing child restraints who do not have sufficient knowledge to give advice on the appropriate restraint for a child or the installation of the restraint into the vehicle. This no doubt leads to unsuitable and incorrectly installed restraints being used and thereby putting the lives of children at risk in the event of a car accident. Current Legislation Section 266 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 1999 governs the use of child restraints and seat belts by passengers in a vehicle under the age of 16. Currently, this legislation provides that for children under the age of 1, they must be restrained in a suitable approved child restraint and for children who are at least 1 year old but less than 16 years old they must be restrained in a suitable approved child restraint or occupy a seating position fitted with a suitable seatbelt. The current legislation does not address such issues as the height and weight of the child which are the major factors determining what type of child restraint should be used for the child. Nor does the current legislation address that the parents and carers of children up to approximately 7 years of age, depending on weight, should still be using an appropriate child restraint for their child. Furthermore, the current legislation does not regulate the industry in any way. This opens the way for the sale or hire of unsuitable and unsafe child restraints and for the incorrect installation of these restraints in to vehicles. Some industry regulation would have a positive and significant effect on the safety of child restraints used in Queensland and would more than likely decrease the incidence of child deaths or injuries resulting from car accidents. The Bill This bill aims to address these issues and create a legal requirement for children up to the age of 7 to be restrained using a suitable approved child restraint and that all child restraints being sold, hired or professionally installed in Queensland are done so by an accredited business with certified staff. Through addressing these issues this bill seeks to reduce the rate of child fatalities and injuries in Queensland that are a direct result of an unsuitable child restraint being used or installed incorrectly. There are two major changes proposed by this Bill to achieve the policy objectives of the Bill: 1. Increasing the age for use of a suitable approved child restraint from 1 year to 7 years; and 2. Provide that businesses that sell, hire or install child restraints must be accredited by Queensland Transport and that depending on the business, one or more staff must have completed an approved qualification and be certified to fit and/or install child restraints. Increasing the age for use of a suitable approved child restraint from 1 year to 7 years This increase in the age for the use of a suitable approved child restraint reflects the results of research done by the RACQ and information supplied by Queensland Transport that indicates that children up to 26 kg, approximately 7 years old, should continue to be restrained using a child restraint the suitability of which is determined by the child’s height and weight. Business Accreditation and Employee Certification These changes will provide industry regulation and in doing so will ensure that businesses involved in the sale, hire and installation of child restraints are accredited to do so and its employees are qualified to give advice to parents and carers. This will minimise situations where child restraints are inappropriate for the child as the restraint can be fitted specifically for that child. In addition, it will provide consumer protection in cases of installation. It will ensure that ALL installers of child restraints who claim to be qualified will be. Conclusion Increasing road safety and reducing the number of fatalities and injuries suffered by children resulting directly from unsuitable child restraints being used and/or being installed incorrectly is the purpose of this Bill. This purpose can be achieved through the attainment of the Bill’s objective which is to create a legal requirement that all child restraints sold, hired and professionally installed in Queensland is done by an Accredited Business with qualified sales people and/or installers. The amendments contained in this Bill have extensive industry support and through these amendments the objective and purpose of this Bill can be achieved and the children of Queensland better protected whilst passengers in motor vehicles. I commend this Bill to the house. Debate, on motion of Mr Lucas, adjourned. 376 Private Members’ Statements 01 Mar 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Poole, Mr R Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (Acting Leader of the Opposition) (10.17 am): The events surrounding the resignation of the former member for Gaven are like something out of a James Bond movie. Yesterday we had the Premier standing in this place indicating that he had received the resignation from someone who had handed it to him—no further details given, no idea of how it came into his possession. Later in the day we saw the member for Ipswich West indicating that he in fact had undertaken a secret mission overseas—a rendezvous with the previous member for Gaven in Thailand; all cloak and dagger stuff—and came back a number of days later with an undated resignation in his pocket to give to the Premier as required. All of this simply indicates that the Premier has no idea what was going on in his own party—absolutely no idea at all. He could not tell the House yesterday morning how that resignation came into his hands. He put it on the table of the House and it was not until later, after some sleuth work by other people, that in fact the details came out. What we have is a government that goes from crisis to crisis trying to manage a political problem of its own making. There is an old adage, ‘If you can’t govern yourself you can’t govern Queensland.’ It is a well-worn one, but a very apt one in these circumstances. If you can’t govern yourself you can’t govern Queensland. As days go on, we are seeing more and more evidence of a government that cannot control itself, of a Premier who has no idea what is going on inside his own government or inside the various portfolio areas. As things continue to get worse, the people of Queensland will continue to understand that this government cannot govern itself and cannot govern Queensland. Comments by Federal Minister for Health Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (10.19 am): This morning I would like to share with the House that I have developed a psychological condition, activated yesterday, commonly known as identity crisis. In a speech he gave in federal parliament yesterday, the federal Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, insinuated that Australians with Spanish, Vietnamese and Cambodian heritage are not Australians. Mr Abbott is a big man of Australian politics, a minister of the Crown and a future prime ministerial aspirant; what he said must be true! I was so shocked that I went home last night and dug up a box underneath my bed which was marked ‘open in case of emergency’. Inside the box was, firstly, a certificate with a national emblem on it. It was signed by Minister McPhee, a party colleague of Tony Abbott, and stated ‘Certificate of Australian Citizenship’. It has my name on it. It says ‘Michael Choi, Australian citizen’. But obviously I was not satisfied with that assurance. Mr Wells: Is there more? Mr CHOI: There is more. I looked further and I found a little book. It has a photograph of a relatively handsome-looking man with a lot more hair. It is an official passport. Not only does it tell me that I am an Australian; in fact, whenever I use this passport I am representing the wonderful people of this state and the great nation of Australia. Last, but not least, I have in my hand a little ticket— membership of the Australian Labor Party, a party which judges people not by the colour of their skin, not by their religion, not by their creed, but by the content of their character and how willing they are to contribute to our society. I hate to disappoint Mr Abbott, but a Chinese blond is unlikely to be forthcoming in the next 200 million years. Beattie Labor Government; Gaven Electorate Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 am): The Beattie Labor government has deceived the people of the Gold Coast for too long. It has deceived the people of Gaven for too long. For two years now the Beattie Labor government—and the Premier especially—has known that the people of the Gaven electorate have not been properly represented in this parliament, yet it was prepared to do nothing about it. It was prepared to deceive the people of the Gaven electorate and somehow promote the facade that the member who sat in that seat in this chamber was providing adequate representation and earning the money that the taxpayers of Queensland were paying him. It is just as well that that facade, that farce, has been brought to an end. The people of Gaven will once again be represented by somebody in this parliament. The National Party candidate for Gaven, Alex Douglas, stands ready to provide the representation that the previous member for Gaven was not prepared to do. Whoever wins the seat of Gaven will ensure that the people of that electorate are represented in this parliament and that that farce is brought to an end. But what will not end is the deceit and the contempt with which the Beattie Labor government approaches the people of Queensland. The deceit that it has practised in the Gaven electorate will continue across a whole range of areas as it continues to deceive the people of Queensland. The contempt with which the Premier treated the people of Gaven will continue to be shown towards the people of Queensland across a whole range of issues where this government has failed and continues to fail. 01 Mar 2006 Private Members’ Statements 377

This is a government that is driven by politics. It is a government that is driven by the need to save the Premier’s skin, to get him out of trouble every time he ties himself up in a web of deceit and untruths as he tries to spin his way out of the latest problem. That will not change. The deceit that the Premier has practised on the people of Queensland will not change. The people of Gaven will no longer be subject to that deceit. Irish Migrants Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (10.24 am): I must tell you, Mr Speaker, I have seen a lot of strange things in this parliament since I have been elected, but I never thought I would see the member for Robina describe himself as James Bond. St Patrick’s Day is two weeks away and I thought it was an appropriate time to reflect upon the contribution that Irish migrants have made to this nation. They have helped build Australia. They were sent here, some might say, by the best of British judges. Ireland has one of the world’s best education systems. It is often said that its best contribution to the world has been, firstly, its people and, secondly, its education system. I want to applaud the Premier’s efforts in seeking to recruit more doctors, nurses, medical practitioners and highly qualified people to come to Queensland and to come to Australia. He is doing great work. But the penny-pinching antics of the Liberals and the Nationals have put this close relationship at risk. Australia, Queensland and Ireland have always had a very close relationship, but the members opposite have put it at risk. The federal government has closed the visa office in the Australian Embassy in Ireland. A visit to the web site reads— There is no visa office in the Dublin Embassy. Responsibility for visa services for people who live in Ireland now lies with the Australian High Commission in London. Please note that the embassy in Dublin cannot offer any assistance on visa matters. What an absolute insult to the people of Ireland! What an absolute disgrace! The people opposite are responsible for this and they can do something about it. Do not make any mistake: this is a genuine roadblock and a major symbolic roadblock to Irish people coming to Australia. However, it is not the only snub that the Liberals have made. The Prime Minister is yet to make a prime ministerial visit to Ireland. I do not understand why the Liberals and the Nationals do not share the ALP’s close relationship with Ireland and with people with Irish heritage. Prince Charles Hospital, Emergency Department Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (10.26 am): In the 2004-05 budget the government allocated $77 million for work at the Prince Charles Hospital, including the building and opening of a full emergency department. The people of the northern suburbs of Brisbane and around the Aspley area were promised an emergency department, to be open by January 2007—a mere 11 months away. The health minister participated in the photographic opportunity of turning the sod on the construction that commenced there on 10 August 2005. Now we have the announcement that it will not be a full opening of an emergency department at the Prince Charles Hospital; it will be a phased introduction of services. That is a fancy way of breaking a commitment to the people of the northern suburbs of Brisbane that they would have a full emergency department. The Caboolture emergency department has now closed. Redcliffe is stretched to the limit. The opportunities for people to have their medical emergencies treated north of Brisbane are now vanishing. The Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital is understaffed at its emergency department. Here, once again, a major metropolitan hospital with tertiary training facilities cannot deliver a basic, essential medical service where life-threatening emergencies can be treated in the local community in a timely fashion. This is one of the core, basic responsibilities that the health department should be providing that is critical to the growing northern suburbs of Brisbane. We have enormous growth in places like North Lakes and Murrumba Downs and yet we do not build the emergency infrastructure that will save people’s lives in the critical minutes after they have motor vehicle accidents, a ruptured aneurysm—a whole range of medical emergencies. Telstra Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (10.28 am): On 25 October last year, on behalf of all Queenslanders I asked for the leaders of the National and Liberal parties to table the deal that their parties signed up to on the sell-off of Telstra. It is no wonder they have not done that. Just two months prior to that, the member for Callide stood up in this place and gloated about the Telstra deal, saying it was great news for all Queenslanders. It did not take long for rural and regional Queenslanders to realise they had been dudded. Just 55 days after the deal signing, Telstra announced that it was closing the directory assistance centre in Roma with a loss of 16 jobs—no small impact on a local economy like Roma. What I do know is that the deal does not protect jobs. Mr Hobbs interjected. 378 Questions Without Notice 01 Mar 2006

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr FINN: It does not protect any jobs in regional Queensland. Last week we had announcements that Telstra will be removing 15 per cent of its payphones across the country—up to 5,000 payphones gone. Who is going to lose them? People in regional Queensland. In the Mackay region alone, they are being removed from Clermont, Moranbah, Calen, Sarina, Bowen and Coppabella. Ilfracombe in western Queensland is having its number of payphones halved. So who was out there whingeing about the decision last week? A whole lot of people who voted for the sell-off. De-Anne Kelly said she was furious. Mark Vaile criticised the decision. Senator Coonan, the senator who cut the deal with Barnaby, said she was taken by surprise by the announcement and told the media that Telstra should have consulted her. Who did Barnaby blame? He said that Telstra could not be trusted. So here we have the Nationals and Liberals complaining about decisions that fly in the face of the deal that they said would deliver. ‘Great for everyone,’ they said. ‘But we forgot to protect jobs and we forgot to protect current services.’ Some deal! So if members opposite will not table the deal, why don’t they get on the mobile phone to the Prime Minister and other coalition city dwellers and beg them to stop the sell-off so we can get a real deal for Queensland communities.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Gaven Electorate Mr QUINN (10.30 am): My question is directed to the Premier. I table a media report dated 18 February in which it is announced that the member for Ipswich West had been given the task of overseeing the electorate of Gaven in the absence of Mr Poole. This media report quotes Mr Livingstone as saying that he was in daily contact with the Gaven electorate office and would go into the office to meet constituents face to face if needed. Mr Livingstone was actually in Thailand with Mr Poole that day and, in fact, was there for nine days. Why did the Premier deceive the people of the Gold Coast about the servicing of the Gaven electorate? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Acting Leader of the Opposition for his question. There was no deception about any of this. Yesterday the member for Ipswich West issued a statement to this effect, and I will come back to that in a minute. What happened was very simply this: he went overseas to provide some support to a mate. I have to say to members that, while I did not know about that trip, I have no objection to one Australian mate looking after another. He went there because his friend was ill and needed support. I do not think that anyone would betray the mateship that exists in this country that goes back to the Anzacs and World War I. Mr Messenger: He wasn’t storming the beaches. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, this is your final warning. One more outburst and you will be taking a stroll. Mr BEATTIE: Let me state again that I have no objection to one Australian mate providing support to another mate who is ill. I want to make the point that there is no taxpayers’ money involved at all. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cunningham, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: There is no taxpayers’ money involved at all. As I said, I did not know Don was going. But I support somebody who is a friend, a mate, supporting someone in a time of need. Let me come back to the issues involving Robert Poole. Am I happy with what happened with Robert Poole? No, I am not. Do I support what he did? No, I do not. I am very disappointed in the way that this has developed. I am very disappointed in Robert Poole. I am very disappointed that he has, in my view, walked away from the people of Gaven. I know that he was going through some difficult times in relation to his family. I know that he was going through some difficult times in relation to matters involving his daughter. During that time I became aware that he had a desire to leave politics. I make no apology for doing everything I could to persuade him to stay because I do not support by-elections. I did everything I could to encourage him to stay and that is why I feel very betrayed. That is why I am so disappointed in what he did. While I did not know that Don Livingstone was going to Thailand, I am not going to criticise one mate supporting another when they are ill. Gaven Electorate Mr QUINN: My next question is also to the Premier. I table the Premier’s media release regarding the announcement on 20 February 2006 of the appointment of the members for Albert and Mudgeeraba to take over responsibility for the electorate of Gaven because their electorates border Gaven. Wasn’t the real reason the Premier appointed these two members that the member for Ipswich West was not servicing the Gaven electorate because he also was in Thailand and he had not even bothered to find out where he was? Why again did the Premier deceive the people of Queensland? 01 Mar 2006 Questions Without Notice 379

Mr BEATTIE: The answer to that is no. The reality is very simple. I had a discussion with Don when parliament sat last time. We have already acknowledged very clearly that Don Livingstone and Robert Poole are mates. It is appropriate when someone is seeking medical attention and has traumas in relation to their personal life that they have support from a mate. That is one of the reasons I thought it would be useful for a friend not only to be in a supportive role and to be able to communicate with Robert Poole but also to be able to use that communication to advance, help and advantage the people of Gaven. It also made logical sense that the two neighbouring members provide some help—Margaret Keech, member for Albert, and Di Reilly, member for Mudgeeraba. If you look at it, it all made sense. Opposition members: Ha, ha! Mr BEATTIE: Members opposite might think that supporting the people of Gaven is a joke. We have done what we can in those circumstances to help them. Let me make the point—and I make it again and I will make it as many times as the Acting Leader of the Opposition wants to ask me: the reality is that Don had a role to play because he knew him, they were friends, he could help him, he could encourage him, he could support him and that, in turn, would benefit the people of Gaven. The two neighbouring members also had an opportunity for geographical reasons—and a lot of the issues were the same—to provide support. I know that Margaret Keech, the member for Albert, was there quite recently. The bottom line is: am I happy with what happened? No. I would have preferred that no-one was put in a position to provide that level of support. I would have preferred Robert Poole to provide the service that he was elected to provide, that I helped get him elected to provide. That is what he should have done. He should have been there and he should have supported the constituents who elected him, but he got ill. People can be judgemental about these things but, as it turns out, I would have much preferred him to be there, and I make no apology for saying that. The important thing is this: Robert Poole is now gone. He is no longer the member for Gaven. There will be a by-election at the appropriate time and the people of Gaven will again be represented in this parliament. I say to the Acting Leader of the Opposition that no-one is in a position to play Pontius Pilate in these matters, as he saw yesterday. As he well knows, this issue will play itself out. He had a candidate in Gaven at one point. The Liberal Party does not now. He was endorsed last year—a gentleman called Mark Dockery, I think. Because of his deal with the National Party, he does not have a Liberal Party candidate down there. The Liberal Party organisation is pretty angry about that. I have a pile of emails asking me: why isn’t the Liberal Party running? If the Acting Leader of the Opposition wants to stand up for somebody, why doesn’t he stand up for Mark Dockery? Why isn’t there a Liberal Party candidate running? Because the Liberal Party president did a deal with the deputy leader. If he had any guts or courage he would have a Liberal candidate. When he gets a Liberal candidate then I will take him seriously. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Clayfield, it is my honour to welcome to the public gallery members of the Incapacitated Servicemen’s and Women’s Association and war widows of ex-prisoners of war. I remind all honourable members that this year is the 64th anniversary of the fall of Singapore. Welcome to the Queensland parliament. Also I would like to acknowledge in the gallery teachers and students of the Aspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley, which is represented in this parliament by Ms Bonny Barry. Taxation Inquiry Ms LIDDY CLARK: My question without notice is to the Premier. The Premier would be aware of the Warburton-Hendy review into Australia’s tax system. Can the Premier inform the House whether the Queensland government will be making a formal submission? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Clayfield for her question. The aim of that study is to provide a public document that compares Australian taxes to those in other countries. It will identify those areas in which Australia leads comparable countries and those areas in which it lags. It will cover taxes collected at the national, state and local government levels. So, yes, we have a particular interest in this. Although there is no formal submission process, I do intend to write to the review, because I think we have something to offer, as the member for Clayfield would expect. Queensland has one of the best managed tax systems in the country, and I think there can be some lessons learnt from our management of the economy. Since we were elected 7½ years ago, my government has cut payroll tax, transfer duty and land tax, which means that the tax bill of taxpayers has been reduced by billions of dollars. In the last budget alone we announced the abolition and reduction of eight taxes worth a total of more than $5 billion over the next seven years. Unlike the Howard government, we have been able to strike a balance. Our taxes are amongst the lowest in the country, yet we have still managed to increase spending on infrastructure and services to record levels. Over the past seven years, we have increased spending on health by 64 per cent or $2.1 billion; education by 55 per cent or $2.3 billion; and welfare 380 Questions Without Notice 01 Mar 2006 and housing by 139 per cent or nearly $800 million in the period up to the 2005-06 budget. We have invested, on average, more than $5.5 billion a year in the state’s capital program—more per capita than any other state in the nation. The Howard government has not been able to achieve a balance, and that is my criticism and a criticism by the Treasurer, Anna Bligh, earlier this week. The reality is that the federal government is the highest taxing government in our history, and as a result it is predicting a massive surplus this financial year. However, despite collecting this huge windfall from taxpayers, it has failed to provide any genuine tax relief, has halved real spending on infrastructure and has not kept up with demand for services in critical areas such as health. I notice there is a debate about whether we should have tax cuts or not. With bracket creep, we all know that any tax cuts that are introduced are, within a relatively short period of time, then eroded. If the federal government is serious about providing services in areas like health, where it has cut back in real terms the amount paid to the states, then it should use the tax cuts to fund the health system appropriately. Mr Terry Sullivan: And affordable housing. Mr BEATTIE: And housing, of course. But health is a central issue in addition to housing, as the minister for housing will tell the House. I see the federal health minister, Tony Abbott, out there talking about increasing, as he does regularly, the costs of private health insurance but they do not pass on the same level of increases to the states when it comes to funding the health system. Too often people forget that the health system is funded by both the Commonwealth and the state, and the states are carrying the lion’s share of the burden at the moment. So, if the federal Treasurer is serious about looking after Australians, he should forget about tax cuts and put the money directly into health. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I welcome into the public gallery teachers and students of Hillcrest Christian College, which is in the electorate of Mudgeeraba, represented in this parliament by Mrs Di Reilly. Poole, Mr R Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. When the Premier announced the resignation of the former member for Gaven in this parliament yesterday, he never told anyone that the member for Ipswich West had been carrying his mate’s resignation around in his back pocket since he returned from a nine-day trip to Thailand—when he was supposed to be looking after the Gaven electorate. He tells us now that he did not know that, while he was telling everyone he was looking after the Gaven electorate, he was actually in Thailand looking after his mate for nine days. Was the Premier deceived by his own backbenchers or was he deceiving the people of Queensland when he said that his government was looking after the electorate of Gaven? Mr BEATTIE: There is no deception on anyone’s part. Let me read out a statement yesterday issued by Don Livingstone which answers the honourable member’s question. Don Livingstone said— I have been a close personal friend of Robert Poole’s for a long period of time and over recent weeks I have become increasingly concerned for his welfare. Due to this concern I travelled to Thailand at my own expense, a week ago Friday (February 17). In other words, he told the world. The only reason you know the dates is because he told the world—not because you did any research but because the member for Ipswich West was honest enough to tell everybody. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: You might be able to bully the Liberal Party out of a candidate in Gaven, but you will not bully me. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, come to the issue, please. Mr BEATTIE: Let me go on, Mr Speaker. The statement continues— As this was a private matter I did not advise any of my colleagues. Robert is my mate and I was concerned for his welfare. Prior to my departure for Australia on Sunday evening (February 26) Robert handed me a letter and advised me that it contained an undated resignation. He told me his intention was to return to represent the people of Gaven following recuperation from his operation. However, he wanted me to hold the letter in case his health situation remained unresolved or deteriorated further. Late last night he telephoned me to advise that due to ongoing concerns over his health including high blood pressure which currently prevents him from having surgery, he would not be able to meet the Premier’s April deadline for his return. I counselled him against resignation and asked him to contact me again this morning. At that point I did not bring it to the attention of any of my colleagues because I hoped to change his mind. 01 Mar 2006 Questions Without Notice 381

At approximately 8.45am this morning Robert called me at my Parliament House office to advise that he had not changed his mind and asked me to forward his resignation letter to the Premier as soon as possible. I immediately advised the Premier and provided him Robert’s resignation letter. I table that for the information of the House. Subsequent to that, as everybody knows, I came into this House and read Robert Poole’s letter of resignation. That clarifies and answers the questions from the Acting Leader of the Opposition and also from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Any common- sense, objective reading of it would do that, but you are not interested in that; you are interested in politics. I think that the statement clearly answers the question. Let me come back to the point. As I have said repeatedly, I am disappointed in Robert Poole and I am not going to hide that. I am very disappointed in Robert Poole and so are the people of Gaven. I indicated yesterday that in the by-election my party will get a bloodbath and, frankly, we deserve one. I am not going to make any excuses about this. We did not, in my view, through Robert’s activities adequately represent that electorate and we are going to get a bloodbath as a result. I will not make any excuses for it. I am very disappointed with what has happened here. I have tried to encourage Robert to stay— Time expired. Goods and Services Tax Mr CHOI: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Is the Premier aware of how the independent Grants Commission determines the allocation of GST to the states and to the territories? Mr BEATTIE: Yes, I am. I want to advise the House that this afternoon at 5 o’clock the Grants Commission determination will be released and the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, Anna Bligh, will have something to say about that at that time. We know, on an embargoed basis, that we are going to lose tens of millions of dollars. We know that. We are not happy about it, but we are not going to undermine and whinge about the system, as do our colleagues in New South Wales and Victoria. I would hope that when this determination comes down we might get an end to the whingeing from our colleagues in Sydney and Melbourne. A little bit less whingeing might be constructive to a sensible and honest debate. The Commonwealth Grants Commission uses a process called horizontal fiscal equalisation. It is a complex formula but it is independent, it is fair and it is equitable. It looks at revenues such as revenue-raising capacity, the decentralisation of each state—hence, as Queensland is the most decentralised mainland state, that is taken into account—and additional costs imposed on servicing communities in regional and remote areas. The commission also uses a five-year rolling average mechanism to smooth the transition to changes in states’ economic and fiscal capacity. I should point out that two of the states that are now whingeing the loudest—New South Wales and Victoria—supported a five-year rolling average when it was last raised by the commission. They cannot have it both ways. They have to be careful about how they whinge in this, otherwise someone like me might point out how inconsistent they are. If they were to suggest something different now, it would be the height of hypocrisy. I will continue to fight to maintain, as will the Treasurer, the system of horizontal fiscal equalisation used by the Grants Commission. I see that the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, supports a new system of GST distribution that would see the more populated states of New South Wales and Victoria get more money. Where does he live? He lives in Sydney. He ought to get out of the rarefied atmosphere of Sydney Harbour and come and look at what it is like in rural and regional Queensland, to see how much it costs to provide services. I also notice my good mate Alan Jones had a go about this on the Today program. Do not worry; I will be sending Alan some information later today. What they have to do is look beyond the Sydney Harbour Bridge. They should come to Queensland and visit places like Burketown or Mount Isa and understand what costs are all about. If they do, they will get a better understanding of the tyranny of distance in our state and the challenges that can be presented by providing services to remote and regional communities. Queensland is bigger than a lot of countries. The system of horizontal fiscal equalisation recognises this fact, and I will continue to fight to ensure that Queenslanders get their fair share. I just hope that today we have an end to the whingeing. We have ended up with more money going to Sydney and Melbourne. With a bit of luck, they might be happy about it. If they want to have a country based on Sydney and Melbourne, they should say so. If they want to have a decentralised Australia, which is what we support, then they should support states like Queensland. After all, our level of economic activity has made the Howard government look good for the last seven years. 382 Questions Without Notice 01 Mar 2006

Queensland Ambulance Service Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer to the occurrence of multiple ambulances ramping up outside Queensland public hospitals, and I ask: what triage policy is in place for the patients in those ambulances? Who is responsible for assessing the patients and deciding the priority of entry into the emergency department? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for the question. From time to time, not only in the southern part of Queensland but also on the south coast, ambulances may have to wait to get into a hospital. They are triaged by the emergency services. We are a service that runs from the point of action to a hospital or from a hospital to another hospital. We work under a medical director with QAS. From time to time our ICPs, along with a doctor, may triage those patients en route depending on the injury, the class of ambulance and what the patient requires. Mostly we go to an emergency service and they are triaged at the emergency department of a hospital. Mr SPEAKER: Congratulations, member for Moggill. Gambling Community Benefit Fund Mr REEVES: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. On 24 October the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Callide, said that the viability of the responsible gaming fund and the community benefit fund were under threat. Can the minister confirm if this is the case? What are the implications of the opposition’s new-found policy of cutting poker machine numbers in the state? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for his question. I think everybody in this House knows of his support for the clubs and pubs in his area and the work they do as strong employers. I can assure the member for Mansfield and others that there is no threat at all to the percentage of revenue that is being directed to the Gambling Community Benefit Fund under the policies and programs of this government. However, I regret to inform the House that the same would not be able to be said if the coalition were, God forbid, to get control of the treasury benches. In December last year the coalition announced that it would be embarking on a policy of a 20 per cent reduction in poker machine numbers. It said, further, that it would release a discussion paper on these proposals in February to draw comment from the industry and from church and welfare groups. According to my Notice Paper, today is 1 March, and to date there has been no such discussion paper. I am not surprised. It does not take very much thought to realise just what some of the implications might be of a 20 per cent cut to poker machine numbers in Queensland. The hillbillies of economics are at it again. What did the coalition think would happen to the $65 million of revenue that that 20 per cent of poker machines brings into the Queensland budget every year? I wonder if it thought about the shortfalls to the community benefit fund. Under the coalition proposal the community benefit fund stands to lose some $5.6 million every year, and the newly established health services levy stands to lose $6.5 million a year. On average, that is 200 community groups per year that will miss out on community grants. I do not think for one minute that the coalition has considered the practicalities of a buyout of 20 per cent of those machines. With operating authorities in the south-east corner trading from around $146,800 each, the compensation or buyout scheme would be in the vicinity of $587 million. Even if taken proportionally from hotels across the state, the compensation would be about $470 million. This is a more than $600 million black hole. It is a black hole that those on the other side of the House have an obligation to explain to the people of Queensland. If and when we ever see the coalition’s gambling discussion paper, those opposite have an obligation to be honest. The discussion paper has to tell people which schools will be closed, which road projects will be delayed and what services will be cut to support its gambling policies. The coalition does not have a clue. It has not thought for one minute what this would mean. It means cuts to education, cuts to health and cuts to roads. Watch out for the gambling discussion paper because it is going to be a real corker. If the paper does not have an explanation of the $600 million black hole, it is a lie. Queensland Rail, Emergency Buttons Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is for the minister for transport. A few days ago I wrote to the minister’s department regarding this issue but, as I feel it could affect all Queenslanders who use the Queensland rail system, I felt that I should bring it to the attention of the House. The question is: what is the usual procedure when a passenger presses the emergency button in a carriage? I had one constituent who, due to a medical emergency, pressed the button only to hear a voice over the loud speaker telling passengers to stop playing with the emergency button. For a number of reasons which I will not outline in this House, this person did get medical assistance but from other passengers rather than QR staff. Will the minister ensure that in the future QR staff will at least check the circumstances when the emergency button is pressed before ignoring what could be a genuine emergency? 01 Mar 2006 Questions Without Notice 383

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. She has a very valid point. Regrettably, in many networks, such as the rail network, from time to time some people press buttons when they should not, and that is an inconvenience. But those buttons are there for a reason. They are there to call attention to a genuine emergency, and there was a genuine medical emergency on this occasion. It is simply not satisfactory that that intercom announcement was made in relation to that particular incident. I am advised that what the member says is in fact correct, and that is not satisfactory. The group general manager of the passenger section of Citytrain will be visiting the member’s constituent to personally convey that on behalf of Queensland Rail. He does not know that yet but he will be, because I think that is totally legitimate. People ought to understand that when they are on our Citytrain network if they press an alarm button, indicating a problem, it should be responded to in good faith. I have to say, though, that, whilst on the day in question that response was given over the intercom, it is the role of the guard, as distinct from the driver, to walk forward to investigate what has happened when the emergency button has been pressed. I am told that when the button was pressed the guard did walk back through the train to the fifth car, where the button was pressed. En route he was approached in the leading car by a male passenger who informed him that a passenger was having a fit and that he had pushed the passenger emergency alarm. The guard, accompanied by the male passenger, returned to the driver’s cab to advise train control of the incident, as per normal procedure. Control must be advised of any incident on the network and is responsible for coordinating a response. It is very important to advise train control because it could be an issue that compromises the safety of the train itself. It may not necessarily be a medical emergency that has occurred. Also, there may not necessarily be mobile phone coverage, so it is important to have radio contact with train control. The guard then returned with the male passenger to the fifth car, where the guard reset the alarm. By that time he was aware that another passenger had contacted the ambulance, and two female passengers were assisting the passenger concerned. The guard proceeded to the rear cab again to update control—obviously it is very important to let the Ambulance Service know what is happening— and to find out the likely arrival time of the ambulance. The train pulled up at Eudlo train station. The ambulance arrived approximately 10 minutes later and transferred the passenger to Nambour Hospital. As I say, the honourable member is quite right, and I do not think the response on this occasion was satisfactory. I do apologise to the honourable member’s constituent for that. In relation to someone pressing the emergency button, regardless of whether 10 other calls have been hoaxes there might be one that is genuine, and the one that is genuine is the one that we want to get. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Pumicestone, I welcome into the gallery teachers and students of the Aspley East State School in the electorate of Aspley, which is represented in this parliament by Ms Bonny Barry. We are delighted to see Bonny here today, too. Health Advice Hotline Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. The minister will be aware that the establishment of the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week hotline to provide health advice to Queenslanders was a key election commitment of the Beattie government. Can the minister inform the House whether the state government has honoured this election commitment? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Pumicestone for her question and her ongoing interest in health matters. I am pleased to inform honourable members that the 13HEALTH hotline service is now operational and open for business. For the cost of a local call Queenslanders can ring this number for professional advice about non-life threatening medical situations or if they want advice on local health care services. The 13HEALTH hotline is staffed by experienced and fully qualified registered nurses who will provide callers with clinically based health information, triage and referral services. Nurses utilise a clinical decision support system and go through the caller’s symptoms and advise what action they need to take with their situation. Callers may be advised of self-care, to see a GP or attend a hospital emergency department if the condition warrants it. The hotline is already servicing callers across north Queensland and will be available to callers throughout the entire state by late April. The service is meant to deal with non-urgent medical situations such as, for example, if little Johnny wakes at 2 am with a fever and mum needs to know whether a trip to the hospital is appropriate. I stress that people with life-threatening emergencies should continue to call 000 for urgent assistance by ambulance paramedics. Before going operational yesterday the 18 registered nurses staffing the 13HEALTH hotline underwent an intensive two-week operational trial. Queensland Health reports that the results have been outstanding. During the trial calls were diverted from 22 emergency departments across the state to the 13HEALTH hotline. The hotline received 2,511 calls during the 14-day trial, comprising 305 information inquiries and 2,206 callers requiring triage advice. All calls were answered within 30 seconds and nurses spent an average 11 minutes advising callers. Of those callers requiring triage 384 Questions Without Notice 01 Mar 2006 advice, the most common symptoms involved abdominal pain, fever in young children, cases of vomiting and headache, people feeling generally unwell or irritable and insect bites. Of those calls 10 per cent were transferred to 000 for attention by the QAS, while 16.8 per cent were advised to attend a hospital emergency department. Remaining callers were advised to see their GP or provided with self-management advice. Interestingly, the busiest time for callers to the hotline was between 7 pm and 10 pm on Saturday and Sunday nights. This hotline supports the community’s need for this after-hours service. I commend the 13HEALTH hotline to honourable members. The 13HEALTH hotline actually means the number that one dials is 1343 2584. Queensland Ambulance Service Mr MALONE: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer the minister to his answer to the question asked by the member for Moggill earlier today. How many patients have died in ambulances while they have been ‘ramped up’ outside hospital emergency centres? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for the question. I cannot answer that question. I do not know of any patients who have died in ambulances while they have been at hospitals. But I am sure that if a patient needs urgent medical care they would be admitted to the hospital emergency department and looked after by the doctors at that hospital. I am not aware of any deaths. While I am on my feet answering a question from the member for Mirani, I would like to talk about the Daily Mercury in Mackay which recently ran a series of stories that were highly critical of the Queensland Ambulance Service. Claims and criticisms were based on statements by unnamed paramedics who, among other things, claim that bullying and intimidation has created a culture of silence in the service. I have been all over this state talking to paramedics and they are not people who are intimidated or quiet; they certainly make their feelings known. I can assure the House that they are a great body of men and women who work diligently for the state of Queensland. Predictably, the claims were based on statements made, as I said, by unnamed people and, predictably, the member for Mirani and the opposition spokesman, Ted Malone, came out in support of those statements. I have always found the member for Mirani a very fair person and I thought if anybody in his electorate was being put in danger by something that this state government or any state government was doing he would want to do something about it by either coming to me or the commissioner and letting us know about it so his constituents would not be put at risk. The Daily Mercury had a story on page one which led with a statement that at least one person has died in the Mackay district as a result of the Mackay ambulance communication centre closing in February 2004. When asked to substantiate this statement neither the journalist nor the editor of the Daily Mercury could provide any details whatsoever. They could not provide the name of the patient who they claimed had died as a result of the communication centre moving; they could not even provide an approximate date or response location to substantiate the outrageous claim. Furthermore, the QAS has informed me that its is not aware of any patients who have died as a result of the Mackay ambulance communication centre closing. Paramedics do not forget patients who die. They are very concerned about their patients and they do everything in their power to make sure that they survive. They are the most highly trained paramedics anywhere in this country. They continue to study to make sure that they stay that way. Freedom of the press is essential in a democratic society, but there is an obligation on them to get it right. Pacific Motorway Ms STONE: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. I draw the minister’s attention to Logan City Council lobbying federal members of parliament about the much-needed upgrade of the Pacific Motorway. Can the minister inform the House about the progress in relation to the planning of the upgrade and what the Commonwealth government has contributed to date? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The Minister for Emergency Services was talking about the great job ambos do. A couple of years ago my dad had a spot of acute ill health. Ambulance officers are the best people in the world. I could not speak highly enough of our ambulance officers. Back to the subject of the question. I welcome the Logan council’s resolution to lobby the federal government to pay their fair share of the Pacific Motorway upgrade. It joins the Beattie government, the council and mayors for south-east Queensland, the RACQ, the Local Government Association of Queensland and, indeed, the Brisbane mayor in calling on the federal government to give the people of Queensland, and south-east Queensland in particular, a fair go. The motion was that the Director of City Works be requested to write to federal members representing the Logan area highlighting the council’s concern regarding delays in upgrading of the Pacific Motorway through the Logan City area and seeking their support in lobbying the Commonwealth 01 Mar 2006 Questions Without Notice 385 government to match funding for this project to ensure that it proceeds forthwith. The only people who will not put pressure on the federal government when it comes to road funding is the Queensland state opposition. If it does not do that when it wants your vote, what would it ever do, God help us, if it got into government when it did not need it! Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Hinchinbrook, I warn you under 253. Mr LUCAS: We estimate that the full cost of the upgrade of the Pacific Motorway, both in the area of the member for Springwood and further down near the Gold Coast in the member for Mudgeeraba’s area, is about $1 billion. There is $392 million allocated to do that. What is the difference between a resident of New South Wales that gets $160 million a year in matching funding for the Pacific Motorway and a resident of south-east Queensland that gets nothing from the federal government for the Pacific Motorway? Do members know what the difference is? We have five safe federal Liberal seats from Beenleigh to the Gold Coast held by margins from 57 to 66.3 per cent. They have delivered nothing. Our government acquired $120 million a thousand days ago from the federal government for Tugun and not one red cent has come in since then to do anything on roads or any major project on the Gold Coast. It is nothing short of a disgrace. Those opposite ought to explain why they have not got the guts to get up there and do something. If federal funding was committed Main Roads would be in a position to carry out the much needed early works, including the Nerang South interchange at Neilsons Road. We are actually doing the planning work for the Springwood interchange because, God help us, if we can get the money from them we want to spend it straight away. Again, not once have those opposite joined Campbell Newman, not once have they joined the mayors or the RACQ. What has the opposition said about the federal government when it comes to road funding? Five safe federal seats on the Gold Coast and that is what we get from the federal government and this state opposition. First-Aid Courses Mrs STUCKEY: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer to the minister’s launch today of the new Queensland Ambulance Service first-aid training courses and products. Can the minister please confirm if the latest resuscitation science and treatment recommendations of the Australian Resuscitation Council are included in this course or is the material that the minister is launching today out of date before it is issued because he is so anxious to get the publicity? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for the question. She is very— A government member interjected. Mr PURCELL: I will not be that unkind. There is a world embargo on what can be released today. The date of release for the new regime has moved since we set down the launch at the function today, 1 March. We will be talking about a large array of medical and training courses. They are very important for Queensland. We train thousands of people in Queensland in first aid. Mr Malone: Swift water? Mr PURCELL: Not in this course, no. We certainly do it in other courses. People on the other side, particularly our country cousins, know all about our first responders. They are very good at delivering services in country areas. There is a worldwide ban on the release of the new CPR regime. The new regime will be announced on 3 March. With the permission of the Speaker, all members will have an opportunity to do the new CPR course. People should do the course every 12 months to keep updated. Even if members have done a course recently, they will have to come back and do a course taught under the new regime. I cannot speak about it. Members will hear more about it in the not-too- distant future. Gold Coast Stadium Mrs REILLY: My question is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport. I understand that the minister has some significant information to update members on the Gold Coast Stadium project at Robina. This stadium will be the home ground for the new Gold Coast Titans NRL team which will start playing in 2008—my new favourite team and soon to be the best team in Queensland. Could the minister update the House on this exciting project? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for Mudgeeraba for the question. It is indeed good news for her electorate and good news for the other Gold Coast electorates. I know that all those on this side of the House will be cheering. The Beattie government continues to build and deliver world-class sporting infrastructure to the benefit of Queensland’s elite athletes and the sports-loving public. Today I am delighted to update the House on the Gold Coast Stadium project at Robina. The stadium will be owned and operated by the Queensland government through the Major Sports Facilities Authority. It will be the home ground of the Gold Coast Titans NRL franchise. 386 Questions Without Notice 01 Mar 2006

