15 Oct 2003 Legislative Assembly 4091

WEDNESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2003

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS 14 October 2003 The Honourable R.K. Hollis, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street QLD 4000 Dear Mr Speaker I am pleased to inform the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on 13 October 2003: "A Bill for an Act to amend the Liquor Act 1992" "A Bill for an Act to amend the Training and Employment Act 2000, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act about the participation of young people in education and training, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act to provide protection for tourists in dealings with inbound tour operators and tour guides, and for related purposes". The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely (sgd) Governor

PAPER MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by The Clerk— Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) ¥ Response from the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to a paper petition presented by Mrs E Cunningham from 241 petitioners regarding traffic problems on the Dawson Highway between Kin Kora and Garden Lovers roundabouts in Gladstone— Our ref MIN24512 Mrs Melanie Carlyon PO Box 526 Gladstone Qld 4680 Dear Mrs Carlyon I refer to the petition lodged by Mrs Liz Cunningham MP, Member for Gladstone on 10 September 2003 with the Legislative Assembly about traffic problems on the Dawson Highway between Kin Kora and Garden Lovers roundabouts in Gladstone. I have previously responded to you on this matter in my letter of 10 July 2003. The information provided in that letter remains current. If you need to discuss this issue further, please call Mr Terry Hill, the Department of Main Roads' district director in , on 4931 1501. Yours sincerely (Original signed by Minister) Steve Bredhauer Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Member for Cook

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT UNiTAB Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.31 a.m.): I would like to advise the House that later today or tomorrow I will be making a statement in relation to UNiTAB, but I am not in a position to do that at this point in time. 4092 Ministerial Statement 15 Oct 2003

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Refugee Week Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.32 a.m.): Refugees have made a vital contribution to the development of 's vibrant multicultural society. We will have an opportunity to focus on this contribution from 20 October to 26 October during Refugee Week. At a time when the world is plagued by conflict, we need to be reminded of the everyday difficulties faced by refugees who are forced from their homes as a result of persecution or the threat of violence. The government will be involved in a number of Refugee Week activities. AUSTCARE will manage and sponsor this important week with state government funding assistance of $8,000 under the Multicultural Assistance Program. There will be a wide range of community group events throughout Queensland so everyone has an opportunity to get involved. Today, my parliamentary secretary, Darryl Briskey, will host an afternoon tea in the Speaker's courtyard for a number of refugees who have settled in Queensland. Education Queensland has facilitated a student competition for short stories, poems, banners, postcards and T-shirts. There is also an exhibition of photographs and artwork by and about refugees currently on display in the foyer of the Executive Building. These photos and paintings demonstrate the nature of the difficulties that are endured by refugees. They also depict the strength of the human spirit, showing refugees overcoming their experiences and settling successfully in their new country. This government is committed to helping refugees rebuild their lives. I will spell out how we have done that. I seek to incorporate that in Hansard for the information of all members. Leave granted. On 27 November 2000, the Government noted the significant humanitarian issues associated with the arrival of refugees holding Temporary Protection Visas in Queensland and decided that Queensland Government agencies should provide the same level of services to refugees with Temporary Protection Visas as refugees holding Permanent Protection Visas. Currently, services funded by the State Government available to refugees include: ¥ rental bond loans; ¥ access to public housing; ¥ support to access the private rental market; ¥ access to state schools for children at no cost; ¥ English as a Second Language tuition for children in school; ¥ employment programs run by the Department of Employment and Training; ¥ English Language tuition through TAFE Colleges; and ¥ all full-fee vocational courses, subject to availability. Since 2000, the Government has supported a number of initiatives of benefit to these refugees. Funding was allocated to three projects through my Department's Multicultural Assistance Program, to provide settlement assistance and training activities. Queensland Health also provides support to people who hold Temporary Protection Visas. The Queensland Integrated Community Health Clinic was officially opened in October 2002, using the Mater Hospital as a base. The clinic provides primary health care services to humanitarian entrants and asylum seekers with complex health needs. The Logan-Beaudesert Health Service District has also finalised a project to build strong partnerships between people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, general practitioners and the Health Service District. The Department of Families has a case management role in the care of unaccompanied refugee children and young people, and provides funding to Mercy Family Services to provide the day-to-day casework for these children and young people. Greenslopes State School runs an English as a Second Language program, consisting of a full time teacher and two bilingual teacher aides for newly arrived refugee students. An Arts Therapist has also been employed to assist students in working through a process of recovery. The school collaborates with Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma on these projects. The Refugee Student Support Program at Greenslopes State School has hosted visitors from other countries studying best practice programs. A Guide to the Role of Police in was launched in June 2003 to explain the role of police in Australia to prospective and newly-arrived migrants, refugees and tourists. 15 Oct 2003 Ministerial Statement 4093