I am pleased to report that the project is on track for construction to begin in the middle of this year and for it to be completed in time for the start of the 2008 NRL season. The Major Sports Facilities Authority has engaged the Department of Public Works as the principal construction authority. I am sure that my ministerial colleague Robert Schwarten and his department are moving very quickly to ensure that all targets are met, as has been done with our other major stadiums. At this stage officers from the MSFA have been working closely with the Public Works design team, led by HOK Sport and Watpac, to develop the stadium concept design. The schematic design stage was completed in February and trade packages for some early works are now being documented. Building consultants Watpac are finalising the guaranteed construction sum proposal for the building of the stadium. This should be submitted towards the end of March. Negotiations on the stadium land transfer and associated new infrastructure works are being finalised with the Robina Land Corporation and the Gold Coast City Council. Plans for development of the stadium site were submitted to the Gold Coast City Council for approval in late February. Members will also be interested to hear that the government is investigating the use of recycled water to irrigate the playing fields and clean the stadium. These options are currently also being looked at by the Gold Coast City Council. Of course, the benefits for the region will extend far beyond the stadium project. As many as 2,000 jobs will be generated during construction. It is anticipated that most of the consultants, the managing contractor, the subcontractors and suppliers involved will be drawn from the south-east Queensland region. This project will deliver a further world-class piece of sporting infrastructure as well as significant jobs for Queensland’s building and construction industry. I know how excited people on the Gold Coast are about the Titans forming and entering into the competition. They are going to be playing at another world-class sports facility like we have at the Gabba, Suncorp Stadium, ANZ Stadium, the Brisbane Entertainment Centre, Chandler and Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville, which is currently being expanded. It will be ready for the kick-off in a couple of weeks time. We are going to have a further beauty of a stadium down at the Gold Coast. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Maryborough, I welcome to the gallery year 11 legal studies students from Mount Olivet in the electorate of Stafford, which is represented in this chamber by Mr Terry Sullivan. I welcome the girls’ teacher Trish Bartlett, who just happens to be the wife of the Government Whip. Shared Service Initiative Mr CHRIS FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Former Treasurer and Deputy Premier Terry Mackenroth gave the people of Maryborough a commitment that at least 50 jobs through the shared service providers network—Corporate Solutions, CorporateLink and PartnerOne—would not be lost to Maryborough. I am now hearing that the network is awaiting the final sign-off from the Premier to shut down all or part of that network. These Maryborough families have been living in limbo land for over 2½ years now with the constant threat of closure. What commitment will the government give to the employment future of these Maryborough families? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am happy to arrange for an appropriate briefing for the member for Maryborough on the circumstances involving the shared services changes. I do not know off the top of my head the local arrangements in Maryborough and I do not think the member would expect me to. This is an important part of the government ensuring that it provides efficient services in an effective way and, in fact, saves money so that we can invest in education, health and other areas. Over successive governments we did end up with quite a cumbersome system that we needed to change. That is what the shared services initiative is all about. As the member knows, we have been very committed to ensuring jobs in Maryborough. Only recently the minister for transport announced that 15 new coal locomotives would be built in Maryborough. At the 2001 election, I think it was, we gave a commitment that the tilt trains were simply going to be built in Maryborough. The only reason we could do it that way was that it was an election commitment. Normally it would have to go to a tender process. Mr Lucas: You can have a tilt train as long as it’s built in Maryborough. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. It could have been anywhere. I basically said that we can have any sort of tilt train as long as it is built in Maryborough. We have taken a very strong pro-Maryborough position in this regard. Indeed, all of the Citytrain rolling stock was built in Maryborough, including 72 carriages. Under the contract that is currently starting— Mr Lucas: It has started construction. Mr BEATTIE: It has started construction. As i said, some 15 new coal locomotives will be built there and all the tilt trains were built there. We are very committed to jobs in Maryborough. We understand the issues that need to be pursued to encourage the member’s community. I will arrange for the member to be contacted either today or tomorrow to organise a briefing on this. I say to the people 01 Mar 2006 Questions Without Notice 387 concerned that I have given a clear guarantee as part of this shared services initiative process that no- one is going to be sacked. No-one is going to lose their job. Of course there are some changes and rearrangements that are being made. If I recall correctly, I think the Service Delivery and Performance Commission is looking at this as one of its areas of review. It will ensure that we are getting the savings that we need and that it is as efficient as it can be. That is my recollection. I will double-check that as well. I say to the member for Maryborough that I will arrange for him to be briefed. In terms of his community, we are right behind it and will support it. I was pleased to see him, briefly as it was, at Maryborough Hospital when the health minister, Deputy Premier and I visited. I am pleased to see that there has been an extension to the accident and emergency service there. Provided we can recruit more doctors, we want to make that permanent. I thank him for the question. Police Resources, Toowoomba Mr BRISKEY: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Toowoomba is one of Queensland’s fastest growing regional cities. Is this putting extra pressure on police services there? Can the minister please advise what police are doing to maintain community safety and to fight crime in Toowoomba? Ms SPENCE: It is a good day for Queensland, because today we are swearing in 77 new recruits into the Queensland Police Service as first-year constables. I can inform the House that six of those recruits will be going to the Toowoomba district. I am very pleased that the member asked me the question because it enables me to talk about some of the activities of Toowoomba police officers; they indeed have been very busy in the first few months of this year. I want to talk about a number of their operations. Firstly, for one week last month they conducted a campaign called dial-in-a-druggie, and they did this in conjunction with the Crime Stoppers group in the area. I want to say that the Crime Stoppers group in the Toowoomba district is probably one of the strongest Crime Stoppers committees I have met in the state of Queensland. They are very energetic. They are very hardworking. This dial-in- a-druggie campaign was very successful. Now to some of the results. In one week 39 anonymous calls were made to Crime Stoppers. Six have been fully investigated to date, with 24 people arrested on 66 drug related charges. As well, four operations have been running recently in Toowoomba to target property theft. Operation Celtic, which began on 18 February, has led to the arrest of two people in relation to a robbery at the Mobil Red Lion, the charging of four people with graffiti offences, the clear-up of 41 break-and-enter offences and the charging of 24 people with 97 offences, including break and enter, possession of a concealable firearm and possession of a dangerous drug. But that is not all. As well, the Toowoomba police have been focusing on a crackdown on assaults, liquor offences and good order offences. In addition, they have undertaken 559 random breath tests, 50 vehicle checks, eight liquor SETONS notices have been issued and 10 arrests have been made. They have also made 60 positive identifications of previously unidentified partial and whole fingerprints located at crime scenes after working with fingerprint experts. I think it is fortunate to have the opportunity from time to time in this House to reflect on the hard work of our police officers in regional Queensland. None of them work harder than those officers in Toowoomba. I am very pleased to be able to say today that we can boost their numbers by six officers as of this afternoon, because they certainly warrant that extra support. They have the runs on the board over the last few years. In fact, those who take an interest in these things would know that in last year’s annual statistical review unlawful offences dropped by 21 per cent in the Toowoomba statistical area and unlawful use of motor vehicles fell by 24 per cent, and those officers need to be congratulated. Queensland Ambulance Service, Roma Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Minister, recently in Roma an ambulance was called to take a lady to hospital. The Ambulance Service said that due to economic reasons it could not do the call-out and sent the fire brigade. The lady was suffering severe back pain and needed to be transported by stretcher. She was eventually taken by the fire service in her night attire to the hospital. Minister, this lady is wondering why she is paying the ambulance levy. Can the minister advise if the fire brigade will continue to pick up patients while the government continues to collect the ambulance levy? Mr PURCELL: I do not know of the incident, but I will certainly have it checked out if the member wants to give me some details. I wish to say that we do call on the fire brigade from time to time. Since the 1990s emergency services have worked together. It is a team effort. If all of the assets of the QAS, the Queensland Ambulance Service, are busy at the time, we call on our colleagues within the fire service. Emergency services personnel within the ambulance and fire services attend some 10,000 road accidents per year. Members of the Ambulance Service get there as quickly as they possibly can, and I can assure the member that members of the fire brigade are also very quick to respond. They are some of the best trained officers anywhere in the country— 388 Questions Without Notice 01 Mar 2006

Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr PURCELL: I will check that out; I am not taking the member’s word for that. I will check whether we have an economic problem with regard to turning out ambulances in Roma. I certainly do not know of any economic problems. We have a record budget in the Ambulance Service this year of $313 million provided by the Beattie Labor government. It is the biggest budget ever. It is almost double the budget provided when those opposite were in government, which was about $158 million. QAS has more paramedics and more services on the ground than ever before and we are backing up our officers everywhere we can. Returning to our firefighters, I want to say that they do a great job. They save people’s lives at road accidents. They do—they literally do—and they are very good at extracting people out of car crashes. They are very competitive amongst themselves and very competitive on an Australia-wide basis. I seek the indulgence of the House while I am on my feet to speak on another matter. I want to mention the Mackay press and in particular the freedom of the press and its obligations to report in an accurate and responsible manner. In the case of the Daily Mercury, its fulfilment of this obligation is being questioned by the Queensland Ambulance Service, the Australian Press Council, the union representing paramedics, the paramedics themselves and the people who work in com centres throughout Queensland. An unsubstantiated claim that a life has been lost because of an operational decision is offensive to all members of the Queensland Ambulance Service. Everybody makes mistakes. If we have made a mistake—and that has happened—we would like to be able to correct it. But first of all we have to know about it. The last person who never made a mistake was hung on a cross. But it also creates unnecessary doubt for Mackay residents, particularly those who— Time expired. Telstra Ms JARRATT: My question is to the Acting Minister for Communities. I refer the minister to the plans announced by Telstra to close thousands of payphones across Australia, and I ask: what does this decision say to those people who support the privatisation of Telstra? Mr PALASZCZUK: It says to me that they are wrong; they are horribly wrong. As I look around the chamber and see the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, there is only one party here that opposes the full sale of Telstra, and that of course is the Labor Party. We believe— Mr Chris Foley: And the Independents! Mr PALASZCZUK: And the Independents of course. We believe that the retention of Telstra in majority government ownership is important to protect access to existing and new technologies for all Australians. However, as I have said earlier, the Nationals and Liberals are prepared to privatise Telstra. Let us have a look at the new hero of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce. What did he do? He betrayed his own constituents and he rolled over on the full sale of Telstra, and the National Party members in this place here fully support the full sale of Telstra. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the member for Callide, told this parliament that the full privatisation of Telstra was a ‘good news story’. The member for Callide told this parliament last year that the National Party’s full sale of Telstra— ... is something that we will be eternally proud of, something that the members on that side of the House— that is, us— can never match in any form. Well, the member for Callide is right! Labor does not support the closure of 5,000 payphones across Australia. We condemn that decision. The member for Warrego told the parliament that the National Party had done a fantastic job to agree to the full sale of Telstra. It is not a fantastic job to put thousands of payphones—a basic service for any community—on the chopping block. This shabby deal on the full privatisation of Telstra has been done. The National Party has sold out rural and regional Australia by supporting this deal. I present this challenge to the Deputy Leader of the National Party: get a map from Telstra and from the Howard government which shows exactly where there will be closures of public phones in Queensland. When he gets that map, he should bring it into the parliament and hold it up so we can all see where those closures are going to occur. If one travels the Matilda Highway or the Diamantina Highway, there are lots of areas where mobile phones do not work and the only contact that the tens of thousands of tourists who travel through western Queensland have is the payphone. If those payphones are gone, what contact will those people have with their families? The National Party and the Liberal Party stand condemned. Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has expired. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 389

RETIREMENT VILLAGES AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 28 February (see p. 354). Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (11.30 am): There are several high-quality retirement villages in my local area: Forest Place Retirement Village at Durack, Carrington RSL Village at Calamvale and Cazna Gardens in Sunnybank Hills. A number of the residents in those villages have spoken to me about the importance of the changes that are being proposed in this bill and their interest in seeing changes to the retirement villages legislation. I commend the minister, the Hon. Margaret Keech, her ministerial and departmental officers, key stakeholder groups and others who have been involved for the many changes that are being proposed in the bill. As we all know, retirement villages provide very essential accommodation, security and support for people generally aged over 55 years. That is an age that some of us are currently at or have passed. It is an age that some of us will soon reach. So it is in our interest that we get this bill right. I thank the minister for the extensive consultation that has led to the development of this bill. I want to comment on and commend the input of some of the residents in my local area. Firstly, I want to comment on Chas Taylor, or Charles Taylor to be more formal. Last year in June Chas approached me in support of having the minister come and visit Carrington RSL Village in my electorate to hear directly some of the concerns and the input that that group wanted to have to the bill. I thank Ryan Robertson from the minister’s office. Ryan took extensive notes at that meeting because the minister was not able to be there personally. Ryan very capably performed a representative role there. He and I heard a lot of concerns from those residents. Chas had organised them well to have very effective input into the bill. They were particularly concerned about residents having the capacity to take up complaints with management. They were very concerned about the costs that might be involved if residents do take up a complaint and end up in a legal battle with managers and owners of the retirement villages. They were very concerned to make sure there would be a low-cost, effective advocacy and complaint process. They were also concerned that there be a lot of input by residents into budgetary matters, and it is important that those have been addressed in the bill. I thank Chas for organising such an important meeting and for the ongoing discussions that we have had about the retirement villages legislation. I commend the many people who attended that meeting. It was a full house at the village that day. They did very well to get organised and provide the input they did. The Forest Place residents organisation has also been very active in providing input into the bill. They have had similar issues about budgetary and complaints processes. The bill is particularly useful in the way that it will provide more financial information and a greater role for village residents in setting the annual budget. It will provide more certainty about future fees and charges, and that is essential. The many people who spoke to me have great insecurity about cost rises over the years. They want to be able to plan well into the future. They want to know what income they will need and what they will be required to be pay in the future. They want clarity over their financial obligations and those of operators, and again the bill provides this. There will be access to a simpler and less intimidating disputes procedure and many other important things. That disputes procedure was of great interest to Chas and other residents to whom I have spoken. I am very pleased that we have taken the issues of retirement village residents seriously and that we have taken them into account in the development of the bill. I thank the minister for that. I thank her for hearing out the residents about the issues they have raised. As she knows, it is very important that there is a balance between the needs of the operators—they are running a business; they need to be making profits, but not at the expense of the security—and service for residents. I think there is a very good balance in this. I commend the bill to the House. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (11.34 am): This bill will put in place a series of measures which will protect and look after the interests of consumers who live in retirement villages. I want to talk about just one aspect of the bill that is important both to the departing tenants and the operators of retirement villages. When a tenant does decide to leave a village it is normal practice for it to be reinstated to a condition which will facilitate its resale. The proceeds of the sale are divided between the resident and the operator, who receives an exit fee which represents the operator’s profit from the transaction. On occasions, the cost of reinstating a unit to a saleable state can be quite expensive. There are many instances where there are strong disagreements between residents and operators about the extent of work required. A key aspect of this bill is that it clarifies the rights and responsibility of residents and operators in the reinstatement process. Presently, under the act, different reinstatement standards apply depending on when a contract over a unit was entered into—either before or after the act commenced. To address this the bill will prescribe one standard for all units, regardless of when the contract commenced. 390 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

The new standard will clearly focus on returning the unit to a marketable condition to ensure a swift resale. The new standard will apply to all contracts presently on foot, except to those where the unit has been vacated prior to the amendment commencing. The bill also allows the outgoing resident to obtain their own quote for the reinstatement work to be done. Presently under the act, only the operator is empowered to obtain a quote. Where the unit is held under a freehold interest, the act makes the resident liable to pay for the reinstatement. If a leasehold interest is involved, the act requires the operator to pay but allows the resident’s contract to also make the resident jointly liable. Under the bill, the operator will be unable to contract out of their liability to reinstate leasehold units, although residents will still share some of the costs if they also share a capital gain on the resale of the unit. Although operators have opposed some of these amendments on the basis that it may reduce their expected profit, this issue has to be balanced with the certainty the amendments provide to both residents and operators, particularly in terms of post-vacation liability. Together with the other amendments which have been canvassed by other speakers this bill does put in place measures which will enhance and promote fair trading practices in the operation of retirement villages. Importantly, the bill raises the status and protection of residents of retirement villages. Ultimately, this can only benefit both operators and residents, many of whom are at particularly vulnerable stages of their lives. I commend the minister and the department for the good work that they have undertaken in putting this bill together. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (11.37 am): I say at the outset that Caloundra has a number of retirement villages in it. I have to ask: why would people not retire to Caloundra? It has the beaches, the sand and great service. They come to Caloundra for both lifestyle and atmosphere. However, in many cases people have found that documents they signed some years ago were not equitable between themselves and operators. It is pleasing to see that the bill before the House today does, in fact, deal with many issues about which people have come to me and other members regarding their consumer protection and also their rights of being insured. At the centre of the bill is consumer protection, which has been added as a primary objective of the act, together with better regulation of relations between village operators, residents and residents’ committees at meetings. I also note that residents’ voting rights have been clarified and residents now have been given an active role in the village budget setting process. Operators are now required to make greater disclosure of financial information. Operators have been given greater direction in relation to fees and charges and a nine-month cap will be introduced on residents’ liability to continue paying general service charges after they vacate units. I note further that residents have been given power to obtain their own quotes for the cost of reinstating the condition of vacated units to be resold and that a spouse or relative living with the resident but who is not a party to the resident’s contract has been given some limited rights to continue living in the unit after the resident dies or vacates the unit. The formal requirements in relation to the residence contract and public information document, which detail the rights and obligations of the residents and operator, have been tightened. The drafting of the act has been revisited to ensure that it adequately regulates those villages where the residents own the freehold title to their units and to recognise the role of the body corporate in such villages. Particularly pleasing is the better and fairer access that residents will have to dispute resolution procedures including the CCT. I recall attending the same meeting as the member for Nicklin some time last year in Maroochydore when that was a particular issue that was raised. It is pleasing to see that dispute resolution matter has now been addressed in greater detail in this bill. Those provisions in the act will be removed which allow contracts signed prior to the existing act to retain provisions contrary to that act. This means all residents in retirement villages in Queensland will receive the same level of protection and the advantage of the act’s consumer protection provisions regardless of when they entered into their contracts. We therefore have a bill before the House that does address many issues that have been raised by people who have seen me in the past. The importance I think with regard to that matter is that we are dealing with people who are mainly older, and the bill will certainly clarify their rights, entitlements and liabilities as residents. We should never forget that older people do not have the ability to fund ongoing legal actions, nor do they have the capacity to regenerate capital as perhaps we do in this chamber here today. As a consequence, the protection gathered by the bill and given to them is certainly a bonus for them. Older citizens throughout the state need a lot of protection across many areas, not just in retirement villages—protection from elder abuse and financial, physical or emotional abuse to name but a few—but this bill does start this process. There is now, in my submission, a need for both sides of this House to consider how better and how best to further protect the rights of older citizens, not just with regard to retirement villages but across a spectrum of issues. An honourable member: Including investment. Mr McARDLE: I take the interjection of the member. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 391

Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (11.41 am): It gives me unbelievable pleasure to rise to support the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill. On behalf of the former minister for fair trading, the Hon. Merri Rose, I chaired the community reference committee to look at the Retirement Villages Act. It was a great pleasure to do that on behalf of the then minister and it is great that the new minister has taken up a lot of those recommendations of that review. Ms Keech: You did a very good job. Mr REEVES: I thank the minister. We did do a good job. It would be remiss of me not to thank Mark Zgrajewski, who is sitting in the advisers box, for all the work he has done on this bill. I was talking to him yesterday. This legislation has been five years in the making for him. He was a bit worried that he was going to end up in a retirement home by the time we finally got the bill! That is not true. It is a great bill because it recognises the importance of operators but, more importantly, recognises the rights of the residents. The residents in these villages have both a financial and social stake in their retirement villages and they should have the right to have their say and be involved in many of the day-to-day decisions of the villages. I will speak about a couple of aspects of the bill and then I will speak about a couple of villages in my electorate. Among the key initiatives of the Retirement Villages Act 1999 was the creation of the maintenance reserve fund and the capital replacement fund. These funds, contributed to by residents and the village operator respectively, afforded increased accountability in dealing with maintenance and capital related expenditure. The bill will now give residents a role in the annual budget-setting process for the maintenance reserve fund and capital replacement fund, including the right to inspect draft budgets and meet with the operator to discuss these. The operator will also be required to provide explanatory information showing why quarterly expenditure has exceeded budgetary amounts. The use of these funds is one of the most contentious issues at many retirement villages, with residents claiming that operators often inaccurately classify expenditure as maintenance in order to pay for this out of the resident funded maintenance reserve fund. An example that came up during our review was air conditioning. An air-conditioning unit might need total replacement but some operators— a limited number of them—would then decide to do maintenance on that air-conditioning unit piece by piece. So over three years they would, in effect, get a brand new air-conditioning unit but that was being paid out of maintenance because it was done as a step-by-step process when, in fact, they needed a brand new air-conditioning unit and that should have been a capital item. To address this and provide more certainty and consistency in classifying expenditure, the bill allows the government to introduce model classification rules to identify key expenditure items as being either maintenance or capital related. These rules will be contained in a regulation and developed in consultation with both residents and stakeholders. The biggest discussion we had in the review was about what is classified as maintenance and what is classified as capital. It will continue to be an issue, but it is important that some parameters are put in place to clarify the classification of this expenditure. The definitions in the act for ‘capital’ and ‘maintenance’ and other important terms are also expanded in the bill to provide operators with greater direction in classifying expenditure. The majority of operators who are very good operators wanted clarity as well. The good operators do not want to have the everyday argument regarding what is maintenance and what is capital. But at the same time they do not want to be discriminated against in terms of the retirement village down the road that might not be as good as theirs in terms of cooperating with their residents and that might get away with some of the things that they really should not get away with. Once again, that would have financial implications. The majority of operators accepted that there needed to be a clarification. It is anticipated that this increased transparency and clarity in the act will foster better working relationships between those who have a vested interest in the success of retirement villages. There has been extensive consultation. The review, like all reviews, met with the stakeholders, including the Association of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages. I think the review was a very good process but then, as happens with all organisations from time to time, there was a change in the executive. They quite rightly had their own view. As a consequence some of those views were completely different from those of the former executive. That is probably why they stood for election and tried to— Mr Cummins: Roll them. Mr REEVES: They were not the words I was looking for. It is part of the democratic process. That then created some issues, and I congratulate the minister and the department on working through those issues. It is not easy and it is important that those stakeholders, particularly the Association of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages, have their say and that we listen to their executive, even though it may change from time to time. Another lead stakeholder was Aged Care Queensland Inc. I found that organisation to be extremely reasonable to deal with in the review. I think they understood the issues. Obviously they had their point of view and wanted to represent their members as well, but they were open to listening. 392 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

I know that we had representatives from TriCare. It just so happens that the management operation of TriCare is in the electorate of Mansfield. I found that organisation very good to deal with. I did not always agree and the residents did not always agree with the organisation, but it was open and willing to listen. These groups have made an enormous contribution to developing the bill, and have diligently and forcefully represented the views of their members at every turn. To ensure that the proposed amendments are fair and workable, a draft bill was released for public comment in 2005. All feedback was carefully considered, and numerous additions and changes were made to the draft bill to address the issues raised. Residents particularly expressed a need for greater transparency and accountability in the operator’s financial decision-making process. Operators, on the other hand, expressed concern over the possibility of reduced profit margins due to the nature of some of the amendments. In finalising the bill, I believe a balance between residents’ wishes and the commercial realities has been reached. Both residents and operators will benefit from the changes which will ensure transparency and accountability without compromising the commercial viability of the industry. I have focused on the issues of maintenance, capital and consultation. Issues have also been dealt with concerning the sale of people’s property when they move out of a village or, unfortunately, pass away. History has shown, once again, that unscrupulous operators would continue to keep them for a long period of time, particularly if they were building new retirement homes as part of the whole complex. They would put the focus on the new ones, because that is where they got their big return, while keeping the other ones in place. That meant that the estates of many people who were in retirement villages were held up, and that is not appropriate. I am very proud of all the retirement villages in my area. I particularly want to make mention of the Wishart Christian Village. I am going to visit all of the villages again over the next couple of weeks to talk about the legislation. Now we can actually say that it will be legislation. I have had a fair bit to do with Wishart Christian Village and I have to say that it has had a rocky road. It is a unique organisation. It was an incorporated association. The residents for some time tussled with certain issues. For example, the association was not communicating with them both as members of an association and as residents of a retirement village. In the end, the residents took control of that association. It highlighted a very important point which I know the minister is reviewing at the moment with regard to the Associations Incorporation Act. Here were people who virtually had to go to the Supreme Court to get some matters overturned. I am not trying to pre-empt what the minister is thinking about in relation to the Associations Incorporation Act, but I do not think it makes any sense that associations have to go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, in the future a tribunal system could be put in place in relation to the Associations Incorporation Act. So if residents did not have the wherewithal to afford to go to the Supreme Court they would have a place to go. I look forward to that assistance. This group of people, ably led by Jim Leech—who is a very fine gentleman—was dogmatic and eventually took control. I do not think their preferred motto was to control the association and also to be residents who are getting the benefit of controlling the association, but they have been left with that because of the circumstances and they are doing a superb job. They have built some more homes. They have their sought-after and long-awaited community meeting place. I look forward to visiting in a week and a half to talk about this bill at their new community meeting place. They are great people. I think in May they are coming to Parliament House for a tour and morning tea, so I will make sure I get the minister to come and have a chat with them. They often said to me, ‘We came here to retire. We did not come here to manage an association or manage a complex, but we are being mistreated by the association.’ This group of people shows what can happen if you have the fight and determination to ensure that your rights are upheld. If people are being unscrupulous or are keeping things hidden which affect people’s lives—and it was affecting their day-to-day lives—this shows that there is a chance to change that. Senior citizens should not have to go through what they went through. Hopefully, this legislation will prevent in the future a lot of seniors who live in retirement villages from going through that. Another retirement village in my area is the Wishart Baptist Village at the back of Civic Fair Shopping Centre. It has a nursing home as well. It is a great village. Residents there are very community minded. I look forward once again to catching up with them in the next couple of weeks. The Baptists run a great operation there and I congratulate them on that. Greenleaves Retirement Village is a bit different. It is a leasehold village. It has had its issues. One thing it emphasised to me when it heard I was doing this review was that we not forget the leasehold villages. It wanted to simplify the part of the Retirement Villages Act and the body corporate act that relates to leasehold villages. The minister might want to mention in her summing-up how we have done that. Unfortunately, they were working under two acts. Some managers were saying that all operations are governed by the body corporate act. In fact, the operations of the centre were still under the original Retirement Villages Act and only the sale of the asset was under the body corporate act. Once again, managers often misunderstood the intent. Hopefully this new legislation will clarify that and make it quite clear that the operations of this centre will come under the Retirement Villages Act and only the sale of their properties will come under the body corporate act. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 393

The other retirement village in my electorate is the Mount Gravatt Retirement Village, which is run by TriCare. I have a lot of admiration for TriCare. I think it has a great operation in nursing homes, hostels and retirement villages. Residents from day-to-day have arguments and disagreements with all management groups, but I found TriCare willing to listen, particularly when involved in this review. Hopefully, this Retirement Villages Act will clarify a lot of situations that arise from time to time. Anyone driving up Logan Road on their way to Garden City and Mount Gravatt will see that this is a beautiful retirement village. It is well laid out. It has some very good community rooms. As I said, it has the hostel just down the road. It also has apartment living with more care for the residents. I always tell the story about one section of this retirement village. There are about eight residents, with four units facing each other. I think it is F section; I might have that wrong. They have this system in place that when they wake up in the morning they put their little Australian flag out in the holder just outside the door so the residents across from them know that they are awake and safe. I think it is a lovely story. That is the type of village it is. I always have great pleasure in going there. I think the former minister for emergency services will remember coming out to the Mount Gravatt Retirement Village when the residents crocheted blankets for accident victims. The residents crocheted a lot of blankets for the fire service to use on accident victims in trauma cases, which was terrific. That is the kind of people they are. I finish by congratulating the minister, her department and her staff on their great effort in bringing this bill forward. It is well overdue. I know that the residents will be extremely happy that the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill will be passed today. I look forward to talking about the bill to the residents in the next few weeks. I also congratulate all the residents in my retirement villages. They are great people. I look forward to working with them and the operators who in the main do a great job. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Copeland): Before calling the member for Lockyer, I welcome to the public gallery the students, teachers and parents from the Ferny Grove State School in the electorate of Ferny Grove, which is represented by Geoff Wilson in this parliament. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (12.01 pm): I rise to speak to the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill. We all support the residents of retirement villages. I have only two retirement villages in my electorate. There are quite a few nursing homes in my electorate. It has been done the wrong way round in my electorate: the nursing homes have been built before the retirement villages. Only now are retirement villages being built, and they are attached to the nursing homes. That is working quite well. I was at the opening of Tabeel, which just opened 12 units in Laidley on the weekend. I turned the first sod probably 12 months ago. It is great to be able to get up and speak about that. The Amaroo Church of Christ retirement units and Peace Haven retirement units in Gatton also come under this bill. As I have heard the minister acknowledge, and as has been said in some of the other speeches on this subject, most of the retirement villages are run extremely well, and the legislation is to tidy them up. I am disappointed in some of the retrospectivity in the bill. I struggle with retrospectivity in any legislation. I do not know whether legislation that operates retrospectively is good legislation. I notice that there was some support from solicitors and ex-police officers. It makes me wonder about their understanding of common law and law itself when they want to support retrospectivity. The other nursing homes in my area that need to be mentioned are: Karinya Baptist Church; the Baptist home in Laidley, Amaroo, as I mentioned before; Tabeel; Peace Haven; and the Regis, which is a private operator of a nursing home in my area. These all seem to be very well run. I receive very few complaints about them. With those comments, I support the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (12.03 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill. This is a bill that deals with an issue that, speaking for myself and perhaps for some of my colleagues, is something we tend to think we will worry about in 20 years or 30 years time. But in the ageing society that we have—and I am afraid I am one of that bulging group of baby boomers—it is timely that we do not wait until we are in our sixties and seventies to start thinking about where we might spend some of our latter years. I am very pleased to see that the growth in retirement villages across the state is going in the right direction. Rather than, as sometimes they have in the past, providing bare facilities for people who are quite elderly and sometimes frail, retirement villages today are actually quite attractive places in many cases. Ms Keech: They are resorts. Ms JARRATT: Indeed, they would fit fairly well into the Airlie Beach theme of resorts, because some of the facilities are quite outstanding. They are the sort of places where I would not mind spending my twilight years. I can imagine getting up in the morning, having a quick dip in the heated pool and playing a couple of games of bingo or hoy with my mates who live in the village itself. I think that is a 394 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006 really strong feature of retirement villages: there is that friendship group around residents. In many cases residents can keep pets with them so they do not need to give up the little Lassie that has been someone’s faithful pet for many years. For many reasons, retirement villages are becoming quite an attractive option. This amendment bill seeks to make sure that there is a balance between the needs and rights of residents who might enter, or are in, a retirement village and the needs and rights of the operators who provide the facilities and who, let us face it, at the end of the day are hoping to make a financial profit from their efforts in running such a facility. There has been a lot of consultation on this bill. I know that Minister Keech, since taking over this portfolio, has worked tirelessly to ensure that the bill addresses the needs and the rights of both sides of this equation. The consultation has extended across not only residents and facility owners and operators but also peak bodies and other representatives that have an interest in this area. As the chair of the minister’s caucus committee, I congratulate the minister, her staff and all those who have worked so hard over such a long time to ensure that they have this legislation as right as it possibly can be. I know that when this process commenced there was quite a lot of dissension, perhaps on both sides. Through consultation, negotiation and working together, the minister has managed to provide amendments to the bill that I think are largely acceptable and palatable to all sides of this equation. Ms Keech: We’ve got the balance right. Ms JARRATT: Yes, getting that balance right was so important because often, as I have said, people in retirement homes are aged and can be frail and vulnerable. We needed to make sure that if there was any imbalance it came down on the side of the residents. However, I do not think that it has been done to the extent where operators will feel that their rights have been superseded. There are areas that have already been discussed in the debate, but I just want to quickly highlight the fairness that has been brought into the retirement village equation, particularly around areas such as the budget. I think it was probably very unfair in many cases. The previous arrangements were such that often residents were not able to know about the budgetary decisions that facility owners and operators were making. Indeed, these changes could be presented as a fait accompli with no negotiation or discussion being necessary. The bill introduces amendments to ensure that the residents actually become a part of that process, or at least know about any changes in the budget that might affect them and the financial considerations of the operators. Another area that is new in this amendment bill is the allowances provided to the spouse, relative or person who has been living with a resident of a retirement village who is the person on the contract. Should that contracted person pass away, under the existing arrangement the relative or spouse would have to move on. That might happen at a time of sudden death, which would add to the level of trauma and be quite an impossible situation. The amendment allows a relative or spouse some additional time—up to nine months—to make those arrangements; to either become the contracted person for the unit or to make other arrangements. That is a very compassionate way to deal with that situation and it is an amendment that I am pleased to see brought into the act. The area of dispute resolution has also been attended to through these amendments. It would be quite daunting for a resident, or even a group of residents, to front a tribunal to make a complaint in an area that could perhaps have a background of vexatiousness, trauma and anger. The amendments now allow for a person to represent a group of residents at the tribunal. That is a fair amendment. It is not always easy to stand up for your rights and to speak out. Many people, particularly vulnerable people or people for whom that would be a daunting situation, have until now missed out on the right to represent themselves through their own frailty or vulnerability. I applaud the amendment to improve the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within the legislation. I congratulate the minister on a very thorough job. This will bring much comfort to those whom this legislation affects. It not only improves the balance in the legislation but also increases the level of certainty for everybody whom the legislation affects. Congratulations and well done. I support the bill. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (12.10 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2006, which amends the Retirement Villages Act 1999. It is worth looking at the general context in which this legislation is being put forward because, as we see with many pieces of legislation in this House, they are the inevitable consequences of the way in which history has evolved in this country overall. What we see in terms of a macro sense is that retirees in the future will be increasingly dependent on looking after themselves. All projections indicate that retirees in the future will be more dependent on their superannuation. The restrictions that are being placed by the Howard government on retirees in terms of their entitlements to pensions et cetera are increasingly austere. There will come a time in the future when retirees in their latter years will have to be able to stand on their own two feet, not only financially but also in the management of their resources, their environment and in terms of looking after their own assets, welfare and place in society. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 395

This is a bill which goes some way to anticipating where we will be in the future. This is, indeed, not only a bill that deals with current circumstances and current matters that need to be addressed; it is also a bill which certainly anticipates where we are going as a society, where we are going in terms of a structure that is appropriate for looking after elderly people. In that sense, if we look at the general policy settings of the bill, we can see that that is the case: consumer protection is one of the fundamental objects of this bill. Elderly people are increasingly assertive when it comes to looking after their rights and their environment. One only has to look back to our parents’ generation to see the way in which they were so compliant with authority figures such as, for example, doctors. I know my parents had a sense that the doctor was always right and could not possibly be wrong. Elderly people today are simply more assertive, even in the circumstance of their personal medical care, and it is no surprise that they will be equally assertive in dealing with their day-to-day living circumstances. It is important to ensure that the arrangements pertaining to the day-to-day and long-term management of these retirement village facilities will be within a democratic, participative and consultative mode and that the policy settings also provide for residents in the village being involved in the budget-setting process as well within these facilities. It is also important to note that this bill provides balance in terms of ensuring that the facilities do not become deadlocked in any long-term sense in that it focuses on efficient and swift resale and deals with the clarification of the residents’ fees and charges that might be applicable in this interim period. The bill also recognises that there will be many living arrangements in the future in terms of spouses and other relatives living in these retirement villages who require sensitive care and time to make new arrangements should that be required where a partner or relative is deceased or vacates the unit. Issues relating to technical aspects of contracts and freehold properties are tidied up to some degree so that there is a proper transition to the new act. This is a timely piece of legislation and it is legislation which will require more and more focus in the future as we see diverse living arrangements develop to respond to the needs of this next generation of elderly people, particularly the baby boomers who will be more assertive than ever in terms of demanding their rights but also demanding the diversity and quality of living circumstances that they deserve in their retirement. I commend the minister for bringing this bill to the House. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (12.18 pm): I rise in support of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is a very important step in making retirees more secure in their homes by protecting their financial and social interests. It is, unfortunately, too common for unscrupulous people to take advantage of our older citizens. This bill puts the residents of retirement villages first and its primary objective is to protect their rights. The bill seeks to provide for the residents of retirement villages without compromising the viability of the industry. One area of contention has been the requirement to reinstate units. Currently when a resident leaves a village their unit must be reinstated to prepare it for sale. This may be a costly process with the outgoing resident and the operator often disagreeing over the extent of the restoration work required. A close family member of mine recently inspected a unit in a retirement village and made an offer to purchase. The vendor was happy to accept the offer but the manager of the facility insisted that the unit had to be restored at a cost both the vendor and the purchaser thought to be excessive. Needless to say the purchase did not go ahead and the resident is still trying to sell the unit. To address this, the bill clarifies the rights and responsibilities of residents and operators in the reinstatement process. Presently under the act different reinstatement standards apply depending on whether the contract over the unit was entered into before or after the act commenced. This bill will prescribe one standard for all units regardless of when a contract commenced. This new standard will clearly focus on returning the unit to a marketable condition to ensure a swift resale. The new standard will apply to all contracts, except those where the unit has been vacated prior to the amendment commencing. The bill also allows the outgoing resident to obtain their own quote for the reinstatement work to be done. Presently only the operator is empowered under the act to obtain a quote. Although operators have opposed some of these amendments on the basis that they may reduce their expected profit, this must be balanced with the certainty the amendments provide to both residents and operators, particularly in terms of postvacation liability. I have only one retirement village in my electorate, St Andrews Aged Care Facility. This is run by the Lutheran Church. I have never even heard a whisper of discontent regarding this facility. I commend the minister and the reference committee on the very important and practical amendments made in this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (12.20 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House. There are many variables when it comes to dealing with retirement villages. I think it is extremely important that we acknowledge that. One of the variables is partners or husbands and wives who have lived together for a long period of time. 396 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Many people move into these places in the twilight of their lives. We need to acknowledge that these people have made a major contribution to the country. It is our responsibility to make it as easy for them as we possibly can. They do not want conflict and they do not want to be faced with issues that they cannot handle. I received a letter from some residents of the St James Village at Heatley. The residents state— The Resident population of Retirement Villages is made up of a large number of widows who have attained ages well into the 80’s and the 90’s. Many people in this age range find it far too difficult to pursue a long laborious dispute process. We believe a better solution could be found among the following suggestions 1. An ombudsman who would look into complaints and correct matters without a dispute process for this population of Residents in lieu of the dispute process. 2. An investigative unit or mediator whom residents can access immediately as the first step of the dispute process. This letter is signed by six residents of that village. This shows that people in these retirement villages certainly want to resolve the issues and problems as easily as they can. From what I have seen of the legislation, it will do that. It will make it much easier to address the complex situations that develop over time. We have an ageing population. I think with medical science we are going to live longer. I believe that in the future the demands on retirement villages will be even greater. Many people in these villages are on pensions and are on very strict budgets. They do not want to see things that are out of the ordinary or that are unforeseen and that make it difficult for them financially. In my part of the world there are many people from non-English speaking backgrounds. That makes dealing with problems even more complex for them. In the electorate of Hinchinbrook, over time service clubs such as Lions and Apex have not necessarily had retirement villages but have put together units and little houses. The member for Mundingburra came up and opened some of these units at Forrest Beach. I think those units are very advantageous and beneficial for those who want to stay in the area. It is difficult if people move away from the people who would be their first responders—that is, their immediate family. People can change where they live, but if they stay in the area where they have been for some time then it is quite easy for them to go to somebody they know and can depend on— whether it be their sons or daughters or somebody else—because they are not too far away. I know over time some aged-care facilities have been built in my electorate. Some of these are run by not-for-profit organisations and others are run by profit-making organisations. It is important that they do not fall over. Whatever we need to do to back them up and support them has to be done. We have a mixture of nursing home beds and retirement village units together in one place. Very often there will be a block of, say, 40 nursing home beds and then there will be eight, 10, 12 or 15 retirement type facilities. That is particularly beneficial. Unfortunately, sometimes the transition from one to the other is a fact of life. What has been hard for boards of nursing homes, particularly those that are community based, not-for-profit organisations, is the high cost of complying with the accreditation standards. A lot of the standards deal with the conditions that are important for the safety of people in those facilities. I have something like 12 aged-care facilities in my electorate that cater for about 350 residents. Not all the residents come from within the electorate; some of them have come from further afield. Of course, there is a selection process which is very important. Finding beds for people who are either infirm or ageing will be a challenge for all of us in the future. I think it is probably a little easier in the more populated areas—in regional or city areas of this state—because there is a mass of people and the profit organisations are more likely to put facilities there, whether they be nursing home facilities or retirement villages. There is a major challenge facing us at the present time in terms of the direction we take with all this. The legislation goes a long way towards dealing with the current problems of retirement villages. There are a number of things that we have to address. We are dealing with retirement villages in this legislation, but there will always be a transition from the retirement villages to the nursing home facilities. The opposition is concerned about the retrospectivity of the bill that is before us. I am sure the shadow minister has dealt with that more than adequately. I suppose there is always a fear of the unknown. Exactly what will this mean at the end of the day? Will the provisions be overly demanding or will problems be created because a rule of law has been set down? Whenever change occurs there will always be major concern for older people. To some degree they are comfortable with the current arrangements. Maybe in some cases those arrangements have not been ideal. Unfortunately, change is always of some concern to the older generation. I support the bill. I know the work the minister has done on it. I know that it has taken some time. There will be issues as time progresses but we need to meet the challenge. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.29 pm): I rise to support the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill and to make a couple of comments in several areas. As other speakers have noted, the Gladstone electorate only has a couple of villages that fall under the retirement villages legislation. There are a number of nursing homes—Hibiscus Gardens, Alchera and Bindaree. Hibiscus Gardens and a new high-dependency unit, Edenvale, which will be coming online this year, are both run by the 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 397

Uniting Church through Blue Care. Bindaree has a unique management style in that it is community run and community funded. I have to commend the management team there for the brilliant job they have done over the years in providing facilities that are exceptional in terms of environment and atmosphere. Alchera is probably our longest established nursing home at Calliope, and I have to commend Jim and his wife who originally established Alchera for hanging in over some fairly difficult times and providing excellent service for the residents, who tend to be towards the higher end of dependency. However, it provides a multilevel of care. The city of Gladstone has the Village Life retirement village and another heritage village which does not fall under this legislation but consists of affordable housing run by the Department of Housing. Given the opportunity, I want to commend the minister for the investment to date in housing at the heritage village. It is of a style and quality that is exceptional. All of the residents love the atmosphere and love the design of the buildings. It is a real credit to state governments—both current and previous governments—for their investment. There will be more investment with the construction of more units as there is a waitlist of something like 80 people or couples. This legislation, however, provides some clarity in relation to residents who purchase into a retirement village, but I have noted some of the concerns in the Alert Digest from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I also acknowledge the comments made by the member for Nicklin last evening where he balanced in his view the concerns outlined in the Alert Digest No. 2 of 2006, but I will touch on those in a few moments. As people get older they are less interested and less inclined to be involved in the details and the legal framework for a residence, particularly where they have had to sell their own home. If they have lived in their own home for many years, they are used to the obligations attached to them—for instance, the rates, the neighbourhood disputes and fencing issues. They have become accustomed to all of those sorts of things, most often in their younger years. As they become more senior, I believe it is a reasonable expectation on their part that life will be just a little bit more simple. If they, however, enter into an agreement with a retirement village management that is less than cooperative and less than compassionate with their residents, albeit recognising that they are running a business, sometimes these older people find themselves in a very difficult and disadvantageous situation and at a time in their life when they least want to have to cope with those sorts of complexities. I met an older lady—she was not in a retirement village; she was in a strata title unit in Gladstone—who was pushing 80. I tell you what: you would not put a thing over her. She came to see me because she wanted a copy of the strata titles legislation. It was quite a significant document. I printed it off and took it out to her and I reckon within a week she was back with little dog ears all over that legislation. There were management problems where she was living, but she is the exception in that age group rather than the norm. People who go into retirement villages want a quiet, harmonious, easy life, and in terms of easy I mean that they want to avoid conflict. The fact that the legislation will provide more clear-cut responsibilities and obligations on both sides of the equation—the owners and operators of the retirement villages and the residents of the retirement villages—is to be welcomed. The voting rights in this legislation have been clarified, particularly in relation to residents who are unable to attend meetings. Their access to the dispute resolution tribunal will be made easier for residents who, because of their age or frailty, would find it difficult otherwise. It should be recognised, too, that in their older, more senior years some people are daunted by the legal process, particularly if they are in their 80s, because they are not familiar normally with having to front a judicial or quasi-judicial atmosphere. The requirement for operators to involve residents with a keen interest in understanding the cost of running the village in the budget-setting process, including better disclosure of the financial information, is also to be welcomed. There will also be a benefit in that residents will better understand the actual cost of running the village and perhaps will be less of a mind to object to some of the costs that they are currently and in the future asked to support and fund. The changes to the reinstatement obligations for units are welcome, particularly the ability for both parties to get quotes for reinstatement. Where there is not a balancing obligation means that there is a real risk that the party required to get the reinstatement costed has no impetus to look for the best and most affordable option. With regard to this legislation reintroducing the situation where both parties can get a quote for the reinstatement of a particular unit, in those circumstances where the operator has been acting in good faith it will not make any difference. But, where the operator has been a bit lackadaisical and the owner of the unit would be in great measure responsible for the payment of those costs, there is no constraint on the operator then to look for a good and affordable job. That is one of the benefits of enabling both parties to get a quote. The same applies in relation to the costs that will attach to the retention of a residence when it is ready for disposal cutting off at nine months. Again, the same principle applies. An operator who is assured of receiving an income from that unit, whether or not it is sold, lacks, in some instances, motivation to actually put in any effort to ensure the sale of the residence in a timely fashion. I again reiterate that whilst I do not think these will be impacts on good, solid operators it will pull into line those who have tended to be a little bit lax in terms of their operation and management of other people’s assets. 398 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