The Guide, produced both as a booklet and a CD Rom, is available in eight languages. This Government supports the aims of Refugee Week and I encourage all Queenslanders to extend the hand of friendship to those refugees who are living in our community and make them feel welcome.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mining Services Industry Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 a.m.): I want to congratulate 13 Queensland companies for joining a delegation of Queensland mining equipment and services providers, which leaves for China on 24 October. The aim of the mission, a joint initiative of the Queensland Department of State Development and Austrade, is to explore new export opportunities which have resulted from increased commercial activity in the People's Republic of China. Queensland is being increasingly recognised as a world-class supplier of mining equipment and services so as commercial activity in China increases it becomes an attractive export prospect. This group is the first of its kind in terms of bringing together companies from the mining services industry that have limited experience with exporting. Nine coalmining equipment manufacturers from the Mackay area industry network—MAIN—and firms from other areas of Queensland will be participating in the mission. Some of the newest, most innovative and competitive companies providing engineering services to the Australian coal industry are located in the Mackay area. The focus of the mission for participants from central Queensland will not only be to promote individual expertise but the capability and capacity of the mining and engineering service cluster as a whole. The Queensland government's Trade and Investment Commissioner from Shanghai, Zijian Zhang, will be visiting the Mackay region and will brief the central Queensland mission participants at a meeting today, 15 October. The delegation will attend the China Coal and Mining Trade Show in Beijing and visit coalmines in remote parts of China. The companies are: Anderson Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd, Australian Bearings Corporation Pty Ltd, Elgin Mining Equipment Pty Ltd, G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd, JSIS Engineering Pty Ltd, Longwall Associates Australia Pty Ltd, Magnum Industries Pty Ltd, Monduran Pty Ltd, Central Queensland Institute of TAFE, ComEnergy (Brisbane), Mincom Ltd (Brisbane), Rylson Group (Brisbane), and SIMTARS (Brisbane).

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Goodwill Bridge Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.): I am delighted to learn that the Queensland Heritage Council has nominated the Goodwill Bridge for heritage listing. The bridge will be two years old next Tuesday, 21 October, and I cannot think of a more fitting way to mark its birthday. Heritage is not just about old things and it is flattering that an independent body has chosen to make this move, particularly considering the flak that I and my government have worn over the Goodwill Bridge. There is no doubt Brisbane residents and visitors alike have taken to the bridge with enthusiasm with more than 60,000 people walking and cycling across it each week. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects Queensland Chapter President, Wayne Petrie, told last Saturday's Courier-Mail that the nomination was worthy because of its social and cultural significance, which had seen a new relationship created between the city and South Brisbane. He said— This bridge has singly been responsible for a change in social interaction in Brisbane. It's really changed the dynamics of the city. His view was supported by Engineering Heritage Australia Queensland Chairman, Robin Black, who said— The thing I like about the bridge is the middle span. It's dramatic and looking down on the Maritime Museum. It's almost like being in a balloon. I'm sure it will stand the test of time. It's a classic arch. I could not have said it better. The Goodwill Bridge has become a Brisbane icon in a very short period of time and I look forward to seeing it listed on the Queensland heritage register. When you have vision, in the long term it gets recognised. Sometimes it just takes a bit of time. 4094 Ministerial Statement 15 Oct 2003

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hospital Rebuilding Program Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 a.m.): Queensland now has the nation's most modern hospitals. The completion of our ambitious 10- year $2.8 billion hospital and health services rebuilding program is helping to provide a new era in health services for Queenslanders. Last month the Health Minister and I officially opened Rockhampton's $28 million hospital redevelopment project with the local member, Robert Schwarten. Jim Pearce, the member for Fitzroy, was also there. The state Labor government began this program in 1992 and finished it in 2003. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, Vince was there. He is always there supporting us. He knows a good government when he sees one. The $28 million hospital redevelopment project is the last of the major hospitals project under the program. As I said, this program was begun by a state Labor government in 1992 and was finished by a state Labor government in 2003. Nothing on a similar scale has been undertaken anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, or probably world wide. This means that Queenslanders have access to some of the most modern health facilities and equipment anywhere in the world. My government's vision is for all Queenslanders to have the best health and quality of life in Australia and a health system that ranks with the world's best. The Productivity Commission has found that we have the shortest waiting times for elective surgery in the country and that we have the most efficient hospital system. The announcement by the Health Minister that about 95 out of every 100 category 2 patients are now receiving their elective surgery within the targeted 90 days for the first time ever is a credit to our hardworking hospital staff. I agree with her that they deserve to be congratulated on the effort that they have put into reducing waiting times for elective surgery. More than 95 per cent of category 1 patients already receive the surgery they need within 30 days. It does not matter whether Queenslanders live in our capital city, our major regional centres or our remote rural communities, there are modern health facilities available. Examples of projects undertaken through the 10-year program are set out in the rest of my ministerial statement and I seek to incorporate them. Leave granted. $510 million investment in the flagship Herston Hospitals Complex which includes the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and Royal Children's $345 million redevelopment of the Princess Alexandra Hospital $14.4 million redevelopment of Caloundra Hospital $29 million redevelopment of Nambour Hospital $18 million Maryborough Hospital Redevelopment $6.25 million Acute Mental Health Unit in Toowoomba $13.8 million redevelopment of the Baillie Henderson Hospital in Toowoomba $182 million new Townsville Hospital at Douglas $29 million redevelopment of Mackay Base Hospital $130 million Cairns Base Hospital Redevelopment $50 million Wolston Park Hospital Redevelopment $20 million Rehabilitation, Endoscopy and Orthopaedic Outpatients Building at the Gold Coast Hospital, completing the $55 million redevelopment of the hospital $3.7 million towards a purpose-built MRI building and equipment at the Prince Charles Hospital $8 million dollar radiation oncology unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital $3.2 million for a new Community Health Centre at Edmonton $11.3 million redevelopment of Emerald Hospital $7.52 million redevelopment of Barcaldine Hospital $10.45 million redevelopment of Beaudesert Hospital $67.98 million redevelopment of Logan Hospital $990,000 redevelopment of Dalby Hospital $1.2 million upgrade of outpatient and accident and emergency departments of Kingaroy Hospital $7.6 million redevelopment of Bamaga Hospital $28.5 million redevelopment of Thursday Island Hospital In other words, this program has addressed the needs of people throughout Queensland. 15 Oct 2003 Ministerial Statement 4095

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Rugby World Cup Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.): Tonight Fiji takes on the United States at Suncorp Stadium in the next pool game of the Rugby World Cup 2003. Again I am urging those attending to use public transport. The Department of State Development has set up a number of initiatives to encourage business while visitors are here. There will be some advertising to go with it. I believe that it is important that those programs be recognised by all members. I also want to tell the House that Friday is going to be an exciting day in Brisbane as the ARU prepares the city for the Wallabies-Romania match on Saturday night, which I will be attending. To be part of that fun, I am calling on Queenslanders to consider wearing something gold for the day as a show of support for the Wallabies. I seek leave to have the details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The game is shaping up as an exciting game and one certain to capture much interest. The State's gains from being part of the Rugby World Cup 2003 are not just linked directly to the sporting field. Rugby-playing nations are also able to learn more about the benefits of doing business in Queensland through our Rugby Business Centre. Our Rugby Business Centre, on level 26, 111 George Street in Brisbane, offers a range of services for anyone wanting to investigate the Smart State. The centre opened on Monday 13 October and runs until Friday 7 November from 9am to 12pm and 2-5pm Monday to Friday. It offers a business matching facility, coordination of site visitation programs as well as provide phone, fax and email facilities. There is a similar centre in Townsville on floor one, State Development Centre, corner of the Strand and Sir Leslie Thiess Drive. It will be open from 9am to 5pm from Monday 6 to Friday 31 October. The centres are an initiative of the Department of State Development and complement the international business attraction program being run in association with the tournament. Business briefings will also be held at each centre during Rugby World Cup 2003: ¥ Brisbane—Friday 7 November ¥ And Townsville last Thursday and this Friday. State Development's international business attraction program has also included: ¥ Business receptions in Dublin and London, hosted by Rugby World Cup 2003 ambassador John Eales ¥ Business briefings in Toulouse, France in conjunction with the Australian Ambassador to France and attended by Queensland Reds Captain and former Australian international Michael Lynagh ¥ Business briefings in Grenoble and Lyon in France ¥ Joint business function in Tokyo with the Australian Ambassador to Japan, the Japanese Rugby Football Union and other key industry bodies ¥ Promotion of Queensland business opportunities at a Romania Rugby Business Club function in Bucharest The response from these nations has been extremely positive and my government will continue to explore all opportunities for future investment in the Smart State. For more information about business briefings in Queensland visit www.qld.gov.au/rugby and click on 'improve your bottom line'.