As I said, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has drawn attention to concerns in relation to retrospectivity. I note that the member for Nicklin has said that, in his view, the retrospective changes will not create problems in terms of the viability of the operations. However, I would be interested in the minister’s comments in terms of the extent of exposure that operators have stated these changes will have on them. If they are saying that they are going to be marginal in terms of viability, I am sure the minister has asked for more specific details in relation to that. I would be interested in the specific impacts that these operators have drawn to the attention of the minister as the basis of their objection to retrospectivity. As I said before, people who operate retirement villages have a great responsibility. We are not in any way saying that it is not a business, that they are not there for a return on their investment. However, in the same way that we require a high level of responsibility by people responsible for children in preschools et cetera, people who run retirement villages also have a moral, if you like, emotional and compassionate obligation towards the people who live there to ensure that their quality of life is as good as is possible—that things like meals, where provided, are nutritious and appropriate and that they are not cost-cut to the extent where the resident’s health is compromised. I am certain that the changes that this legislation will bring into being will benefit both the residents and those operators who want to be even-handed. I commend the minister for the changes. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (12.39 pm), in reply: I am absolutely thrilled to be responding to members, particularly on this historic day when we will pass the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill. On behalf of the 250 retirement villages throughout Queensland and the roughly 45,000 elderly citizens, our wonderful constituents who live in those villages— Mr Cummins: How many? Ms KEECH: There are 45,000, many of whom are in the electorate of Kawana. I thank all government members for their support of this bill. I have been moved by the quality of their speeches and the personal stories about visiting retirement villages in their electorates. I also thank the member for Nicklin. He should be very proud today. He has put in an incredible amount of work over a long period. He deserves the thanks of retirement villages not only in his electorate but throughout Queensland. Mr Cummins: If they got it wrong they can ring him. Ms KEECH: They did not get it wrong so they will be ringing him to thank him because he has got it right and we will hear soon when he moves an amendment. I say congratulations to the member for Nicklin. I also thank the Liberal member for Caloundra who, as he stated in his contribution to the debate, is also supporting the bill. I am not surprised that he is supporting it because he was in attendance at the meeting on the Sunshine Coast which the member for Nicklin called. I also had the pleasure of attending that meeting. There were well over 200 residents there. It was good to hear that even the Liberal member for Caloundra listened to the concerns of ARQRV, the Association of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages, and those residents who live in his electorate. I make no apology whatsoever. There are two primary objectives of the bill and the very first one is the protection of elderly residents living in retirement villages. It is a proud day for the Beattie government that we are delivering on our core values, that is, protecting and offering support for those who most need our support. They need it and they deserve it, and that is what the Beattie government is delivering on. The Beattie government is also protecting those who live in retirement villages now and those who will move into retirement villages in the future. Unlike the opposition, the Beattie government and the member for Nicklin have listened to both sides of the argument. We have had extensive consultation, and I outlined that lengthy consultation period in the second reading speech on the bill. The member for Mansfield gave an excellent contribution and outlined his role in the review of the bill with the previous minister. I must commend the member for Mansfield for his hard work. I know he is very proud of this bill that we will be passing today. I have also enjoyed meeting with the operators through Aged Care Queensland. It is a very professional group. Of course, its major role and objective is to look after the financial viability of its operators. It will fight tooth and nail to make sure that the operators will continue to receive profits from retirement villages. I believe the bill provides the right balance. In fact, the Association of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages has said that this bill has not gone far enough. It would have preferred to have had even stronger consumer protection. On the other hand, Aged Care Queensland has said we have gone too far. It wanted provisions that made it easier for operators to make additional profits, not additional imposts. When the groups on both sides of the argument are saying that they are not entirely happy, I guess that is evidence that the bill really does have the balance right. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 399

As I said, the first of the two main objectives is consumer protection for elderly residents— residents who have worked hard, who have raised their children, who have contributed through paying taxes in Queensland when they were employed and who have fought for their country. I have heard many moving stories of people’s lives and how they eventually moved into retirement villages. All they are asking of the government is that we recognise that they are frail and elderly and that, at the end of the day, we recognise that they need the support of the government through this legislation. That is exactly what we are delivering on. Sadly, the opposition is totally confused about the goals and objectives of the legislation. It is trying to have it both ways. The member for Currumbin applauded the resident protection provisions but then went on to oppose the retrospective provisions of the bill. Sadly, she does not understand the actual complexities of the bill. She does not understand and does not put in any work to try to understand that the retrospective provisions are an absolute intrinsic part of the consumer protections. She cannot say, ‘We applaud consumer protection, but we do not agree with and will oppose the retrospective provisions.’ Unfortunately, it shows that the homework has not been done. In my regular media releases I always encourage consumers when they are purchasing any sort of major product, whether it is a car or a home, to do their homework. It is the most important thing to do. Sadly, in this case, the homework has not been done. I know the member has sought to blame the bill coming on quickly and the fact that she did not have much time for a briefing. However, the fact is that she was also complaining that the bill has been out for consultation for a very long time. In fact, at the community cabinet in Bundaberg the very first question that a member of the public asked the Premier was, ‘We think the bill is absolutely fantastic. When is it going to be debated in the parliament, because we think it is going to be fantastic for residents in retirement villages in the Bundaberg region?’ On the one hand she complained that the consultation period took too long and then complained that the bill has come into the House too quickly. I might also add that, as soon as the bill was introduced into this House, my office did offer to the member a briefing in her own time. So the briefing could not have been any earlier than the time that the member requested. Sadly, I believe the opposition has been caught out on this one, even though the draft bill has been widely consulted on for the last year. There have been extensive consultations with Mr Phil Phillips, who has done an absolutely brilliant job in lobbying me and the department on behalf of the residents. There has been extensive consultation with Aged Care Queensland. Despite that, the opposition is complaining that all of a sudden they are not across the bill. We would expect that a person holding a position of authority, such as being responsible for the opposition portfolio of fair trading, would have put in some effort. That is a little bit sad. I am sure that the residents in retirement villages who are listening to this debate—there are many IT savvy residents out there in retirement villages who are connected to the internet. Mr Cummins: My mum would be on it today. Ms KEECH: She could be. I send a cheerio to the mother of the member for Kawana. I believe that those people listening would be feeling badly let down and badly betrayed by the Liberal Party and the National Party. Let us look at the retrospective issues and let us get some facts into this debate. I commend the member for Nicklin for his contribution regarding retrospectivity. He had actually taken the time to read the bill, to read the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s comments and to give a sensible response regarding retrospectivity. What is it all about? Simply, it is about bringing the preact and postact provisions of contracts together. Often when I was speaking to residents, particularly on the Sunshine Coast and also at the community cabinets, the one issue that came up constantly was this confusion where the person next door had a different contract. Elderly people found that very confusing indeed, whether it was regarding exit fees or reinstatements. They really could not work out why the person next door to them had a completely different set of obligations and financial constraints. That is something that we have delivered on, and that is because the residents have asked for it. The Beattie government is absolutely committed to ensuring the viability of the retirement village industry. There should be no illusions about that. In fact, the second object of the bill is to ensure the strong viability of the industry. Bearing that in mind, I asked my department to go back to Aged Care Queensland and ask them very specifically to give me some evidence on how these retrospective provisions would impact on their bottom line. There was no strong evidence—no evidence whatsoever. I really wanted to hear from them whether it would impinge on their bottom line, but they were unable to give the department and me any real evidence that the viability of their industry would be impinged upon by these retrospective provisions, which simply bring some consistency and some certainty into the contracts of the residents. Not only were Aged Care Queensland Inc. and operators unable to provide evidence of the issues with respect to retrospectivity; the opposition today has also not been able to make its case in this debate. 400 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

I would like to talk about the other issues with regard to retrospectivity, particularly the misinformation about the retrospective issues that we are debating in the bill. The bill provides for retrospective consumer protection for residents with older contracts and living in older units. In fact, this is the most important part because we are finding that residents who have older contracts who live in older units are those who are at most risk, particularly when it comes to selling the units. We have heard stories of units taking up to three years to be sold. When the general services fee is roughly $200 a fortnight, that is a lot of money for them to be paying when they have moved on to a nursing home or, if they have sadly passed on, that is a lot of money for the estate to be paying. So the retrospective provisions regarding general services fees provide for a cap. There is some misinformation that the residents have it all their own way. I know Mr Phil Phillips would be the first person to say far be it from the residents to have it all their own way. In fact, there are still some issues that they are not happy about it. What does the cap provide? Previously if the unit was vacated because somebody had gone to a nursing home or passed on the general services fee was liable to be paid forever. So no matter how long it took to sell that unit they had to pay the general services fee of roughly $200 per fortnight. The residents requested that a cap be put on for three months, but in the negotiations that we had between the residents and Aged Care Queensland it was believed that a three-month cap was not fair to the operators. So in the negotiation we decided that there will be a cap to nine months. After that period of time the operators will be responsible for those charges. I believe that this is fair. It is well balanced given that, on average, I have been advised by the Office of Fair Trading that the majority of units are sold within six months. A nine-month cap again is one of those retrospective provisions that the opposition is not supporting, but it is fair and it is balanced for both sides. Another important aspect that the opposition has overlooked is the fact that the provisions that have retrospective aspects are regulatory and not punitive in nature. As the member for Nicklin argued very well indeed, the provisions—and there are only a few provisions regarding retrospectivity—may apply retrospectively but they operate prospectively in the future. So when opposition members are refusing to support the bill and refusing to support the retrospective issues they are refusing to support any residents in retirement villages who have older contracts. They will have to go back and explain that to their electorates. The member for Currumbin is going to have to go back to her electorate and talk to the good people in those lovely retirement villages on the Gold Coast—Elanora Gardens and Pine Lake Retirement Village. I do not know if she has ever visited those villages, but she is going to have to go those villages and explain why she will not stand up for elderly residents who have older contracts. I think it will be rather embarrassing for some members of the opposition—the Liberal and National parties—when they have to return to their electorates on Friday. In fact, I notice that so nervous are some members who are very close to their residents who live in retirement villages, like the member for Toowoomba South, they have been very tentative in their support for the Liberals’ opposition of the retrospective provisions. Members who have actually spent time talking to residents know that these are issues that are very, very close to their heart. Mr Cummins: It might be another policy division opposite. Ms KEECH: It is a real worry, I have to say. It basically comes down to what we stand for. With Labor values, the Beattie government stands for protecting those who most need our help. People who have fought for our country and who have provided wonderful services and are now in their twilight years are asking for a little bit of support and a little bit of recognition that it is very intimidating to go to a tribunal all by themselves. That is why we have introduced new provisions to the effect that, for the first time, if a group of people have the same problem in a retirement village they will be able to go as a group action to the tribunal and they will also be able to have support from an advocate or a family member. That is why we are also supporting a whole range of other provisions to enhance consumer protection. In the short time I have left I would like to talk about an amazing contribution from the member for Redcliffe. Normally when we as members in this House stand in here we talk on behalf of our constituents: we advocate very strongly indeed for their voices to be heard in this parliament. But I have never heard a member, despite the fact that he is a new member—and that is no excuse—stand up here and deliberately insult his constituents. That is exactly what the member for Redcliffe did when he was arguing that there is no reason that there should be additional accountability and transparency when it comes to financial statements. To back up his argument—and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker Jarratt, that you will find this absolutely amazing, as will the residents who live in retirement villages in his electorate— Mr Reeves: How many retirement villages in Redcliffe? Ms KEECH: I am sure he has lots. It is a lovely area and a lot of elderly folk live there. Mr Reeves: I would be interested to know his views. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 401

Ms KEECH: With regard to why there should be additional accountability with regard to financial statements, the member for Redcliffe said, ‘When you go to the fish and chip shop you don’t ask to see the books. So therefore why should people living in retirement villages have access to the books?’ I think that is an absolutely disgusting comment, particularly when he is supposed to be representing his constituents in those large numbers of retirement villages. Fish and chip shops are not retirement villages. Retirement village operators hold on to residents’ money for months and months before spending it on the residents’ behalf. Residents deserve to know how their money is being spent— Mr Cummins: Thousands of dollars. Ms KEECH:—how much of it is left and what they are getting for their money. As the member for Kawana said, it is a lot of money—huge amounts of money. It is their money and they have the right to know where the money is being spent. The member for Redcliffe should hang his head in shame. When he returns to Redcliffe, he needs to visit New Haven Village. He needs to visit Peninsula Gardens. He needs to visit Peninsula Palms Retirement Village. He also needs to visit a lovely retirement village at Margate called Maiala Court. He needs to apologise to his constituents for failing to stand up for them and for insulting them in this House. Sitting suspended from 1.01 pm to 2.30 pm. Ms KEECH: In continuing my comments on the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2006, I particularly want to welcome residents in retirement villages who are listening online to this debate in their villages. From visiting retirement villages, I have noticed that they are a very techno savvy group. Most villages have IT and internet access, and I have been told that there are many people throughout Queensland who are listening today to this debate. In this bill the Beattie government is introducing new provisions which will ensure greater protection for retirement village residents. In particular, the legislation is looking at clarifying residents’ voting rights, giving residents more say in the village budget setting and ensuring dispute resolution is more accessible by allowing residents to appoint an advocate in disputes heard by the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal. Additionally, many residents spoke to me about capping resident liability for exit fees and charges. As I said earlier, I thank all government members who have spoken to this bill. They have been very passionate and I thank them for their support. I thank the member for Nicklin for his hard work and his support. I also thank the member for Caloundra for his support of the bill. I know that residents will be very disappointed to learn that the shadow spokesperson has foreshadowed that the opposition will not be supporting the bill. In particular, those opposite will not be supporting the retrospective provisions of the bill. They believe they can have their cake and eat it, too. Their speeches show that they simply do not understand the complexities of this bill, despite the fact that it has been out for consultation for more than a year. We have heard a lot of pious platitudes about how important it is to protect elderly residents living in retirement villages and ensure that they have the right, for example, to a whole range of provisions that I have already mentioned. But those opposite are not supporting retrospectivity. The simple fact is that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. It is a bit like being pregnant. Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Either you support consumer protection for residents or you do not. The Liberal member for Currumbin, who is the opposition spokesperson, and the opposition in not supporting retrospectivity do not support the consumer protection provisions of the bill. In fact, they do not support the bill full stop. This Labor government believes in the absolute viability of the retirement villages industry. I have been delighted with the work that the Aged Care Queensland executive has done with this bill. There has been a huge amount of consultation. The final process of consultation saw Aged Care Queensland and Mr Phil Phillips, the ARQRV representative, sitting in a room together and nutting out these issues with my office and the Office of Fair Trading. As I said earlier, it has come down to a balance. Not everybody has got what they wanted. Certainly the residents have not got all that they have wanted and the operators of Aged Care Queensland have not got all that they have wanted, which says to me that the bill is a good balance between protecting the rights of consumers in retirement villages and protecting operators to ensure that they have financial viability in their industry. I want to make a couple of comments in response to some issues raised by the member for Currumbin. Before that, I do have to reiterate something. There has been a lot of discussion over the lunch period about the insulting comments that the member for Redcliffe made about his constituents. It was a very sad day for his constituents. He has a large number of retirement villages in that lovely area of Redcliffe. He says that he does not support the additional provisions which encourage more accountability and more transparency when it comes to financial statements. Why is that? Because he said, ‘When you go to a fish and chip shop, you do not ask to see the books.’ Therefore, he believes there should not be additional financial transparency. As I said, fish and chip shops are not retirement villages. It is money that belongs to village residents and they have a right to know what has happened with their money. It is a bit like putting money in a bank account and the bank saying, ‘You have no right to financial statements.’ It simply is not right. I know that the residents of his many retirement villages will 402 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006 be looking forward to a visit by the member for Redcliffe so he can explain his actions and his comments in the House to them. I turn to the issues raised by the member for Currumbin. She asked about tax implications. This issue was not raised by operators. There are no new fees imposed on operators, although some amendments may have an administrative cost. The other issue she raised was a very important one and concerned the education campaign which we will be conducting around the state. I am very pleased that the Office of Fair Trading will be working with local members and me to ensure that there is a comprehensive education campaign. We will provide easy-to-understand information for residents of villages and we will be conducting information sessions in key centres. The member also asked about future compliance and enforcement costs. These operational matters are unaffected by the bill. Enforcement activities are determined on a needs basis by the commissioner, but I have directed the Office of Fair Trading to conduct regular compliance activities once legislation is bedded down. We will also investigate more serious complaints as they are received. In summing up, I once again thank government members for their contribution and I thank the member for Nicklin. In particular, I would like to thank Phil Reeves, who chaired the ministerial reference group, which did an absolutely fantastic job on this legislation. We could tell from the contribution of the member for Mansfield that he is absolutely passionate about the residents who live in retirement villages in his electorate. I also thank the member for Aspley, Bonny Barry. Bonny is not here with us this afternoon. She is having chemotherapy, but it was nice to see her here this morning. The member for Aspley has been a very strong and vocal advocate for village residents and employees. She has used her skills as a former Nurses Union negotiator to great effect in putting forward a strong case on behalf of village residents. She has also done that on behalf of the owners and operators of villages. The member for Aspley has a number of retirement villages in her electorate, and the residents owe her a real debt of gratitude for her efforts on their behalf. The member spoke to me this morning before she left. She was not well at all when she left around lunchtime. She asked me on her behalf to recognise the great contribution she has had from her residents, who have let her know about areas of concern, but also from the operators and Aged Care Queensland. I also thank the member for Kawana for his strong support for the provisions of the bill, not only in caucus but also in cabinet, on behalf of the residents of the very many villages in the Kawana electorate. I think he has more villages in his electorate than anybody else. In particular I would like to thank the President of the Association of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages, Mr Phil Phillips. Phil has been an absolutely strong advocate for the residents. We have had many, many meetings. He has travelled, at his own expense, to parliament and to the department to meet on many occasions. I know that the residents in the villages owe Phil a debt of gratitude, as do I, too. He was able to put the issues in place quickly. I also thank Mark Zgrajewski from the Office of Fair Trading and from my office Cameron Crowther, David Smith, Michael Caldwell, Dan Harradine, Kathie Standen and Ryan Robertson. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mrs STUCKEY (2.41 pm): Clause 8 restates and adds to the existing definition of ‘exit fee’. I pity the fact that the minister has taken such a vitriolic attitude and misinterpreted my intent and support. The coalition readily supports the majority of this bill. If my speech is read, that will be readily seen. Despite thinly veiled threats to me about misrepresenting me to residents in my electorate, together with the coalition I add our pledge to support legislation that offers strong and fair consumer protection for all Queenslanders. Any attempt to paint operators as greedy and uncaring shows a lack of good faith and a complete misunderstanding of the need for open lines of communication between operators and residents. Respectful, open relationships, not antagonism, are essential ingredients for any neighbours in small communities where harmony and quality of life are valued. In my electorate we are working on a code of conduct for our surfing fraternity, and maybe that is not a bad idea in this state to deal with this retrospectivity. It bothers me that many members have spoken of people in retirement homes as frail, helpless and elderly. Certainly retirement villages of the past have held true to that perception, but in reality people in their fifties are welcome to purchase units in villages. In one village in my electorate there are some very spritely, mature citizens who live very full and active lives, whether they are in their late fifties or early eighties and beyond. Let us not typecast everyone in retirement villages. This accommodation will proliferate in the future, and the ages will vary. My dad and his wife, who are well into their eighties, are never home. They live in a retirement village, and they are very active. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 403

I raise the issue of retrospectivity. It is unfair, it is morally wrong and it is the principle of retrospectivity that the coalition has a problem with. In the most basic sense, it changes the law in an unfair manner. It is very simple for the minister to say that the legislation is just bringing a pro act and a pre act together. Then why on earth did the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee bother to make so many mentions of it? Also, I understand that Aged Care Queensland has not yet responded. Will that organisation be given a time frame in which to respond? Would the minister please forward that response if she receives it? Ms KEECH: I thank the member for her comments—they were comments rather than a question—because the issues that she raised have been raised previously by her. I can understand why the member is nervous. I think she has probably had time to reflect on the position that the opposition has taken. I hope that she has actually had a bit of time to talk with more of the residents in her retirement villages. She has some lovely retirement villages in her electorate, including at Elanora. Hopefully she has had a bit more time to speak to people about the issues. I know that she has had some time to speak to the operators. It would be good if the opposition had spent as much time, in balance, talking to residents and listening to their concerns. The comment that I am allegedly trying to brand operators as greedy and uncaring is completely wrong. If members go back through Hansard they will see that in no place have I given any description with respect to operators. In fact, Noyea Park, which is a freehold retirement village, is literally the neighbour to my electorate office. It has an absolutely excellent operator and a great manager. Through the extensive consultation that both I and the department have done with Aged Care Queensland, we know that, on the whole, operators and managers are caring people but, let us face it, they are also businesspeople. They are in this to make a profit. That is what businesspeople do. Businesspeople are not charities; they are there to make a profit. They make a profit by providing services to residents. Certainly they provide a very good service in most but not all cases. I know that the member for Nicklin has discussed some of the villages in his area, as did the member for Kawana and many other members. I have heard some absolutely appalling stories. At the community cabinet meeting in Bundaberg I almost shed a tear over a story I heard from some constituents from Hervey Bay—about how badly they had been treated by their operators. I am not suggesting that this operator would be a member of Aged Care Queensland, because I think probably this person is not. However, to say, ‘Leave it to the operators. The operators always do the right thing,’ is wrong as that is simply not the case. The residents begged me and begged me to provide protection for them against some operators—and certainly these operators are a very small minority—who choose to do the wrong thing by these elderly and vulnerable residents. Once again, the member’s question shows that she has no understanding of the issue of retrospectivity. She says that it is unfair because it is wrong in principle. Again the opposition has not done its homework. Opposition members would have listened to the member for Nicklin. He explained the issues of retrospectivity very clearly. In fact, this example of retrospectivity is completely fair. It is the most fair thing that could be done. It means that the provisions are the same for residents who signed their contracts pre the act and those who will sign their contracts post the introduction of this act. Their entitlements and responsibilities will be the same. What is fairer than a one-rule-fits-all approach, regardless of where people live and when people came into the retirement village? The opposition would have one rule for those who are in villages now and one rule for those who will come into retirement villages later. Maybe the opposition members are thinking of their own future years, when they will be moving into retirement villages. There is nothing fairer than this provision. It is retrospective in name only because its prescription will be prospective, dealing with units that may not be sold for another five years et cetera. The provisions are fair, and the Beattie government is proud of that fairness. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Mrs STUCKEY (2.49 pm): As I mentioned earlier, this clause again deals with retrospectivity. Once again I say to the minister that this is a matter of principle. I would like it on record that changing laws in this manner is not something that we support. Ms KEECH: I guess the comments I made previously stand. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Clauses 24 and 25, as read, agreed to. Clause 26— 404 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Mrs STUCKEY (2.50 pm): Once again this clause has to do with retrospectivity. The issue is a matter of certainty. Those with contracts now have an expectation as to what their liability will be in the future and this clause seeks to impact on this. Ms KEECH: I will quote some words that I have heard today with respect to retrospectivity— Residents have come to me and said that contracts they signed years ago were unfair. This bill puts all contracts on the same terms. Those words are not mine, they are not even the words of government members; they are actually the words of the member for Caloundra. I can understand why he made those comments because, unlike the member for Currumbin, he attended the meeting that the member for Nicklin arranged and he actually listened. I commend the member for Caloundra—he is not here now; he is probably chatting with some of his retirement village residents and they are probably congratulating him—for listening and standing up for the residents rather than toeing the party line. As I said, the bill addresses this unfairness. The legislation brings older contracts into line with newer ones; it treats existing residents the same as it treats new residents. The legislation gives everyone the same fairer deal. It is a fair go for all. As we get close to the end of the clauses, I encourage the member for Currumbin to consider very carefully the position of the opposition. The member has a very important role to play here. The member for Currumbin, the member for Surfers Paradise and the rest of the National and Liberal Party members will have to go back to their electorates and explain to the elderly residents living in their many, many retirement villages why the opposition refuses to protect them. This is the member’s last chance to review her comments and to make a decision. Is the member standing up for the elderly residents who need our support or does she simply believe that the opposition, and in particular the Liberal Party, is there for one reason and that is to protect the big end of business? It will be the first to say that it recognises that the Beattie government is supporting the economy and supporting big business. At the end of the day, big business can look after itself; elderly, frail residents cannot. They need the support of this parliament. I call on the member for Surfers Paradise, who I have always believed to be an intelligent, caring member, to reconsider his position. The member for Robina, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Acting Leader of the Opposition, has returned to the chamber and I welcome him. I know that the residents listening on the internet welcome him as well. I encourage those opposite to reconsider their position. This is a very important issue. They cannot support the bill but not support the retrospectivity. As I said, it is like being pregnant; you are either pregnant or you are not pregnant. The opposition cannot say that it supports the bill but does not support the retrospectivity, because the two issues are completely combined. I call on the member to reconsider her position. Mr QUINN: What a load of nonsense. Of course the opposition can support this bill and not support a couple of clauses in the legislation. That is done routinely in this House, as a matter of course. This nonsense that the minister is speaking, that if you do not support these clauses you do not support the bill, is a load of codswallop and should be seen for what it is. I have been in this House for 17½ years. When the Labor Party was in opposition it supported legislation but opposed certain clauses of a bill. It is standard procedure in this House. That is the first thing. On the issue of retrospective legislation, as a matter of principle everyone in this chamber should be opposed to retrospective legislation. Why? Because it changes the ground rules on which people have initially entered into commercially binding agreements. If it were a matter of course that retrospective legislation went through this chamber, or any other parliament in Australia, the very basis on which we conduct commercial negotiations and enter into contracts would be subject to change all the time. It would create a great deal of uncertainty amongst the general public. That is why only in extreme cases do parliaments even consider retrospective legislation. In my time in this chamber I can only think of a couple of occasions when retrospective legislation has gone through the House. When that is done there are winners and there are losers in these arrangements, because you are changing the basis on which initial agreements have been entered into. Whilst we might be moving here to assist elderly people in their retirement villages—and that is a noble cause—there will be some cost to someone else. That should be clearly understood—even by those people who are listening on the internet, as the minister likes to say all the time. Someone else somewhere will have to make some other arrangements in terms of the initial agreements. As the shadow minister has said, the legislation can be supported even though in principle we oppose the clauses. We have done that on a consistent basis where retrospective legislation is put through this House. I can remember, as I said, a number of occasions when we have done that and I, from memory, have opposed it on each occasion as a matter of principle and that is why we are doing it here today. Clause 26, as read, agreed to. Clauses 27 to 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 405

Mrs STUCKEY (2.56 pm): Once again, may I record my displeasure at the thinly veiled threats that I have been receiving about the misinterpretation of the coalition’s intent with this bill. Clause 44 is a reflection of differences between pre-act and post-act contracts and it can only come into force if previous clause changes relating to retrospectivity are applied. Before I ask the minister two questions, I remind the House that in 1999 the then minister for fair trading actually had some problems with retrospectivity. It is interesting that the Labor Party has changed its mind now. My questions are: can the minister guarantee that no single resident will be worse off and also— Mr Lucas interjected. Mrs STUCKEY:—can the minister assure us that individual contracts which may in fact have a clause which provides an exemption from the general services fee after vacation will not be affected. I hope the minister was able to hear through that rude interjection. Ms KEECH: If we are talking about threats, I am sure the minister for transport is getting nervous about those sorts of threats across the chamber. Mr Lucas: She doesn’t care about them when they’re working and she doesn’t care about them when they’re retired. That’s the size of it. Ms KEECH: The minister is absolutely correct. It is pleasing to see the Leader of the Liberal Party come to the aid of the member for Currumbin because she is getting rather nervous, and this idea of threats I find absolutely objectionable when the member has failed to stand up for the Liberal-voting residents who live in retirement villages on the Gold Coast and across all of Queensland. The member certainly should feel nervous, but the idea of threats is absolutely outrageous. I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Robina and Leader of the Liberal Party. As he said, in extreme cases there have been times when retrospectivity has been applied. I could think of no more extreme case, no more important group of people who deserve the protection of this House, than frail, elderly residents—some of them are not so frail—people who have worked hard, who have paid their taxes, who have raised their families, who have fought in wars and who have been incapacitated. The Liberal Party says that this is not an extreme case. I say to the Liberal Party that it is wrong. This marks the difference between the Labor Party, which will stand up for those who cannot protect themselves, those who need our protection, and the Liberal and National parties, which stand for nothing. In particular they stand for nothing when it comes to supporting those who most need our support and protection. I am proud to stand here and say that in this case the Beattie government fully supports retrospectivity and so do the residents. It simply means that all contracts will be treated the same. On several occasions we invited Aged Care Queensland to provide the department and me with strong evidence to show how these small issues of retrospectivity would impact financially on the health of the villages and it was unable to do so. Mrs STUCKEY: Could I ask the minister to address the two questions I asked in terms of clause 44. Would the minister like me to repeat them? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I think the member should repeat them. Mrs STUCKEY: Can the minister guarantee that no single resident will be worse off by the implementation of any retrospectivity? Can the minister assure us that there are no individual contracts which may in fact have a clause which provides an exemption from the general services fee after vacation? Ms KEECH: I can give a guarantee that the residents of retirement villages in Queensland are now better protected than ever when it comes to their contracts. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clauses 45 to 58, as read, agreed to. Clause 59— Mr WELLINGTON (3.02 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 59— At page 40, line 31, ‘(4) to (7)’— omit, insert— ‘(5) to (8)’. 2 Clause 59— At page 41, line 19, ‘another resident of the village’— omit, insert— ‘any other person, other than the scheme operator,’. 3 Clause 59— At page 41, line 24— omit, insert— ‘than 1 meeting. ‘(4) A person may not hold more than 2 proxy votes for the meeting.’.’. 406 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

4 Clause 59— At page 41, line 25, ‘(7)’— omit, insert— ‘(8)’. 5 Clause 59— At page 41, line 23, ‘resident’— omit, insert— ‘person’. I expressly draw the attention of members to amendment No. 5, which is an amendment to clause 59. It refers to page 41, line 23. As I indicated when I spoke in the debate on the second reading yesterday, these amendments arose out of my private member’s bill introduced into this House almost two years ago. It was about trying to assist with the rights of residents of retirement villages. We had one operator who simply was not prepared to do the right thing. In that instance a resident had actually appointed a solicitor to be their attorney. Unfortunately, the legislation expressly prohibited that attorney from actually attending a residents’ meeting and speaking and voting on behalf of that resident. More importantly, members of the village had children who wanted to participate on behalf of their parents at residents’ meetings. Again, they were prohibited from speaking; they were prohibited from voting; they were prohibited from attending those meetings. Those circumstances led me to introduce my bill, which was called the Retirement Villages (Proxy Voting) Amendment Bill. After that was introduced the minister, her senior departmental staff and I had many meetings. I thank the minister for taking the time to sit down and work through those issues. These discussions have led to the amendments which are now before the House. There is nothing sinister in these amendments; there are no hidden messages in these amendments. The amendments are intended to be very clear and make sure that a resident is able to appoint any person other than a scheme operator to speak for them, to vote for them and to stand up and be their voice at residents’ meetings. One of the issues raised was the concern about bullying by scheme operators, residents and relatives of those in retirement villages. That is a reason I also included the other amendment which stipulates that the proxy vote cannot be handed to a scheme operator. That is why I have limited the capacity of someone to have only two proxy votes. If there is an issue of concern I feel confident, from my dealings with residents of retirement villages, that they will be able to have other people make proxy votes if they are unable to attend. I think the limitation of two proxy votes per person is reasonable. I believe the issue of prohibiting and expressly excluding the scheme operators from being able to hold proxy votes prevents any problems. We are all aware of situations where perceptions create real problems for some communities. Irrespective of whether something untoward has been happening, the rumours start and the next minute everyone believes the rumour and the rumour becomes reality. I believe that expressly excluding the scheme operator from holding proxy votes will prevent any concern about bullying occurring. I urge members, and especially the coalition members, to support this amendment. I believe it is a common-sense solution to the problem. I really believe it will make significant improvements to the operation of many of our retirement village meetings in Queensland. I also note that at clause 59(2)(b)—that is, line 17 on page 41—there is reference to the capacity of a resident to appoint someone as their power of attorney. That certainly does not fall within the provisions of the proxy vote having to be extended and renegotiated after each meeting. A power of attorney continues for the life of the power of attorney, but the proxy votes that are covered by my proposed amendment need to be renegotiated for each meeting. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Before calling the minister can I make it clear that version two of amendment No. 5 moved by the member for Nicklin reads at clause 59, page 41, line 23 to delete the word ‘resident’ and insert the word ‘person’. Ms KEECH: I congratulate the member for Nicklin on his amendments. It is with great pleasure that I accept version two of his amendments. The member for Nicklin should be very, very proud of his achievements. He has been working so hard on behalf of the residents in his electorate. He has brought a very important issue to the government. He introduced his private member’s bill and then followed all the correct procedures by meeting with me and my department. I thoroughly enjoyed the visit we had to the Sunshine Coast. The member for Caloundra was also present. The residents may be elderly but they were certainly very spritely and energetic and they knew the detail of the bill line by line. I was pleased to hear the issue regarding residents’ proxy votes. We resolved that residents could hold no more than two proxy votes to ensure there was no issue of block voting. I congratulate the member for Nicklin for withdrawing his private member’s bill. I have great pleasure in accepting his amendments. 01 Mar 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 407

Mrs STUCKEY: I would like to direct a question to the member for Nicklin. Am I able to do that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may make a comment and the member for Nicklin may respond. Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you very much for that clarification. That is exactly what I seek in terms of clause 59. I commend the member for Nicklin for bringing in his private member’s bill a couple of years ago. I was very keen to stand up, comment on it and support it. The member has now put forward amendments some two years later. I would like to comment on amendment No. 2 to clause 59, which is that any person other than the operator is able to be given a vote. I am just wondering how broad this can be. I am concerned that we could end up with a large number of nonresidents affecting the outcome of residents—that is, people who actually do not live there. There are what we could consider fairly small issues, but they are very large to people who live in retirement villages. I mentioned these in my speech in the second reading debate. They are things such as issues with courtesy buses, rubbish bins and those sorts of things. They can come up at some of these meetings. I seek clarification as to how broad that is going to be. Does the member see a problem with a large number of votes being handed out to other people who have no real relation to the retirement village? Mr WELLINGTON: I do not envisage that as a problem. That is one reason we have limited it—so that a person who holds a proxy vote can hold only two. If an outsider wants to speak on behalf of their parent or a friend in the village, they are able to hold only two proxy votes. As I said earlier, the reason for this is to prevent potential bullying of residents. This is about trying to improve the life and the environment of people in our retirement villages. The minister referred to the issue of block voting, and that certainly is an issue that has been raised. That certainly is one of the most important reasons that agreement has been reached to limit proxy votes to two. I think it is a compromise. I think there will not be a problem. I think it is all about trying to improve the life of these residents and also trying to ensure that outsiders who want to participate in village business have the legal capacity to do that, either by having a legal power of attorney document or by complying with my proposed amendments, whereby they have a proper proxy vote and the number of proxy votes is limited to two. Mrs STUCKEY: Can I seek further— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): One more go. Mrs STUCKEY: I have had one on this clause. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I mean you can speak three times to this clause. Mrs STUCKEY: Member for Nicklin, I would be happy to stand corrected here. I am really seeking clarification. Does the member intend with this amendment that, say, if 30 people were not able to be— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to deceive you, member for Currumbin, but unfortunately although you may speak three times to the amendment the member for Nicklin cannot. He has already had his three goes. Therefore, he does not have the opportunity to speak again. I am sorry to be pedantic, but that is the standing order. You can make a comment but he cannot respond to it. Mrs STUCKEY: All right. Maybe he will do so outside the House and satisfy my curiosity after this bill has gone through. I think that might be the best way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I suggest to members that it is good to have a little bit of humour in the House sometimes. I actually enjoy it. Amendments agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 60 to 64, as read, agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am the oldest member of this chamber. Maybe I should have a greater interest in this bill! Ms KEECH: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are some wonderful retirement villages around the place. Now that there is greater consumer protection, make sure you choose one in a Labor electorate because you know that the Labor government will look after you. Mr Barton: There are a couple of good ones in my electorate. Ms KEECH: There certainly are in the Waterford electorate. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time. 408 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 01 Mar 2006

INALA SHOPPING CENTRE FREEHOLDING BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 14 February (see p. 43). Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.14 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the Queensland coalition to support the Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006. I take this opportunity to thank the minister for the briefing that was provided to me yesterday by his staff members Esmae Reid, Director-General Natalie McDonald and Damien Lavercombe. The bill seeks to give the existing holders of state housing perpetual town leases in the Inala Shopping Centre the opportunity to acquire freehold titles in respect of their leased lands under a self- governing community titles scheme upon payment of an amount equal to an agreed unimproved value of their lands, thereby enabling the state to terminate its involvement in the management of the centre. Back in the 1950s the then Housing Commission, now the Department of Housing, planned the Inala Housing Commission project, the biggest project of its kind at the time. The Inala estate was considered a model development and the commission’s largest, as I have just said, with plans for a parks system, recreational spaces, educational facilities, government agency offices, a highly connected system of grid street patterns, a library and a shopping centre, or the Inala Civic Centre as it was known during the planning and building stages. I requested a research report from the Parliamentary Library for which I was very thankful prior to having received the briefing from the minister’s staff. One of the things that could not be explained in that research report was why the Housing Commission, as it was at the time, decided to get the land for a shopping centre instead of doing it obviously as it would be done now, whereby people would build a shopping centre and would tenant it in the normal way that developers might sell off land to a shopping centre group. But as it happened, this was what was done. The old Housing Commission had special powers to acquire and lease land for various purposes under the State Housing Act 1945 and, in specific respect to shopping centre development, section 22B provides guidance. Subsection (2) states— (2) Where land is surrendered by the commission to His Majesty as aforesaid ... the Governor in Council may ... demise by a lease in perpetuity or for a term of years that land to the person or body corporate to whom or which the commission has satisfied the Governor in Council it is desirable to make the land available. (2A) The capital value of land demised under subsection (2) shall be such sum as the Governor in Council ... shall fix. Basically it was setting up a scheme of perpetual leases and the Queensland Department of Housing, known as the Queensland Housing Commission when it acquired the land in 1949, began seeking tenders for leases for business sites in the Inala Civic Centre in 1962. Applications were invited for perpetual town leases for sites in the civic centre for the erection of business premises and the conduct of the businesses therein. Now the Inala Shopping Centre consists of 20 perpetual town leases under the Housing Act 2003, a public road which is used as a car parking area and freehold land vested in the state. For many years the department has been the de facto manager of the centre. In that role it has had to waste its administration, time and money on providing services such as car park maintenance, security and cleaning of common areas. Another more specific example of an administrative burden relating to the centre is the requirement that the minister approve all subleases. I know that the minister has found that to be an onerous and inappropriate task—that is, as I said, approving all subleases—and one that he as minister has wanted to sort out for a long time. I understand that because of the structure of the Inala Shopping Centre it has taken a lot of work to get to this stage. He is quite happy for the Department of Housing to be divesting itself of this responsibility to manage a shopping centre. As I said, these managerial duties are not consistent with the department’s core activities and that is why the bill is needed. As I previously said, it has been a complex process to get to this point. The coalition furthermore supports this bill because it understands that the current lessees have agreed to the conversion of the centre to a layered community titles scheme whereby the existing leases will be cancelled and the lessees will purchase freehold titles to their lots. The coalition would have had reservations if sufficient consultation had not occurred. However, it is confident that sufficient time and negotiations have been embarked upon, allowing lessees to obtain legal representation and advice. By bringing the centre under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 the lessees, who are a two-tiered body corporate structure, will be able to control expenditure within the centre and make collective decisions relating to the management and future of the centre. Body corporate structures are common in multiownership shopping centres and are proven to work in serving the surrounding communities. The coalition supports any measures to ensure Queenslanders who live in our public housing facilities, including the approximately 1,700 homes in Inala—originally there were around 4,000 dwellings under the Housing Commission and there are 1,700 left because many tenants were encouraged to buy their own properties, something that we would certainly be supporting—have essential services nearby which hopefully will be secured or maintained with the passage of this bill. 01 Mar 2006 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 409

The breaking of the shackles from the department should empower the new body corporate to develop the centre to its potential. I have not been out there, but I understand some improvements could certainly be made. Previously, there was no great incentive for the owners of these shops to improve them, given they did not have freehold title to the land. Now they will be able to do that. They will be able to develop the centre to its potential because, as with freehold title, the lessees now have every incentive to improve the centre and its service to Inala. Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (3.20 pm): The Inala Shopping Centre was actually established in the mid-1960s under a special provision in the State Housing Act 1945, namely section 22B, I am told, which allowed the government to make land available for commercial and business purposes under perpetual and term leases. The leases are now governed by section 112 of the Housing Act 2003 and, subject to this act, by the Land Act 1994. As the lessees at Inala form part of the one shopping centre, they cannot be converted to freehold under the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957 or the Land Act 1994. Generally, each perpetual lease in the centre requires the lessee to construct approved improvements on the leased land; allows the lessee to sublease the improvements with the Department of Housing’s permission and subject to the provisions of the Land Act 1994; leases may be forfeited if the lessee fails to pay rent or does not comply with the conditions of the lease; and is subject to a requirement under section 112(4) of the Housing Act 2003 that the lessee pay a rent to the Department of Housing which is equal to a percentage of the unimproved value of the leased land as prescribed by regulation or, if no amount is prescribed, 10 per cent. As no amount is currently prescribed, the 10 per cent rate applies. The lease conditions do not reflect contemporary retail shopping centre lease practice. This has meant that the government has consistently spent more money on administering the leases and on repairs and maintenance in the centre than was collected in rental income as the lessees have not, under the leases, been required to pay outgoings. The government has recognised for some time that its role as lessor in the centre is no longer appropriate. So it has spent some considerable time and expense in planning and negotiating with the lessees to reach agreement on a proposal which would provide sufficient incentive for the lessees to convert their perpetual leases to a more appropriate tenure. As part of these negotiations, all lessees expressed a desire to acquire freehold title in respect of their current leased lands as part of a community title scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and agreed to pay for that title. Essentially, to acquire freehold title each lessee must pay a sum that is equal to the unimproved value of the land assessed as at 30 June 2003. The lessee’s agreement to the government’s proposal for conversion was formalised through an application made by lessees following a detailed invitation to apply issued by the government to all lessees in April of last year. Before applying to convert, all lessees were appropriately encouraged to seek independent legal and financial advice in relation to their rights and obligations under a conversion process and under a community title scheme. They were also encouraged to discuss any matters of concern with the department before the deadline for applications closed. All lessees completed an application for conversion. The Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006 is the means by which conversion can now take place and reflects the results of the successful negotiations between the government and the lessees. Lessees can now move forward in the knowledge that they, through a community title scheme, have control of the centre and will not be hamstrung by an outdated perpetual lease tenure structure. Equally, the government can be satisfied that the centre, which is the hub of the Inala community, has been placed on a tenure and management footing that is consistent with other multiownership retail centres in the state. I congratulate the minister and I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (3.24 pm): I would like to commend the minister for bringing some of these areas of land ownership and land tenure into the 21st century. This shopping centre was originally granted to allow for some development, as were the workers home perpetual leases, for which we passed a bill last year to allow for freeholding. The current operation of the shopping centre is becoming increasingly difficult because the Department of Housing is, in fact, the owner and oversees the operation of the shopping centre. This bill seeks to bring the shopping centre under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act and to set up a body corporate structure. That in itself is slightly different to how a normal shopping centre operates. Under normal circumstances, a shopping centre has an owner who owns the whole centre freehold and then leases the shops to individual shop owners. This act will allow those people who are currently the lessees on a perpetual town lease to obtain freehold ownership and, under that freehold ownership, will allow lessees to take the land from them. It also sets up in the structure common property, which is a standard type of operation for a building unit. As such, the common property will be owned by all of the freehold owners once they acquire that land. The interests of lessees and those people who acquire the individual units under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act are protected. The interests of mortgagees are protected. Ultimately, it makes for a structure which allows these people to operate their whole business structure with freehold ownership. 410 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 01 Mar 2006