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Free Trade Agreement Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.): The US free trade agreement is important to this nation. The proposed free trade agreement between Australia and the United States provides enormous potential for Queensland exporters, particularly in primary industries such as beef and sugar but also in light metals and biotech. It also holds promise for financial services, biotech and higher education, because it opens the doors to a market of $280 million. Given that exports buttress the Smart State, this market access will be monumental. Last week I wrote to the Commonwealth Trade Minister, , to reinforce the Queensland government's support for the negotiations and to stress our view that the real value of a free trade agreement with the US will be judged by how the US frees up agricultural protectionism. We could be accused of misusing the expression 'free trade' if we applied it to an 4096 Ministerial Statement 15 Oct 2003 economy that will not dismantle barriers to exports of sugar, beef and other commodities. I seek leave to have more details incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. For Queensland farmers to realise the full benefit from agricultural trade reform, the US must immediately increase quota levels. This must be followed by a complete removal of tariff rate quotas. I have urged Mr Vaile to negotiate the shortest possible time frame for the elimination of tariff rate quotas. And the Queensland Government believes that the sugar industry needs an immediate and substantial increase in access in the first year of the free trade agreement. Bear in mind that while we have some agreement with the US on the elimination of export subsidies into each other's markets, the subsidies under the US Farm Bill that affect Australian exporters' competitiveness in third markets are still untouched. So even with a free trade agreement, the US Farm Bill will continue to distort trade with third markets where Australia and the US compete. Importantly, the Queensland Government jealously guards protection of local content in film and television, and the preservation of our cultural industries. Australia already has an open audiovisual market. In 2002, 63% of all new programming on Australian TV was foreign sourced. I discussed this during the meeting with Messrs Armitage and Ives in June, and I welcome comments that the Commonwealth will ensure the agreement is consistent with the Federal Government's commitment to 'preserving its ability to regulate in relation to social and cultural objectives'. Queensland officials have a good working relationship with their Commonwealth counterparts on the proposed US Free Trade Agreement, and I now look forward to stronger relationships at the ministerial level.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Department of Families; Child Abuse Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): Finally today I want to deal with the issue of the Families Department. The Crime and Misconduct Commission is inquiring into the abuse of children in foster care in Queensland because the state government referred serious allegations relating to the Department of Families and foster care to the CMC. On 28 July 2003 I furnished the CMC with material my office had released to the public that day and on 25 July 2003. In my letter to the CMC I said— The Crime and Misconduct Commission has jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of any officer of the Department of Families and the CMC can investigate any other relevant matters. I go on basically indicating that there is a public interest for the CMC to do so. I table that letter for the information of the House. This follows action by the Families Minister, Judy Spence, who on 18 June established a 24- hour hotline and an independent audit of all active foster carers in Queensland. At that time Ms Spence acknowledged defects in the Department of Families' monitoring of notifications against foster carers. On 13 June the Department of Families had referred to the CMC disturbing allegations about a family that had been fostering children for 15 years. These allegations were subsequently aired in the media. The government knows that problems exist in the child protection system and we are helping to lift the lid on them. If there were no problems there would be no need for the CMC inquiry we requested. The government has consistently welcomed the inquiry—as I said, we triggered it—because any government serious about improving child protection must keep an open mind. We are not proud of what has happened on our watch, because we do put protection of children as an important issue. In fact, we put protection of children on a pedestal. Child protection is the government's business, but it is also the community's business. It is not too much to ask all those in the community—parents, foster carers and the community generally—to nurture our children in a safe environment. The Families Department ought to be the guardian of last resort. Unfortunately, a growing number of children are reaching the last resort, as notifications show. When we compare 2002-03 to 1997-98 we see that there was a monumental 93 per cent increase in the volume of substantiated notifications to the Families Department. In that period, substantiated notifications rose from 6,323 to 12,203. All notifications, including those not substantiated, rose by 80 per cent in this period, from 17,233 to 31,068. For every 1,000 children in Queensland there were 14.6 notifications in 1997-98. By 2002-03 that rate had climbed to 23.5 children per 1,000. We can attribute this to a range of factors, including improved awareness of 15 Oct 2003 Ministerial Statement 4097 and willingness to report child abuse, a better reporting system and improved child protection legislation. My government has increased spending to the Families Department to record levels, but we need to be fair and understand that this department has to deal with human misery. It has to deal with very difficult social problems and very serious social dislocation. Not all notifications are genuine. Some people use the Families Department as a weapon in custody disputes or even neighbourhood disputes. This just adds to the challenge and workload for family services officers, whose job is tough at the best of times. The community cannot hide from the ugly truth. No matter how we measure it, child abuse seems to be on the rise. From the most innocent of infants through to street-wise 17-year-olds, our children are increasingly exposed to sexual, physical and emotional abuse. The community cannot continue to sit back and allow this to happen. My government is not looking for excuses, but we cannot solve this alone. If there were not people out in the community abusing children, if there were not family breakdowns and if there were not family dislocations, there would not be a need for a Families Department. The fact of the matter is that there is. We end up with this human misery, where children are often used as pawns. They are used in all sorts of custody cases. The brawls go on. That is why this is one of the most difficult departments in government. There needs to be some community understanding but also some community responsibility. Children are a responsibility of the whole community, not just the government. I want to make it clear that my government is not making excuses. We are fessing up to the problems and we are looking to the CMC and those who make submissions to it for guidance. I thank the people for taking the time to make submissions. The whole community shares the shame. We should measure our worth by how well we raise our children. We should take pride in our successes, but we should also feel shame about how we abuse our children. When we know we have a problem, we must share the responsibility of fixing it. I would hope that we could take some of the politics out of the issue of children. We know that there is a problem. This has been a problem in existence for 30 years. We have increased funding to record levels, but we know that more needs to be done. The minister, Judy Spence, has recently allocated, on behalf of the CBRC and on behalf of the government, more money for training—more money for assisting our employees. We started a reform package five years ago. We are going to continue it. Abuse exists in the community. We have to say to the community that it is absolutely unacceptable for there to be abuse of any children at any time by people in the community. Unfortunately, as I said, there are people who try to use the Families Department as part of their personal struggles. There are people who are not capable of looking after children. Tragically that is the case. We have seen cases of this in the media. There are parents who do not have the ability or capability to look after a child. When that child is taken away from them and taken into the care of the Department of Families, of course they are angry. Of course they will continue to be angry with the Families Department. But is it right to intervene? Yes, it is right, because it is about the paramount interests of the child. Yes, there will be outbursts at the CMC inquiry from individuals and others who feel the frustration of having their children taken away from them, but they have been taken away for the protection of children. We will implement the recommendations, but I would urge those opposite not to politicise this issue and to work in a bipartisan way and put children first.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT First Home Owners Grant Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.48 a.m.): Yesterday we saw reports out of Victoria of toddlers being allowed to claim the Commonwealth's first home owners grant. As a result I asked our Office of State Revenue to check how many children under the age of 16 had claimed the grant in Queensland. It was a difficult task, because it is the Howard government that sets the guidelines under which states administer the scheme, and in its wisdom it decided to have no age requirements in the eligibility criteria. However, I am not surprised. The first home owners grant has no means test. Multimillionaires can access the scheme as easily as struggling young families. The first home owners grant has limited residency requirements. New Zealanders can access the scheme, even 4098 Ministerial Statement 15 Oct 2003 if they have owned a property in New Zealand. Now we find that babies can access it as easily as adults. Preliminary figures from our Office of State Revenue indicate that approximately 150 people under the age of 16 have received the grant since it was introduced in 2000. Dr Watson: Under your legislation. Mr MACKENROTH: You wait. However, the Office of State