No matter whether it is a perpetual lease or a lease for a given period, the trouble with leasehold ownership is that the lessee is still bound by the terms of a lease. As we heard from the member for Sandgate, in this case any leases, subleases or sub-subleases, which is what can occur with business operations, have to be approved by the minister. It became very onerous in terms of the department in that they had to approve everything. They had to approve the terms of the lease and they had to ensure that all subleases or sub-subleases were in accordance with the head lease. If honourable members look at the separate schedules in the bill they will see that it sets up excluded land and included land. It will allow proper parking to be arranged and proper operation of the common property. There are some insurance difficulties in relation to that, which I do not wish to touch on today. They are all things about which the lessees or people holding under them have had to deal with the department. Once they own the freehold they are able to operate that freehold in their own right. They are able to operate it to their very best advantage and to the advantage of the community that the individual shop owner seeks to serve. The schedule even makes arrangements for footpath access for the centre. Historically, Inala was a place where a lot of people did not want to go. It had a stigma but it has grown into a beautiful area. This will allow the people who serve those who live there to do so in a better manner. The valuations, which are being dealt with and which were mentioned by the member for Sandgate in relation to the unimproved capital value, will be no different in terms of the approach taken if anyone wanted to buy a house and land package or a business. Very often people will buy a business and they will buy a business name. In buying the business name and all of the operating equipment in the business they will also acquire the freehold and they pay a market price. In actual fact, because of the negotiations with the lessees in this instance they have been able to work out an acceptable regime which has been included in the legislation for calculating a fair acquisition price. There are only 16 shops in the whole area. As we are all aware, there are shopping centres throughout Queensland that comprise literally hundreds of shops. As shopping centres go, this will be a very small area. I have already mentioned that most shopping centres are owned by freehold. I listened to the member for Surfers Paradise and he said that this will make the Inala Shopping Centre operate very like other shopping centres. It will not. It will operate similar to building units. I do not know how many members of the House live in building units, but the common property is controlled by a committee. The committee will be elected so that every one of those lessees, every one of those people who acquire the freehold leases, will be able to have input into what happens with their own shops, with their own centre and with their own application of business principles. So they will be able to run those businesses successfully. Queensland at the present time is really behind small business. As I said in a speech in the week before last, the real motor of Queensland is small business. Eighty per cent of Queensland businesses are small businesses. This gives all of those people who operate a small business in the Inala Shopping Centre the ability to operate in the best possible manner. I am aware that the minister and his advisers have negotiated with the current lessees. They are very much aware of the proposals and they are also agreeable to the terms of the act. They are aware that the government is protecting their interests. They are aware that the government, like it does with any other business interest, is caring for Queenslanders and is supporting Queenslanders to run businesses. The end result will be a very well-developed and a very well-run shopping centre that can only benefit the citizens of Inala and, ultimately, those people who live in the immediate area. Once again I commend the minister and his advisers for the bill and the way it has been dealt with. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (3.33 pm): First of all, I would like to thank and congratulate the minister for building more affordable housing in my electorate of Mount Ommaney. Recently we had the opening of the Vic Honour Units along Oxley Road. This was very well received not only by the tenants, who are very grateful for housing after waiting for at least eight years to get this housing, but also by the neighbours, who were very appreciative of the cooperation and helpfulness during the construction of these units by the staff of public housing. One of the neighbours wrote back to thank us for the landscaping now bordering their fence. The Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006 is an example of how a complicated tenure and management structure can be placed on a contemporary footing. The bill is partly modelled on the Acacia Ridge Shopping-centre Freeholding Act 1987, which provided for the freeholding of a shopping centre at Acacia Ridge that was, despite its smaller size, structured in a similar manner to the Inala Shopping Centre, the subject of this bill. The Inala Shopping Centre consists of 20 perpetual leases, a public road that is used as a car park and freehold land held by the state for Department of Housing purposes, a public thoroughfare and general common areas within the centre. At the time of its creation in the mid-1960s legislation in Queensland did not make any provision for a community or strata titles tenure structure. For that reason, the public road in the centre was a means of providing access for external roads and access generally to the leased lands. 01 Mar 2006 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 411

Under a community titles scheme, the common property of scheme land provides access and comes under the management of the body corporate. Issues of legal control and liability in respect of the road have hampered the efficient operation of the centre. Legally, the road was under the control of the Brisbane City Council. The Department of Housing had no control over it. The department could not remove abandoned cars from the centre car park, nor could it unilaterally erect lighting or authorise its use for weekend markets. Instead, in relation to its use for markets, an application needed to be made by the department of natural resources for a permit to be issued under the Land Act 1994. This highlights the inappropriateness of particular legal tenure structures including roads—which are created to allow members of the public a right to pass and repass over land—for certain types of land. Although it has been a long time coming, thankfully the Inala Shopping Centre can, under this bill, now be aligned with other multiowned commercial and retail centres by adopting the community titles scheme structure. Under the bill, all the land in the Inala Shopping Centre, including the road, is first to be converted to unallocated state land. Two deeds of grant are then to be issued to the state. One is to accommodate a bus interchange and the other relates to the balance of the land. Despite the issuing of the deeds of grant, the perpetual leases are not to be cancelled at that point. Rather, they continue while the department puts in place a layered community titles scheme in respect of the newly created freehold land. A community titles scheme can only exist in respect of freehold land in Queensland. Once all relevant documents for the creation of the layered community titles scheme have been registered with the registrar of titles, the lessees will be given 60 days in which to pay the cost of converting their leasehold lands to freehold. On the expiration of the 60 days, freehold title will be vested in the lessees in respect of their lease lands and, in some cases, in respect of additional land as well. Also, the community titles scheme will start and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 will apply. The lessees will be notified as to the exact date on which the conversion cost must be paid. The conversion cost consists of an amount equal to the unimproved value of the leasehold lands assessed under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as at 30 June 2003 in addition to GST and any transfer duty under the Duties Act 2001. The conversion cost thus represents a discount to lessees. The unimproved value that has been set does not, of course, necessarily represent the market value of the leasehold lands at the time the conversion cost must be paid. If a lessee does not pay the conversion cost within 60 days, he or she will have to take freehold title in respect of his or her land. The perpetual leases will be cancelled on this day as well. This is appropriate as the community titles scheme could not start unless all the land was freehold land. A non-paying lessee will, instead of retaining his or her leasehold land, take the freehold subject to the statutory charge in favour of the chief executive of the Department of Housing. Under that charge the chief executive can sell the freehold title to a third party to recover the conversion cost. Interest may be charged on the outstanding conversion cost. The Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006 provides a fair and orderly process for bringing about the conversion of a complicated tenure structure for the Inala Shopping Centre to one that is not only suited to the uses of land but also legally sound. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.39 pm): I am thrilled to rise in the House today in support of the Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006. It represents another step in the government’s program of encouraging the freeholding of state leasehold land that comes under the Housing Act 2003. The Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2005 made great progress in dealing with the freeholding of residential perpetual leases under the Housing Act 2003. Although it deals only with commercial perpetual leases in the Inala Shopping Centre, the Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill is significant because the leases in the centre have for a long time represented a burden to government. The government has incurred expenses relating to the management and maintenance of common areas in the centre that have not been adequately covered by rents obtained under the leases. Also, administering leases of this nature costs the government money. Although its establishment by the former Queensland Housing Commission could be seen as necessary as part of the commission’s well- known involvement in the development of the Inala community, managing the Inala Shopping Centre is no longer part of the department’s core business. Times have clearly changed, and the shopping centre’s future no longer needs the helping hand of the government or of the Queensland taxpayer. The bill is partly modelled on the Acacia Ridge Shopping-centre Freeholding Act 1987. Under that act, perpetual leases at the Acacia Ridge Shopping Centre were also freeholded as part of a group titles plan. Like the Inala centre, it also included public road used as a car park and freehold land held by the now abolished Queensland Housing Commission. When the leases at the Acacia Ridge Shopping Centre were being considered for freeholding, it was intended that the leases at the Inala Shopping Centre would be dealt with in a similar manner. The lessees at Inala have finally been delivered their opportunity to freehold. There were numerous reasons why the Inala Shopping Centre could not be freeholded at the same time as the Acacia Ridge Shopping Centre. The Inala centre is much bigger than Acacia Ridge. Its configuration, tenancy mix, and the types and quantity of expenses incurred for the centre are very 412 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 01 Mar 2006 different. Trying to establish a community titles scheme for the Inala centre threw up different challenges to those faced by the Acacia Ridge Shopping Centre, particularly when the basis for the introduction of a community titles scheme depended on the agreement of lessees. Obtaining the agreement of lessees to convert to freehold as part of a community titles scheme, when those lessees have enjoyed a very secure tenure in the form of perpetual leases that have been actively subleased for commercial rents, is something for which the Department of Housing should be commended. The fact that the department has been actively trying to place the Inala centre on a modern tenure and management structure for some five years shows just how difficult negotiations with lessees and the issues involved in such a conversion process have been at times. The Inala Shopping Centre is, and will remain, a vibrant centre that represents a social and economic focus for Inala and the surrounding community. The market will surely determine that the site for a long time yet will be applied for and thrive as a shopping centre. The lessees in the centre do not need the government to tell them that or to hold them back from making decisions about what is best for the centre under outdated perpetual lease conditions. The lessees should be given the opportunity to hold freehold title under a community titles scheme arrangement. The Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006 finally gives them that opportunity. I would also like to put on record today a couple of comments in general and in principle about the nature of the arrangement that existed at Inala for quite some time. I want to say to the House today that personally I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with government at any level seeking to engage in commercial activity such as that which occurred at Inala. I am quite disappointed that over the last 40 years there has been almost a takeover of the role of government by private enterprise. I mean that in this sense: there seems to be an attitude amongst private enterprise that any activity that private enterprise engages in at any place or time is something that governments should not engage in. So if private enterprise, for instance, in the suburb of Indooroopilly decide that they want to run a shopping centre or a convenience store, there seems to be an attitude that it is in some way inappropriate for government to organise or to run a similar venture even in a suburb that is not serviced by shops of that nature. I think that is a quite sad thing for government and I know that there is a very proud history in Queensland. In particular, the Ryan Labor government earlier last century had a very proud history of effectively running a range of commercial ventures from coalmines to butcher shops to grocery stores. These were things that the government engaged in, sometimes for reasons of making money but more often than not for reasons of servicing a community that was underserviced. Private enterprise sets up a business where it is going to make money. It does not necessarily set up a business where there is genuine community need. The situation in Inala was one where there was a genuine community need for a shopping centre of the nature that has existed there for a little time. But it was not a need that was going to be filled by private enterprise; it was something that only government could do. I would hate to see this being the end of governments seeking to get involved in plugging holes where private enterprise will not get involved themselves. I think it is interesting to note that one of the traditions we seem to have picked up from our US counterparts is that Australians are very quick to form community organisations when they see a need. Bowls clubs historically would spring up where there was a need. Sporting clubs would spring up where there was a need to have them, be it footy or tennis clubs. I think in modern times people are becoming less involved in their local community and there is more of an attitude of user pays. If people want to play tennis, rather than forming a tennis club with neighbours in their local community they will want to go somewhere and pay money for that to occur. What is happening as a direct result is that suburbs are not being serviced, firstly, by appropriate levels of grocery stores and post offices but, secondly, by sporting clubs and community organisations in the way that they might have been 40 or 50 years ago. I think there is a genuine need for the government to play a role, whether it is in running commercial operations or whether it is in providing seed funding for communities to form their own community organisations and sporting clubs. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.46 pm): Can I say that I would like to support the Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006. Mr Palaszczuk: I hope so. Mrs MILLER: Of course, Henry; of course. At the outset, can I say that I was very amused that the shadow minister left the surf and the swaying palms of Surfers Paradise to venture into Labor heartland. Welcome to our area. Perhaps of an afternoon he might like to come down the Ipswich Motorway and sit in the traffic on his way to Bundamba— Mrs Carryn Sullivan: At about 4 o’clock. Mrs MILLER: Yes, at about 4 o’clock or 5 o’clock and sit in traffic while he ventures into my area or perhaps that of the member for Ipswich or the member for Ipswich West, because it is very unusual for us to get visits from MPs on the Tory side of politics. Under the Land Title Act 1994 and the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, a community titles scheme can be established and operated to allow freeholders in this scheme the 01 Mar 2006 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 413 capacity to manage through a body corporate structure common property in the scheme and matters of importance that affect the common rights and obligations of the freeholders. In the case of a commercial or retail shopping centre with multiple owners of different parcels of land within the centre, such a scheme is an appropriate vehicle through which collective decision making can be made in relation to the common property and those matters of importance. To that end, the conversion of the perpetual leases in the Inala Shopping Centre to freehold land under a community titles scheme represents a logical way forward for the centre. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the former lessees in the centre will, as freehold owners and members of the body corporate, participate in meetings of the body corporate to decide various matters relating to the centre including expenditure for things such as the repair and maintenance of common property and the provision of security and cleaning services. However, due to the way in which the scheme is to be established for the centre, each freeholder will have the control of his or her own lot. Significantly, the government, with the agreement of the lessees, has agreed to establish a layered community title scheme for the centre. The establishment of such a scheme will be of benefit to all freeholders in the centre. The layered scheme will create a principal community titles scheme consisting of the two large lots in the northern part of the centre, the entire southern lot and minimal common property. The southern lot is then subdivided into a subsidiary community titles scheme consisting of all the remaining former leasehold lands and its own common property, which represents a major portion of the car parking area of the centre. This means there is a body corporate for the principal scheme which makes decisions relating to the minimal common property and a body corporate for the subsidiary scheme which makes decisions relating to the common property of that scheme. This is important as the body corporate for the principal scheme cannot interfere with the operations of, and therefore the decisions made by, the subsidiary body corporate. In view of the fact that the northern and southern parts of the centre have developed differently over the years, which is perhaps reflective of the different attitudes of the northern lessees and southern lessees as to the direction of the centre, a segregation on this basis is appropriate in the interests of all lessees. The Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006 highlights another matter of significance relating to the operation of community titles schemes for the benefit of freeholders. This matter concerns the apportionment of expenses relating to the operation of the body corporate. The body corporate incurs many expenses, some of which have already been referred to, in relation to the management of the community titles scheme. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, these expenses are apportioned to lot owners according to their contribution schedule lot entitlements as stated in the community management statement for the scheme. In 2004 the Queensland Court of Appeal, in the decision of Fischer and Others v Body Corporate for Centrepoint Community Titles Scheme 7779 (2004) QCA 214, said that a contribution schedule for a scheme should provide for equal contributions by owners except insofar as some lots can be shown to give rise to particular costs to the body corporate which other lots do not. Whether a schedule should be adjusted depends on the demand made on the services and amenities provided by a body corporate to the respective lots or their contribution to the costs incurred by the body corporate. More general considerations of amenity, value or history are to be disregarded. Therefore, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 is intended to produce a contribution schedule that divides body corporate expenses equally, except to the extent that the lots in the community titles scheme disproportionately give rise to those expenses or disproportionately consume services. That determination can only be made by reference to factors that have a financial impact or consequence on the body corporate. Under the community titles scheme for the Inala Shopping Centre, the contribution schedule lot entitlements for all lots, whether under the principal or subsidiary scheme, are to be equal. Given the fact that for the government to proceed with the conversion of the centre it was necessary to gain the agreement of the existing lessees, it is not unreasonable to assume that the matter of the apportionment among the lessees of contribution schedule lot entitlements would have been a potential obstacle to gaining that agreement. This is particularly the case in relation to the subsidiary community titles scheme as it concerns numerous lot owners and the common property for that scheme is much larger than for the principal scheme. This will mean lot owners in the subsidiary scheme will incur greater body corporate expenses. Naturally, the apportionment of the contribution schedule lot entitlements among those owners will be of great interest to them. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, a lot owner may apply for an adjustment of the contribution schedule lot entitlements to be made by a specialist adjudicator—that is, an adjudicator with special skills in this area—or the District Court. 414 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 01 Mar 2006

Under the Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006, the government has treated the lessees in the subsidiary scheme fairly in this regard by providing that it will, if there is a specialist adjudication for the adjustment of the lot entitlements and an application is made for that adjudication within three months of the establishment of the scheme, pay for the costs of the adjudication. The government has ensured that the benefits of the community titles scheme, as outlined earlier, can apply while at the same time allowing lot owners to apply to an independent specialist for a determination as to how they should fairly share the costs of the subsidiary body corporate. In conclusion, I would like to thank the minister, the officers of the Public Service who have assisted with putting this bill together and the staff of the minister. I would like to ask the member for Inala whether his electorate office was in this shopping centre. Mr Palaszczuk: Yes. Mrs MILLER: It was a very famous electorate office, if I remember correctly. It was next to the pet shop. Was that many years ago? A government member: It was in the pet shop. Mrs MILLER: It was not in the pet shop! Mr Palaszczuk: It was beside the companion animal shop. Mrs MILLER: Oh, it was right next to the companion animal shop. I seem to recall where the member’s electorate office was. Mr Palaszczuk: Maybe you could mention the other shop that was beside my office as well. Mrs MILLER: I think the other shop that was beside the member’s office was— Mr Palaszczuk: Bob Tucker closed it down pretty quickly. Mrs MILLER: It might have been a different type of shop that maybe we should not mention in this great House. I commend the minister for the bill. I think it is a great bill. Maybe the minister who will be speaking next would like to elaborate on the shop that was next door to his electorate office. Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water) (3.55 pm): As the member for Inala for 21 years and as a resident of the local area for most of my life, I think it pertinent that I thank our current minister for achieving what we in Inala thought was the impossible. In saying that, I would also like to pay tribute to the departmental officers who have worked day and night and who have had some very difficult negotiations with the lessees to finally get this bill together with the unanimous cooperation of all persons concerned. I would like to thank them for that. Let us go back in time and have a look at Inala and the Inala Civic Centre—or the Inala civic, as the children of the local area like to refer to it. It was built in the early sixties. I can well remember attending the first day’s shopping at the Inala civic as a very young boy. There was no transport to get there. To get there people had to walk, ride a bicycle or use a motor vehicle if they had one. There were two outstanding figures at the opening of the Inala Civic Centre. One was Doug Sherrington, who was the member for Salisbury for a number of years. Wherever Doug Sherrington went, we always had that great person who was the member for Archerfield for 12 years, Kev Hooper. Both of them were larger than life. Both of them were at the opening of Inala civic. Young people in the local area certainly noticed them and respected them for what they stood for. In the early sixties, when the Inala civic was opened, Inala was a very different place to what it is today. In the very early sixties we had people who came from many different backgrounds. We had the first boat people who came to Inala—the Eastern Europeans, the Italians and so on. My family was one of those that settled in the Inala area in the early fifties after we came out from war-ravaged Germany. There were also quite a few thousand Australian returned servicemen who needed housing. That is the reason Inala was originally built—to provide housing for returned servicemen. Of course, we also had the English migrants who came out from England. We also had a growing number of Indigenous people who were coming off the land and moving into the city. It was quite a great multicultural mix of people. These people, through all adversity, were able to work very closely together and Inala became very well known for its great community spirit, because people were supporting each other out of adversity. Inala civic served the local area well. Because we could not get private enterprise to build a shopping centre in Inala, the government of the day decided to provide a shopping centre for the people of Inala. That shopping centre served the people of Inala well until about the mid-eighties when quite obviously, with the population boom in the Inala area and surrounding suburbs, we needed a larger establishment. This is where the minister for energy and my good friend Bob Tucker comes in. Bob Tucker, through his company, built the new Inala Town Centre. It was a great opening back in 1985. I can well remember Claude Wharton, as the minister for public works and housing, officiating at the opening. 01 Mar 2006 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 415

What that then did was create an imbalance between the new shopping centre and the Inala Civic Centre. People like to shop in a far better environment than the environment that is beside it and consequently the shopkeepers at the Inala Civic Centre suffered. When the federal member, David Bedall, established his office at the Inala Civic Centre one of the first things he did, through a CEP scheme, was to provide money to improve the very tired old Inala Civic Centre. And improve it he did. With that federal government money the Inala Civic Centre was able then to match the new Inala Town Centre. Things were working pretty well until the new Inala shopping centre was sold and it underwent another refurbishment back in 1988. With that refurbishment the Inala Civic Centre once again was the poor person’s cousin. Mr Mickel: I opened that. Mr PALASZCZUK: What did you open? Mr Mickel: The new Civic Centre. Mr PALASZCZUK: The story then goes on until we have this legislation. Once again I have to pay tribute to our current minister for public works and housing. In the eighties the National Party government tried to sell off the Inala Civic Centre and could not do it. The Goss government could not do it; David Watson, under the coalition government, could not do it. Mr Mickel: Everybody tried. Mr PALASZCZUK: Everyone tried. I am not saying they did not try; they tried, but it took our minister, the minister for public works and housing, to achieve a great solution which will be well received by the people of the Inala area. I do not intend to go through the fine print of how the results were achieved; other members on this side of the House went through that quite succinctly. I mentioned Inala in the early sixties; Inala in the mid-2000s is a lot different from what it was 40 years ago. If ever one needed a fine example of how multiculturalism works it is Inala. When I go to my local schools, primary schools or high schools, the different faces up on the stage receiving awards speaks volumes for what Inala is all about. I can recall one speech night at the local high school where there were 37 different nationalities on the stage at the one time. We all live, work and get on together. We get on together because of the policy of multiculturalism that was introduced by the Hawke government. Unfortunately, there are those out there who are trying to destroy multiculturalism. As a boat person who came from overseas, I feel that I know a little bit about multiculturalism. I want to sum up multiculturalism in this way: you try to keep your language, that is important; you try to observe the customs of your country, but you adopt the customs and the laws of your new country. When I speak to the variety of people who live in my local area, they all tell me that receiving their citizenship certificate is the proudest moment in their lives. The reason is that under multiculturalism, unless you can show a love for your own country of birth you cannot show love for your new country. That is what multiculturalism is all about. When I sit and watch the Winter Olympics and there is not an Australian involved in the event but there is a Polish person involved, I barrack for the Polish person; but if there is an Aussie there the Polish person is cast aside. That is what multiculturalism is all about. I would say to those people who should know better: for goodness’ sake, let things be, because every single time multiculturalism is attacked that is another blood clot that comes closer to the heart of the person who has adopted this new country as their own. In conclusion, I thank the minister for what he has done for the Inala Civic Centre. My good friend the minister for energy, John Mickel, with whom I taught at the Serviceton South State School for about eight years and with whom I worked in the Inala area for well over 15 years, knows what Inala is all about, he knows what Logan is all about, he knows what multiculturalism is all about. Whenever there is any multicultural function in my electorate involving Vietnamese communities and other communities it is always good to see John remember that much of his work was done in the local Inala area and he is always there to give us a hand. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (4.07 pm), in reply: I am following the absolute father of Inala and his brother here behind me so I am not going to say too much in terms of their historic knowledge and obvious love and commitment to this area, but I will say this about the minister for natural resources: when I first became the minister he came to me and said, ‘For heaven’s sake, see if you can get this fixed up.’ Here we are nearly eight years later and we have finally found a solution. I thank the shadow minister for his contribution and the positive way he has gone about this. This has been something, as the minister pointed out, that has troubled governments for a long period of time. I want to thank the public servants in the Department of Housing associated with this over a long period of time who have come up with this solution and those who assisted in the honourable minister’s department. 416 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

What we have come up with is a way to get rid of this off our books. It is as simple as that. It was something that we had to do because not only was it taking up the valuable time of the public servants concerned; we also do not have the expertise to manage shopping centres. That is the fact of it. It was also a drain on the housing fund; there is no question about that. With those few remarks, I want to thank everybody who contributed to the debate today and again acknowledge the research work put in by the shadow minister. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 35 and schedules 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

DRUG LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 30 November 2005 (see p. 4558). Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (4.09 pm): I first start by thanking the Attorney for the briefing her staff gave me earlier this week and this afternoon on the proposed amendment, which I will return to at a later time. The use of drugs in our society continues to destroy the lives of not just the users and abusers but also their families and their loved ones. It is bad enough that people’s lives are destroyed as a consequence of taking legal drugs, alcohol, pharmaceuticals and tobacco, but sadly we see many hundreds of people each year dabbling in illegal drugs such as cannabis, speed, cocaine, ecstasy and many others with devastating consequences. It is not enough that this country loses thousands of lives as a consequence of the abuse of legal drugs and the fallout that flows from that, with devastating consequences to family members; we now find each year hundreds of predominantly young men and women dying because they did not understand the inherent risk in consuming and abusing illegal substances. My heart goes out to any member of the public who has had their family devastated by drug abuse. I do not have much sympathy for those who import, produce and sell drugs. It is those cowards who often start perfectly healthy young men and women down a devastating and, in a number of cases, deadly track. We as a society do have certain obligations. Yes, I have many times in the past made it clear that those who become involved in drugs know the risks. However, that does not absolve this House or the people of Queensland from the responsibility to bring those people back from the brink of destruction. With that in mind it is worthwhile looking at some recent research on substance abuse. At a conference on chronic youth offending in Adelaide Dr Tony Makkai, the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, released the latest report from the institute entitled Alcohol, drugs and crime: a study of juveniles in detention and key findings from the drug use careers of juvenile offenders study. The focus of the research was on the drug and alcohol use and criminal careers of 371 young people between 11 and 17 years of age who were sentenced to or remanded in detention in 2004. The report stated— The report found that in the six months before entering detention, 71 percent of youths had used one type of substance regularly and 29 percent used more than one type of substance regularly. The most common type of substance was cannabis, 63 per cent, followed by alcohol, 46 per cent, and amphetamines, 20 per cent. The report went on to state that almost all of the juveniles had committed property offences, 98 per cent, while 84 per cent had engaged in violence. Finally, the report highlighted the need to target risk factors such as abuse, neglect and family drug use during a child’s development to reduce the risk of drug use and addiction in later years. Whilst the report focuses on both legal and illegal drugs, the worrying trend is that people as young as 11 are involved in the daily use and abuse of substances. Their bodies simply cannot cope with these substances. Often it leads to other addictions to stronger and more devastating drugs thus also increasing the risk of crime. It is a well-known fact that drug use—and here I refer to illegal drug use—brings with it many crimes that beset our community including breaking and entering, stealing, purse snatching and the like. In October 2005 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in Canberra released the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. It found that in 2004 more than six million Australians aged 14 years and older had used an illegal drug in their lifetime. More than 2.5 million Australians had used an illegal drug in the prior 12 months. Australians aged 20 to 29 years were more likely than those in the other 01 Mar 2006 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 417 age groups to have used an illicit drug during their lifetime and in the last 12 months, although the difference between that age group and those aged 30 to 39 years was very small for lifetime use. We have to consider that in one year 2.5 million Australians had used an illegal drug. The statistics from the institute in Canberra showed overwhelming that marijuana was the first drug choice, followed by speed and then ecstasy. These young people are destroying their lives. They are losing large gaps in what should be a productive, enjoyable and learning period of their lives. What they end up with is a period of some five to 10 years—if they survive—during which they simply have no recollection of what they did and where they lived. In fact, they live in a drug induced haze. They completely destroy the best period of their lives. This is when they should be learning what life is all about, taking on board the life experiences of other people and then forming their own futures. This is a great sadness for our community, and what we can do to assist them we certainly should do. It is interesting to note that the Institute of Health and Welfare in Canberra lists curiosity and peer pressure for both males and females as the major factors for why they first use an illegal drug. Those two factors are far and away the major factors in why people try drugs. One further statistic contained in the report is that the source of supply of marijuana or cannabis is a friend or acquaintance in 69.6 per cent of cases for males and 69.1 per cent for females, whilst dealers provide 18.7 per cent and 14 per cent of supply respectively. The sad statement is that so-called friends cause or can cause the ultimate death of so many of our young people simply because they are being a mate and putting pressure on their friends to try a drug. That trail can lead to death or certainly a reduction in the enjoyment of life as time goes by. It is very clearly known medically and otherwise that the use of marijuana is destructive to a person’s health and has significant and ongoing psychological and mental issues associated with it. I do not believe anybody would doubt the effect illicit drugs have on people, whether they are young or old. It is now important to consider the impact the Drug Court has had to date on a range of factors in Queensland. I start by quoting Drug Court magistrate John Costanzo, who defined the Drug Court as— A court driven program that provides drug addicted offenders with an opportunity to rehabilitate instead of being locked into the drug/crime/jail cycle. That is absolutely apt. In my earlier career I had occasion to deal with many drug offenders and their families. There is absolutely no doubt that that cycle exists. The only word that is missing is ‘death’, because drugs kill our young people every day. As a consequence of the establishment of other specialist drug courts in the US, England, Ireland and jurisdictions in Australia, notably New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, to varying degrees, Queensland legislation was introduced into the House on 23 November 1999. The bill was passed by the House on 2 March 2000 and received assent on 8 March 2000. In the Queensland model, the mechanisms for rehabilitation are provided for in an intensive drug rehabilitation order. It is a whole-of-government approach which fundamentally intertwines the health system and the criminal justice system. It is one pure example of where all the arms of state government across all spectres work together to resolve an issue that is impacting daily upon not only the people who use drugs but also those throughout the length and breadth of Queensland. There are three phases under the current legislation. Offenders begin in phase 1 with more frequent court reviews and more frequent court testing. Once the person is detoxified and achieves a significant period of abstinence, phase 1 is complete. Following further abstinence and stabilisation of accommodation, personal and family issues, phase 2 is complete. Phase 3 then sees the intensity of supervision diminishing, and other interventions and reintegration measures are increased. In all it takes somewhere between nine and 18 months for a person to complete the program. In the 2003 final report on the south-east Queensland Drug Court, Tony Makkai stated— All of those issued IDRO report having tried cannabis, heroin, amphetamines and benzodiazepines and the vast majority had used one of them in the six months prior to their initial health assessment. The three most common illegal drugs were opiates, amphetamines and cannabis. The mean age for initiation into drug use occurs around 15 years for all court referrals. However, it varies by drug type, beginning with cannabis at around 14 years followed by heroin and amphetamines at around 19 years followed by benzodiazepines at around 21 years. Tony Makkai states in the final report on the Drug Court that only nine per cent of graduates have reoffended for any offence. This is much less than the 32 per cent of terminates, 47 per cent of prisoners and 61 per cent of those who refuse to go on the program. At page 41 of the final report he states— All groups show declines in their average rate of offending. The percentage declines from pre to post entry indicate the largest decline is for graduates (87 percent) followed by the prisoner comparison group (74 percent), terminates (55 percent) and refusals (51 percent). Based on those figures, the Drug Court appears to provide a real alternative to people who are addicted to drugs and who are, in essence, destroying their lives. The Drug Court, even if it saves one life and the agony of one family, is worth it. There is very little we should not do to save our young people from an horrific death and their family from an agonising future. 418 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Let us now consider the bill, bearing in mind its intent is to provide a safety net for those people who are drug dependent. The new objectives as contained in clause 3 to my mind encapsulate what this bill is all about—that is, a system whereby the community, the individual, the courts and prisons win. I note in particular that there are a number of changes in the bill, including what is a disqualifying offence. The definition associated with that phrase—that is, a disqualifying offence—excludes not only offences that are indictable but all offences involving violence against another person where the allegation of personal violence is an element of the offence itself or an act of violence associated with the offence. This clarifies questions raised by Magistrate Constanzo and clearly distances the court from a de facto endorsement of violence. The concept of an indicative assessment is raised in new part 3A where a court can refer a person, if certain conditions are met, to the chief executive for an assessment as to whether or not proceedings are to continue before the Magistrates Court or be dealt with in the Drug Court. However, there are some provisions of section 12D that do pose real problems when dealing with both indicative assessments and later on in the bill. We all know that the Drug Court acts in essence when a person has either pleaded guilty or intends to plead guilty to an offence. However, there are still principles under which our criminal justice system operates and there are provisions, as I stated, in proposed section 12D that run contrary to those principles. Section 12D subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), as I said, do run contrary to those principles, including the concept that the court may order a report or part of it not to be shown to the person the subject of the assessment. I would ask the Attorney to address that issue and other issues in her reply when time permits. Consider that in the same legislation the lawyer acting on behalf of a person has a right to argue before the court its contents as to whether or not the matter should stay with the Magistrates Court or be transferred to the Drug Court. However, if the individual—that is, the defendant—is not able to see or be informed of the content of the report, how does the legal practitioner obtain instructions from the client with regard to his arguing to the court as to which court he does attend? Section 12D also removes the rule against hearsay and makes conclusive as correct the contents of the report. This is in essence a reversal of the onus of proof and, though I accept that a defendant may well have pleaded guilty or intends to enter a plea of guilty, the defendant still has the fundamental right to question documents referrable to him on issues such as penalty as they will be used, treatment as it will be referred to, and like matters. It is a dangerous precedent to set in these circumstances and again I would ask the Attorney to comment upon those matters. The exact same issue arises with regard to an assessment report as referred to in section 16, and in section 16B clauses similar to those in 12D exist. I again repeat my earlier comments. Clause 27 amends section 20 of the act, increasing the number of offenders in effect the court can deal with by increasing the types of matters it can deal with based on the sentences being increased from three to four years provided both the prosecution and the defence agree. Can I also say before moving on to the issue of the Drugs Misuse Act that the Drug Court in my opinion has now reached a point where it does not need to be monitored on a regular basis. It is still a new creature. It still needs to develop. There will be ongoing problems with it, as with any human device. I do say this, however: do we now need to go to the next level? Are we now saying that the Drug Court is not in concrete but looks fairly set? What now do we do to cater for and help young people or people who are tied into the drug system? What I would suggest is that we consider what has been termed in America re-entry courts, and that is courts for those who have been terminated from the program. It is a concept that, like the Drug Court system, commenced in the United States. The Connecticut re-entry court model included two major phases of treatment mirroring the correctional status of the offender, and they are referred to as the in-prison phase and the Drug Court phase. The in-prison treatment phase occurred in a correctional institution and the Drug Court phase of treatment occurred at re-entry into the community through an established Drug Court program. The Delaware program cited a number of keys to success as including good case management that stays with the offender as they move from prison to a halfway house or other treatment program. Also ensuring that the offender does not float is essential, thereby reducing the chance of relapse or recidivism. Although no systemic evaluation has been conducted, preliminary results indicate a lowering of recidivism for those who complete the program during the 18 months following graduation from the program. Evaluations of re-entry courts in the United States are useful in this context as they involve actual experiences of combining imprisonment and a Drug Court program. The time spent in prison usually involves being in a therapeutic community, detoxification and involvement in whatever rehabilitation oriented resources are available. Results from various programs throughout the USA are encouraging, although its program varies even between counties in the same state and, as such, results must be interpreted cautiously. One hurdle to overcome is how we get the offender to join a program once they have established or served their sentence. This can be almost impossible, but there are methods that may produce positive results. What we need to do is keep in mind that these participants volunteered or were placed 01 Mar 2006 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 419 in the program initially, so the attitude may already exist to continue with a second program to get them out of the cycle they are in. Queensland statistics prove that even those who are terminated from the Drug Court program have lower rates of recidivism than offenders who either refuse the program or were ineligible for the program and were dealt with by the normal criminal justice mechanisms. Therefore the question and analysis become whether it is worthwhile investing the resources into terminates to possibly achieve a further drop in recidivism, or is it more worthwhile investing the same resources into other areas such as expanding the program for more people or increasing the availability of resources to the current participants. What the system is basically stating is this: there are people who, for whatever reason, did not complete the course initially, but those people at least had an initial mindset to make application or were placed into the courts. If there is a mechanism—and the Americans call it a re-entry court system—whereby these people can later be picked up, we may then find that those people do not fall back into their old habits. They do not then commit crimes associated with drug abuse—and these crimes are endemic across our community—and we therefore achieve, again looking at the objects contained in the bill, a saving across the whole system. If the Drug Court achieves a certain standard, as it appears it is doing, I think we now need to move the goal posts even further and contemplate how and who we pick up in the next sweep to try to protect their interests in the future and society’s interests as well. In addition, we could provide temporary accommodation, job training and counselling for these people to draw together those who have been terminated from the Drug Court program to further assist them in not falling back into their old habits. Naturally, these steps are not cost neutral, but it is one more step in the process of attaining the objects of the bill: to reduce drug dependency, to reduce criminal activity associated with drugs, to reduce the health risks associated with drugs, to promote the rehabilitation of persons and the integration into the community; and to reduce the load on resources in the court and prison systems. If those goals are attained we then find that our society and community must benefit directly and indirectly. Other amendments contained within the bill amend section 23 by increasing the number of hours of community service to 240. Section 24(3) is amended by changing the time a person can be sent to prison for detoxification or assessment from seven days to the time contained in the terms of the new subsections (5) and (6). I ask the Attorney to detail the reasoning behind this change as the new time periods are well in excess of the seven days in the initial act. Similarly, in section 32 the length of imprisonment and community service hours are varied for those who are not complying with their IDRO. The changes here also involve removing the word ‘satisfactorily’. I again ask the Attorney to provide a background statement as to why that word has been removed from the existing bill. Section 36 is amended so as to ensure time spent in custody is taken to be imprisonment already served when the court passes its final sentence. As I understand, no person who has completed the program has served time in prison as part of the final sentence. The Attorney may confirm that for me as well in her address. The bill inserts the new section 36A directing the Drug Court magistrate to consider the views of a Drug Court team and an interested entity. A new section 39A allows relevant information to be exchanged about the offender. During the consideration in detail stage I will raise questions in relation to that section and new section 39C, which deals with personal information documents being released to a person who has sufficient interest in the document. I note the type of documents are those that are to be contained in a regulation, which will be passed at some future date. This is a concern to me as, at this point, there will be myriad documents going before the court drawn from different sources from different state government departments. I would ask the Attorney to address that issue in her reply to new section 39C. I will raise some questions in the consideration in detail stage. Before we actually consider the amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act, I think it is interesting to look at some of the media reports regarding the John Tonge Centre at which these amendments are to be targeted. In an article on 16 March 2005 ABC News Online made this comment— A magistrate has dismissed drugs charges against three Gold Coast men because of a nine-month delay in processing evidence at Brisbane’s troubled John Tonge Forensic Centre. Southport magistrate Ron Kilner was told analysis of substances alleged to be drugs may not be available until September, after first being requested last June. An article by Renee Viellaris appeared in the Courier-Mail on 23 March 2005. She writes— A forensic science ministerial taskforce will oversee initiatives aimed at reducing workloads at the John Tonge Centre. The committee—made up of stakeholders from Premier’s, Justice, Health and Police departments—would ensure plans to outsource routine DNA evidence and second international forensic chemists were realised, Health Minister Gordon Nuttall told State Parliament yesterday. She then states— The review is expected to be finished in July, and is aimed at reassuring Queenslanders that the forensic science processes and practices are in line with other states and countries. 420 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

On 1 April 2005 in the Gold Coast Bulletin an article headed ‘Forensic backlog brings bail’ appeared. It states— The backlog at Brisbane’s John Tonge forensic centre could delay the trials of those accused of running Australia’s first ecstasy drug lab, a Gold Coast court has heard. Further, the article states— Yesterday ... a person— ... was granted bail, partly because of the huge backlog at the John Tonge Centre. Finally, on 12 October 2005 an article by Emma Chalmers and Rosemary Odgers appeared in the Courier-Mail which states— Under-resourcing and bad management at Brisbane’s John Tonge Centre have contributed to a case backlog that will take millions of dollars and more than a year to fix, a damning report has found. Queensland’s leading science centre will now be overhauled at a cost of $6.3 million this year after the report revealed it was failing to address a mounting backlog of DNA testing for criminal cases. I think we need to be very clear about the history of this bill. The bill exists only due to unrelenting pressure by those on this side of the House and the legal system that was buckling under the enormous weight—and still is—of a backlog of cases as a consequence of the funding for the John Tonge Centre falling way behind realistic requirements and causing adverse comment from the judiciary. Let us be very clear that this government has let the John Tonge Centre almost cease to exist. I again repeat: it has only been because of unrelenting pressure from those on this side of the House and the media that the government has finally woken up to the fact that the John Tonge Centre plays a linchpin role in the criminal justice system. There are a number of amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act including the insertion of an offence of possession of relevant substances or other things—this is to capture those who supply chemicals and apparatus but do not engage in the production of the drug itself—and an offence of possession of a prohibited combination of items, which is yet to be set but will be by regulation; the removal of the need for testing sealed chemicals; and the removal of the need for the testing of equipment used to produce a dangerous drug. Perhaps the most important element in this section of the bill is that relating to section 4, which defines the challenge notice and the prosecution information notice. In essence, if the police are going to utilise the provisions contained within the act they must within a certain period, as contained in new section 131B, provide what is called a prosecution information notice, which can be challenged by the defendant within 28 days by the giving by that person of a challenge notice. If the bill had simply said that, upon the giving of a notice, certain elements of the offence or certain equipment was not required to be tested and, in fact, were deemed to be part of the apparatus or part of the items used to produce the drug, we would have had a major problem with that. However, the safety in the bill is that the defendant does have the right to provide a challenge notice. Of course, that is exactly what the Drugs Misuse Act, when initially passed, was all about. That similar provision existed with regard to a defendant having to state that they actually disagreed with the analysis being verbally given by the prosecutor, and then it had to be tested. We do not oppose that because there is a balance struck between the two. In order for the police to utilise the section they must give the appropriate notice to the defendant. To offset that, the defendant must also give the appropriate notice back to the Commissioner of Police or to the executive of the health department. We have no concerns about that. All in all, the bill provides, in our belief, a positive step forward with the Drug Court. It has achieved some wonderful results and it is to be endorsed. I again state that I would like some consideration now to be given to how we capture those people who were a part of the initial program of the Drug Court and who have fallen away for whatever reason. I wish some consideration to be given to how we can bring them back into mainstream society. The obligation does not end here; the obligation continues on. Once we reach a certain platform, we now need to establish what the new platform is and move forward. The amendments to the Drugs Misuse Act are also, in my opinion, common sense. I hope they will help the backlog in the John Tonge Centre—time will tell. I am certain that the Attorney will report to the House on the glowing results as time goes by and trials fly through the court system. We will be supporting the bill but there will be some clauses that I will be debating in the consideration in detail stage. I want to comment on the amendment that was circulated today in the House. I would also like to thank the Attorney’s staff for forwarding to me the appropriate documentation, particularly the decision of Justice Byrne delivered on 9 December last year. I spoke to one of her staff members and she explained to me that the decision had come down only late last year and that this was the first opportunity to bring this legislation to the House. Having read the decision, it certainly appears fairly clear cut. Justice Byrne determined that he could have resort to extrinsic material to overcome what was a difficulty if the strict interpretation of the schedule was looked at. Mrs Lavarch: Reprinting error. 01 Mar 2006 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 421

Mr McARDLE: Yes, we will call it a reprinting error. That is exactly right. When I consider his dissection under the heading ‘Resort to extrinsic material’ at page 7, he seems to imply that it was a very unusual set of circumstances here that allowed him to resort to that material. He states that W and T contended very clearly that ‘7 ... omit’ had a very strict and plain meaning. Justice Byrne appears to have gone in some depth into the history of this matter to find that, because it was so convoluted and so difficult, he could then resort to other material. I also understand there is an appeal lodged on this matter which does give me some concern. I would be concerned that we would be endorsing an amendment of a matter that is currently before an appeals court. It appears to be interfering, not directly, not deliberately, with the due processes and that a party may well be prejudiced as a consequence thereof. I do not know whether that is the case—that is, that the appeal is on foot—nor do I know the grounds of the appeal and nor do I want to comment as to what the appeals court will finally determine. I would like the Attorney to pass comment on that. That is a real concern because I do not want to be agreeing to an amendment that effectively impacts upon a litigant currently before a court. It may well be that in those circumstances we cannot agree to the amendment. I leave it to the Attorney to comment on that matter when she makes her reply. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (4.42 pm): The Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000 established the drug courts in Queensland. Drug courts have been operating in Southport, Beenleigh and Ipswich since 2000. In 2002 the government established drug courts also in Cairns and Townsville. Since that time over 170 participants have graduated from the program. These graduates look forward to a life free of crime and the torment of their drug addiction. Society in general also benefits from the flow-on effects that have come from the vital work of the Drug Court. The health system, corrections system and so on that these people would normally move through and depend upon are avoided and the huge cost to the community is therefore avoided. The bill changes the status of the drug courts program from a pilot program to a permanent program. As a result, the name of the act will be changed from the Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act to the Drug Court Act. Amendments in this bill allow the court to consider whether summary offences involving violence can be referred to the court. At the moment, if the Drug Court finds that a charge for an indictable offence involving violence is pending before a court the offender cannot be referred to the Drug Court. This has been expanded so that the court can also consider this issue for summary offences. An example set out in the bill is a breach of a domestic violence order, where often drugs are involved, where there has been an allegation of wilful injury to a person. This bill also amends the Drugs Misuse Act. A particular aspect of this bill removes the need for the testing of equipment used in the production of a dangerous drug. As part of the scheme for reducing forensic testing if there is no challenge by the accused, the bill introduces a new provision aimed at reducing the need for forensic testing of seized equipment if there is to be no contest that the equipment was used for the production of a dangerous drug. The new provision allows the court to accept, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that seized equipment has been used for the production of a dangerous drug if there is no notice of challenge from the defence and there is a reasonable basis for the police belief with respect to the equipment. The dangerous drugs that this section applies to will be defined in the schedule to the Drugs Misuse Regulation. That eliminates quite a bit of the delay, the backlog and the cost associated with testing equipment, drugs and so on that have been seized in an operation and which under normal circumstances would be tested, notwithstanding that there is no challenge to the fact that they are used in the production of dangerous drugs. That will be a considerable saving to the criminal justice system and to the community. In relation to notice provisions for challenging evidence, the bill introduces new section 131B that sets out the notice requirements for section 130 and the new sections 131 and 131A. The prosecution must issue a notice to the accused within 28 days of a charge being laid or a summons being issued. This notice informs the accused of the need to issue a challenge notice if the accused wishes to challenge the prosecution assertion about the contents of the labelled containers, or sealed pharmaceutical containers, or the use of equipment seized by police. The defendant then has 28 days to serve a notice of challenge on the prosecution. If no challenge notice is received, it is open to the court to accept the police evidence regarding the contents of a sealed pharmaceutical container, the use of seized equipment or the contents of labelled prescribed substances without receiving forensic test results. If the notice is received by the prosecution, the prosecution must then prove its case in the usual way—in the way that it has done in the past. If the defendant does not challenge the evidence, it is still open to the court to find that the evidence is not proved, as the court must be satisfied that the police have a reasonable basis for holding their belief with respect to the evidence. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (4.46 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon and support the Attorney-General in bringing the Drug Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. I congratulate the Attorney-General for the wonderful way she is handling her portfolio. Certainly the feedback that I am getting from legal eagles in the north is that the Attorney is doing very well and they well respect her judgement. So I wish the Attorney good luck in her future endeavours. 422 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