Revenue believes these figures are not reliable, as lending institutions in some instances may have entered the wrong age. As stated earlier, because age is not a criteria, these ages have not been checked. However, I have asked the Office of State Revenue to check the accuracy of this figure and I will provide a breakdown when the correct figure becomes available. Mr Costello seems to think the scheme is operating fine and has no intention of changing the criteria. Yesterday he even claimed it never occurred to him that toddlers would meet the eligibility requirements. Well, he should have—it is his scheme. I have been advised by the Office of State Revenue that the absence of an age criteria was drawn to the Commonwealth's attention at the time the guidelines were being drafted. I will table for the House a document entitled First Home Owners Scheme, which was drafted to meet the eligibility criteria set out by the Commonwealth in 1999. Recommendation 3 on page 3 clearly states that no minimum age limit for applicants will apply. Not only did Mr Costello claim yesterday that he did not realise toddlers could get the grant; in endeavouring to trivialise the matter he questioned whether they would be signing in finger painting. Clause 1 on recommendation 3 of the same document states that, in situations where an applicant may be suffering a legal disability—for example, a minor or mental incapacity—it is proposed that the grant would be made available. However, a trustee or guardian would be required to apply on behalf of the applicant. Eligibility would be assessed by reference to the beneficiary in such cases. In other words, in Mr Costello's guidelines he gave the power to guardians to sign for kids and they are not required to sign themselves. Obviously Mr Costello does not even know the criteria for his own scheme. If it is good enough for Peter Costello to claim credit for the first home owners grant scheme, then he ought to accept responsibility for guidelines that fail to protect the scheme from abuse. However, if he will not act to correct this anomaly, I will. I have asked my department to urgently draft legislation to ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, no-one under the age of 18 will be eligible for the grant. It is my intention to introduce this legislation in the next sitting week. I will also send a letter to Mr Costello today asking that he undertake an urgent review of the eligibility criteria for the first home owners grant to ensure it delivers fairer outcomes for all Australians. The eligibility criteria are a disgrace and an insult to all hardworking Australians. Mr Costello needs to act now to clean up his mess.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Science Education Ambassador and Task Force Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.53 a.m.): In August this year I launched this comprehensive plan to revitalise science education in our schools. It is an ambitious plan but a necessary one to ensure that Queensland remains at the cutting edge of scientific discovery and innovation. But a plan is only as good as the people driving it. That is why I foreshadowed the appointment of Queensland's first science education ambassador and a high- level task force to turn the ideas and the strategies in this document into action. I am delighted today to announce that prominent Australian scientist and educator Professor Peter Fensham has accepted my invitation to become Queensland's inaugural science education ambassador. Professor Fensham—who recently moved to Queensland from Melbourne—is a recognised world expert on science education. His credentials are extensive. Professor Fensham became the first professor of science education in Australia when he was appointed to Monash University in 1967 and held this position until 1992. He is a member of the Order of Australia. He is also a member of the Science Expert Group on the OECD-PISA project, which is an international assessment program which assesses and measures the performance of 15-year- olds in reading, mathematics and scientific literacy in more than 30 countries around the world. Professor Fensham has also taught and carried out research at universities here and overseas, including Melbourne, Monash, Stanford, London and Leeds. He is not only highly 15 Oct 2003 Ministerial Statement 4099 regarded in the scientific community, both nationally and internationally, but also passionate about opening the eyes and minds of young students to the wonders of science. I thank Professor Fensham for his willingness to take on this new and important role. Queensland is lucky to have right here on our doorstep some of the most inquiring scientific minds. To capitalise on this talent pool, I have appointed prominent Queensland scientist Professor Ian Lowe to head the task force. He will be joining Professor Fensham in the task. Professor Lowe is an emeritus professor at Griffith University and previously headed the university's School of Science. He is well known to Queenslanders, and in 2000 he received the Premier's Millennium Award for Excellence in Science and the Prime Minister's Environmental Award for Outstanding Individual Achievement. Professors Fensham and Lowe and 23 other professionals drawn from the education, industry and research sectors will make up the task force overseeing our science reforms. The task force is a fine blend of youth and experience and includes Queensland's Chief Scientist, Dr Joe Baker; Professor John Mattick from the Institute for Molecular Bioscience; Carol Mayne, the owner of DNA Evidence; Professor Mark von Itzstein from the Institute of Glycomics; and Scott Hocknull, the 2002 Young Australian of the Year. Task force members will be appointed for three years. I am confident professors Fensham and Lowe and the task force members will give science education in our schools the shot in the arm that Queensland needs and will further ignite student interest in this important field of study.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Writers Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.56 a.m.): Queensland writers are becoming a force to be reckoned with. Earlier this year, Arts Queensland undertook a comprehensive review of writing in Queensland with the diagnosis being a healthy industry growing annually and well supported by government. There is a strong community of writers choosing to live in Queensland—a proactive Writers Centre, a nationally significant publisher in the University of Queensland Press, and a range of exciting annual events and initiatives. The public display of all this activity was highlighted during the recent Brisbane Writers Festival. And now there is a new suite of cutting edge initiatives for writers in the 21st century. Writing for Screen, Writing for Music, and Writing for Games are new ideas to encourage writing in the creative industries—for television, film, music and computer game development. Each category will be funded to the tune of $10,000 each year. The plan is for these initiatives to be auspiced and delivered by relevant industry bodies—QPIX for screen writing, the Queensland Biennial Festival of Music for music writing and Fantastic Queensland for computer games. These initiatives focus on professional and commercial assistance to writers for the production of new works in these lucrative areas. At the recent Queensland Poetry Festival, I also announced a three-month annual Poet in Residence program at the Judith Wright Centre. An internationally recognised poet on a stipend of $20,000 will work with our local companies to develop new works and be involved in writing programs at the centre. Other indicators of the Queensland government's strong support for writing are the Queensland Premier's Literary Awards, Arts Queensland's Steele Rudd Australian Short Story Award, the David Uniapon Award for Indigenous Writing, the Judith Wright Calanthe Award for Poetry and the State Library of Queensland Young Writers Award. As Minister for the Arts, I am very proud of a state where we now know Queensland writers. They are no longer 'old and living somewhere else'. They are living here, interacting with our children, inspiring emerging writers, debating at South Bank and reading poetry in the red chamber.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Waiting Times, Elective Surgery Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.58 a.m.): By any measure, Labor's waiting list reduction strategy has been successful in reducing waiting times for elective surgery. The Australian Productivity Commission has confirmed that Queensland now has the shortest waiting times for elective 4100 Ministerial Statement 15 Oct 2003 surgery in the country. Elective surgery, of course, is surgery that can wait as opposed to emergency surgery which cannot wait. Category 1 elective surgery should be done within 30 days according to the expert clinicians and category 2 ideally within 90 days. I am the first to concede that for many non-urgent procedures waiting times can sometimes be longer than anyone would want, often because there is a shortage of particular specialists available to treat public patients—for example, ophthalmologists; and ear, nose and throat specialists. But the fact remains that Labor's waiting list reduction strategy continues to make a significant difference. The latest figures, which are for the June quarter, are the best result ever achieved. Although the number of patients listed as category 1 has more than doubled since 1998, 98 per cent of category 1 patients received their surgery within the 30 days recommended. Only 2.3 per cent—that was 53 patients out of 2,260—had to wait longer than 30 days. For category 2, 95 per cent of patients received their operations within the 90-day period. Only 5.3 per cent—556 patients out of 10,495—had to wait longer than 90 days. It should be remembered that there are sometimes clinical reasons why patients cannot be operated on and, as I have often said, waiting times can vary. The winter months, for example, can see elective surgery take a back seat to medical cases caused by winter ills. When the coalition was in government it refused to publish waiting lists. It refused to make the information publicly available as the Beattie government has done every quarter since being elected. The published data shows some interesting comparisons between 1 July 1998 and 1 July 2003. Category 2 cardio-thoracic—that is heart and chest—waiting times have been reduced from 32 per cent of people waiting too long to 10 per cent. Category 2 neurosurgery waiting times have been reduced from 29 per cent waiting too long to 8.5 per cent. The Gold Coast Hospital's category 2 long waits are down from 19 per cent to 4.8 per cent. Townsville's category 2 long waits are down from 10 per cent to five per cent. In the 1997-98 year, 89,932 public patients received elective surgery compared with 97,235 in the 2002—2003 year. Despite treating thousands of extra public patients, overall the number of people on the waiting lists now is 1,200 less than it was in 1998. While we continue to strive for greater improvements to put Queensland even further ahead of every other state in regard to waiting times for elective surgery, I believe the significant gains we have made should be acknowledged. It is a credit to the staff who work so hard to achieve that.