This bill shows just how forward thinking the Attorney is in her exercising of the needs of this department. In Townsville we have had drug courts operating since 2002. They have been very successful in keeping a lot of young people and a lot of people who may have gone to jail otherwise out of the system. That is something I wholly support. All too often we hear stories of a young person who may for once do something wrong in their life. Let us face it: who here did not do something wrong when they were younger? I certainly know that I was no angel. Mr Finn interjected. Mr WALLACE: I take the interjection of the member for Yeerongpilly that he, too, perhaps made some minor misjudgements when he was younger. Mrs Lavarch: I think you are being verballed. Mr WALLACE: I take the interjection of the Attorney that I may be verballing the member for Yeerongpilly. I am sure honourable members will forgive me for that. As I was saying, when we were younger we may done something inadvertently that crossed the line. Mr Lawlor: Not me. Mr WALLACE: The member for Southport, I note, has pleaded his innocence and I certainly take him at his word. All honourable members in this place would, I am sure, join with me in acknowledging the member for Southport’s sainthood. I will return to the bill, after being so rudely interrupted. The system has been operating very successfully across the state since 2000 and locally in my area since 2002. It has kept around 170 participants out of our jail system, which I think is a great success. Mr Finn interjected. Mr WALLACE: I take the interjection of the member for Yeerongpilly. I am not sure if there would be any from Magnetic Island, but it is a wonderful spot. Magnetic Island is one of the jewels of the north and I think should be visited by everyone in this place at least once in their time in Queensland. Mr Hoolihan: I have been there. Mr WALLACE: The member for Keppel has visited and he is most welcome to come back. People attending hearings in these drug courts are able to make the transition to law-abiding citizens through learning life skills and learning how to live in our society, rather than being faced with the cold, hard truth of going to jail. It is a terrible existence. I am sad to say that I had a friend in Home Hill a number of years ago who, before this program came in under the former National Party government, got caught with two marijuana plants and was sentenced to jail at the Stuart prison. He had just turned 18 at the time and he was sentenced to 12 months in that penitentiary. I visited him a couple of times and he expressed to me his absolute— Ms Jarratt: Shame. Mr WALLACE: His absolute shame and horror as to what was happening to him in that place. A government member: Fear. Mr Wallace: And fear. His life was nearly destroyed by a stupid mistake, which he was ready to admit, but I do not think anyone at that age should receive a custodial sentence and be sent to jail for two plants of marijuana. He will unfortunately have to live with that stigma for the rest of his life and have that mark against his name. I am happy to report that he is now happily married with a couple of kids and is a successful businessman. He has got on with his life but I would hate to think of the number of kids whose lives have been destroyed. Because of custodial sentences, they have fallen into further crime. That really is a burden that our society should not have to bear. That is why this bill is so important. That is why this bill is one put forward by a forward-thinking government with a forward-thinking Attorney. It provides permanency to the drug courts which, as I have said, have been so successful across Queensland. The recommendations which this bill will bring in will allow the court to impose more community service hours for breach of order instead of custodial sanctions; limit the amount of time that can be ordered to be spent in prison for a breach of any order at any one time to 22 days; change eligibility requirements, with consent, to permit an offender facing a four-year sentence to be referred to the court—the Drug Court is currently limited to imposing a suspended sentence of up to three years imprisonment; and allow the court to take into consideration when an offence involves violence. They are all important changes and they will really help keep our young kids from paying the ultimate price, and that is a custodial sentence. I note in the Attorney’s second reading speech that Queensland has the largest number of recent clandestine laboratories or clan lab seizures in Australia. I do not know what that says about Queensland, but I note the recent changes at chemists where people have to show ID when buying certain drugs, and that is certainly a great step forward. I do not know what clan labs are, though. I come from the clan Wallace. I think the only clan lab we had back in Scotland was making some scotch— Mrs Lavarch: It is short for clandestine. Mr WALLACE: Right. 01 Mar 2006 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 423

Mrs Reilly: Are you related to William? Mr WALLACE: I am related to William Wallace, actually, some way back. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Please! Mr WALLACE: I am sorry about that. We saw on the news yesterday just how dangerous these labs can be. There was an explosion at the John Tonge Centre yesterday and it was from a mere pinhead of product which came from a raid on one of these clandestine labs. We can see how dangerous and volatile the chemicals are that go into making these particular drugs. I certainly support the provisions of this bill which the Attorney has introduced that have cracked down on those labs and that have made it more difficult for people to produce these terrible drugs which are a scourge on our society and which we, as a responsible government, have been very forthright and strong in dealing with. This is just another rung on that ladder. Before I sit down, I again congratulate the Attorney on this bill. It will keep a lot of our young kids from receiving the ultimate penalty of jail. I would hate to see—and I hope it never happens—any of my children ever go through that. God forbid if they do. I would hate to see a repeat of what happened to my friend when he went to jail at the age of 18. It is certainly something which we as a parliament should never condone. We as a parliament should do everything to ensure that does not happen. That should be a last resort. I again congratulate the Attorney and commend the bill to the House. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (4.55 pm): I am happy to rise to add my support to the Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I am delighted that the drug courts which have now been operating for some five to six years in Southport, Ipswich and Beenleigh and I think three years in Cairns and Townsville will now be a permanent sentencing tool for our courts. Illicit drug taking, drug laboratories, drug dealing and the whole sad drug scene have had a really huge impact on our society. The increase in mental illness, homelessness, child neglect and abuse, the loss of self-esteem, employment and the breakdown of families in many cases can be traced right back to drug taking and often with it this accompanying criminal behaviour. For every successful graduate from the Drug Court we have a life reclaimed with the resultant improvement in relationships, possibly a return to employment and for our communities a very substantial reduction in crime. I read with interest that there have now been 169 graduates from the drug courts. I can recall pretty vividly a morning that I spent with some members in the Drug Court at Beenleigh. We spent some time with John Costanzo, who was the magistrate at the time, and I think there was a Salvation Army captain who was their counsellor, people from community corrections and from the health department. We viewed their mobile van, where they tested the participants, and they ran us right through the program. It was a great morning. I remember seeing a number of participants. They adhered to the requirements of the magistrate. They were heartily applauded. One young man had disregarded everything he had been asked to do and was returned to custody for a week or so. The real winner of the morning was a young woman who had three young children. I remember she graduated to the final level, to great applause in the gallery. So I think it is a very good program. It is not easy, but the Drug Court does provide a whole team of people all intent on assisting in every possible way to have these participants reclaim their lives. I also attended the Parramatta Drug Court with the Hon. Rod Welford when he was Attorney-General. That was very interesting—a very, very tough magistrate indeed. In the reviews conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology, I note a number of recommendations were made and these have been included in the bill. The institute has asked for more emphasis to be placed upon additional community service orders rather than custodial time. However, should a custodial recommendation be appropriate, the time is limited to no more than 22 days. This keeps the emphasis on remedial initiatives where the team of health, counselling and community corrections workers can have maximum impact as they work to assist the participants. To date, to be eligible for the program a person may be considered only if their sentence is less than three years. This has been extended to four years to include more offenders. However, extra consideration is required should the offender be guilty of a violent offence. This relates to both an indictable offence and a summary offence. Despite the greater ability in forensic testing, there are still considerable delays. I note the initiatives in the bill to assist with that. There are provisions that alter the requirements to allow a matter to be dealt with by the court in a much quicker way. However, I believe that there are reasonable provisions which allow those charged to challenge this provision. This is about streamlining our court system. The misery which drugs have created in society is immeasurable. My staff and I see that very regularly in my office. It distresses us, particularly when there are children and families involved, when we see them torn apart. 424 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

I commend those who work in the drug courts and at places such as Logan House, which is located in the adjoining area of Waterford. They do a fantastic job at Logan House. They work very intensively to assist users to flee their drug habits. My own area has organisations such as Youth and Family Services and BoysTown, which works with young people, many of whom have drug habits. Of course, we have our wonderful Time Out Centre, where Drug Arm and some of our local workers assist young people who have been using volatile substances. They are all assisting in reclaiming lives. I thank the minister for this initiative and those who have drafted this bill. It will assist in granting a new life to many people. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (5.01 pm): I commend the Attorney-General for the amendments to the act which will allow drug courts to become permanent. I must say that, of the many members here, I would perhaps be one of the only ones who sat on the bench in another life. In that role you have to impose imprisonment on another person. I worked under a regime that was introduced by the National Party whereby people were given a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified. That was in the mid-seventies. The disqualification was for the misuse of another drug. As members would all be aware, you lost your licence for drink-driving. It is a harrowing experience to have to send another person to jail. The drug courts have allowed people to be diverted into programs which, in fact, care for their future and, in actual fact, allow them to move on with their own lives, provided they comply with court orders. No members here support drugs in any way, shape or form. They are a blight upon society and cause misery and hardship among many people, from the highest to the lowest levels of our society. However, once people are hooked by drugs, they seem unable to do anything at all to help themselves while they are in the clutches of the people who provide drugs. The drug courts—although initially they were only experimental—have shown that they can divert people and give people another option. One major concern for people who are involved with drugs is that it is not just drug use that causes a blight on their lives. Many people who are into the drug scene suffer very badly from imprisonment which can be imposed because their drug use leads them to commit theft, break and enter, and crimes of dishonesty. These people need to acquire money to purchase drugs. At least if they come before the Drug Court these people are offered an alternative, another avenue to resurrect their lives. I commend the Attorney-General and the attorneys before her who were far-sighted enough to introduce courts which allow people to undergo rehabilitation programs and to work hard to rehabilitate themselves from the scourge of drugs. I must express some amazement in relation to drug use. I spoke to the Attorney-General yesterday and she indicated in relation to the use of marijuana in Queensland that the average age that people start to use is 14.7 years. For some of the heavier drugs, the average age that people start to use is 18 and 19. If people in their formative years believe that they can try a drug but then they become hooked, they should not spend the rest of their lives paying for that with periods of imprisonment. Rather, they could undergo the intervention and diversion that the drug courts provide to people generally. There have been 170 successful graduates, if you can call graduates from a court system ‘successful’. There have been 170 graduates who have not reoffended. Recidivism is very low, compared to recidivism for other crimines. I extend my whole-hearted support to the Attorney-General’s advances in drug treatment or drug assistance, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (5.06 pm): The Drug Legislation Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the current legislation. The most significant change is, of course, to the procedures surrounding drug courts. I commend the Attorney-General on bringing this legislation before the House and certainly commend the previous Attorney-General, the Hon. Rod Welford, for introducing the Drug Court concept. As a former police officer, I am certainly no fan of drugs or drug dealers. However, at the same time, I can understand the pain and hardship that is caused to families of drug users, as well as the drug users themselves. I know that a lot of people have a very right-wing attitude toward drug users, and I am not attempting to condone drug use in any way, but we see people in our society being addicted to a range of behaviours, so I guess I am talking more about the concept of addiction than drug use, per se. We see lovely people out in our community whom we know very, very well who might be addicted to alcohol and use and abuse alcohol. We may have friends, perhaps family, who are addicted to gambling. I am sure that there are many members of this House who are unfortunately addicted to tobacco. So, the concept of addiction is not one that we should be overly fearful of or overly judgemental about. A lot of people in our society face and fight addictions of varying forms every day. The poor person who is out there living through an addiction to illegal drugs should be dealt with in a compassionate way, just as we would encourage people to deal with people who are addicted to 01 Mar 2006 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 425 gambling or to tobacco. I am a fan of condemning the act, not the person committing the act. I think it is important that we differentiate between them. I think that the concept behind the Drug Court recognises that. It does not condemn the person; it just condemns the behaviour or the act. It is not about locking this person up as punishment; it is about offering some drug users an opportunity to actually fight to get over their addiction. As the member for Woodridge has, I have sat in some of these drug courts and actually watched them operate. I was there one morning when a gentleman who was in the Drug Court program turned up before the magistrate one too many times for having breached a number of conditions of the Drug Court process. That person was then sent back to prison to serve a custodial sentence. I am not talking about being soft on drug users. I appreciate the fact that drug courts offer some drug users an alternative to being locked up and punished. However, if they do not recognise the great opportunity that is offered to them, if they do not grasp it with both hands and abide by the rules of that program, then they will, quite rightly, be given the only suitable alternative, which is a custodial sentence. Certainly the drug courts offer hope to drug users to fight their addiction and not just relive the cycle of abuse where they go into prison, are punished, are not given any real treatment and then go back out on the streets. With a criminal record they might find it hard to get a job so they turn to crime to support their drug habit which increases crime, blah, blah, blah. This is an active step taken by this government to interdict that cycle of abuse and to try to treat the underlying cause. It is a much stated motto of this Beattie government that we are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime; the initiative of the Drug Court proves that. Other speakers this afternoon have spoken about the rise in the production and consumption of methylamphetamine within Australia. My understanding is that within Australia Queensland has one of the highest rates of methylamphetamine or speed use. Clandestine labs have been an increasing problem for law enforcement agencies across Australia, but most certainly here in Queensland. Historically, many of these labs have been associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs. However, they are, in the minds of the criminals, proving to be a profitable source of income. Many operators not attached to outlaw motorcycle gangs are now also actively pursuing that source of income. I congratulate the Queensland Police Service which, in the early nineties, introduced a specialist squad within the Drug Squad to investigate and target clandestine labs. Some 16 years ago the Queensland Police Service was already looking forward and seeing this as an emerging crime trend and was developing squads to meet this challenge. I remember attending meetings in the early nineties where the Police Service was looking at the issue of trying to control precursor chemicals. Subsequently legislation has been introduced. I compliment the Queensland Police Service on its forward-looking, forward-thinking attitude towards clandestine laboratories. This bill creates a number of new offences. Contained in this bill is a new offence of possession of prescribed substances or items for production of dangerous drugs. This is trying to target what one would call, in a Criminal Code context, an enabler—someone who supplies either precursor chemicals or even the glassware for someone else to go and make the drugs. Whilst law enforcement agencies might have been able to use section 7 of the Criminal Code to try to prosecute those people in the past, trying to link section 7 of the Criminal Code with the Drugs Misuse Act, this makes it very clear that people who are trying to keep their hands clean from actually producing the drugs but are quite prepared to supply precursor chemicals or glassware or, in some cases, even possibly the recipe for the production of methylamphetamine to other people to go and do the dirty work are both morally and legally guilty for the drugs that are subsequently produced. There is a new offence for the possession of a prescribed combination of items for the production of a dangerous drug. This will also assist law enforcement agencies by making prosecutions easier. The production of speed requires a whole range of drugs and quite elaborate set-ups of glassware and other materials to produce the drug. A set-up and operating lab is very much a high-risk venture. The risk of explosion and fire is significant. Rather than having to sit back and wait for a lab to be set up and cooking, if law enforcement agencies are aware that people are in possession of precursor drugs or are in possession of a certain combination of drugs and glassware then they can go in and take action at that early stage. The earlier that we can interdict these things the safer our society will be, both in terms of explosions and fires as well as there being less chance of those drugs ever hitting the streets. There is a new section, 131A, which will make prosecution not easier but certainly more streamlined. The new section 131A provides that medicines, poisons and veterinary chemicals that are in a sealed and labelled container are what they are unless the defence tries to challenge them. It does not take away the right of the defence to challenge the nature of those poisons or medicines. What it does is say that if you have a sealed bottle with a childproof cap and plastic sealing around the top of it and it is labelled ‘blah, blah, blah’, then it is what it is labelled; whatever drug name appears on the label, it is that drug. It does not take away the right of the defence to challenge that. It does not put the onus on the prosecution to prove that it is what it is labelled. The onus is on the prosecution to prove every element of the offence and this does not change that requirement. However, if the defence are only challenging one or two of those elements then this is a streamlined way of getting the nature of the chemicals before the court. 426 Drug Legislation Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

There is also a new section 131, which is a provision that allows the court to accept, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that seized equipment has been used for the production of a dangerous drug if there is no notice of challenge. Quite often in a prosecution the defendant may not be challenging the fact that it was a clandestine lab used for the cooking of methylamphetamine. This allows the prosecution to simply say that it was a clandestine lab. The defence may be challenging the fact that the person they are representing is not guilty of running, managing or controlling that lab. Why should there not be a way of streamlining and getting into evidence the fact that the glassware and the chemicals were being used for the production of methylamphetamine? The changes are more about streamlining the process. In my opinion there is no lowering of the bar. It does not obstruct the right of the defence to challenge many of these issues. Let us streamline the process so that we can get the statements before the courts as quickly as possible. In conclusion, I congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing this bill before the House. I am sure law enforcement officers will appreciate these changes. It will certainly streamline our court system. I commend the bill to the House. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (5.20 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Drug Legislation Amendment Bill, which will enable the drug rehab court diversion program to move from being simply a pilot program to a permanent program. Whilst I support the objectives of this legislation, my concern as to its success, should it become common practice throughout Queensland, is that there is nowhere within the electorate of Gympie to divert the type of offenders who should benefit from the program to actually receive rehabilitation. It is like many an idea—great in theory and not so good in practice. I hope that, as part of the passing of this legislation and the plan to make it permanent, more drug rehabilitation facilities or, at the very least, beds become available across the state. One of the problems communities face with chronic drug users is that they are sent away—that is, to Nambour or Maroochydore if they reside in Gympie. I feel it would be much more beneficial if there were at least two beds located at the Gympie Hospital for drug treatment for the initial stages of withdrawal so that the drug user could be monitored and then released under supervision by an outreach worker. As statistics show, many crimes, be they robbery or prostitution for example, are carried out so that the user can support his or her habit or addiction. In Gympie I am happy to say that we have a fantastic ATODS worker, Carol, whose speciality is in dealing with those addicted to opiates, as well as the wonderful and dedicated Mari. On the subject of drugs, I wish to take this opportunity to once again thank the Minister for Health for providing an $8,000 grant for Mari so that she can research future options now that the federal government has chosen not to continue to fund the Making a Difference program. Only last week Mari told me how frequently she is stopped in the street or in the shops by parents who are pleading with her to once again offer assistance to their son or daughter. These parents suffer tremendous guilt because they know many members of the general public resent any money being spent on drug users. Even the mayor of Cooloola shire once said at a public meeting that drug users are just like weeds to be pulled out and thrown away. These are people’s children. Pushing them out of the district to ruin someone else’s district is not the answer. I think a lot of the naysayers in the community fail to realise that a lot of the users actually have children themselves. So it is not only for the wider community’s welfare that we are successful in reducing the number of users, but for the children of these people who want a mum and a dad who are not in jail, off their faces, denied custody or, the worst scenario, dead. For a city which one could describe as quite conservative in outlook, it is often difficult for people who are well known in the community to admit that their family is facing drug problems. There is a huge stigma attached to addiction in Gympie. For those of us who do not take drugs it is easy to try to turn a blind eye, but drug use and addiction do not discriminate between class or gender. Very often the families as much as the actual user require extensive support and encouragement. To see a parent come to my office in tears asking why and how this could have happened to their child who was much loved and cared for and given everything in terms of material and emotional needs is incredibly sad. But it is even sadder when these parents have lost all hope. I believe that this legislation will offer some, realistically not all, drug users the opportunity to change their lives and to learn from their mistakes. Sure, it will not cure every client of their addiction, but if it saves the majority and saves our communities from fearing break-ins, violence and the ramifications of a drug culture then it can be only for good. I have had friends and family members addicted to drugs and I have seen the horrible consequences addiction can have and what it can force people to do. If just putting them in jail and throwing away the key were the answer, life would be so much easier. But that is not the answer. That being said, the Gympie police have to be praised for their part in reducing the number of drug related crimes in my electorate. I am very proud of their work in this area. I have friends who were genuinely nice, intelligent people but whose lives have been wasted due to their drug usage. These people have never committed any crimes, but their drug usage has meant that their lives have fallen short of what they could have been. With many of them it gets to a point 01 Mar 2006 Public Transport System 427 where they cannot turn back, not on their own. The drugs have become such a part of who they are. It becomes a health issue. If we do not start looking at it in terms of an illness, governments are going to see increasing numbers of people with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression and antisocial behaviour and increased numbers of people with hepatitis and associated medical problems. This means more money for governments to fork out. Like the aim for the MAD project, which we did have in Gympie, we must aim, in terms of treatment for court diversion participants, to find a balance between harm reduction and demand reduction. Harm reduction refers to directly reducing drug related harm to individuals and the wider community. Demand reduction refers to the promotion of and improvement in access to treatment with the aim of reducing drug use, the promotion of abstinence and improved health and overall wellbeing. The strategies that the Making a Difference program adopted to deal with the drug issue included peer based support, advisory group meetings, parent support groups, education workshops, focus groups specifically targeting the needs of rural areas, the establishment of a needle syringe program and a partnership with Blue Care to provide a health clinic once a week for vein care, hepatitis treatment and education, abscess dressing et cetera. As members can see, the program managed to achieve a great deal with limited resources. With further funding this could continue and go hand in hand with the court diversion program. But it must be more than two hours education or counselling which the current so-called diversion treatment offers in Gympie. Once again, I support the intent of this legislation but it will not work on its own to put an end to drug use in this state. Debate, on motion of Miss Elisa Roberts, adjourned.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (5.27 pm): I move— That this government reverses the last eight years of neglect and offers Queenslanders a real public transport alternative with a safe, modern and efficient rail service as part of a fully integrated public transport system. In the modern and progressive city that is Brisbane and the fastest-growing region of Australia that is south-east Queensland, we cannot survive without a public transport system that is fully integrated with a very strong rail component that is safe, modern and efficient. Unfortunately, in Queensland we do not have this service and after eight years of Labor government in Queensland there is no prospect of our getting this level of service any time in the future. This Labor government needs to be judged on its performance over the last eight years in not providing a safe, modern and efficient rail service here in Queensland. It is important as we look to improve the patronage on our public transport system and encourage the mode shift from private motor vehicles to public transport that we acknowledge that rail plays its important part. Currently public transport has a seven per cent share of the travelling public market. That is in theory supposed to move to 14 per cent over the ensuing years. It is at a steady state today because of the poor performance of rail and patrons not taking up the opportunity to travel on rail. So why are people not moving to the rail system? The statistics show us that last year, 2004-05, the growth in public transport patronage on our rail system was 0.96 per cent of one per cent whereas growth in our public transport patronage on our bus system was 10.5 per cent. For the first time in a very long time the number of people actually catching and using our bus system here in Brisbane exceeded the number of patrons using the Citytrain network by some five million trips in the year. The figures out of Brisbane City Council show that for the 2005-06 year it is likely that the patronage growth on the bus network in Brisbane will be of the order of 12.5 per cent. The train network cannot possibly show that sort of level of improvement off a base of 0.96 of one per cent. So why is the patronage rate so very, very low? We are still waiting some four years after the announcement of smart card technology when millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money has been invested in smart cards that have not appeared. It was supposed to be delivered but has been continually delayed and still not delivered by this government, which seems to be incapable of getting the technology right to deliver a smart card for public transport patrons. Our train system is not regarded as a safe system for the community to use. Mums and dads want to know that their children are able to get access to a train system that has inspectors on board, has security at train stations for departure and security at train stations on arrival so that people can get on and off the train and out to their cars and to their homes with a high degree of safety. The move to a 24-hour train service, particularly for busy periods to get people out of the CBD of Brisbane and back to their homes, never eventuated. We see in today’s Courier-Mail that the trains servicing our community right through the 24 hours not only did not eventuate but the 24-hour weekend trial, which was in fact one one-hour trial, is on the verge of being scrapped. And why? Because of the industrial mayhem that is in Queensland Rail. We had the rail strike on Friday, 3 February which paralysed south-east Queensland and cost the business community millions of dollars in lost productivity, caused enormous disruption to local residents and created chaos on our 428 Public Transport System 01 Mar 2006 roads. And why? Because one union, the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees, decided that it would order the 4,000 train drivers and guards to walk off the job. And so they did! There were no trains so that, when Queensland families sought to get about their business and use the rail system, nobody was able to do so because of the thug-like actions of this union. What did the Premier say at the time? He said— As someone who’s been in the Labor movement all my life— and members can imagine him with his hand on his heart— I just feel betrayed by what I think is a wild cat strike which has inconvenienced some Queenslanders. We heard it again in the parliament today over the former member for Gaven where the Premier said that he feels betrayed. Well, it is about time the Premier stopped feeling sorry for himself and got on with the job of solving some of the problems he has created, investing in infrastructure for Queensland, investing in our rail system and making our system reliable for the people of Queensland, particularly those in the south-east corner. What did the editorial say about this strike action? What did the editorial say? It said that it was a blatant act of industrial thuggery. Who runs our rail system? Does the minister and his department run the rail system, or does the union official in charge of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees run our rail system? It is certainly the responsibility of the minister to act on behalf of all Queenslanders to ensure that we have a reliable public transport system. Wildcat strikes do not reinforce a reliable public transport system. There have been eight years of promises that are undelivered, and we start with the promise to fund Queensland Transport. Over the last eight years funding in Queensland Transport has been a complete shambles under this government. When it came to government in 1998-99, it had an annual budget of $1.165 billion a year. In 2001 the number had decreased to $859 million. In 2002-03 it went down again to $839 million. By last year it was back to $1 billion. So seven years after those opposite came to office it had reached the same levels that the government inherited. How can services be provided to a growing community of 400,000-odd extra Queenslanders with a level of investment that is totally inadequate? It is an appalling story and it is little wonder that our rail system suffers terribly at the hands of this government. Promises on the Gold Coast seem to be the order of the day with the Labor government. Right back to 2001 promises were made about the delivery of an efficient rail system on the Gold Coast. Right back to 2001—in fact, on 8 February 2001—the promise was made to deliver the now famous Tugun bypass. Right back to February 2001—almost five years ago—the government promised to deliver the Tugun bypass by 2002, a $55 million project. What was also promised was to get the rail right down to Coolangatta. In 2001 the commitment was made. For eight years those opposite have been in government! In 2001 the government promised to get the rail to Coolangatta. The promise was that we would have an efficient rail network on the Gold Coast. So on 8 February 2001 we were going to get this system and the money was to be allocated to get the system. But what were we told then before the 2004 election? On 17 March 2003—just before the last election—we were told that public transport service improvements between Robina and the Gold Coast airport would form part of the state’s extension to the Gold Coast passenger rail line from Robina. Mr Bredhauer—we all remember him; the worst transport and main roads minister in Queensland’s history—said that the Gold Coast— Mr Quinn interjected. Mr CALTABIANO: The jury is out on the minister. The jury is out. He said— The Gold Coast is one of the fastest growing regional areas and as its population grows, so too do the transport needs of the local residents. That is a pretty accurate statement; yes, it is. But what he forgot to say was that there needs to be an increased level of investment to meet the growing needs of the population to satisfy those transport needs for local residents so they have access to a high-quality public transport system. The construction of the Tugun bypass was again a feature of the 2003 campaign. In March 2003 the cost of course had gone from $55 million to $240 million with an immediate start. Now it is $540 million and still no start. So what are the implications for rail? In November 2003 we had the great announcement from the government—‘Slashed waiting times and more trains in a $247 million Gold Coast upgrade,’ says Mr Beattie. He said— The $247 million upgrade will mean cuts in the gap between peak services from 30 minutes to as little as 15 minutes. I went to the transport department timetables and fares. This is 2½ years and an election later after supposedly having spent $247 million of taxpayers’ money to slash peak service times from 30 minutes separation to 15 minutes. What do we have? The first train departs Robina at 5.22 am. Some 36 minutes later the second train departs, 26 minutes later the next one, 31 minutes the next, 25 minutes the next, 40 minutes the next and 44 minutes rounds out the peak. So where has the $247 million gone to reduce the gaps between peak services? How can the people of the Gold Coast— who know that train service as the ‘Bombay Express’—have a safe, efficient and reliable public transport system that is worthy of support when this government promises, promises, promises and fails to deliver year after year after year. The performance of this government in the management, operations and expansion of the rail network is nothing short of appalling. The long-suffering residents of south-east Queensland deserve a government that is not full of excuses. 01 Mar 2006 Public Transport System 429

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.37 pm): It gives me pleasure to rise to second the motion moved by the member for Chatsworth and to advocate for safe, modern and efficient public transport and rail services, in particular for the western suburbs of Brisbane. Residents of my electorate of Moggill and the adjoining electorate of Indooroopilly have been appallingly served with the public transport options and as a result we suffer a daily grind with choked, motionless traffic on Moggill Road and the Western Freeway. The road conditions noticeably deteriorate when high schools resume their term and again when universities resume their term, because even school and university students—traditionally users of public transport—have no reasonable alternatives to using motor vehicles. The Moggill electorate, geographically the largest electorate in the city of Brisbane, has no park- and-ride facility of any sort. In fact, we have little more than a sign on the kerb indicating that a bus stops here. Buses are overcrowded and many commuters are now returning to cars because bus services out of Bellbowrie are full before they even leave that suburb. We do not have the buzz-type commuter services that would help commuters shift back to public transport away from private cars, and because of the extremely poor road conditions and the lack of any sort of public transport infrastructure commuting conditions are very poor. But the real farce of western suburbs transport becomes apparent when one arrives at Indooroopilly, and indeed farce is the right word to use. The huge area of the western suburbs of Brisbane is serviced only by bus, with Indooroopilly being the nearest railway. Considering that it is the 10th busiest bus-train interchange of the 143 stations on the metropolitan network, it is extraordinary that the bus station is nowhere near the rail station. I say to those opposite that they are not serious. How can they possibly be serious about encouraging the use of public transport and getting cars off some of the worst roads in the state when the bus station and the only accessible railway station are miles apart? People who live anywhere in my electorate or in parts of the adjoining electorate of Indooroopilly have to catch a bus to the Westfield shopping centre at Indooroopilly and walk the best part of a kilometre down a fairly steep hill exposed to the elements to catch a train. Then they have to do it all over again when they return. The reality for our constituents is that it is just easier to drive. However, the farcical situation at Indooroopilly does not stop with the complete lack of integration of bus and rail systems. As well as trying to get cars off our deeply congested roads we should be encouraging people not to take their vehicles into the city. The state’s seventh busiest railway station at Indooroopilly has no kiss-and-go area. Motorists are frequently tempted into dangerous manoeuvres to get children and relatives to the railway platform. Further, even though Indooroopilly is effectively the only rail station servicing the western parts of Brisbane, it has no park-and-ride facility. So with no bus station, no kiss-and-go and no park-and-ride there is very little option to approach Indooroopilly station other than by walking. This government has now been in office for eight years and has only just recently released some details of disability access to Indooroopilly station—plans that are far too late and grossly inadequate. Its benefit is largely negated by the difficult vehicle access and the lack of parking, and most disabled people will be approaching the station from some sort of vehicle. The member for Indooroopilly has had five years in this parliament, yet we still do not have disability access; he has only just started to talk about that. We have no set-down area. We could not even dream about any park-and-ride, and the bus station remains miles away up the hill. At least there is some sort of light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Indooroopilly. At least on the coming election day they will have a choice in an energetic and experienced transport planner, Mr Peter Turner, who is determined to fix up the chaos of traffic and, in particular, public transport that has crippled the central business zone of Indooroopilly. Peter Turner is a fine fellow. I read with great dismay in this morning’s Courier-Mail that the 24-hour service for rail on Friday and Saturday nights is likely to cease. Transportation out of the entertainment precincts of the city is a huge issue for people who live in these suburban areas of Brisbane. People want to know that young people can have a bit of fun in the city and get home safely. It is impossible to catch a taxi and now we are taking away the option of catching the train and getting picked up at the nearest station. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (5.42 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after "this" are deleted and the following words inserted: House— • Notes the last eight years of unprecedented expenditure on public transport services and infrastructure by the Beattie Labor government across Queensland in offering a real public transport alternative which is a safe, modern and efficient, fully integrated transportation system; • Acknowledges the value and strong benefits of bipartisan support from councils such as the Brisbane City Council; and • Acknowledges the resulting significant patronage growth, for example 20 per cent in Mackay, 12 per cent in Townsville, 12 per cent in Cairns, and almost 10 per cent in south-east Queensland. This debate is a wonderful opportunity to talk about eight years of commitment and growth to public transport and investment in the future of Queensland. It speaks volumes about the commitment of the shadow spokesperson that he moves the motion that he has moved today. It has this handwritten 430 Public Transport System 01 Mar 2006 scrawl: ‘An efficient rail system’—strike that—‘service’. We had better remember ‘integrated public transport system’. It is written in there as an afterthought. That is ideologically what public transport is for the conservative parties in Australia—an afterthought. They have no interest, worry or care about public transport. The unprecedented level of funding for public transport infrastructure under this government has been the envy of the rest of Australia. Honourable members should see what the Gold Coast Bulletin said about the Tugun bypass and the government’s attitude towards it. This range of activities we are planning and delivering demonstrates our commitment: investing in infrastructure, improving service delivery, improving security and safety, our nightly taxi and public transport services in Brisbane, the best system of security cameras in taxis, improving the effectiveness of our TransLink transport officers, safer buses for urban and school services and improved integration. Members opposite did not have integrated ticketing. They can talk about Steve Bredhauer all they like. If there is one person we can thank more than anyone else for integrated ticketing it is Steve Bredhauer. The people of south-east Queensland have voted with their feet. In fact, other people want to be brought within the TransLink integrated ticketing area. Under SEQIP $35 billion is being spent on transport and roads, $8 billion on public transport, and $335 million to improve public transport services funding in south-east Queensland as well. That is on top of the $600 million a year currently being spent on public transport. People are voting with their feet. I am particularly delighted to see members of parliament in this House from those areas outside of the core areas of Brisbane—the Logans and the Townsvilles of the world—that for too long were left out by the Tories. People in Wynnum did not get a bus service until Labor was elected under Jim Soorley. That is what members opposite think of people who catch public transport. Between 1 July 2005 and 31 January 2006 more than 84½ million passenger trips have been made across the TransLink system. That is an increase of 9.6 million journeys compared with the same period the previous year. It is not the debating club sort of contribution we hear from the member for Moggill or the member for Chatsworth. There have also been 12 million extra passengers. On the Sunshine Coast there was a 35 per cent increase in passengers, 660,000 extra; Gold Coast, 15 per cent increase, 2.1 million; Ipswich, 37 per cent increase, 57,000 extra; and Logan, 32 per cent increase, 550,000 extra. I was in Logan with the member for Springwood on the weekend to see a fleet of buses—brand new buses for those people financed under TransLink and this Labor government. Mr Reynolds: They deserve it. Mr LUCAS: They do deserve it. In terms of our rail network, we are starting our $307 million track upgrade works for the Brisbane-Gold Coast rail corridor. The third track from Salisbury to Kuraby is due for completion in February 2008; $15 million for Ormeau to Coomera second track with a target of October 2006; Helensvale, detailed early construction works; and Helensvale to Robina a second track. We have the announced extension to the line from Robina to Reedy Creek. We are making provision in the Tugun bypass for the tunnel to go to the Coolangatta airport—not to mention the rolling stock that EDI and Bombardier have started building at Maryborough which also puts money into the pockets of people in that region. There is $7.2 million for network-wide station upgrades, Caboolture to Landsborough stage 1 and the Caboolture to Beerburrum second track, and of course the CAMCOS commitment. I notice the member for Chatsworth has been talking about rail. He has been saying to people in his electorate that he wants a rail line built to Capalaba. I invite him to say through the Leader of the Liberal Party whether that is a coalition commitment that we can cost into their election campaign. Please tell us when they are going to deliver it. He has been specific with the CAMCOS corridor. Be specific with that one as well. We would really welcome that commitment. Security cameras in taxis are the envy of the rest of Australia. As at mid February the roll-out of that program was such that 350 installations have been committed. Let us have a talk about public transport planning Liberal Party style. How does it do it? It gets a Google Earth map, stick it out in the community—totally misleading—and then claim that as a method of scaring the community into thinking things. It is running the city council. It says that unless there is an integrated public system—which the Brisbane City Council will not commit to—there will not be patronage either. Then it runs a campaign in the last city council election advocating busways. Then it gets out in its own electorates and asks questions on notice. The member opposite is the Peter Reith of Queensland politics and he is shamed by the other people around him. He is shamed by the former minister for transport in the coalition government. He is a low-life, low-grade performer. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.47 pm): I rise to second the amendment. If there is one area in this state that knows all about poor transport planning, it is Logan and the Logan-Gold Coast corridor. Let us take a stroll down memory lane to Logan just a little over 20 years ago. People who lived in Logan and wanted to catch a bus had to stand on the Pacific Highway and flag down a Greyhound bus. Pregnant women who had to go to the Mater Hospital because in those days there was no Logan 01 Mar 2006 Public Transport System 431

Hospital would stand in the sun on the Pacific Highway and flag down a Greyhound bus. Who was in government then? Who was advocating for the people of Logan to have public transport then? It certainly was not the Liberal Party and it certainly was not the National Party government of the day. What did the coalition do for transport in the Logan-Gold Coast corridor? Its answer to the public transport and road congestion was to sell off the rail land corridor. That is what it did about the train. It was a Labor government that bought back that land, and today the Gold Coast rail line is one of the busiest in the state. School bus routes—that is when public transport for Logan developed. There were no buses to take children to school. Reg and Yvonne Clark thought they would do something about this. They bought a bus and started the school bus service. It was from this humble beginning that the bus services for Logan began. When Logan finally did have a bus roll into the city the destination on it was Taronga Park Zoo. The reason for this was that no-one would help establish a bus service in Logan. Buses were purchased from New South Wales because the people of Logan wanted, needed and deserved a bus service but the National Party government of the day was not listening, and that has not changed. The Liberal and National parties are not listening today. Last Saturday I joined the Clark family to celebrate their 30 years of service. The celebrations included the official opening by Minister Lucas of a new $2 million depot. The depot caters for more than 130 employees and that is a big plus for local jobs, and today Logan has a modern fleet of over 92 vehicles. Mr Lucas: What did Reg and Yvonne Clark say about that? Ms STONE: I am getting to that. Why do we need this facility? Because the Labor Party did listen to Logan residents and has planned and will continue to plan to ensure bus services for Logan reflect the needs of the city today. In the past Logan received no assistance from the coalition parties for public transport, but a different story exists under the Labor government. At the opening of the new depot the Clarks themselves said, ‘It would not have been possible without the advent of TransLink—both in terms of financial support from government and service arrangements.’ That is what they said. Today we see a partnership that reflects the Beattie Labor government’s commitment to improving transport services in Logan. That clearly demonstrates the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—we listen and we deliver. When I became the state member for Springwood there was no bus service from Logan East to Logan West and no student discounts. Today Logan residents not only can travel across town but can travel on a single ticket from Logan to Noosa, and TransLink has delivered a 50 per cent discount on public transport for all secondary and tertiary students. This Labor government has planned and will continue planning for public transport that gives real choices. Buses, trains, bikeways, pedestrian walkways and integrated ticketing is what our future is all about. Choices—that is what a good transport system is all about. I find it incredible that the biggest critics of the Springwood bus station, the Logan-Gold Coast rail corridor, bus services and other forms of public transport in Logan are the National and Liberal Party councillors of Logan—the people who are assisting public transport the least. When it comes to public transport planning, what have they done? Have they put any money into bus services? No. Have they designed streets that buses can even drive in? No. When they do identify a spot for a bus stop and the bus can fit in the street, they ask the state government to pay for the bus shelter. The $21.3 million investment in the Springwood bus station shows the investment in public transport in Logan and it destroys the opposition’s argument that the government is not committing money to transport infrastructure. Under the National Party government, where the Logan Hyperdome stands today is where the people of Shailer Park would have flagged down a Greyhound bus or perhaps a Pioneer bus on its way to the Gold Coast or to Brisbane. Today the Logan Hyperdome has a bus interchange and can now boast an $800,000 upgrade to that bus interchange. With the busway such a huge success it is no surprise that the constituents of Springwood electorate want dedicated bus lanes extended to Springwood bus station and also to the Logan Hyperdome. This government has listened and is acting on what it heard. Planning to have bus lanes to Springwood done in conjunction with the planning for the upgrade of the M1 from Eight Mile Plains to the Logan River is underway. Time expired. Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (5.53 pm): I rise to speak to this motion and, surprisingly, I am going to speak about the Redcliffe rail. This government must reverse the last eight years of neglect by offering Queenslanders a real public transport alternative—a safe, modern and efficient rail service as part of a fully integrated public transport system. The railway to Redcliffe has been promised by several governments and never delivered. This government has sat on its hands and done nothing to develop transport infrastructure in Redcliffe. In 1884 the people of Redcliffe first had discussions with the government about a rail to service the peninsula. Redcliffe’s first member for Redcliffe, James Houghton, in 1960 asked for a rail service to Redcliffe. Terry White in 1979 during his first speech said that the government had made a commitment 432 Public Transport System 01 Mar 2006 to provide a rail service to Redcliffe. Even the third member for Redcliffe, Ray Hollis, in his first speech said that it was a commitment of his government to provide that rail line to Redcliffe. What has happened? The land has been bought, but this government has said there will be no railway to Redcliffe. Incredibly, the Labor candidate in Redcliffe just is not with the program. Today she is carrying on in the Redcliffe & Bayside Herald asking why the Redcliffe rail line has not been built yet. The answer of course is simple: Labor does not see rail as a priority for Redcliffe. If the Beattie government gets its way, Redcliffe will never get a rail line. Maybe the Labor candidate needs to pay a little more attention to what is happening in Redcliffe. Just this past Monday the Queensland coalition announced its commitment to ensuring that Redcliffe gets its rail line. Unlike Beattie Labor, the Queensland coalition has a great track record for delivering on transportation infrastructure. It was the last coalition government that took the M1 motorway to the Gold Coast from design to completion in just over two years. Government members interjected. Mr ROGERS: You remember that; come on! We will do the same with Redcliffe’s rail service. The Queensland coalition is the only hope for Redcliffe to get its railway line. The current rail corridor extends from Petrie to Kippa-Ring and the government has owned the majority of this land since 1978. In a response to a question on notice which I asked the transport minister on 30 September 2005, the government said that only two outstanding properties totalling 3.79 hectares were yet to be acquired. The government continues to refer to the rail corridor land as a public transport corridor. In 2003 it decided to defer the construction of the rail line and develop a bus network package for the 2004-05 financial year. The government’s excuses have been listed in a response to the same question on notice and, for the record, I will list the government’s ludicrous justifications for neglect. The government claims it is delivering— a public transport system that is comfortable, attractive and easy to use, the State Government endorsed the development of a package of bus network enhancements in the northern sub-regions including Petrie to Kippa-Ring as a short to medium term public transport solution. Mr Lawlor: What was Jim Houghton’s excuse? Mr ROGERS: Short- to medium-term solutions are not about getting the priorities right for Queensland and my valued constituents in Redcliffe. It is just putting a bandaid on an open wound and hoping the infection will go away. If the government’s short-term health solutions are anything to go by, its endorsements are destined to fail. The government members need to clean out their ears, stop listening to the erroneous mumbles of one another and start getting the right message from our Queensland community. Rail services have been proven to be safe, modern and efficient. Yet the government claims comfortable, attractive and easy to use is a sufficient short-term alternative. The only people the bus proposal is attractive to is the government. The people of Redcliffe and those who live on the corridor do not want the corridor wasted on a bus service. The opposition has received overwhelming community support for the safe, modern and efficient rail alternatives. As elected representatives of Queensland it is important that the short- to medium-term solutions of the governments do not prevail. The neglect of the government must stop. However, I imagine the government will find it hard to hold the wheel of Queensland’s transport vehicle which it has been asleep behind for the past eight years. A fully integrated public transport system is the key to providing long-term efficient and safe transportation infrastructure for Queensland. Rail transport allows more people to travel. Rail avoids the overwhelming road congestion which causes massive delays every day in our state. A busway in the rail corridor is less economically viable and less cost efficient. If the government’s short-sighted bus corridor plan proceeds, displacing the rail corridor, we will never be able to have rail as a public transport option because there will simply be nowhere for the rail tracks to go. Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (5.58 pm): Mr Speaker, I am glad to see you in the chair this afternoon. I am also glad to see my colleague the member for Gregory in the chamber because I have a lot of time for him as well. Mr SPEAKER: Will the member for Gregory like to come and sit up here? Mr WALLACE: Like me, he knows that there is a lot of Queensland outside this neck of the woods. He knows that there is a lot of Queensland outside south-east Queensland. He knows that there is a lot of Queensland north of Caloundra. Mr Hoolihan: Most of Queensland. Mr WALLACE: I take the interjection of the member for Keppel. He, too, knows there is a lot of Queensland outside of here. What do we hear this afternoon? We hear ‘Brisbane’. We hear ‘Caloundra’. We hear ‘Redcliffe’. We hear all about the south-east corner. We do not hear anything about the rest of Queensland. The Liberals do not represent anyone outside the south-east corner. They do not care about anyone outside the south-east corner. That is why they have moved this silly motion this afternoon 01 Mar 2006 Public Transport System 433 from a bloke whose only policy for regional Queensland is to bring back daylight saving. Guess how popular you are in the bush, digger! You are not very popular, I can tell you that much. That is why it galls me to hear these south-east Liberals up here sprouting about public transport. They only care about public transport in their leafy suburbs: ‘Leave the Jag in the garage today and let’s catch the train to work.’ I cannot see their stockbrokers catching the train to work. I cannot see their rich accountant mates catching the train to work. The only thing they have ever done for the train system is dig up the rail line between here and the Gold Coast. I know another railway line that that mob ripped up: the Greenvale railway line when they were in government a couple of years ago. That was another bright spark of a move, ripping up a railway line from Greenvale to Yabulu. Those opposite come in here and try to pontificate about railway lines and the only thing they ever do is rip them up. They really need to take some lessons from this side. The Beattie government is committed to an integrated public transport system for the entire state, and that is not just rail. It includes buses, rail, ferry, taxis and supporting infrastructure as appropriate to community uses. Mr Speaker, as in a lot of parts of your electorate, I have no railway lines in my electorate that people could take a train anywhere. Get out of the south-east corner and start talking about the rest of Queensland. The Beattie government is committed to urban buses in major regional centres to provide alternatives for cars, to cater for the transport disadvantaged and to connect people with major centres. It is not just about the south-east; it is about the rest of Queensland. Significant service improvements and achievements in 2005 include daily return services from Burrum Heads to Hervey Bay, eight bus services doing an additional 450,000 kilometres in Cairns and hourly services in Mackay. I know those opposite do not want to listen to what is happening in the rest of Queensland. They want to concentrate just on the south-east corner. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, you will have your chance if you want to speak. Mr WALLACE: I thought the member for Hinchinbrook would also take umbrage at his south-east corner mates. I thought he would be sticking up for his residents in Ingham. I thought he would be fighting for better transport services, not on spending all the money in the south-east corner. Mr Malone interjected. Mr WALLACE: I wish the member for Mirani would fight for the residents in his area, not stick together with his Liberal mates in the south-east corner. They have no plans for the rest of Queensland. What is he going to do about daylight saving? Is he going to hop into bed with them and support daylight saving just to get into government? I hope not. Some of the other great services which this government has introduced for all of Queensland include Saturday services from Bundaberg to Elliott Heads, an increase to hourly services from Bundaberg to Bargara and a flexible transport service trialled in Toowoomba. Planned improvements this year include extra trips in Toowoomba, hourly on weekdays; extra services in Hervey Bay; and a revised network in Rockhampton. That is a real commitment to the rest of Queensland—not just the south-east corner but the rest of Queensland. There are other solutions that this government is introducing for the rest of Queensland. For example, in Toowoomba this government is funding a trial of flexible public transport. Known as the Kan-go service, it offers residents at home pick-ups to travel to specific local areas—shops, hospitals and city centres. Mr Lucas: Mike Horan’s electorate. Mr WALLACE: I take the minister’s interjection: in Mike Horan’s electorate. He is out there defending his electorate, but these blokes would not have a clue what is north of Caloundra. Time expired. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (6.03 pm): I am pleased to rise in support of the motion moved by the honourable member for Chatsworth, who I might add knows a thing or two about transport planning and needs. We have already heard from the honourable member, as well as members on this side of the House, about this government’s appalling track record on public transport infrastructure. There is no doubt that the Gold Coast population is growing at a rapid rate and will continue to do so, and this was confirmed in the recent report Population growth: highlights and trends, Queensland 2005 released by the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women. According to the report, the most southern suburbs of the Currumbin electorate—Guanaba to Currumbin Valley—are in the top 10 fastest growing suburbs on the Gold Coast, which itself is the second highest growth area in Queensland and therefore deserves far better transport than it is receiving. Members opposite will no doubt rabbit on in their usual negative fashion about the fact the National Party ripped up the old railway line to Coolangatta over 40 years ago when the Gold Coast was a series of coastal villages and cars became the preferred method of transport. This is true. However, not even this government, with all its spin doctors and advisers, is prepared to produce plans for our region past 2025, which I add is when the railway line is mooted to run to Coolangatta. 434 Public Transport System 01 Mar 2006

In the Currumbin electorate and throughout the greater Gold Coast there is no doubt we are suffering from a lack of transport services. Residents in the newish Elanora estate of Lakewoods have been writing to the minister for years requesting a bus service. A bus service was trialled 10 years ago when Lakewoods was only one-eighths completed. There are now 657 homes, mostly with more than one resident, and still the minister refuses to consider a service to the area, stating in a letter dated 4 January— Bus services are not currently provided to the Lakewood estate due to both the relatively small population and isolation of the subdivision making it difficult to efficiently provide services. I am here to tell the minister that isolation is part of the problem, although the estate is only a matter of minutes drive to the nearest large shopping centre. A number of residents are getting on in years but do not wish to enter a retirement village, yet they are being made to feel like prisoners in their own homes due to a lack of public transport. So much for looking after the consumer, as was the mantra of another Labor minister who spoke earlier in the House today. Perhaps the minister for transport could have a therapy lesson with the minister for fair trading, who has stated that she champions the needs of the elderly and looks after our consumers. Only today my office received a call from a homeowner who said that the lack of transport was hindering the sale of their property. Some residents who want to move on cannot sell their homes when potential buyers discover there is no public transport. John Flynn Hospital is another matter. Patients are missing appointments due to a very irregular service. A rapidly increasing population is causing new suburbs and developments to pop up wherever parcels of land can be acquired and subdivided. Even our beloved valley environments are under siege from high-density, totally inappropriate developments such as the Coyou-Devine proposal before council at present. With ex-Labor politicians Jim Soorley and Terry Mackenroth on the board, residents have every right to fear the worst and are prepared to fight this development with every ounce of strength they can muster. The full history of unmet transport needs on the southern Gold Coast under this government is too long to chronicle here. But let us go back a few years to 1999 and see what was promised. On 14 September Minister Bredhauer said: ‘I am keen to ensure that the investigation into extending the rail from Robina is finalised as soon as possible. It has been a long process but one which has been necessary to ensure the best possible public transport solution is achieved for the southern end of the Gold Coast.’ Then we move to 10 October 2000, when the then member for Currumbin reported a community survey showed that 90 per cent of people agreed that it was essential to improve public transport links with Brisbane, and 89 per cent supported the extension of the rail line to Coolangatta. After winning the 2001 election with promises that the bypass would be commenced by the end of 2002 and still no action, the people of the southern Gold Coast were becoming increasingly frustrated at broken promises. So much for caring for our consumer, because in 2004 the Premier sent a letter to every resident, saying, ‘We have identified a new eastern corridor including land within the Gold Coast airport. The corridor will require the resumption of 14 houses on the eastern edge of the airport.’ I seek leave to table this letter. Leave granted. Mrs STUCKEY: Those people were absolutely under threat of losing their homes. So now we come to 2005. Mr Lucas: And who saved them? You or me? Mrs STUCKEY: I saved them, thank you, Minister. More than 10 million passenger journeys have been made between July 2004 and June 2005 on rail. In 2005 the Premier says that $500 million allocated for a rail line to Coolangatta— Time expired. Hon. CP CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs) (6.08 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved. The fact is that the Beattie government is delivering improved public transport, particularly in my area of the Sunshine Coast. A highlight of those improvements is the $1.1 billion package of new bus and rail services to service the Sunshine Coast along the Caboolture to Maroochydore corridor between Beerwah, Caloundra and Maroochydore. Ultimately, this project will deliver a rail line through the Sunshine Coast which will give more people the opportunity to come to the Sunshine Coast and visit some of the best beaches in the world patrolled by the best surf-lifesavers in the world. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! Mr CUMMINS: As well as the best beaches in the world we have one of the best surf-lifesaving clubs in the world. On the weekend the Kawana Waters Surf Life Saving club won the Champion Club title at the Rescue 2006 World Lifesaving Championships at Lorne in Victoria. People will be able to catch the train to Kawana to see one of the best lifesaving clubs in the world. 01 Mar 2006 Public Transport System 435

Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I do not want to warn you, but— Mr CUMMINS: The 12-member Kawana team includes No. 1 ironman Zane Holmes. We are proud to call Kawana home. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Transport, behave yourself, please. Mr CUMMINS: The small Sunshine Coast club with the biggest of hearts is under the coaching of Brad Stokes, who is also a QAS paramedic. His sister-in-law, Kirsty Holmes, is a member of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and a champion ironwoman. Let us look at some of what else is happening on the Sunshine Coast. The TransLink Network Plan, the TNP, provides for the introduction of a new bus service linking Maroochydore and Kawana via the Buderim Private Hospital. The service will operate hourly, five days a week. It is envisaged that the service will be launched midyear. Planning is underway for a service— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr CUMMINS: The member did nothing while he was the minister. How dare he come into this House and— Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! Mr CUMMINS: That is why he was voted out. He was the laziest, most useless minister that we have seen. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I have given members a lot of latitude in this debate. It has gone a little bit too far now. Member for Gregory, with due respect to you, you are sitting there and shouting things out. I warn you under standing order 253. Minister, I would ask you to continue with your address. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Mr JOHNSON: I find the remarks of the minister offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr CUMMINS: I withdraw. Planning is well underway for a service connecting Noosa Heads and Cooran. This service will be partly funded by Noosa Shire Council, and I commend them for that. It will operate five days a week and offer three return services a day. The launch of this service is scheduled for midyear. An additional five new, air-conditioned and low-floor accessible buses are due for delivery this month to improve the overall fleet standard and to support the above additional services. This year, TransLink achieved a 30 per cent increase in patronage—the opposition does not like to hear this—across the Sunshine Coast urban bus network. It is good news for Sunshine Coast residents. The opposition represented that area until the last five years and they delivered nothing. The people of the Sunshine Coast know that public transport services have increased dramatically since the year 2001. Service improvements equated to a 20 per cent increase in bus services across the entire Sunshine Coast network. TransLink injected $2.4 million per annum for these service improvements. The service improvements form part of the TNP’s $10 million, three-year package for better Sunshine Coast services, in addition to the $5.5 million to maintain these services over the following seven years. Some of the service improvements include direct access to services being offered to new areas such as Coolum township, Marcoola beachfront and, in my electorate, Glenfields Estate. Improved bus services also provide direct access to our key locations, including the Mountain Creek TAFE, Australia Zoo, Noosa National Park and, of course, Noosa Hospital. Service is increased to hourly, seven days a week, between Kawana and Peregian. Service is increased to hourly, seven days a week, between Caloundra and Nambour. Service is increased to hourly on weekdays between Parklands, Hastings Street and Noosa National Park. We did not have much of a base to work from after the years of coalition representation. Since I was elected to this House five years ago, I am very pleased to have seen a new bus service introduced to the Sunshine Coast University and, as I mentioned earlier, the massive $1.1 billion CAMCOS project. The first phase of the CAMCOS project will be a new high-speed busway and bus priority lane using parts of the Caboolture to Maroochy corridor study between Caloundra and Maroochydore, and other roads such as the Nicklin Way. The three local governments of Caloundra, Maroochy and Noosa are working together under the SunROC umbrella and working well with the minister to bring things forward. Where we can, we will continue to bring things forward. Let us talk about those opposite. The only money the Nationals ever spent on the Sunshine Coast— Time expired. 436 Public Transport System 01 Mar 2006

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (6.13 pm): I rise to support the motion. At the outset, I have to say that the member for Kawana’s comments about $1.1 billion being spent on the Sunshine Coast missed a tiny fact: the CAMCOS corridor is projected for 2025-26. There is no rail public transport across the Sunshine Coast. Do members know why? It is because we have had to suffer the Beattie government’s neglect, rorts, stupidity and ignorance across the coast for the last eight years. It has taken a coalition to get together and say that we hear what the people of the Sunshine Coast are saying, and they want a rail system. We will pull it in in 10 years. The minister did not state that. The reason is that he has done nothing about it. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for transport, if you want to make a further contribution, do it from your own seat. Mr McARDLE: Our proposal comprises common sense, reality and an understanding of what the people of the Sunshine Coast want. They are three concepts that the Beattie government has no idea of what they mean or represent. Let us consider the Sunshine Coast. I do not understand why this Beattie government simply does not comprehend the need for a rail system across Caloundra, Maroochy and Noosa. It is a long, thin, narrow neck of land with a population of 270,000, and growing every single day. It is the third largest growth area in this country and it is being ignored year in and year out. On the Sunshine Coast there are people, due to age or infirmity, who cannot drive motor vehicles but who do not have access to any form of rail transport system because that mob does not care. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Caloundra, I do not think ‘mob’ is a parliamentary word. Mr Caltabiano: ‘Rabble’. ‘Rabble’ is a much better word. Mr McARDLE: That rabble does not care—a Beattie rabble. The youth on the Sunshine Coast cannot get to their jobs via rail public transport. Do members know why? It does not exist. Every day people come in to see me who want to get to Noosa from Caloundra but they cannot, because the buses do not run on time or the buses do not run at all, and there is no rail transport system. Those opposite are an absolute rabble. It shows an absolutely disgusting disrespect and disregard for the people of the Sunshine Coast. We live in an area that is growing economically every day. An economic growth area needs a public transport system that caters for all the needs of all the people across the coast. The Sunshine Coast does not have a whiff of getting that under this Beattie government until 2025-26. The minister has not even indicated that the Beattie government will consider bringing that time period forward. Why? Because it does not care. In fact, on 1 February 2006 a community transport forum was held in Maroochydore that both I and the member for Maroochydore attended. That transport forum was to discuss how we get around the problem. Not one Labor member was at that forum. Mr Quinn: No interest. Mr McARDLE: No interest at all. An exceptional guest speaker came to the Sunshine Coast from the Gold Coast. There was not even an apology from any member of the Beattie Labor government. Again, that is typical of neglect. The rail system needs to be integrated not only with the public but also with the bus service. Let us talk about SunBus. Let us talk about the ramshackle results of SunBus on the Sunshine Coast. People talk to me about it every day. A woman phoned on Monday and told me that two buses failed to appear. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr McARDLE: The minister has no plan whatsoever to bring any integrated transport system to the Sunshine Coast because he cannot think outside of the metropolitan area. He is an absolute disgrace. Time expired. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (6.28 pm): It gives me great pleasure to stand and talk about public transport. I have been a strong advocate for public transport ever since I was elected to parliament. I loved hearing the subject of tonight’s motion, being the No. 1 ticket holder of the South East Busway, as some members would know. Unlike members opposite, I know what public transport is about. Public transport is not just trains, it is not just buses and it is not just taxis. It is a combination of them all. It is not just about a focus on rail that we just heard about from the member for Caloundra. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, have some respect, please. 01 Mar 2006 Public Transport System 437

Mr REEVES: The member for Callide does not have respect. I have lived on the south side of Brisbane my entire life. The south side of Brisbane has never had a train service. However now, thanks to— Opposition members interjected. Mr REEVES: Wait for it: thanks to the Beattie Labor government, we have the south-east busway which is— Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. The member for Mansfield is misleading the House. The Borbidge-Sheldon government initiated the south-east transit corridor. We put those contracts in place and he knows it. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: As I said a moment ago, I have given a lot of latitude in this debate. The place is getting out of order. The next member who starts screaming will be out. Mr REEVES: The member for Gregory needs to get a history check. The busway project was instigated as a result of funding provided under the Better Cities Program. The Goss Labor government started the investigation into the south-east busway. Mr Johnson: And you did nothing. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. After this, you are out. Mr REEVES: The planning was all done under the Goss government and implementation occurred because of the Beattie Labor government. However, we are not talking just about the south- east busway. We are now looking at the eastern and inner-northern busways. All the member for Chatsworth wants to do is to complain about it. He does not want to use it. Let us hear about his plan. Is his plan to put a railway up the Gateway arterial road because he is so dedicated to the railways? Is that what he wants to do? No, he will not come out and say that that is what he actually wants to do because he knows what will be the impact on his electorate and the electorate of Mansfield. People need to know that his preferred outcome is all about trains. Unlike those opposite, the Beattie Labor government works with other levels of government, including local government and the Brisbane City Council in particular. Campbell Newman has seen the benefit of an integrated transport system. TransLink is going from success to success because of our cooperation with local government, bus providers, QR and the Brisbane City Council. We have made a significant commitment to public transport. In south-east Queensland the focus is on an integrated, effective and efficient system and we have heard from other members about the great systems in the north. The government made a massive investment in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan, but the investment in busways started well before then. As we said, the south-east busway opened in 2001. Unlike those opposite, on many occasions I have actually caught the bus to get to this place and to many other places. I bet I could count on one hand the number of times those opposite have caught a bus. Our busways are praised in transport circles worldwide and we are not stopping there. The $278 million inner-northern busway will link the Queen Street bus station to the existing section of the inner-northern busway and Upper Roma Street. It will include new busway stations at King George Square and the Brisbane Transit Centre. Opposition members interjected. Mr REEVES: Members opposite are all talk. We are getting on with the job. Members opposite should tell the people about the railway line they want to take down the Gateway arterial, just as the former minister for transport wanted to do. Mr Lucas: Do you support that? Mr REEVES: Do members opposite support the railway line going up the Gateway arterial road, as the former minister for transport wanted to do? The silence is golden! They do support it. The people of the Mansfield and Chatsworth electorates would be really interested to know that. The silence is deafening. The people will know about that support for the railway line up the Gateway arterial road— Time expired. Question—That the amendment to the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES,52—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 23—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. 438 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES,52—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 23—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.34 pm to 7.30 pm.

RACING (RACE FIELDS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 15 February (see p. 107). Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (7.30 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr HOPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! There is no point of order. There are 16 members in the House. I call the minister. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call. Mr SCHWARTEN: The Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill has been put forward by the opposition and the opposition should have the numbers in the House to support it. That is the way it works. Nice try over there. The member made a fool of his shadow minister. On 15 February 2006 the member for Surfers Paradise tabled in the House a proposed amendment to the Racing Act 2002, the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. The honourable member’s bill mirrors the Victorian Racing and Gambling Acts (Amendment) Act 2005. This government is committed to the same goal as the vast majority of the Australian racing industry—that is, removing betting exchanges from the race-wagering landscape. However, exposing Queensland’s racing control bodies to possible legal action by rushing through untested legislation is not the answer. The fact that betting exchanges allow punters to back a single horse to lose is a serious racing integrity issue. This ability to lay a single horse is a major change from traditional betting and has changed the face of punting. Previously, punters have focused on backing the winner and there was no potential gain in identifying that a single horse would not win other than to save one’s money by not backing a loser. Betting exchanges have now created a new type of betting contingency—the capacity to lay odds that a single horse will not win and for the punter to profit from this nonperformance of a horse. In the United Kingdom the integrity of the racing industry has been put under a cloud as a result of incidents in 2004 which resulted in 16 people being arrested for alleged conspiracy to defraud in connection with alleged race fixing and bets being placed with Betfair. In addition, a jockey was charged with deliberately losing eight races for financial gain on Betfair. As a betting exchange punter can offer odds against a single result, it then requires, at a minimum, only inside knowledge that a result will not occur for the punter to benefit. It is far easier to fix the result of a single event and profit from it occurring than to predict the outcome of an event where there may be multiple outcomes. While integrity is, and rightfully should be, the major concern of this government there is no denying that the threat betting exchanges pose is to the industry’s revenue. The revenue the three codes of the Queensland racing industry receive from the agreement with UNiTAB Ltd of $118 million represents over 97 per cent of all industry revenue. While the government supports the spirit of the amendment bill, it is yet to be shown that the approach contained in the bill will in any way be effective in preventing betting exchanges from operating. Legal opinion suggests that the bill is likely to be ineffective. There would be difficulties in the detection of offences. There would be uncertainty as to whether a prosecution under any such legislation would be successful. It is apparent that the bill is primarily aimed at limiting the operation of Betfair, which has been licensed by the Tasmanian government to operate a betting exchange from Tasmania from 7 February 2006. This bill places the onus on the Queensland racing control bodies—the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board, or Queensland Racing, the Queensland Harness Racing Board and the Greyhound Racing Authority—to grant approvals to a totalisator, betting exchange and bookmakers to publish race field information. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 439

If the bill were to become legislation and Betfair made application for approval, I am advised that the relevant control body may very well be exposed to the risk of costly legal action if a decision was made to reject such application. I note that in a not dissimilar situation in Europe, where the Italian government has introduced measures to block access to gambling web sites, Betfair has announced publicly that it is giving consideration to legal action to protect its interests by continuing to offer its services to the Italian public. Further, if a control body granted an approval to Betfair to use its race field information this would likely impact on UNiTAB’s wagering revenue and could result in the control body breaching the terms of the product and program agreement. An approval granted by a control body to Betfair could also impact on not only the value of UNiTAB’s exclusive off-cost licence but also the value of UNiTAB’s share price. These later issues are issues which Victoria does not have to deal with. The Victorian legislation is yet to be proved effective in restricting the operation of Betfair on the Victorian racing product. If Betfair does use Victorian race field information, how is Victoria going to enforce its legislation on a Tasmanian licensed operator? Even if it can, which is a highly debated legal point, I doubt the imposition of 80 penalty points is going to be much of a deterrent to multimillion-dollar company. Other states are currently looking at different ways of dealing with the issue of betting exchanges and I see no point in Queensland rushing in, legislating and hoping that it works. This is not this government’s approach. Queensland is hosting the 2006 Australasian Racing Ministers Conference in Brisbane on 16 May 2006. The issues relating to the different legislative options adopted by the states and territories in addressing the operation of betting exchanges will be discussed at this conference. The most effective way of prohibiting the operation of betting exchanges in Australia is through the enactment of federal legislation. The Commonwealth has advised that its position is not to do so. The Queensland government—and I hope all other states—will continue to lobby the federal government to enact the necessary legislation. If Queensland were to legislate now it would run the risk of passing legislation that will not be effective, cannot be enforced and could place the control bodies in a position where they have to run the risk of costly litigation and/or breach contractual arrangements with UNiTAB required as part of the TAB privatisation. Our government will continue to monitor legislative developments in other states and continue to lobby the federal government for more effective legislation. When legislative provisions are shown to be effective in the prevention of the operation of betting exchanges, this government will be very prompt to act and will immediately put the necessary legislation before this parliament. The government will not support the private member’s bill on the basis that it is likely to be ineffective. I say in summing up that if I thought this would work then I would have done it before now. I congratulate the shadow minister for having a go at this and actually getting policy debate on this issue. It is something that has applied the minds of every minister in Australia. South Australia has already sought to amend the legislation that it put forward because it fears there will be serious ramifications for the government financially if it does not amend it. I do not intend to put the control bodies of this state at risk in that regard. I point out that this is simply legislation that has been borrowed from another state. It is not new stuff. It is the view of crown law and others we have consulted that the enforceability of this legislation is problematic, to say the very least. It is worth noting that nobody has been charged with any offence under this act in Victoria or South Australia, where they have such legislation. New South Wales has not gone down this path at this stage. If I could find a silver bullet to kill Betfair I would use it. I believe the silver bullet rests with the federal government. The Australasian ministers, with the exception of Tasmania and I think the Northern Territory, at the time agreed to lobby the federal government. The Howard government is not interested in legislating this out under the telecommunications legislation. Perhaps those opposite might have more pull with the Prime Minister than I do in that regard. If they are sincere about trying to stop this, that is where it needs to be stopped. As I said, the late news that has only come in the last day or so is that Betfair is going to take the Italian government on. It is going to take the Italian government on over the legislation it has put in place to try to ban it. So we are not dealing with something that can be just simply legislated away. The Howard government’s view is that it does not want to know about it. Whatever reason that binds it to do that I do not know. Perhaps it thinks it is unenforceable as well. But the bottom line is this: the Tasmanian government stands condemned as far as I am concerned—I have said this before, and I will say it again—for doing this. It is a leech on the Australian racing industry. It provides very little in terms of the racing industry. Betfair is a parasite on the back of the racing industry in Australia. There is no question about that. It is not putting anything into racing in Australia. If allowed to continue the way it is, over a period of time it will in my view sound the death knell of racing in Australia. It will not care whether people bet on football or anything else on Betfair, as long as people can have a bet. 440 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

With regard to this legislation, the best advice that I can get tells us that it will not work, that it is unenforceable and indeed can put at risk the cash flows of the three control bodies in this state, and I do not intend to do that. As a result, we will be voting against this legislation. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (7.40 pm): Minister, I am very pleased I have spoken after you to hear your point of view on this issue and to hear you express it to the House. As you congratulated our shadow minister, I, too, congratulate our shadow minister for having the nous to bring this legislation to the parliament. It is something that has to have happened, and it has been done quickly in the second week of parliament. Well done to the member for Surfers Paradise! Premier Lennon of Tasmania has sold out the Australian racing industry to the international spivs of legalising betting exchanges by allowing the Betfair organisation to commence business in Australia, thus enabling it to take advantage of the free trade provisions of the Australian Constitution. The Labor Premier in Tasmania has become part of this. We have heard the minister’s attitude here tonight. We have heard what the minister has said tonight, yet one of his Labor mates in an Australian state has become part of it. This deal was typical of Premier Lennon, who is renowned in Tasmania for the good old Labor practice of looking after his Labor mates through backroom deals. Betting exchanges such as Betfair, which Lennon has sought to legitimise, are the perfect opening for corruption in the racing industry. They allow people to bet to lose instead of betting to win. Imagine the incentives that there will be to make a killing by nobbling a favourite in a race. As you know, Minister, I am the red coat at my local race club. I am there for every race, take my horse and lead the jockeys out on to the track. I know how those jockeys think, live and breath. I have dealt in racehorses over the years. Both my brother-in-law and my father-in-law are racehorse trainers. If ever this practice was allowed into this state, it would totally corrupt the racing industry. You could get a jockey to hold a horse back and bet on it and lose that race as easy as anything, and this is the fear that Queensland— Mr Reynolds interjected. Mr HOPPER: I hear your interjections. What contribution do you have for the House tonight? What would you know about this industry? You sit over there squawking like a budgerigar. But let me tell you now— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! The member for Darling Downs will direct his comments through the chair. Mr HOPPER: This is the one thing that can totally corrupt a great industry that we have all worked so hard to establish. Betfair as legalised by the Labor Party in Tasmania will be a parasite. We heard the minister use the word ‘parasite’. Let me tell the House what parasites do. If there are ticks on a cow, that beast starts to lose weight and the ticks bleed her dry. They bleed her dry and she dies, and that is exactly what will happen to the racing industry in Queensland if this is ever brought in. I absolutely support the minister in what he said earlier. They will bleed money from the industry to their big business owners both here and overseas without making any return to the industry such as occurs through the licence fees, taxes and product fees that bookmakers and various totalisator organisations pay for the right to bet on the Australian racing industry. We must take action to protect those Queenslanders who invested in UNiTAB. Many Queenslanders wanted to invest in UNiTAB. They did, and we have to protect them. If this practice comes into place, that could destroy any investment they made when UNiTAB was privatised. We would like the minister to take action to protect and expand Queensland racing. Instead, we have a minister who fiddles around whilst the long-term economic future of racing is threatened. He cannot even match the actions of his Labor counterparts in New South Wales and Victoria. These states have taken decisive action. They have implemented legislation to stop this happening. Here we are already in the second week of parliament. The minister has had a number of days to put something into place, and tonight he has said that he is going to rest on his laurels and wait. We have seen this happen down south, but they had the guts to do something about it. I once again congratulate our shadow minister for racing for doing his part, because it is the opposition who had to take the lead. We gave the minister time to do this, but, no, he has not done anything. We as the opposition are putting this bill in place. I heard the minister say that he is not going to support it. If one reads in Hansard what he said earlier, it will tell them why. He is not going to support this legislation. He should hang his head in shame! It is only the Queensland coalition that truly knows and understands and supports all of Queensland racing. Again, Minister Schwarten is exposed for his continued support of the spivs and shysters who unfortunately inhabit the outer fringes of racing. The coalition is the only group that will protect Queensland racing from the dangers that are posed by betting exchanges. We would hope that ‘Big Bill’ and Bob will come out against us as well. What is on their agenda? Let us hear them speak. Let us hear them get up and speak for the racing industry in Queensland and stop this happening. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (7.45 pm): I start by congratulating the member for Surfers Paradise for bringing this excellent bill before the House tonight for debate. This bill comes in response to the threat that Betfair and other unauthorised betting exchanges pose to the Queensland racing 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 441 industry. The bill is similar to the legislative approach already taken both in New South Wales and in Victoria and is in line with the opinion of many other Asian neighbours, including Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, South Africa and Korea. We all know that racing is a sport that depends on public confidence in its integrity and is a major economic activity that generates substantial employment. The coalition understands the economic benefits that the racing industry provides Queensland as well as the social and cultural benefits. The bill creates a new offence prohibiting the publication of race fields by unauthorised wagering service providers like Betfair because these providers generate or have the potential to generate significant revenue from Queensland racing without putting anything back into the industry or the government as bookmakers and TABs do. The bill aims to ensure that the integrity of racing is upheld through maintaining government revenue and effectively administering the conduct of racing to ensure that the high standards of probity are reserved. The bill has been drafted to avoid anticompetitive arguments. The bill states at new section 326A(1)— A betting service provider must not, in the State or elsewhere, publish or otherwise make available a race field for a race in the course of business without the approval of the control body under the control of which the race is to be held. In essence, the bill therefore states that the state itself can grant approval if it so wishes. Betting exchanges provide an online facility for punters to back horses to win against odds laid by another punter, meaning punters could back a horse to lose rather than win and then take a commission. Unlike traditional wagering providers like TABs and bookmakers who support the racing industry through direct funding, traditional wagering providers are part of the commercial circle with the racing industry. Exchange operators make their profits out of breaking that cycle. The industry depends on a commercial linkage between wagering activities and the racing industry’s cost base. The ongoing viability of racing depends on a commercial income stream from wagering back to racing to meet its cost base. Furthermore, traditional wagering providers are subject to clearly defined regulatory obligations vis-a-vis the racing industry. Betfair will not allow Australian racing authorities the same access. The regulatory environment that is in place is designed to protect the revenue streams the industry needs. As a result, unauthorised betting exchanges pose a real risk to the integrity of racing and have the propensity for criminal and unethical behaviour to result from their operation—race fixing, for example. Perceptions of corruption would lead to a loss of confidence in the industry from punters. The threats posed by Betfair come at a time when Queensland racing is undergoing a great and growing popularity. It will damage the industry and damage the government. The Australian Trainers Association provided statistics back in 2004 stating that if betting exchanges are legalised and attract a transfer of 20 per cent of the existing totaliser turnover, the racing industry would lose approximately $120 million and the state and federal governments $130 million. The Beattie government currently pockets $63 million from UNiTAB’s wagering taxes each year. The coalition does not want to see the Beattie government again act retrospectively and waste taxpayers’ money when it has the opportunity right now to be proactive and properly safeguard our racing industry. The Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006 should be supported now in line with other jurisdictions and with respect to the lobbying of our racing authorities for several years. The government has made statements that Betfair is a threat to the industry. However, it plans to oppose the bill. This is contradictory to its statements that the government is opposed to Betfair— another example of not supporting good legislation purely because the coalition introduced it. This government has not got the basics right. It is putting its own interests before that of the racing industry. I again say to the member for Surfers Paradise: well done. It is an excellent bill and deserves to be passed by this House tonight. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (7.50 pm): I oppose the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. Betting exchanges present an enormous challenge to the Australian racing industry. The ability for unlicensed and, to the punter, unknown persons to play bookmaker on single horses in races brings serious integrity problems. The ability to lay a single horse is a major change from traditional betting and has changed the face of punting. Racing was premised upon the punter’s ability to identify the winner— time spent pouring over form guides and listening to 4TAB and so on, weighing up all the jockeys, trainers and so on. However, a betting exchange means a punter only has to focus on what cannot win. As some defenders of betting exchanges are quick to point out, bookmakers also profit from horses not winning. But that is why the government and the industry insist on bookmakers being licensed. There are rules ensuring that bookmakers must offer odds about each runner. They must accept a minimum bet on each runner. This ensures that, at least theoretically, a bookmaker can lose whatever on the outcome of a race. Betting exchange is a cyberspace equivalent of having an unlicensed and anonymous person setting up a bookmaking stand on a racetrack and only having to offer the odds on whichever horse in whichever race they choose. Of course, the issue there is that they do not contribute anything to the racing industry, unlike the bookmakers, the TAB and the totes. It is a nonsense to suggest that people would think it is acceptable, but that is the very situation betting situations create. The anonymity of the persons backing and laying horses creates an environment where the perception that people may be cheating is almost unavoidable. There can be jockeys laying horses or trainers laying horses. 442 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Two years ago I was in England and that exact situation eventuated with the champion jockey Kieran Fallon in a midweek meeting on a horse in a race which was worth £2,500 to the winner—a mere pittance. He told a journalist that it would get done. Sure enough, on Betfair £1.3 million was bet on that horse. In other words, £1.3 million was bet to win and £1.3 million was bet to lose. It was about an even money chance and of course it got done. There was an inquiry. I cannot recall the outcome of the inquiry. At the same time I was in England there was also a hurdle race with a similar situation. The race was worth practically nothing but millions of pounds were bet on the horse through Betfair, and the jockey jumped off to ensure it got beaten. While they are racing for £2,500, they could probably make a million pounds by laying it with Betfair. The government is committed in its fight against betting exchanges but, as the minister has already stated, the bill may create more problems than it solves. The control bodies are bound by laws such as judicial review and the Trade Practices Act. The government ought not be asked to make some knee-jerk reactions which may expose the control bodies to legal action and perhaps the eventuality that betting exchanges could be licensed to operate on Queensland racing events. A policy of assessing the effectiveness of legislative means of dealing with the threat of betting exchanges in other states will ensure that legislation, when finally enacted in Queensland, will be effective in achieving its objectives. Other state governments have taken a keen interest in the Victorian state legislation and they are monitoring the outcomes of that legislation. That is what we should do. The real cure for Betfair is federal legislation which could easily outlaw Betfair, for instance, through the banking legislation. It could make illegal transactions which are processed through the banking system that relate to Betfair. Someone interjected when the name Paul Lennon, the Premier of Tasmania, was mentioned and said that he was a mate of Kerry Packer. Whoever made the interjection forgot to mention that he is an even bigger mate of John Howard, and that is where the problem should be attacked but will not be attacked because of the association with PBL and previously Mr Packer—PBL and the federal government, particularly with John Howard. I oppose this bill. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (7.55 pm): This is an important private member’s bill that we are discussing tonight. I join with my colleagues in congratulating the member for Surfers Paradise for pulling the whip on old ‘Radish’ and trying to get him to go up the straight a bit—the honourable member for Rockhampton, I mean. He is dragging the chain. They cannot get him out of the barriers and it is time to do something. When we look at the size of the racing industry and how important it is to the capital city, regional and country areas of Queensland, we realise that something has to be done before it is too late. Betfair, which commenced betting around 2003-04 and currently has about 2,500 Australian customers, matched bets of about $400 million giving commission of approximately $6 million. Betting exchanges are like SP. We have never, ever legalised SP betting in the entire time there has been racing in Australia. Plenty of people have tried it. Those who have read or watched Power Without Glory will realise some of the foundations of SP betting in Australia and the ingenious way in which they used racing pigeons to bring back the results while people were still betting. That is the sort of thing that could happen with SP, and it has never been allowed in Australia because of what it can do to integrity. Integrity is the absolute essence of the racing game regardless of the code. That is the real issue with Betfair, internet betting and betting exchanges. There are two issues: the integrity but, most importantly, what it will drain out of the industry. The core funding of our racing industry in Queensland comes from UNiTAB, from the people being able to bet knowing they have a legitimate bet, knowing that what they are betting on is conducted with integrity under the eyes of the stewards and that they can be confident of their bet—not confident they are going to win, but confident that, to the best of their knowledge, the dog or the horse will be trying. Here we are introducing a different sort of betting altogether which is, first of all, going to drain the key core source of income to racing in Queensland. Then there is the aspect of integrity. Allowing a system where people can bet to lose has us all wondering. It is hard to win, but it is easy to lose. That is where they will be betting. It has been legalised overseas. In the British market the betting is worth some £2.7 billion. It is eight per cent of the British market. The Commonwealth government has been approached and it believes that it is state legislation that needs to be resolved. Victoria has gone out and done it. Victoria has been prepared to have a go, but not our racing minister. This government’s members sit on their hands and do nothing. It is up to the opposition to bring in a private member’s bill to try to jig this mob into a bit of action to do something to protect this very important industry. The Victorian legislation comes under the Gaming Regulation Act of Victoria. As I said, at least they had a go and made a move. Now it is up to Queensland to move. Here is the chance for this parliament to enact legislation that is based on Victorian legislation which was no doubt very carefully scrutinised and analysed. The minister states that he has concerns there will be some legal action. Victoria has gone through that process and checked out how sound the legislation is and what effect it can have. The Victorian legislation is based on Article 28 of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities which restricts, for example, cross-border wagering without approval. Victoria and Japan have brought in legislation that somewhat goes along with that policy. There have been other similar 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 443 efforts made in places like the USA, Holland, Hong Kong, South Africa, Canada, United Arab Emirates and other countries throughout Asia. The stewards in our racing industry have some degree of control and regulation over the bookies, those people who are wagering with the bookies and all the licensees involved in the racing game. Internet betting exchanges are anonymous: you do not know who the account holders are. They could be criminals. They could allow people to back horses to lose. They do not have the standards or the regulation. With internet betting there is no way of having that oversight and control by the stewards that gives people the confidence to bet knowing that the industry is genuine, that it has integrity—that they can have a decent bet and an enjoyable bet and know that they are not going to be done over. The government has made the statement tonight, in a fit of pique I think, that it is not going to accept this very good legislation based on the Victorian legislation. It does not want to do it simply because we have brought it in. I bet those opposite bring in legislation that is almost a mirror image of this and say that they did it. At least we have put the jigger on them to get them into a bit of action. When you look at this industry throughout the state and look at the racing industry particularly in Toowoomba in my electorate, you see that it is a massive industry. It is probably about the third biggest industry in our town. When you think of the huge industry we have in agriculture and education in particular, you realise the size of this industry. But it is an industry that caters for all people—from princes to paupers, from track work riders and apprentices to owners, to trainers, to catering staff, to those involved in advertising and communication, to car park attendants, to all the people involved in produce agencies, horse floats, breeding, training, breaking in and selling and all the rest of it. It is an absolutely massive industry. I would like to take the opportunity tonight to congratulate the Toowoomba Turf Club for the outstanding results it has been showing in the last couple of years. About two years ago the club’s profit was around $200,000. Last year it was around $400,000. The club is on track for another sound profit again this year. It is an innovative club: it is the club in Queensland that brought in night racing. I remember going with the then president and secretary of the TAB in Brisbane, trying to get TAB coverage of the club. We had to move the racing timetable to the afternoon to run parallel with Perth in order to get that TAB coverage. That led to evening racing and twilight racing in Toowoomba which has been successful in getting funds from the TAB coverage. I want to congratulate the club for its innovative thinking at the moment in trying to drought-proof the track. With the issues we have with the lack of rainfall, the club is looking at a No. 2 track. I am talking about the importance of this industry. If Betfair starts to leach money out of the industry, the club will not be able to do this. It is looking at an artificial No. 2 track based on what is in Kentucky in America to drought-proof the track. How will the club do that if the money is not coming through? All the money from stable fees, gate fees and everything else has to go into prize money instead of running the club and looking after the facilities for the racing venue and the racing product. If the TAB money is totally drained by these virtually anonymous booking agencies, these anonymous account holders—this anonymous betting that no-one has any control over—that is the biggest threat to racing we have ever seen in the history of racing in Australia, whether it is thoroughbreds or the trots or the dogs. Something has to be done about it before it goes too far. It is like a cancer. If you do not cut that cancer out early it will get away from you and you will never have control over it. That is why we in the coalition opposition have had the foresight and vision, through our member for Surfers Paradise, to bring this legislation into the parliament to try to put a bit of pressure on the government. Here is your chance. Here is some good legislation. Mr Reynolds interjected. Mr HORAN: What’s up with you, old bottlebrush? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Mr HORAN: Here is a chance for the government to vote for this bill which will give the Queensland racing industry a chance to stay strong and to maintain the integrity of the racing industry. I implore the racing minister to reconsider the decision that he has made. Here is his chance to do something. Here is his chance to show that he has the courage to accept what has been put forward— well-thought-out legislation from the opposition. This is a chance to provide the very protection of our racing industry that we need. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.05 pm): It gives me great pleasure to support the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006, which was brought into the House by the member for Surfers Paradise. As the member for Toowoomba South has just said, this is a visionary piece of legislation. It is about tidying up the racing industry in Queensland and further enhancing the objectives of the racing industry in Queensland. The explanatory notes state that the bill prohibits the unauthorised publication of race fields and that it is designed to protect the racing industry against unauthorised betting exchanges based interstate or overseas. Here we are in the modern day of internet betting. We have mobile telephones, and people right around the world can access electronic technology just by pressing a button at their fingertips. 444 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

The member for Toowoomba South made reference to the importance of the racing industry. Victoria agonised long and hard over introducing this legislation in that state. Victoria is at the forefront of racing in Australia. Melbourne is one of the icons of racing on the international stage. When we look at provincial racing in Victoria, we are looking at a parallel of what we see here in metropolitan Brisbane or on the Gold Coast. I implore members on the other side of the House to go to a place like Dowling Forest at Ballarat, which is a magnificent racing concept. Country Victoria is as good as anything we will see in Queensland. That is what Victoria has in its provincial areas. That is why Victoria sees the objectives of putting in place legislation of this nature. I ask the minister here this evening: why can he not support the legislation that the member for Surfers Paradise has put before the House? As the member for Toowoomba South has said, it will only be a matter of months or weeks before we see the government, after it more than likely votes this legislation down this evening, introduce the same template legislation so that it can say that it has cleaned up the act here in Queensland. This is about further cleaning up the racing industry to keep the momentum going and keep our racing industry on a parallel with Victoria. We see what is happening with racing in Queensland. If we are going to be paying for horses to come last, we are going to have jockeys pulling horses left, right and centre. They will all have handbrakes. We will be calling every jockey in Queensland ‘Handbrake’. Mrs Desley Scott: Ha, ha! Mr JOHNSON: It is no laughing matter. I know the racing industry pretty well. I have raced horses myself and it is not a very good feeling when you think someone has had a go at you. Mr Shine: Have you ever jumped off one? Mr JOHNSON: No. I have ridden a few of them. I have never jumped off one because I have always had a bit of a weight problem. I know a little bit about this industry and I can tell members that there are a lot of tricksters in this industry. That is precisely where the member for Surfers Paradise is coming from. This is responsible, objective legislation to try to put us on an even footing with places like Victoria so that we can have an industry that we are proud of. When we talk about Queensland Racing, people like Peter Mooney come to my mind quite often. He is a success story. I saw Peter Mooney start off in Charleville and move to Sydney with Ernie Smith. Then he went to Billy Mitchell and came back here to Brisbane with him. Now he has gone to Victoria. Why? Because he could not get a fair go here. That is the reason we are seeing a lot of these people move south. I gave Peter Mooney the first horse he ever trained in Charleville, and I am pretty proud of that because that young man today is one of the icons in the racing industry in this nation. He has had some great successes in Victoria. I do not think it will be too long before we see this young man experience success on the international stage. Victoria, with that legislation in place, will become the racing hub of Australia. We will see Queensland slowly but surely grind itself to a halt. I have seen what has happened to country racing in recent times. It is all very well saying that the second-rate horses go out to the bush because they cannot win in the metropolitan areas. That is so far from the truth, because second-rate horses do not win races in the bush either. They need a damn good horse to win in the bush today. Take a carnival like the Birdsville races or the big Newmarket meeting in Charleville. For all of those good meetings, horses come from all over the place. At Birdsville, for example, they come from South Australia, they come from provincial Victoria, they come from New South Wales and they come from further north. They are horses that have won in town, not just bush horses. They are horses that have won at metropolitan carnivals. That is the competition that we are up against now. If we are going to clean up racing in Queensland, we have to be sincere about what we are trying to achieve here. That is why I say this evening that the member for Surfers Paradise has done this responsibly. This is not about trying to trick the government into doing something. This is about showing leadership and trying to put this industry back to the forefront of where it should be. Look at the success of the Gold Coast race meetings back in January. We want to make certain that we have jockeys riding in races where people can put their money on a horse and know full well that they are going to get value for dollars if that jockey is going to ride that horse out. If we are going to get somebody who is not going to ride that horse out, we will not know what goes on behind the scenes. The stewards do not know everything that goes on. The industry does not know what is going on. With all the cover-ups and all the changes that we have seen in this industry over the last 10 to 15 years, the shonks are still out there. If we are not going to support legislation like this, those shonks will get more oxygen, and that is something we cannot afford to have happen. We are seeing in rural areas today where country race meetings have gone by the way because of the changes in the structure here in Queensland. It is further now to drag a horse to another meeting. If you do not get a start in this town today, you might have to go 500 or 600 kilometres next Saturday to get a start. What we will see slowly but surely is people pulling out of the industry. A couple of years ago one of my constituents took horses from Brisbane out to the bush because they had run out of steam in Brisbane. Instead of putting them back to work, to race them in country carnivals, he bushed them because he was not going to pull them all over the country just for the sake of 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 445 a meeting here and a meeting there and have his horses stand in a float for seven or eight hours and be shin sore. That is not a viable proposition. I say to the minister this evening that this Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006 is another avenue of getting rid of the deceit and the untruth from this industry. It is about putting honesty back into an industry that has to run on honesty. If we are to get decency back into this industry, I implore members on the other side of the House to show leadership in supporting this piece of legislation. Let us look at what is happening overseas. In big race countries like the Emirates, Ireland and New Zealand, they are bringing their horses to Australia. Where are they going? They are going to Victoria. They are going to Victoria because that is where the jobs are, that is where the prize money is and that is where everything is good. If we are going to attract that element to Queensland, we have to have an honest, decent industry so they know they can come here and get sincerity. They need to be supported in getting an outcome where their horses will be ridden out and their horses will be given the opportunity of winning big races. If that happens, we might see the prize money increase in Queensland. We might see the industry regrow in Queensland. It is vision and legislation like this, which the member for Surfers Paradise has introduced tonight, that will give us the impetus to take this industry forward. I hope we do not have to wait until the next election when he becomes the minister for racing to tidy this show up. We need to start tidying this show up right now so we can create an environment where people will support the racing industry, not turn away. We know it has happened in Brisbane. We know it is happening in other areas. People are not going to the races because some of these people cannot be trusted. That is a deplorable state of affairs in a state where, as the member for Toowoomba South said a while ago, these are the social outings for a lot of people. Time expired. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (8.15 pm): From listening to the contributions to date, it seems all of us agree that we have a problem with betting exchanges. We all agree that betting exchanges have the potential to cause significant damage to our racing industry. We all agree that steps need to be taken to address this problem. What we disagree on is what is the most effective mechanism to deal with this issue. That is the point of difference in this debate, not the fact that we have a problem and that we need to do something about it. I think it is fair to say that this government is just as determined as any other government in this country to deal with the potential and looming problems of betting exchanges. It is interesting to look at a couple of comments made by members opposite about what has happened in other states. The member for Darling Downs talked about the fact that both New South Wales and Victoria have supposedly taken decisive action. The member for Caloundra talked about similar legislation being enacted in New South Wales. The reality is that both Victoria and New South Wales have enacted different forms of legislation to deal with this problem. Even in those states which are grappling with how to deal with the problem, there are different approaches. The approach that we have adopted here in Queensland is, firstly, agreeing that we need to do something decisive at an appropriate time and, secondly, properly considering what is the most effective way to deal with this quite significant problem. The member for Toowoomba South I think indicated that there are about 2½ thousand customers in Australia already using betting exchanges. If the decisive actions of Victoria and New South Wales are going to do something about the problem, why do we have about 2½ thousand people already using betting exchanges internationally? The New South Wales legislation effectively prohibits residents from dealing with operators who are not licensed within Australia, but this decisive legislation is not preventing them from doing that as we speak. I just want to reiterate that we all really agree on the fundamental issue. We all agree that something needs to be done. What we are saying as a government is that we need to do this properly and we need to properly assess the impacts of the southern legislation to make sure that whatever we do here in Queensland we do it right and we effectively deal with this problem. The other interesting point about what has happened in New South Wales and Victoria is that to date there has not been one single prosecution despite the fact, as we hear from the opposition, that decisive action has been taken to deal with this problem. We oppose this bill not because of any support for Betfair or betting exchanges but because, as I have said, there is no guarantee that this bill will stop the use of betting exchanges in Queensland or stop them using Queensland Racing product. In fact, one consequence of the bill is that it could be used to force Queensland control bodies to have to license betting exchanges. Putting control bodies in a position where they would have to refuse to approve a betting exchange the right to publish race fields potentially opens up trade practices challenges which they may well lose in a court challenge. We may well face this situation in Victoria, where I understand that Betfair has already applied for a licence. The last thing we need is for Queensland to legislate to make life easier for Betfair. Much of the focus of the debate about Betfair has been on the integrity challenges posed by betting exchanges. However, there is also the threat that betting exchanges pose to the industry’s revenue stream. That issue has been quite well canvassed by a number of people during this debate and there is no doubt about it. As the minister has indicated, betting exchanges are parasites on the racing industry. They 446 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006 sponge off the earnings, hard work, professionalism and dedication of all the people who break their backs to make the industry a success in this state. We really do not want anything to do with them but we have to deal with them effectively. Betting exchanges, effectively, have two functionaries: the layer, who backs horses to lose races; and the backer, who obviously backs horses to win or run a place. A mountain of evidence exists to show that the ability of an anonymous person to act as an unlicensed bookmaker and lay a single horse to lose is detrimental to the integrity of the racing industry. Some significant instances have arisen in the UK where this form of betting has had a detrimental influence on the integrity of racing. However, it must be accepted, given the significant number of 2½ thousand in Australia—if that is correct—that betting exchanges have the potential for significant consumer support in order to back horses or to bet on racing thoroughbreds and dogs, and so on. Experience shows that punters who use this form of betting are extremely price sensitive. The people who use betting exchanges are not your average two-dollars-each-way punter. They extract a quarter point of value here or there with larger bets. For example, they feel the difference when $4.70 or $4.72 odds are on offer. Betting exchanges have been able to offer better value than the TABs for the simple reason that they do not have the same cost structure and they do not contribute to the industry that they make their profits from. To reiterate, we agree—every speaker in this House does, I think—that they sponge off the industry and that they are parasites on the industry. Betfair has a take-out commission rate range of five per cent down to as low as two per cent for its large customers on winning bets only. At the top marginal rate of take-out, Betfair is not even covering what UNiTAB Ltd pays the Queensland racing industry as a product fee, let alone paying wagering tax to the state government. Betfair will argue that it pays tax and product fees in the United Kingdom and that it will do the same in Tasmania. The difference, of course, is the much lower price it pays for the product. It is much easier to charge low fees if you pay far less than your competitors for raw materials or racing products produced by the industry. The TAB model has served the Australian racing industry well since it was first introduced in the early 1960s. The 2004-05 Australian Racing Fact Book, produced by the Australian Racing Board, shows that Australia has prize money of around $344 million on thoroughbred wagering turnover of a little over $11 billion. Great Britain, which first licensed betting exchanges, has prize money of a little over $248 million on thoroughbred wagering turnover of a little over $28 billion. Australian racing has approximately 3c of every dollar bet returned as prize money, while Great Britain’s prize money is 0.9c of every dollar bet. The poor state of British prize money is not solely the fault of betting exchanges, but it is indicative of the British wagering marketplace. The vast majority of the Australian racing industry has clearly stated that it does not want betting exchanges operating on its product. The state government wants to assist the racing industry to this end. However, we need to ensure that any legislation will actually achieve its aim and not saddle the industry with more problems, as this bill has the potential to do. Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (8.23 pm): I wish to make a contribution to the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. I congratulate my colleague and friend the shadow minister for public works and housing, the member for Surfers Paradise, John-Paul Langbroek, for addressing what I have heard every member in this place say is an agreement in principle that something must be done about Betfair. However, that seems to be where the cooperation ceases. It is almost like we are in the twilight zone this evening. Each successive Labor member, including the minister, has stood up and said that it is a terrible thing, that it is a parasite, that it is this and it is that, but they will not do anything about it. Betfair brings all these bad things to the industry and to the state, but they will sit on their hands and do nothing about it. In fact, the member for Southport—as is usual for the member for Southport—said that it is all the federal government’s problem. It is the same old, same old from the Labor Party. If there is an issue with the health system it is the federal government’s problem because there are not enough training places. If there is an issue with the road system the minister always says that we do not have enough money. If there is a problem with the electricity system, the southern states must not be taking enough power off us to pay our way. If there is a problem with the racing system, the federal government is not legislating. It is time for the Queensland government to face up to some of its responsibilities as a state legislative body and deal with this matter. It is no longer any good for it to wash its hands of the serious matters facing us and which have been brought before this parliament in this bill by the member for Surfers Paradise. It is no longer any good just to oppose the bill, as the government proposes to do, on the basis that it has been brought forward to this parliament by a member of the coalition. Sixty-seven private members’ bills have been brought before this House since 1998. To date, only one has been passed through this House. That record speaks for itself. The government cannot be right 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 447 on 66 out of 67 occasions, with 89 individuals in this place making decisions about important matters for the state of Queensland. I reinforce that point by citing all of the speakers this evening who have said consistently that the principles of approach are right. Why can they not just support the bill? I challenge the minister to table the legal advice that he claims to have regarding this bill so that we can all see it and make an independent assessment of that legal advice. I notice that he did not wave it around, so I was unable to call on him to do that. Mr Copeland: They use that excuse all the time. Mr CALTABIANO: I take the minister in good faith. I am sure that if he has the legal advice he will table it this evening so that the shadow minister can have a look at it and make some concluding remarks about it during the course of this debate—if, of course, he is a man of honour, which I have no doubt he is. We heard from the minister on more than one occasion about how disastrous this would be and about ‘parasites’ on the racing industry. We all know what we should do with parasites. We should squash them and get rid of them, as they did in Victoria and as they have sought to do in New South Wales. In fact, the library research report prepared for this debate states in section 6 on Queensland— In July 2004, the Queensland Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, stated, ‘As far as I am concerned, betting exchanges are a rort waiting to happen. The Queensland government has maintained its stance on betting exchanges.’ What stance is that? The stance that we have heard of today is that the government will sit on its hands and do nothing while the other states legislate. It will wait until the federal government does something. The minister has already indicated that the federal government has said that this is a singular state responsibility because they are state based racing organisations. The Queensland government’s response, as usual on matters of importance to industry and matters of importance to the community, is to do nothing. The research report goes on to state— The Queensland government has always strongly opposed Betfair from setting up base in Australia because it makes profits without contributing any money to our local racing industry. That was the position in July 2004. Here we are in February 2006 with no action from the government and the shadow minister presenting a perfectly reasonable bill, based on the Victorian model. The member for Nudgee is absolutely right that Victoria and New South Wales have taken two different approaches. Victoria has sought to define a wagering service provider, including a betting exchange, and define in the act that those activities need authorisation. New South Wales has taken the approach of a copyright for the actual racing guide so that they have maintained intellectual property. They are two different approaches to solving the same problem but, nevertheless, are approaches taken by state governments to actually do something. The member for Nudgee said that the other states are doing something and the logic is that we should not have to do anything because, again, we need to have a federal government approach. Whether we are talking about water, roads or whatever, all we ever hear from this government is that it is somebody else’s problem. Tonight the government and the members of this House have the opportunity to actually do something about a genuine problem that has been recognised by all members in this place. The member for Toowoomba South was absolutely right when he said, ‘Integrity is the absolute essence of racing’. Betfair destroys the integrity of the business. It destroys the integrity of racing in Queensland. In a business like racing, once integrity is destroyed there is nothing left. The time to act is right now. All members in this place must ensure that we pass the legislation that is before the House tonight so that we have a genuine approach to deal with the problem on the books. We do not want a situation where, once again, Queensland is the odd state out because we have refused to do anything and are sitting on our hands. Once again, I congratulate the member for Surfers Paradise on having the intellectual horsepower to bring into this chamber something that will make a difference to and do something for the racing industry of Queensland. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.30 pm): I rise to speak to the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006 and to support the principles that it espouses. In my electorate, racing suffered quite markedly following the restructure of Queensland Racing and the loss of race meetings from local community based race tracks et cetera. If further avenues to undermine racing in Queensland are allowed and the integrity of racing is called into question, that will not only do racing generally a disservice but will also potentially further ruin country racing. This bill responds to the threat from Betfair and other similar organisations. I notice that in the debate so far both sides of the House have agreed that Betfair and similar organisations pose a great threat to the trustworthiness, integrity and viability of racing in Queensland. I have a lot of time for the member for Nudgee, but I found novel his statement that, while they agreed to the need for something decisive to be done, that should happen at an appropriate time. I am not sure when an appropriate time is. If a threat is recognised, the time for action is when that threat is recognised or as soon as possible 448 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006 after it is recognised. If the minister’s office has no legislation in the pipeline, this amendment bill could be modified to allay any concerns that the minister may have about it in its current form. However, some protection should be put in place as a matter of urgency in order to protect the Queensland racing industry from further erosion. The member for Nudgee acknowledged that Betfair makes a contribution in the United Kingdom and Tasmania. If it is going to be extracting dollars from Queensland and, indeed, it appears to be extracting dollars from other states in Australia, it needs to be contributing to the racing product in those places as well. The Gladstone Turf Club has a new racing committee and Dusty Lindermann is its chairman. I have known Dusty for many years. He has spent more time on and around horses than I care to think about. If someone judged the racing industry on things like the Melbourne Cup and the more prestigious racing publications, it could appear that it is for the chardonnay set. However, it is certainly my understanding that the bulk of people who are involved in racing in the Gladstone electorate are hardworking knockabout people who can ill afford to be ripped off by illegitimate organisations that, by omission, are allowed into the betting industry. Dusty and the new committee are working very hard to re-establish some strength in the Gladstone Turf Club. While they are working very hard as volunteers to rebuild confidence in the local racing industry, I would hate to see some new avenue emerge to undermine that confidence. I know that the minister is well aware of the history of the Gladstone Turf Club and the proposal to relocate to Ashpond Seven, which will ensure the quality of the racing surface and the facilities that racers, jockeys et cetera have available to them. It will be a sad day if organisations such as Betfair, which has the potential to spoil the racing industry in Australia, are allowed to flourish. We need very early and timely constraints or abolitions placed on them to protect clubs like the Gladstone Turf Club, which is made up of mums and dads who work flaming hard to ensure that their industry, their interest and their hobby survives. The bill proposes to create a new offence prohibiting the publication of race fields by unauthorised wagering service providers. I am not a racing person. I have been to the turf club a few times, but usually for specific reasons like special race days. I was involved in the turf club committee meetings that worked towards having the turf club relocated. Others have spoken with great passion about their involvement and interest in racing, but I am not one of those people. I have never considered jumping off a racehorse. I have been bucked off one, but that was not fun. I do not have an intrinsic involvement in the racing industry. I cannot help but support the principle of protecting the racing industry from an invasive force like Betfair in an early and timely manner. Given the interest in and the effect that racing has on so many in our community, not just the racegoers but also those who work within the industry and who spend long hours and lots of their hard-earned dollars on ensuring that the industry remains viable, diverse and flourishing, I certainly support the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (8.36 pm): I rise to speak against this bill. Contrary to the experience of a few people who have spoken here tonight, I have a fairly substantial background in the racing industry. While the Queensland racing industry is an industry of high integrity, in this instance the proposed bill does not do what it is meant to do. There is no recorded instance in Victoria where the legislation that this bill mirrors has been effective in stopping any betting by Betfair. At no stage—not even tonight—has the minister indicated that he does not want to stop it. I know the minister’s attitude towards the integrity of this industry, and if there was a genuine way that Betfair could be stopped, it would be stopped. The member for Chatsworth has outlined his abysmal understanding of the relationship between state and federal authorities. However, one thing that he refuses to expound on is the fact that his Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was offered the chance to legislate this away but he did not do so. Do members know why he did not? Because the Packer family and their gambling enterprises are in his pocket. To say that it is blamed on the Commonwealth is quite untrue. The Commonwealth had the opportunity to stop it even in Tasmania, but it did not do so. I have some difficulty with the wording of the amending bill itself. It uses the words ‘without the approval of the control body under the control of which the race is to be held’. If the Tasmanian control body authorises a race and that race is then published in Queensland, does this bill stop it? Perhaps the shadow minister can tell me how it does. We are dealing with an industry that raises millions of dollars, yet the suggested maximum penalty is 80 penalty units. Members should bear in mind that a penalty unit is $75. Six thousand dollars is a small price when one is making a lot of money. One of the things in the explanatory notes that really concerns me is this. It says that the bill, if enacted, will not increase the cost of administration and will cost nothing to implement. How many people would have to be employed to read every newspaper and to look at every publication to ensure that there has been no breach of the proposed legislation? I have a bit of a problem with the idea of backing a single horse to lose. I usually back a single horse to win and it seems to lose anyway. I do not get any money out of that. People can do that without a betting exchange. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 449

One of the things the minister suggested was that Queensland wait to see the efficacy of the legislation in other states. That way we may be able to implement legislation that will be effective and enforceable. One of the other things that concerns me in terms of the provisions of this bill is that it will conflict greatly with the contractual arrangements with UNiTAB. At this stage I probably should indicate to the House that I hold UNiTAB shares. It was the only way I could get money back from the TAB after it was privatised. There are contractual obligations to UNiTAB. I believe it is incumbent on any government to avoid the necessity for costly litigation as a result of legislation introduced that is not enforceable, does not do what it is designed to do and really is a waste of time. I oppose the bill before the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (8.41 pm): I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. There are a number of issues that need to be discussed. I am pleased the minister is in the House to hear my views. There is great concern across Australia that the betting exchanges will have an impact on the financial viability of our great racing industry. The minister suggested that the bill before the House tonight would not be effective in this regard. I would suggest to him that at least it is more effective than what he is proposing at this stage, which is nothing at all. The minister may like to return from wherever he may be hiding. Mr Shine: It is not his bill. Mr HOBBS: At least the minister should listen to what is being debated and have some interest in it. The minister for racing should come into the House and take some interest in the racing industry. This is the third biggest industry in this state and the minister for racing has gone missing. Mr Shine: How long have you been here? Mr HOBBS: I have been here for quite awhile. I notice that the minister is now not in the House to hear the debate. That is most important to note. The minister talked about the Italian experience. I say to the minister that we are not in Italy at the present moment. I know he has been mesmerised by the winter Olympic Games but the reality is that we are here in Australia and Betfair is an issue on our shores. He should be at least trying to protect the industry and have some interest in what is actually happening in Australia. The minister said earlier in the debate that other states are looking at this legislation. Bravo. What about Queensland? Racing is a state based responsibility. It is each state’s responsibility to ensure that we have a good system, a clean system and one that we can be very proud of. We need to continue to monitor this issue. The minister says that he wants to monitor what happens in the other states. Members know the old saying ‘as Rome burns’. This minister is going to monitor what happens. I have a few points that I wish to make to the minister. I will wait with bated breath and the minister may come back in. I notice the member refers in his second reading speech to the threat of Betfair and other unauthorised betting exchanges. Basically, Betfair is an unauthorised betting exchange. Can members imagine what this government would do—and we know what it would do because we have the results of this—if illegal tree clearing was going on. There would be enforcers there immediately. Just imagine if someone went into a World Heritage area and did something that was not within the realms of reasonable conduct. The enforcers would go in. As soon as something happens in an industry that nobody on the other side of the House cares about— Mr Caltabiano: We do. Mr HOBBS: Those opposite do not care about this industry. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr HOBBS: The member for Chatsworth is quite correct. We have a genuine interest in the industry. How many ministers over there are interested in this industry? Mr Shine interjected. Mr HOBBS: Russ Hinze was a great minister for racing. He knew what was happening in the racing industry. He was the father of the racing industry. He built an enormous amount of infrastructure around this state as a result. I think it is a bit of a shame that we do not have anyone anywhere near the size of Russ or with the same enthusiasm that he had for the industry. Another important thing we need to remember is that we have to maintain revenue for the racing industry. One of the great concerns we have is that revenue will be reduced. Both sides of this House are saying tonight that racing industry revenue will be reduced. The minister is going to monitor what happens. We have to do more than that. We desperately need to improve funding to racing. I do not doubt that gains have been made in recent times. We are very lucky that the revenue coming in from UNiTAB has increased. That is fantastic. Mr Shine interjected. 450 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Mr HOBBS: The member for Toowoomba North should not forget that the government is also receiving an enormous amount of money over and above the dividends from UNiTAB from the taxes and charges that it levies. That is going straight to Treasury. None of that money comes back to the racing industry. Probably in the vicinity of $60 million or $80 million or $90 million a year is going straight into Treasury. I think something needs to go back into the racing industry. The gains that we have made will simply be lost. The metropolitan racing prize money has improved. We are very happy with that. That is fantastic. Country racing still has a long way to go. I have horses myself and I understand exactly what this means. The prize money is certainly not there and it desperately needs to be increased. If we are going to reduce the revenue that goes back into the racing industry then that is of very serious concern. This issue before us tonight involves a bit of a change to the traditional wagering process. I personally have no problem with change. I never have had a problem with change provided we can say that we can get some improvements; that we can make this work. We should never be frightened of change. Often there are better things out there. At this stage nobody has come up with any sort of explanation that Betfair will improve racing. All we are seeing at this stage is that there will a diminution in the funding provided to the racing industry. The other thing we do not know about is the issue of criminal and unethical behaviour. What about the loss of confidence in industry? We only have to look at this government to see a lack of confidence. It lacks confidence at the present moment. It is running around the ropes. We can see it in the eyes of those opposite. Industry is the same. Industry runs on confidence. I am a wool grower for heaven’s sake. We have had a battering over the years. If an industry is not going so well it has no confidence; it cannot predict what is going to happen and it cannot plan. It becomes difficult. That is the same for this industry. Certainly, there is no doubt that it is the same in this particular industry as well. There has to be strong confidence for the future so people can plan, put money into it and surge ahead. One of the main issues I want to mention tonight—and I notice that the minister still has not come back into the House— is: exactly what communication has this minister had with the federal government? We know that there has been communication from the ministerial council to the federal government, but what letters have actually gone from this government or what phone calls have been made— Mr Caltabiano: Table them! Mr HOBBS: Yes, the minister should table those documents to show what has been done in relation to trying to resolve the issue. Has there been any work behind the scenes or is the minister sitting back, waiting, hoping and dreaming that something may in fact come along? I suspect that that could be what is happening. I hope I am wrong. I absolutely hope that I am wrong. I hope that this minister has been on the phone day after day, trying to ring the federal government to talk to it about Betfair and saying, ‘How can we resolve this issue?’ We want to know how he has gone, what he has done and what communication he has made. I do not think he has done anything at all. Mr Caltabiano: They could fix it tonight by passing the bill. Mr HOBBS: As the member for Chatsworth says, passing the bill tonight is at least one small step in the right direction. Who knows? At least the people involved in this structure will know that we are serious. That would send them a strong signal that we are not going to just take it lying down. This minister and previous ministers for racing have been very slack in relation to the racing industry. They have let it down dramatically. We have seen the manipulation in relation to the board appointments and all of that sort of stuff that has been well talked about in this House. I think it is an absolute disgrace the way those opposite have allowed racing to run down in this state. They have been very lucky that in fact the revenue coming in— Time expired. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (8.51 pm): In rising to oppose the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006, I want to say from the very beginning that I am not supporting the amendment here to control the activities of an internet betting exchange. We already know that there are problems in other states. I say to the honourable member who brought the legislation to the House that I personally believe that there is a lot of good intent with what he is trying to do. There have been strong arguments put by him and there is probably support for that argument from this side of the House. But the New South Wales and Victorian governments are still trying to wrestle with this issue. They are trying to understand the consequences of a privately owned company taking revenue away from their own racing industries. As members know, in those states the profits from a percentage of moneys wagered on races is returned to the racetrack in prize money, and the same thing happens here in Queensland. We all know that. But having that source of revenue means that we are able to encourage a high standard of racing because we can attract quality horses. Therefore, we have quality horses making up quality fields who are out there chasing the prize money, because we have a good revenue base or a means of offering good prize money to make it viable to the racing industry. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 451

Both the Victoria and New South Wales governments are in the process of dealing with the legalities of approving or denying the operation of a Betfair type business. So what is Betfair? It is an internet betting exchange based in Britain and is soon to open in Hobart. Unlike the traditional betting agencies, there is no central pool. Gamblers bet against one another. It is just an amazing system. I am just blown away by how it all works, to be quite honest. The way I understand it, I can offer up a price against a horse to win. My colleague the member for Keppel, who is another registered punter with Betfair, may take up the challenge and make a counteroffer of odds of that horse to lose the race. The bets are placed electronically so there is a good track of them and the winning bet pays a commission to the agency. The opportunity for illegal activity interference with a horse to increase its chance of losing must be a real problem for the integrity of racing if this type of betting transaction were to become legal. So there are certainly problems there if it were to become legal. I know enough about the industry to suggest that if there is a horse that has been selected to win and it is at the right price a farrier or a strapper who might be in charge of a horse that attracts a lot of bets to win can decide to back the horse themselves to lose the race. They have an opportunity to interfere with the racing gear, the farrier can wrongly fit a plate or they can give the horse a bellyful of water before he goes out on the track. There are lots of little tricks that can affect the performance of a horse on the track. What I am trying to say is that there are just too many questions about the integrity of the whole system for me to support this type of betting activity. What I am having trouble dealing with, even though I have already said there is some merit in what the member is proposing and there is some good intent with what he is proposing, is: why should the people of Queensland put our minister in a position to have to face the same challenges that are happening in Victoria and New South Wales? The whole legal process has been challenged. What could happen in Victoria is that this could finish up in the High Court. Is that fair on Queensland and on the Queensland racing industry? Is it fair on the punters of Queensland? Is it fair to our racing minister to have to deal with that when there are already two other governments going through a process of identifying the problems that may arise if Betfair is allowed to operate? I just think it is irresponsible to force our racing minister to work with legislation, if it were passed here tonight, similar to that introduced in Victoria when we do not even understand the consequences of the legislation—legislation which, as I said before, may finish up in the High Court. I say to the House tonight: whatever the long-term outcome of this whole affair, we are best placed here in Queensland to take advantage and learn from the experiences of other states. Let us act when we know that legislation is effective and is doing what we want it to do for Queensland, and that to is keep Betfair out of the state. The honourable member who introduced the legislation can be assured that the government is committed to the same goal as the vast majority of the Australian racing industry—removing betting exchanges from the race wagering landscape—but this bill is unlikely to achieve that outcome. Unfortunately, the bill may in fact provide an opportunity for betting exchanges to legally operate on Queensland racing events, forcing control bodies to either approve or not approve the use of a Queensland race field. Intellectual property may expose the three control bodies to the risk of legal action by unsuccessful applicants, and that is the risk there is in Victoria and that is why it will finish up in the High Court. The only betting licence in Australia is Betfair. It is a privately owned company which pioneered the concept of exchange betting, whereby the odds are set by the punters rather than the bookmaker. Betfair is not a small organisation which is likely to just accept a decision of the control body and move on. It is a very powerful organisation. It has a lot of money behind it and is prepared to take up the fight. While the intent of the amendments put forward is understandable, exposing Queensland racing control bodies to possible legal action by rushing through untested legislation is just irresponsible. I have a lot of feeling about where the member is coming from, but we cannot put the minister and our government in a situation in which we are forced to take on huge legal battles when somebody else is already in that process. Let us see how that is dealt with. The only way to effectively deny Betfair access to race field information is to pass legislation that cannot be successfully challenged and that contains significant penalty provision for operators and/or users of betting exchanges. The only way that we will know that legislation cannot be successfully challenged is to allow it to go through the process in Victoria. That is what is going to happen. That is where it will finish up. By far the most preferable way for this to occur would be through federal legislation. The member for Chatsworth was trying to indicate that it was only the government saying that the feds should legislate. As far as I am concerned, the federal government should be legislating. However, it is not just Queensland saying that; it is all the other states and territories except Tasmania—and I have already gone down that track—and the three codes of racing. These are people who are dealing with the racing industry. They know what the problems could be and they say that the federal government is the one that should legislate, not the state bodies. They cannot all be wrong. 452 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

If Queensland does legislate to address these issues, it must be that such legislation will be effective in achieving its objectives. While I can understand the sentiment behind what the member for Surfers Paradise is trying to achieve, this is not the way to do it. Merely copying the Victorian legislation and believing it will fit the Queensland environment is not the approach that will stop betting exchanges. The Victorian racing industry operates under a different contractual arrangement with Tabcorp and under different racing legislation. The government ought properly wait and assess the situation to ensure that any legislative action required to stop betting exchanges is fully effective and not subject to the risk of lengthy and expensive legal battles with no surety of success. It is an argument that is powerful and it is one that members on this side of the parliament will support in defeating this motion. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (9.02 pm): I rise to lend support to the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill, which has been introduced by the shadow minister for racing, the member for Surfers Paradise. I commend him for his efforts. The intent of this bill is that amending the Racing Act 2002 will provide enhancements that aim to ensure that the integrity of racing is upheld through maintaining government revenue but, at the same time, providing an effective administration of the conduct of racing. The racing industry is an extremely significant industry in Queensland. It does provide an enormous economic contribution to the state’s coffers. To this extent it must be conducted with the utmost integrity. Racing in Queensland has always been enjoyed as a very popular social activity as well as being part of the cultural and the historic fabric of this country. This bill, as presented, is in direct response to a threat to our racing industry that has the potential to undermine years of hard work and diligence by the racing industry. It will, if passed, echo similar moves in southern states and overseas, and it will outlaw betting exchanges operating in Queensland racing. I must admit that I am totally baffled as to why the government will not be supporting this bill. Surely the members opposite find it very difficult to oppose good, well thought out and constructed legislation just because it did not originate on their side of the House. I cannot believe that these representatives, voted in by their constituents to represent their best interests, would ignore those same interests because of party ideology and factional pressures. Can they really put their own self-interests and the interests of the Labor Party ahead of their accountability to their constituents? This bill has been introduced for the express purpose of keeping the racing industry in Queensland fair and viable. I find it impossible to think of any reason that it could not be supported. The traditional racing industry in Queensland has a symbiotic relationship: no one part can or could exist without the other. This ensures that, generally speaking, what is good for one part is good for the whole. It also leads to transparency and accountability. Put simply, if this bill is defeated, Queensland loses. The Queensland government loses revenue, which we all know it desperately needs. The Queensland racing industry loses because it will play no part in regulation or administration of the scheme and stands to lose a substantial portion of its revenue. The Queensland public will lose as the integrity and confidence in the industry erodes. That is an extremely important issue in this area. As things stand at the moment, the racing industry as a whole is administered and conducted to a very high standard of probity, as an industry of this size and wealth should be. Its viability is heavily dependent on the income stream from betting returning back to the industry to help meet overheads and costs. A very positive benefit under current arrangements is that the actual betting is conducted under strictly defined regulations and is closely monitored for aberrations and possible fraudulent activities. It is the ever-present threat of illegal activities with regard to betting that has demanded the most time and effort from the administration to monitor. The latitude of such a scheme as Betfair will allow those determined to operate outside legal boundaries with little or no restrictions. It has been reliably estimated that if betting exchanges are legalised the racing industry and state and federal governments in Australia would suffer to the tune of more than $250 million. That is revenue lost to the industry and public revenue if this bill does not receive the support of the House. That is revenue that will be outside the control and influence that has the best interests of racing at heart and has a rational whole-of-industry perspective. Betfair offers nothing to Queensland. It offers nothing to the racing industry. To the contrary, Betfair threatens the integrity and openness that now exists and has the potential to remove a large revenue stream for no appreciable benefit to the industry, no appreciable benefit to the public or to the government, and will do so outside of any rigorous oversight and control mechanisms. I am proud of Queensland’s racing industry and I am proud to say that I have no fewer than five turf clubs within my electorate, albeit two of those have not operated for some years due to the changes made to country racing. Townsville Turf Club at Cluden is a very successful venue and it is a long- serving club that hosts the finest of racing in north Queensland. Some of our top champions have come through Cluden. Burdekin Race Club is known nationally because of its Burdekin Growers Race Day, which I might add will be held on 27 May. I extend an invitation to each and every member to attend. In previous years the Burdekin Growers Race Day has boasted the richest fashion awards within Australia outside the Melbourne Cup. Bowen Turf Club is a smaller club within my electorate, but it has a rich tapestry of history. I am proud to say that I am a life member of the Bowen Turf Club. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 453

Country race meetings are an important part of the social calendar as well as providing employment and experience for many people and the venues for horses to compete and develop their potential to become champions of the track. Queensland racing is experiencing a great and growing popularity—I would have to say more so in the cities as country racing is struggling. However, the racing industry is a grand institution and it is the responsibility of the Queensland government to ensure that it is administered effectively in an open and fully accountable fashion to the highest standard. I support the bill and I hope that the members opposite will ignore the riding instructions they may have received from their party and do likewise for the continued good of racing in Queensland. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (9.08 pm): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and oppose the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill before the House. I oppose it because I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons given by the minister earlier in this debate. I was amazed to hear the member for Warrego being an advocate of change here tonight, suggesting that he is one of the more radical members of this House. During his speech he repeatedly called on the minister to come back into the House no doubt so that the minister could be enlightened by listening to the member for Warrego. It is ironic that the member for Warrego is long gone from the House. His absence indicates his real interest in this subject matter. Mr Schwarten: The minister is here. Mr SHINE: The minister is here. The minister in his remarks referred to the government’s position, indicating that the government is committed to removing the effect of Betfair. In fact, cabinet made an announcement on this on 14 March 2005, stating its opposition to betting exchanges in this manner for the reasons that it interfered with the integrity of racing, the loss of revenue to the government and, of course, the loss of revenue to the Queensland racing industry itself. The minister also, as I understood his argument today, indicated that this bill was not, in his view, the answer to the problem at this time. Whilst the government supports the spirit of the proposed legislation, it intends to oppose it because it is going to be ineffective. One of the instances given was the uncertainty of prosecutions and the lack of prosecutions in other jurisdictions in Australia. Contrast that with the situation overseas and the case that the honourable member for Southport referred to—the case of the jockey Kieren Fallon. That case has involved enormous police resources in the UK. Twenty-seven people are currently on bail. The case has been postponed to 3 July 2006. It involved 130 police officers raiding 19 addresses across Suffolk, North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire and Hertfordshire. It also involves an investigation of 80 races over two years. That gives members some idea of the extent of the work involved in mounting prosecutions in this area. The minister also referred to the need for federal action to be taken in this area simply because of the constitutional aspects of the telecommunications power—a simple proposition that the member for Chatsworth fails to understand. I agree, as all participants in this debate have indicated, that Betfair presents a grave threat to the viability of racing in Australia. As the minister said, it certainly is a threat to the three controlling bodies in Queensland and under them the regional and country racing clubs and associations throughout Queensland—one of which is the Toowoomba Turf Club. Just by way of example to indicate its significance to our community in Toowoomba—some facts were referred to by my colleague the member for Toowoomba South, and I support him on those facts— I inform the House that approximately 200 trainers use the facilities at Clifford Park and over 200 horses use the facilities on any given day. He referred to the fact that it was arguably the third most important industry in Toowoomba. I do not know if that is the case but a study at the USQ some years ago indicated that it was. The club holds over 60 race meetings per annum, the feature race being the Weetwood, which I know the minister attended last year—and it will be held in March in a couple of weeks time—and the Toowoomba Cup, which is held in October. Those two events alone inject millions of dollars into the local tourism economy of Toowoomba. The Toowoomba Turf Club disburses over $4.5 million in prize money per annum and employs over 100 local staff. I would like to join with the honourable member for Toowoomba South in congratulating the Toowoomba Turf Club. I noticed that the member for Warrego did not join in congratulating the Toowoomba Turf Club. He has an ongoing battle with the Toowoomba Turf Club, which is an unfortunate remnant of past National Party governance of racing in Queensland. In closing, I want to reiterate that federal action is, indeed, needed in this area. Reference was made to Premier Lennon—and we all know what the story is there. But the real problem here is the influence that PBL and the Packer family have in Australia. We all know the close relationship between the Prime Minister and that family. If the coalition and particularly the Liberal member for Surfers Paradise and the Liberal Party were fair dinkum, they would dig their spurs in on this issue and they would apply pressure where it really counts. They would apply pressure to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal Party federally—why wouldn’t they do that? That is the first thing they should do instead of coming in here and plagiarising legislation that has been introduced in Victoria and which is untested. I agree entirely with the minister’s approach that we should proceed with prudence, caution and responsibility. For that reason, I will be opposing the legislation. 454 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.15 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is aimed at protecting the integrity of the racing industry. It also seeks to protect the racing industry from unauthorised betting exchanges which make no financial contribution to the racing industry or to the state. Into the bargain, some unauthorised betting exchanges could also allow people to back horses or other animals such as dogs to actually lose a race, and that could mean that punters might have to wait until the cows come home for the last horse to cross the line. There is great concern that this type of activity could attract undesirable activities of many kinds. There is already a lot of pressure on country racing. The amendments which were brought in just last year were introduced because the old system was not working. So the new system was introduced, which is local clubs feeding information to an overarching committee and a separate delegate representing them at quarterly meetings in Brisbane. I have it on good authority that the new system is not working as well as expected and that some delegates are toying with the idea of resigning. They would very much like to meet with the minister to discuss their concerns but do not know if that is possible. So it is not just unauthorised betting and betting on the last horse that is threatening racing, and country racing in particular. There are other matters which need to be cleared up. I believe some delegates feel that their input in Brisbane is not valued and that their time in attending these meetings is largely wasted. This bill raises serious questions about the possibility of organisations such as the unauthorised betting exchanges, which have their bases interstate or overseas, conducting businesses that have the potential to raise significant revenue which is lost to this state’s racing industry. This has the potential to cripple the industry, particularly in country areas. The turnover of the TAB directly affects the amount of money that is passed on to country racing as country racing is now allocated seven per cent of TAB’s turnover. If the turnover goes up, we get more. If the turnover goes down, we get less. It is as simple as that. So if unauthorised betting is permitted, taking revenue away from the TAB, then it could seriously impact on an industry which is so popular in this state. My electorate of Tablelands has race clubs at Atherton, Mareeba and Mount Garnet—all of which have good tracks and have raced successfully for years. Atherton in particular has the highest number of horses being trained in the far north. We are part of the far northern region which covers basically from Cardwell to the tip. A number of clubs in this region closed in recent years when the huge culling of race dates took place. Most people and clubs still involved in the industry are very precious about keeping their current race dates. They are acutely aware that there are barely enough dates to keep their horses race fit and the trips to Townsville are too expensive for the battlers and too physically draining for themselves and their horses. Another concern of clubs in my electorate is that they cannot obtain a list of the coming year’s race dates from Townsville prior to having to put in their own dates at the end of each year. It would be helpful to know Townsville’s dates as they race some 45 to 47 times a year and, as they run TAB meetings, Townsville gets preference. Because their prize money is always better, the jockeys tend to gravitate there as well, leaving potential shortages at other venues. This is an industry vital to many country Queenslanders, and loved by many more. It should be and must be protected from the threats of unauthorised betting exchanges who will take away vital resources which could bring one of this nation’s most popular sports and industries into disrepute and bring about its destruction. I support the bill. Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (9.19 pm): Tonight I rise to speak against the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006. We all know that technology has changed the face of the race wagering landscape. The ability to bet in real time on an event conducted in the United States with a betting agency located in London is commonplace. All sorts of combinations are available. You can sit in your lounge room on a Wednesday night and bet with your local TAB on a maiden from Fairview in South Africa. This technology has been a boon for the racing industry, with punters able to access wagering providers more easily and able to bet on a greater variety of events. But, as we know, technology has brought with it many dilemmas, and betting exchanges are at this stage the apogee of these dilemmas. The ability to anonymously lay a single horse to lose creates an actual and perceptual nightmare for racing’s regulators. As the member for Toowoomba North alluded to, less than 18 months ago police in the United Kingdom arrested 16 people including the reigning champion jockey in connection with race-fixing allegations and bets placed on Betfair. A blacksmith in England was found to have been betting tens of thousands of pounds through his betting exchange account. Victoria’s leading stable was subject to queries from stewards following the defeat of a short-priced favourite and some of the betting exchange action on that horse. There was found to be no connection with the bets placed on the betting exchange and the stable, but the perception is still harder to shake. When betting exchanges were first introduced, Sir Peter Savill, the former British Horseracing Board chairman, said— I find it impossible intellectually to disconnect the spectre of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world enfranchised to make money out of horses getting beaten on British racecourses, from the spectre of diminished integrity, increased criminality and, ultimately, loss of punter confidence and its consequences. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 455

The belief that the events are conducted honestly is an integral factor in punters’ willingness to wager on racing. Any decline in punter perceptions of racing integrity will impact adversely on wagering turnover and the income of wagering operators. A decline in wagering levels, especially through the TABs, results in reduced racing industry revenues from wagering, and hence the viability of the Australian racing industry, and state wagering tax revenues and Commonwealth GST receipts from wagering operators. While I, like most of us here tonight, support the spirit of what the member for Surfers Paradise is trying to achieve, it has not been shown that this bill will be effective in preventing betting exchanges from operating on Queensland Racing product. In fact, it may create more problems than it solves. The government is right to properly assess the best way of dealing with betting exchanges to ensure the industry is best protected from them. I will not be supporting the bill. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (9.22 pm): This is amazing. It is very similar to the argument we had here about fluoride. We have a government that understands and believes in exactly the position being put forward by the Liberal Party in a private member’s bill and that even speaks in terms that support that bill, and yet because it is a Liberal Party bill, because it was introduced into the House by the member for Surfers Paradise, the government is going to vote against it even though it knows it is a good and positive measure. Why on earth would the member for Clayfield, with the two major racetracks in Brisbane, be advocating for some internet betting outfit in Tasmania to take revenue away from— Government members interjected. Dr FLEGG: The member for Clayfield is voting against this bill to support Betfair in Tasmania, taking the funds away, the jobs away and the confidence away from the racing industry in Queensland. I hope that the racing industry in the seat of Clayfield will take note of how the member for Clayfield votes here tonight. It is a nonsense. All those opposite know that this is a measure in the best interests of Queensland. The minister himself said that he took a submission to cabinet to ban Betfair. He has been given the opportunity tonight by the member for Surfers Paradise and, because he is so pig-headed that he cannot bring himself to vote for something introduced by the Liberal Party, he has his party lining up committing intellectual suicide to vote against something that they know is good policy and a good measure. It is just absolutely amazing. The member for Chatsworth calls it the twilight zone, where people get up and argue in support of it and then they turn up in droves to vote against it. The twilight zone seems to be a very appropriate description. Why on earth would we want to hand over the betting on Queensland Racing to an internet operation based in Hobart when the racing industry is of such vital importance to the people of Queensland? Why would we want people betting in Hobart on which horse loses here in Queensland? What sort of confidence will that engender when you turn up at Eagle Farm or Doomben and you have to wonder if the bookie, the jockey or the trainer has backed something to lose. This is indeed the twilight zone. This legislation is about fundamentally protecting confidence in the racing industry in Queensland, protecting revenues within the state of Queensland and protecting the racing industry in Queensland. We heard the member for Toowoomba North say that this legislation has been plagiarised. The government sits on the other side and it does not do anything. It just lets these things happen to Queensland. Mr Shine: You concede that, do you? Dr FLEGG: Not at all. I concede nothing at all. But then they say that it is untested. Well, we are having a go. At least we are trying to fix it up. It is better than sitting on the other side, knowing that we are doing the right thing, even getting up in their speeches and arguing the same things we are arguing, and then turning up in droves to vote against it. What an act of intellectual suicide. I just wonder what those members opposite have in their mind— Mr Caltabiano: Nothing. Dr FLEGG: Maybe it is late at night and they have not got anything in their mind. What is the advantage to Queensland of supporting and supplying this information to an internet betting outfit in Tasmania or anywhere it wants to be? What is the advantage to Queensland Racing? What is the advantage to jobs in Queensland? The person in this parliament who brings an understanding of the racing industry, who has an ear to listen to the concerns of the people who comprise the racing industry, who depend on the racing industry for their livelihood, is not the member for Clayfield, who has so many of them in her electorate, but the member for Surfers Paradise. He understands this industry. He has gone out of his way and has spent a terrific amount of time to consult and learn what the concerns are. That is what we are seeing in this debate. That is why we are seeing people from the twilight zone on the other side of the House voting against something that they know is good policy. The member for Surfers Paradise has consulted and thought very clearly about what is in the best interests of the racing industry and what is in the best interests of the state of Queensland. It is 456 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006 extraordinary that those opposite cannot bring themselves to vote for what they know is correct. I commend this bill to the House. I commend the member for Surfers Paradise for his diligence in putting forward good policy and trying to protect the racing industry in Queensland. Those opposite ought to be ashamed of what they are about to do in voting it down. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (9.28 pm), in reply: I am pleased to reply to the Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006, a bill which the coalition has been left to introduce after inaction on the part of the Labor government. I want to thank my coalition colleagues for their support and also the Labor members who have spoken this evening. I must admit that it feels a bit like Groundhog Day. The member for Moggill just said that the debate on the fluoride bill reflected a similar situation. We had members on both sides expressing support for the principles. Probably this debate is not quite as dramatic as the debate on the fluoride bill in terms of the range of emotions, but we certainly had people expressing support for the bill and supporting the principle but opposing the bill. I find that quite unbelievable. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: I take that interjection from the member for Lockyer. I invite them to cross the floor. Tonight I am going to highlight the strong and justifiable reasons behind this bill and the protection that it aims to provide Queensland’s growing racing industry. What will become apparent is that the coalition’s response of introducing this bill is in line with the action already taken by the Victorian parliament and with similar action taken by the New South Wales parliament. Mr Shine: How many prosecutions? Mr LANGBROEK: There have been no actual challenges against it. It is interesting that the member for Fitzroy, the member for Nudgee and the member for Toowoomba North have mentioned possible challenges. There have been no challenges to this legislation. I question the members’ doubting of the ability of the Victorian parliament to frame legislation that would not be subject to challenge. Mr Shine: How many prosecutions under the legislation? Mr LANGBROEK: All I know is that they passed it on 29 November in Victoria and so far the sky has not fallen in. Mr Shine: You should research a subject before you bring it in. Mr LANGBROEK: As far as I know, there have been none. The important thing is that Victoria has done something about it. Doing nothing is worse. Before I detail the bill’s objectives, I must draw attention to the blatant hypocrisy in the current government’s ranks with regard to protecting our racing industry against Betfair. Despite the fact that those opposite have been more than willing to make statements that Betfair is bad for the industry and for Queensland, what will become abundantly clear is that this government continues to contradict itself on the matter. The government fundamentally contradicts itself by not supporting this bill, despite previously asserting that Betfair will pose major problems for the Queensland racing industry. When I looked at my research material this evening, I saw that on 3 November 2005 the racing minister said, ‘I took a submission to ban Betfair in Queensland back in March’. Obviously he will not tell me who rolled him in cabinet. However, can I now invite you, Mr Speaker, as you are no longer in cabinet, to have a drink with me afterwards and tell me who rolled the minister for racing on his plan to ban Betfair. Mr SPEAKER: My lips are sealed. Mr LANGBROEK: In July 2004, the minister was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as stating, ‘As far as I am concerned, betting exchanges are a rort waiting to happen’. What else did the minister say tonight? He said the legal opinion is that the bill may not prevent what it is supposed to prevent; that it is potentially ineffective and unenforceable. His other solution was that the federal government should do it. He said that we might do it in Queensland, but we will wait for a while. Might I suggest to the minister that if we do not do it, we are definitely putting at risk money to the three control bodies in Queensland racing. Time is of the essence. He was mentioning that this legislation may put at risk money to the control bodies. As I say, doing nothing is worse. I agree with one of the minister’s recent media releases in which he said that the Queensland government has always strongly opposed Betfair from setting up base in Australia because it makes profits without contributing any money to our local racing industry. He should have expressed that more to his Labor mate Paul Lennon before he allowed Betfair into Tasmania. In the same media statement the minister referred to the introduction of betting exchanges as a poisoned apple that would spell the end of racing as we know it in Queensland. As shadow minister, I completely agree. However, this government contradicts itself in deciding to oppose this bill. How can this government come out and make these points and then sell our industry short by not supporting this bill? By blocking this bill’s introduction, the government proves again that it is all wind and no action. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 457

Furthermore, the government contradicts itself internally by not having a consistent policy amongst its members about the value of the industry to Queensland. It may well be that the minister has just been rolled by the Premier. In April 2002, Premier Beattie commented that Queensland racing contributed $700 million to the state’s economy and generated full-time, part-time and casual jobs for almost 24,000 Queenslanders. That was back in 2002. Since then, the minister for racing has consistently pointed out that the racing industry remains in good health and continues to grow. However, in April 2004, when I was a very new member here, in answer to a question without notice, the minister downplayed the importance of the industry by stating to members of the opposition that we were overstating its employment statistics. He said that fewer than 4,800 Queenslanders were directly employed in the racing industry, which equates to 0.28 per cent of the total employment sector. Here was the minister, instead of advocating for the department he is responsible for, downplaying its success. The comments by the Premier and the minister demonstrate the marked discrepancy within the government itself. It is unable to agree upon the value of racing to Queensland, let alone the implications Betfair may have for it. I remember when Betfair got its licence in Tasmania, after his previous glowing support for the racing industry the Premier said that he thought the TAB would do okay with some competition. This was after Paul Lennon had agreed to allow Betfair in. The strange thing is that racing gets all of its revenue from the proceeds of gambling, so how would it benefit from some competition when that particular competitor does not provide a guaranteed revenue to racing? So even when the Premier, from the former Socialist Party which used to eschew competition, embraces it, he gets it wrong. The Premier does away with every other expert view on the matter, including the minister’s view. I will come back to what those in the know believe in a moment. On the other hand, this side of the House understands the economic benefits that the racing industry provides to Queensland, as well as the social and cultural benefits of having popular, safe and entertaining events. What the Queensland coalition has in this bill is a strategy to support the Queensland racing industry by providing it with the mechanisms it will require to maintain the steady growth that it has experienced well into the future, by protecting against unauthorised betting exchanges based interstate or overseas. The bill aims to ensure that the integrity of the industry is upheld through maintaining government revenue and effectively administering the conduct of racing to ensure that high standards of probity are preserved. It is important to note at this point that this bill is not an anticompetitive piece of legislation. The offence does not in any way inhibit the state from licensing new wagering service providers in the future as this application is only in respect of illegal operators. I was interested to hear the minister’s legal advice that perhaps Betfair or some other betting exchange would challenge it and, therefore, demand to be a legal operator. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: I echo the sentiments of the member for Chatsworth. We are happy to amend this bill according to the minister’s legal advice and I promise him bipartisan support to do anything we can to stop these betting exchanges. Mr Caltabiano: Table the advice. Mr LANGBROEK: We would love to have that legal advice tabled so that we can look at it. I spoke to the chairman of Racing Victoria and he is very confident that the Victorian legislation will stand up to any challenge, whether it goes to the High Court under section 92 of the Constitution about competition between the states, or whether it is trade practice legislation. Of course, this government may choose to ignore that advice and it can get a two-for-one deal from the High Court when it comes to do its federal IR legislation challenge and waste some more taxpayers’ money. At this point, I would like to properly explain how betting exchanges threaten Queensland racing and the revenues of both the industry and government. At present, betting exchanges—which have now been licensed by Tasmania—are a relatively new phenomena. Unlike traditional wagering providers like TABs and bookmakers, which support the racing industry through direct funding, betting exchanges pay nothing to support the racing industry. They provide an on-line facility, as many members have said tonight, for punters to back horses to win against odds laid by another punter. This makes it possible— and this is the very salient point—for punters to back a horse to lose rather than to win, posing an unacceptable risk to the integrity of racing in this state and country. The economics of racing are not complicated. The betting industry pays a commercial fee for every race it uses. Exchange operators make their profits out of breaking that circle. Currently, racing followers access both totalisator wagering with TABs and fixed-odds betting with bookmakers. Each of these wagering sectors forms part of a commercial circle with the racing industry. As a result, the industry depends on a commercial linkage between wagering activities on racing events and the racing industry’s cost base. Betting exchanges are a hybrid form of wagering, structured in a way that is intended to evade this linkage. The ongoing viability of racing depends on a commercial income stream 458 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 01 Mar 2006 from wagering back to racing to meet its cost base. However, under the betting exchange model, racing is treated solely as a means of driving use of the exchange site and generating commissions for its host. Racing receives no commercial return from this wagering. On the contrary, the business formula of exchanges is built on avoiding anything more than token payments. Tasmania has taken the 30 pieces of silver. It has got $5 million as a one-off pay-off or something and all sorts of other things but no guaranteed revenue that will continue down the track, year after year. As I say, they will take away the funding that the racing industry is currently guaranteed when they are a very small part of the Australian racing industry. The paramutual wagering with TABs and the fixed-odds betting with bookmakers is subject to clearly defined commercial and regulatory obligations vis-a-vis the racing industry. Since privatisation, these totalisator companies are now publicly listed companies and operate within a corporate legislative environment, unlike many of the betting exchange operators, who operate outside these frameworks. Betfair will not allow Australian racing authorities the same access they have to betting information held by TABs and licensed bookmakers. The conditions Betfair wants are too restrictive, unacceptable to stewards, and would not allow thorough investigation of suspected corruption. That leads me to the next threat posed by betting exchanges. As I have mentioned before, the risk they pose is to the integrity of racing and the propensity for criminal and unethical behaviour to result from their operation. Through betting exchanges, opportunities for corruption exist which in turn would lead to a loss of confidence in the industry from punters. We cannot afford to have allegations of race fixing and conspiracies in the industry. We need only to look to the UK, which the member for Southport, the member for Toowoomba South and others have mentioned tonight. In the UK criminal corruption has been linked to betting exchange transactions and the darkening shadow that has been placed over the industry there. Racefax, an independent British monitoring service, identified over 170 instances of irregular betting patterns on betting exchanges between January and October 2003. It has also reported a sharp increase in the volume of otherwise fancied horses which drift in price and lose and whose unusual running indicates that there is an irregularity. As the member for Southport mentioned, one of the better known English jockeys was charged with deliberately losing eight rides in the season for financial gain on Betfair. The public suspicion generated by irregular betting patterns on betting exchanges is having and will continue to have a debilitating effect on the reputation of British racing. Let us not be naive about the follow-on effect. Punters will switch sports and no longer inject money into racing. It is for those reasons that the Queensland coalition has introduced this bill. It is why the government should also want to support this bill. Indeed, to delay its introduction would be as unjustified as Minister Schwarten suggested the Tasmanian government was in allowing Betfair to commence operations there in November. If the government does not support this bill, it turns its back on the people and authorities of our racing industry. The message coming from them is consistent and clear: do what you can to protect us against the consequential threats of Betfair being introduced here. They are not saying, as the minister is, ‘Let’s see how it goes in other jurisdictions and let’s wait to see if there are challenges.’ They are saying, ‘Do it now.’ Here are a few messages from some of the people in the industry. Andrew Ramsden, Chairman of the Australian Racing Board, has said that betting exchanges present the greatest threat to Australian racing as we know it in the 170-year history of the sport. He said that betting exchanges have no place in Australian racing and threaten the very existence of this sport and its long-term sustainability. He also said that the introduction of Betfair was the sorriest development he had witnessed in his time in racing. He said— The start of betting exchange operations in Australia ... cannot fail to leave a sour taste in the mouth of anyone who genuinely cares about the future of Australian racing. The Queensland branch of the Australian Trainers Association has told me— Put bluntly, the betting exchange operator makes its money out of providing a matching service for people to bet on race meetings, and paying a fair level of return to the trainers, owners, jockeys etc whose efforts produce those race meetings just doesn’t figure into the equation. Colin Anderson, President of the Australian Trainers Association, has said that it is far easier to identify a horse that cannot win a race than one that can. He said that if an individual can profit from a horse not winning a race, then a very sinister pathway to corruption is opened. The ATA has also stated— Not only is this a recipe for actual malpractice but how long would public confidence survive the perception that beaten favourites had been backed to lose on a betting exchange by those in the know. Paul Innes of the Australian Jockeys Association has said that betting exchanges have the potential to damage the public confidence in racing that has been built up over many years and depends entirely on every horse racing on its own merits. He said that being able to profit off a horse losing creates the perfect recipe for malpractice. He said that the exchanges also threaten the sustainability of the industry as they piggyback on the efforts of trainers and owners who stage race meetings, but they are not prepared to pay anything by way of fair remuneration. 01 Mar 2006 Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 459

Ipswich Turf Club Chairman, Wayne Patch, has said that anything that threatens racing integrity, be it real or perceived, is a worry for all of us. He believes that reduced TAB turnover would result in less prize money, a reduced quality of racing and, subsequently, a poorer standard of racehorse. At the recent AGM of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities in Paris, the 50 horse-racing authorities agreed upon this principle: no-one should be permitted to offer betting possibilities on races without having the express agreement of the racing authorities staging those events or the rights holder of the racing data and pictures. Another authority, the Asian Racing Federation, represents 20 racing jurisdictions in the region including Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, India, South Africa and Korea. It has concluded that betting exchanges are fundamentally incompatible with the best interests of the sport and it is refusing to licence betting exchanges to operate in member countries. The reality is that the present wagering and racing industry structure generates very healthy streams of taxation revenue as well as streams of revenue to support the survival of the racing industry while, at the same time, creating profits for the totalisator operators. The regulatory environment that is in place in the wagering arena is designed specifically and deliberately to protect the revenue streams that flow to the racing industry without which the racing industry as we know it would cease to exist. Those who, like the Premier, argue that betting exchanges should be legalised in the interests of competition must have their arguments tested against the damage that it would do to the racing industry. The Premier and the Labor Party may care to change their tune after evaluating the damage Betfair could have on their government. The Beattie government currently pockets more than $63 million from UNiTAB’s wagering taxes each year. The annual GST from various Magic Millions sales should be worth up to $20 million, and then there are the other millions of dollars from GST generated from racing commerce around Queensland. Back in 2004 the Australian Training Association provided me with statistics stating that if betting exchanges were legalised and attract 20 per cent of the existing totalisator turnover the racing industry would stand to lose about $120 million and the state and federal government would lose around $130 million. Only last month, New South Wales Racing CEO, Peter V’Landys, said— ... in the long-term as Betfair’s presence takes hold, it will have a devastating effect on the viability of the New South Wales racing industry. We have estimated losses of revenue of up to $15 million per annum. Those are big numbers and, unless this parliament acts now to safeguard our industry, the shortfalls will not be easy to find. In part, the coalition is proposing this bill to avoid the Beattie government again having to delve into its bottomless pit of money. That is the wrong approach. The coalition does not want the government to have to forgo $10 million to $15 million when Betfair starts pinching previously guaranteed revenue to support the industry. This government could have acted on 9 January when I called on it to do as Victoria did and legislate to stop the unauthorised publication of race fields. The coalition does not want to see the Beattie government again act retrospectively when it could have acted proactively. We have seen that happen before. Only recently the Premier and health minister dipped into the ‘when we stuff up’ fund and announced more than a quarter of a billion dollars to pay doctors more over the next three years—on top of the December 2005 agreement. I ask the Beattie government to avoid having to act in such a way again and act now to support the bill. Queensland cannot afford to be naive to the threats Betfair and other unauthorised betting exchanges pose to our racing industry. In summary, racing is a sport that depends upon public confidence in its integrity and is a major economic activity that generates substantial employment. Betting exchanges are incompatible with both of those interests because they encourage people to profit from horses losing and are structured in a way to evade commercial returns to racing as the content originator for wagering. Betting exchanges can tarnish the industry through encouraging improper behaviour that would be very difficult to detect as seemingly unauthorised transactions are invisible to racing regulators. We need to protect our Queensland consumers and we cannot have a ‘buyer beware’ mantra established in respect of the industry. This parliament needs to realise that unauthorised exchanges do not have revenue taken from them to return to the industry. The operators of Betfair definitely do not. Anyone who bets with a betting exchange is doing the racing industry an enormous disservice and the Beattie government will effectively do the same if it does not support this bill. Members opposite have acknowledged the threat. All this side of the House asks is that they follow through with their statements. I will highlight some of those statements. I have already dealt with some comments of some members. As in the fluoride debate, the member for Nudgee was very supportive but then said that he would not support the bill. He noted that Victoria and New South Wales have done something different, but I say to the member for Nudgee that at least they have done something. He mentioned the trade practice challenges that potentially exist in Victoria, yet there have been no challenges to legislation that they have had since November. 460 Adjournment 01 Mar 2006

At the beginning of his contribution the member for Keppel told us that he knew a lot about racing, but he did not show a lot of that knowledge in his contribution. He said that the bill was a waste of time. The member for Fitzroy said that he would rather see challenges to the legislation in New South Wales and Victoria before he would be prepared to enact any legislation here. Similarly, the member for Toowoomba North said that the Victorian legislation was untested. He thought that no legislation was better than some legislation. I thought that statement was quite remarkable. I remind the government of what Minister Schwarten said in the Ipswich Queensland Times. The honourable minister said that Betfair will ‘spell the end of racing as we know it in Queensland’. It was the minister who said that the Queensland government has always strongly opposed Betfair setting up base in Australia because it profits without contributing any money to our local racing industry. All the coalition asks is that the government steps up to the plate and supports this bill. For the good of the Queensland racing industry, support this bill. Do not prolong the introduction of the safeguards contained in this bill. Support this bill. I repeat this request to the Beattie government because I am concerned that it will continue to blatantly disregard any private member’s bills presented by the Queensland coalition not on their merits but due to the fact that we have introduced them. I did some research in the parliamentary library, which my friend the member for Chatsworth has already stolen. If the number of private member’s bills introduced is indicative of the actions and the fervour of the opposition—I know that the minister for energy is always talking about the lazy and well resourced opposition—I decided to find out how many private member’s bills were moved in the time of the coalition government. Six were moved between 1996 and 1998. How many have been moved from 1998 to 2006? Some 66. We come up with the ideas and those opposite steal them. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot let that one go. I have sat here and copped enough rot. It is a shame the member for Nicklin has not jumped on this. There was an agreement with him about private member’s time. That is the reason it is different. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr LANGBROEK: I had to get some sort of reaction. Only recently we saw the Beattie government almost plagiarise a private member’s bill introduced by the then shadow health minister with regard to child employment with its Child Employment Bill. The reality is that the Queensland Racing industry does not have the time to wait until Labor redrafts this private member bill to start protecting against unauthorised betting exchanges. The Racing (Race Fields) Amendment Bill 2006 should be supported now in line with other jurisdictions and having due regard to the lobbying of our racing authorities. Finally, if the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has no problem with it neither should the Australian Labor Party. I commend this bill to the House. Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 25—Caltabiano, Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Rogers NOES, 50—Barton, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.58 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Horse Riding in National Parks Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.58 pm): This afternoon I had the privilege of meeting with the minister for environment and local government and representatives from peak horse rider groups in Queensland. Those in attendance who represented horse riding interests and the thousands of horse riders in Queensland were: Ann Warmbrunn representing the Noosa-Tewantin area; Julie de Visser from the QHC Gold Coast-Beaudesert area; Neal Mathers from Brisbane Forest Park; Lorraine Decker from the Caboolture-Bellthorpe area; Graeme Sleeman from ATHRA Gold Coast-Beaudesert area; Leigh Ann Sample from QORF Mapleton-Kenilworth area; Bob Sample from QERA Mapleton-Kenilworth area; and Kathy Kingston from QORF. All of these representatives came to the meeting this afternoon with a great deal of passion and willingness to work with the government to try to resolve the issues which are currently outstanding and to try to give some certainty in terms of future horse riding trails in Queensland. I take this opportunity to thank the minister for the environment and local government for her willingness to meet with the horse riding representatives following the commitment that Premier Beattie provided to these peak horse riding groups on 23 November 2004. 01 Mar 2006 Adjournment 461

This afternoon we had a very fruitful and very frank discussion about a report on the progress the government has been making in terms of investigating alternative horse riding trails. We had reports for the Noosa-Tewantin area, the Gold Coast-Beaudesert area, the Brisbane Forest Park area, the Caboolture-Bellthorpe area, the Mapleton-Kenilworth area and other forest areas in south-east Queensland. I say thank you to Minister Boyle for her willingness and frankness at our meeting. I thank her also for her willingness to continue to meet with the peak horse riding representatives of south-east Queensland and the representatives of the thousands of horse riding enthusiasts in Queensland. We are passionate. This afternoon we demonstrated a willingness to work with the government to try to finalise reasonable and realistic alternative horse riding trails in these areas. I use this opportunity to urge the government to please consider the success of this afternoon’s meeting. Please consider wherever possible compromising, considering that the horse riders in south- east Queensland have already compromised and given up so much. We are now in the home straight. I believe we are now at the critical stage of this negotiation. I hope that the willingness that was shown this afternoon can continue. I hope that all government members, government ministers and the Premier are able to find genuine willingness to find some common ground so that hopefully a wonderful outcome will be achieved before these matters are finally gazetted. 2006 Parliamentary Year Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (10.01 pm): One of the joys of the early sittings of parliament in a new year is seeing the renewed enthusiasm and eager anticipation on the faces of my colleagues as we contemplate another year of service to the people we represent. And this is a year when more than ever the people of Queensland will look to us to provide solid, responsible leadership. It is a year when we must strive to keep our political agendas firmly focused on the needs of people and if the media tries to impose its need for sensationalism on that agenda we must accept their input for what it is but remain true to our core goals, because behind the banner headlines and opinionated tub-thumping is actually a society on the move. If we fall into the trap of being media reactive rather than people proactive, then we miss our chance and in fact fail in our duty to acknowledge and assist the directions in which our community is heading. Whether or not one actively follows the Chinese calendar, it is intriguing to note that the forecast for this Year of the Dog predicts a shift towards greater social awareness and a changing of focus towards community orientation, and this shift has already begun as the rising trend towards social enterprise clearly illustrates. So is 2006 a time to return to a more grassroots approach? Of course there will always be big picture issues which a government must attend to on a national and international level, but even these issues can be informed by an awareness of the pulls and pushes of a socially dynamic and evolving Queensland community. Since we all last sat together in this House we have spent Christmas, new year, Australia Day and school captain inductions not tucked away in our offices but out amongst the people who put us in those offices. If we have accurately gauged the mood of those people, then we sit today fortified with that knowledge and emboldened to bring that sense of community spirit, Queensland pride and Australian idealism to this House. That is what this parliamentary year should aspire to—a seminal year in which the government went even further in its pursuit of a fair and just state with opportunities for all and the opposition played its essential role of ensuring that the government remained focused on that pursuit. Then we can all look back on 2006 as a year when 88 members of parliament led the people with honesty and diligence and brought us that much closer to the Queensland we can be—a benchmark state of responsibility, justice and social awareness. We can do it. Wild Rivers Legislation Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (10.03 pm): I want to raise serious concerns about the wild rivers legislation and the implementation of the Wild Rivers Code. On 28 September last year this legislation was pushed through parliament under the pretence of protecting rivers. However, after the development of the code it proves that it had nothing to do with protecting rivers but was designed to end sustainable economic and social development in the affected areas. The Wild Rivers Code is unworkable and it is hard to believe that some bureaucrat was paid to write this nonsense. The code only allows for a two-metre wide clearing for fence lines and is limited to no road crossings in rivers and creeks, no stock water dams in the swamps and watercourses, no improved pastures, no fertilisers for weed control, no feed supplements for cattle and no longer being able to use mechanical equipment or chemicals in a wild river area to prevent the spread of weeds. The solution in the code only allows a 20-by-20 metre area to be cleared by hand which has to be revegetated back to 100 per cent of its natural state before moving on. This means that it will take every man, woman and child in Australia three years to clear one area of noxious weeds to satisfy the code for one wild river catchment. 462 Adjournment 01 Mar 2006

These practices have been standard for generations by pastoralists who have managed these rivers and this land sustainably for years. These rivers have been maintained and protected by these people because their livelihoods depend on their survival. Many questions need to be asked. How much influence did the conservation movement and the Wilderness Society have in the development of the code? Why were the stakeholders directly affected by the implementation of the code given only a few months to prepare submissions? Will the submissions from people not directly affected by the implementation of the code be given more weight than the submissions of people who are? My concern is that the radical conservation movement is in the minister’s ear and he is sympathetic to its cause. Those groups that are not directly affected by the implementation of the code have no right to influence or decide the fate of a region that they know little about, do not reside in or even participate in its day-to-day community life. Pastoralists in northern Queensland play an important role by helping to protect our state from a massive feral animal and noxious weed problem and the threat of exotic diseases. In its June 2002 research report, the Productivity Commission examined the potential social, economic and environmental consequences of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. The commission reports that the worst-case scenario would involve key beef and lamb export markets being closed for 15 months and the cost of a foot-and-mouth disease incursion would be between $8 billion and $13 billion of gross domestic product and its consequences would be felt for 10 years after the event. Even an isolated outbreak that was brought rapidly under control was estimated to potentially cost $2 billion to $3 billion of gross domestic product. Land management is about improving the land, sowing the good seed, producing the best beef and, in the end, putting the best food on the family table. The wild rivers legislation, just like the Vegetation Management Bill, is antirural, antijobs and has the potential of destroying people’s livelihoods. Time expired. Disability Advocate, Ipswich Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (10.06 pm): I am pleased to announce that people with disabilities in Ipswich will soon have a new voice. Their voice will come through the employment of a specialised Disability Advocate who will work out of the existing Ipswich Tenancy Advocacy Service, or ITASI, and who will be devoted 100 per cent to standing up for people with disabilities in the Ipswich community. With its historical legacy of institutions and its more modern trend of extraordinary community care, there are many people in Ipswich with disabilities. These people live throughout the community and, to varying degrees, play an active part in our community’s life. The problem for many of these people is that lack of power and sometimes an inability to communicate effectively makes it very hard for them to get their message across. The problem was identified in the community investigation Report into abuse, assault and neglect of people with a disability, which was recently carried out for the community based organisation Queensland Parents of People with a Disability. The QPPD report highlighted the key issue for many families of people with a disability—that is, that people with a disability find it hard to make their own voices heard and that their parents, who in many cases are ageing, are not always in a position to advocate for them. The state government under Minister Warren Pitt clearly heard that concern and has created this disability advocacy program which provides $600,000 in new funding for services across Queensland. Locally, it provides nearly $67,000 per year recurrently for an Ipswich service. The new Ipswich service will form part of that broader statewide network and the Disability Advocate will be appointed shortly. That person will be an advocate for any local person with a disability who is looking for help anywhere, be it with housing, health or even education. The new service will mean that local people with a disability will have a fighter in their corner whenever they need it. The service has been auspiced by the highly reputable Ipswich Tenancy Advocacy Service but will ultimately stand alone and have its own management committee. I am thrilled that Ipswich is among the first Queensland communities to be funded by the state government for this new service. I believe that decision reflects both the high level of need in Ipswich and the highly compassionate and proactive nature of our disability sector. The new Disability Advocate will make a meaningful difference in the lives of some of Ipswich’s most vulnerable people. Co-You Corporation, Currumbin Valley Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (10.09 pm): In the late 1980s the Albert Shire Council gave approval to the owners of a site in Currumbin located at the entrance to the valley to build a tourist facility comprising a multistorey hotel, golf course and condominiums. Sometime after this the land owner onsold the land to Co-You Corporation who in turn sought to sell to Devine Homes. In 2003 a development application was lodged with the Gold Coast City Council by Devine Homes to alter the criteria of the land use approval to build freestanding dwellings and a saltwater lake. Council apparently decided that the development application should be assessed with community input 01 Mar 2006 Adjournment 463 wherein the developer instituted court action in a bid to avoid this consultation. Changes were made to the development application. It was resubmitted to council in early 2005 and council decided this project did not need to be assessed with community input. Residents feel that council have let them down and believe that they should have assessed the Co-You application as impact assessable instead of code assessable. How this massive development, which hundreds of residents fear will impact severely on the environment and the quality of lifestyle in rural Currumbin Valley, has slipped under the radar and got to this stage without proper community consultation is bewildering. It is also frightening to think that ex-Labor politicians Jim Soorley and Terry Mackenroth are on the Devine board and are in support of this high-density 530-home estate. Just what game is Mr Mackenroth playing? To great fanfare he released his South East Queensland Regional Plan last year before retiring as Treasurer of this Labor government. This South East Queensland Regional Plan lists the area in question as outside the urban footprint and, therefore, supposedly protected from developments such as this. This week the council’s planning committee delivered a sharp blow to concerned citizens by voting to approve this development despite considerable lobbying from clearly distraught residents. Six councillors cast a vote and the results were: Councillors Douglas, Betts and Crichlow against the proposal and in favour were Councillors Hackwood, Pforr and Shepherd, the latter using his casting vote to pass the approval. Next Monday, 6 March, this development goes before full council. I urge all members of parliament, and in particular those from the Gold Coast, to lobby their local councillors before this date to save an important piece of our ever-shrinking environment. The valley group, who are an umbrella group of Friends of Currumbin, held a public meeting in February which was well attended. A decision was made to launch legal proceedings against the Gold Coast City Council. Concerned individuals are being asked to donate to the fighting fund. This development would impact on one of the last significant stands of blackbutt forest, together with a host of natural flora and fauna. The population of the valley, which is serviced by a road already under duress, would more than double if this hideaway project proceeds. There are also serious issues with flooding which, to date, have not been addressed satisfactorily. I urge the members of this House to try to put a stop to this absolutely unreasonable development. School Leaders; Lions Youth of the Year Quest Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.12 pm): It is that time of year again when we get to meet the leaders of the future in our schools. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all school leaders in my electorate. The high calibre of all students coming through our schools never ceases to amaze me. Our future is certainly in good hands. It is also the time of year that many P&Cs and P&Fs have their AGM. I take this opportunity to congratulate the executive members and thank the retiring committee members for the hard work they did. I wish all school communities in the Springwood electorate a successful and enjoyable year. Last week I was present at the Daisy Hill-Loganholme Lions Club judging the Lions Youth of the Year Quest. I congratulate Courtney Wallace, school captain of Shailer Park State High School; Mitchell King, school captain of Chisholm Catholic College; Pharan Akhartarkahavari, school captain of Springwood State High School; Hannah Wong, vice captain of Redeemer Lutheran College; and Hannah Wegner, school house captain of Chisholm Catholic College for participating in this very worthwhile quest. The quest is designed to encourage student interest in leadership and the qualities required to take an active and constructive role in the community. All participants gave two impromptu speeches and were then given an opportunity to speak on a topic of their choice. I was very pleased that the two impromptu speeches were on topics very relevant to the youth of today. The first topic was: ‘What can be done to decrease the road toll of young drivers?’ This is the topic of a current state government discussion paper. I am pleased to announce that, through my representations to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Logan will now hold a young drivers forum next week. There was a range of views on this topic. However, all agreed that young drivers need more education and practice. The second subject was: ‘Is there more pressure put on young people to go to university rather than get a trade?’ On that day I had the pleasure of attending the induction of Q-Build apprentices. I was very proud to have two young men from the Springwood electorate start their careers as apprentice carpenters with Q-Build. Nicholas Stewart from Springwood and Brent Shulz from Shailer Park had to beat tough competition to secure their trade training positions. It was great to wish them every success in person. The participants of the quest all spoke of the great opportunities that are available to all students through the education system. While they agreed with the statement about the pressure put on them to go to university, they could also see the great benefits in deciding to take on a career in a trade. 464 Adjournment 01 Mar 2006

The prepared speeches brought up topics ranging from poverty, to ‘dare to dream’, to water supplies now and into the future. All presented their speeches in a very professional manner with well researched arguments and with passion. Their school communities should be very proud of them. Hannah Wegener took out the public speaking prize on the night. Hannah gave a very informative speech on water. She also thought that much more emphasis should be put on university places for health workers and doctors. With regards to the youth road toll, Hannah felt that young drivers should be considered as a learner for a longer period of time and that open licences should only be issued if you are over the age of 18. Hannah believes this would allow more time for young drivers to gain experience. I congratulate Mitchell King, the overall winner of the club zoning for that competition. Courier-Mail Article Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (10.15 pm): I feel that Dr Paul Williams’ article in the Courier-Mail on Saturday, 25 February warrants some comment. Dr Williams states, ‘The objective observer must surely rate the Premier’s performance over 10 years as good.’ I have to question the fact that all Dr Williams can point to is that the Premier managed to benefit from Pauline Hanson splitting the conservative vote, implemented the South East Queensland Regional Plan that is needing review because of the way it has disadvantaged certain groups, and implemented the Smart State where the government uses PR to far outweigh the science and biotech programs. The three stages of the leadership mentioned in the Courier-Mail article are as follows. The Premier’s leadership began because of the arrogance of the Goss government. He was then elected to a position above his abilities. Though the One Nation fiasco and the backdoor politics of the member for Nicklin, he managed to govern Queensland from 1998 to 2001. In the 2001 election the opposition was horrified by the electoral rorts that had been uncovered in the Queensland Labor Party. What the opposition did not realise was that the public at large did not trust any political party. Therefore, by owning up to the problem in the Labor party, the Premier satisfied the majority of voters. In that time period the Howard-Anderson government had started to review the Australian economy all to Beattie’s advantage. The next issue to along come was the children in crisis. The Premier, hand on heart, promised to fix the problem. This was a complex issue, and voters or any other sane adult would not want to see children in danger. If we say we will care for a child or look after children, most of us do try to carry out our responsibilities in the best interests of the child. The Premier was believed, and the federal economy was still improving when he was re-elected. Mr O’Brien: It was so bad they re-elected him! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The member for Cook will cease interjecting. Mr RICKUSS: This bloke back here has a big mouth. We now have not only five per cent unemployment in Queensland but also in Tasmania. We also have a health crisis, a mental health crisis, an electricity industry crisis, a main roads crisis, an emergency services crisis, and the sleeping giant, the urban water crisis. Labor stopped the Wolffdene Dam in 1990. That could have been completed by now with the obvious need sooner rather than later. Since 1989—and during 10 years as leader—the Premier has been concerned with PR and spin. With the state’s coffers bulging with GST tax, stamp duty and payroll tax it is Dr Paul Williams’ view that the Premier’s 10-year performance has been good— part of the reason that students have been turning their back on universities in droves! This type of unsubstantiated, non-critical assessment of this profligate Premier’s government sounds like it has come from an ALP hack, not a university professor. Logan PCYC Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.18 pm): Superb leadership has the ability to lift an organisation to a level not previously reached, to increase the morale of everyone connected with the group and to draw enthusiastic support from the community, including additional funding. Such is the very happy position of the Logan PCYC under the great leadership of Sergeant Rachel Whitford. Rachel, along with a team including office manager Nick Fisher and a band of paid workers and volunteers, has increased the programs on offer, the number of members has grown, improved facilities have been provided and the club has basically gone from strength to strength. The latest addition to the facilities is a great family gymnasium called the Pulse Fitness Centre. An amount of $50,000 was quickly raised towards the centre, including the $10,000 which Councillor Graham Able was able to donate from Logan City Council and a magnificent $5,000 from the Logan Recreation and Sports Centre, our bowls club. Manager Steve Ryan and his board have a great commitment to the area and its families and young people. This centre is a place where our residents will be able to come and improve their fitness and be helped to gain a healthy lifestyle. Late in 2005, Rachel and her team decided a fundraising dinner would help them improve facilities. In a very short time they had mustered a vast number of 01 Mar 2006 Adjournment 465 volunteers, had dozens of items donated for their auction and completely sold out all the tables in the Logan Community Centre. It was an absolutely great night with close to $40,000 raised. Since 2004, when Rachel took over as officer in charge, membership has increased from 1,200 to over 1,500. In 2004 the club returned a profit of $28,000, which increased to $148,000 in 2005. In 2005 there were many great initiatives, including a radio club launched whereby the Logan PCYC is able to go to air through a link-up with the Beenleigh PCYC. We should thank Sergeant Mark Dufficy for assisting with this valuable program— Ms Keech: He does a great job. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT: He does—as well as giving great support to all of our PCYC programs. A partnership with Community Renewal and our Department of Employment and Training enabled an upgrade of the outdoor areas in the Community Jobs Plan, which had great outcomes both for the club and for the participants. The outdoor area, which previously looked tired and uninviting, has now been landscaped with a covered play area and a covered outdoor section where community members and youngsters can enjoy gatherings such as barbecues out of the weather. The paving looks great and the barbecue area has been enhanced. Most, if not all, of the young people who worked on this project have now found work. If I recall correctly, quite a number of these young men and women were from our Indigenous community. The result is fantastic. Earlier in the year I was able to represent transport minister Paul Lucas to present 12 pushbikes and helmets donated by Queensland Transport, enabling the centre to teach safety on the roads to children. Time expired. Mirani Cluster Schools Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.21 pm): I was pleased to be in Canberra on Monday to join others at the 2006 National Awards for Quality Schooling. I was there because the Mirani cluster schools’ Kickstart to Literacy program, which was funded under the federal government’s boys education lighthouse project, was one of the participants. I have spoken many times in this House before about the great achievements of this great kickstart program in the Pioneer Valley. It is pleasing tonight to be able to advise that the Mirani cluster schools won the Outstanding National Achievement in School Improvement award for middle years at-risk boys. The project for at-risk boys in the 10 to 15 years age group is a great achievement for the cluster schools in the Pioneer Valley. The project combines hands-on activities with specific learning support and has provided a very successful alternative to boys giving up and dropping out of school. Through partnerships with business and industry, particularly the mining industry, the project has given students the opportunity to acquire practical skills and related TAFE training and enhanced their employment prospects. Indeed, a great number of the boys move on to areas of apprentice training through the engineering people in Mackay. This approach, the kickstart program, has brought about more positive attitudes to schools—I have seen some tremendous examples of a turnaround in the attitude of boys to schools—increased self-esteem, improved behaviour and family relationships, and some real improvements in literacy and numeracy. As I have mentioned before in this House, I again congratulate the project managers: Cath Jeffrey, the deputy principal of Mirani State High School, Lyn Egan from Mirani State School and Yvonne Lee from Mirani State School. This project would not have happened without those hardworking ladies and their enthusiasm for boys education. This project also won the state 2005 Showcase Award for Excellence in the Middle Phase of Learning. That was also a great achievement for the schools. These great achievers have the youth in our district in their foresight and are doing a great job of promoting the kickstart project right around Queensland. They have presented the project in many places not only in Queensland but also right throughout Australia. My thanks goes out to these great women who have pushed forward this great project for the Mackay area. Time expired. Caboolture Rugby Union Club Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.24 pm): Last Saturday evening I had the honour or being present at the opening of the third field at the home of the Caboolture Rugby Union Club, locally known as the Petersen Road Complex. The Caboolture Rugby Union Club boasts over 250 junior players and 80 senior players, and player strength has been increasing every year. The main game on Saturday night was a clash between the Sunshine Coast Stingrays and Townsville, which would be of some interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace. Earlier games that afternoon and evening involved the Caboolture Rugby Union Club teams. 466 Adjournment 01 Mar 2006

This field now gives the Caboolture Rugby Union Club the opportunity to host major regional championships as well as the flexibility to support their partners in the sports complex, the Caboolture Touch Football Club. It gives them an extra playing field to cope with their expansion. It is great that both clubs—the Caboolture Rugby Union Club and the Caboolture Touch Football Club—are able to work so closely together for the benefit of our local community. I take the opportunity to congratulate them both for that work and effort in their cooperation. The project was conceived back in 2003 and the field has been completed with funding support from the state government, the Caboolture Shire Council and the Australian and Queensland Rugby Union through their community rugby grant. The overall project costs were in excess of $170,000 and the commitment from the state government through the minor facilities grant turned out to be a total of $84,000. That is a great result, and with the lighting they are able to host the first night games for locals and visitors to enjoy. Let me acknowledge Councillor Lynette Devereaux, who is the local council representative and who represented the Caboolture Shire Council at the grand opening. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work and commitment to this project of the immediate past president of the club, Mark Hilleard. Mark’s vision, his hard work and his ability to inspire players and supporters enabled the project to be completed. This is a great example of cooperation between levels of government and the local community, represented by the Caboolture Rugby Union Club. My congratulations to the president, Kevin Kaiser, and his committee. The Caboolture Rugby Union Club is in very good hands with the leadership presented by Kevin and his committee. Time expired. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order. It should be brought to the attention of the House that the opposition parties do not have one member in the chamber, yet it was they who called the quorum we had earlier today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! There is no point of order. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.28 pm.