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fashion Industry Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (10.01 a.m.): Queensland's textile and fashion industries are achieving notable growth for the best of reasons. Foremost among them are local companies' ability to exploit their natural advantages and their markets in very innovative ways, as this month's Queensland Fashion Festival again highlights. Tonight I will be speaking at the festival's showpiece event here in Brisbane, the Australian Fashion Design Awards, which receives significant sponsorship from the Department of State Development. This backing is just one of the many ways the department gets behind the industry which, according to most recent figures, employs around 11,700 Queenslanders. Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast in particular are nurturing these thriving textile, clothing, footwear and leather industries. Although these businesses benefit from our natural advantages in cotton and leather production, their successes spring from their ability to exploit market opportunities created by our casual, sporting and outdoor lifestyles. They are smart companies creating significant national and global niche opportunities. The Department of State Development's program of assistance has many facets which also include facilitating Commonwealth financial assistance totalling more than $600,000 in recent years. The department has provided industry development assistance to 52 companies totalling $700,000 and provides a dedicated industry officer working within the sector. It also coordinates a market development project that funds industry cluster activities and helps companies participate in international industry events. Of course the department supports the fashion festival in two important ways. First, it helps run a big industry forum during the festival and, second, it sponsors the Manufacturers' Award at tonight's award celebrations. For the first time this year, the Manufacturers' Award will also have a category for small business, giving smaller innovative companies a chance to gain recognition. As a bonus there is also financial help for all finalists in 15 Oct 2003 Ministerial Statement 4101 the Manufacturers' Award to participate in the annual Hong Kong Fashion Week. The principal sponsor for the awards is the international telecommunications company 3. The Queensland government will continue to support the textile and fashion industries in Queensland to expand and prosper. The Department of State Development has a memorandum of understanding to cooperate with the National Retail Association in key areas of industry activity. We look forward to working with the association to fashion more Queensland successes in the future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Loganholme Police Station Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (10.04 a.m.): As members would know, in the police portfolio we have a huge capital works program. I wish it was bigger because almost everybody in the state wants to get themselves a new police station, and that is certainly a hard ask. An opposition member interjected. Mr McGRADY: We just painted that for you. However, we do recognise that there are certain areas which are growing so rapidly that totally new stations are required. Loganholme was one such area. The members down that way have been crying out for more policing facilities for some time. I am pleased to report that the Loganholme Police Station is now 70 per cent complete and it is on track for completion by the end of the year. This $2.5 million project does not just mean a new, 24-hour police station for the people of Loganholme. It means extra police and a whole new police division. The new Loganholme police division will service the suburbs of Loganholme, Carbrook, Cornubia, Tanah Merah and Shailer Park and complement the work of the Slacks Creek and Logan Central divisions. I went out with Barbara Stone to inspect the new station about a fortnight ago on Bryants Road. It is in a great spot on the main road there so it is highly visible, which in itself acts as a deterrent to crime. The station is now about 70 per cent complete, with the external walls finished, the roof in place and internal wall linings almost complete. About 20 officers will work from the new station. We should see the new Loganholme police division up and running by very early in the new year. The station will provide facilities for general duties officers, the Criminal Investigation Bureau and Juvenile Aid Bureau, electronic interview rooms, witnesses' quiet rooms, a home look- a-like room, holding cells, storage areas and other amenities. Last year we also created a new division at Calamvale and provided a $2.5 million station for that area to boost resources on the south side. Members opposite are quite fond of whining that we are not providing enough police or police stations, or whatever. But there are projects like this right across the state up and down the length and breadth of Queensland, as the Minister for Transport said, like the $7 million Mundingburra police complex, the nearly $20 million Toowoomba complex, or the millions again spent in Rockhampton and Mount Isa, just to name a few areas. All these serve as concrete proof that we are serious about providing the Queensland community with the policing resources it needs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Speed Cameras Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.07 a.m.): In November last year I informed the House of an independent evaluation of Queensland's speed camera program that was being undertaken. The review was done by Monash University Accident Research Centre—or MUARC—and is now complete. The results are very encouraging and a strong endorsement of the program's effectiveness. The broad aim of MUARC's research was to establish the impact of the speed camera program on Queensland's road toll. The speed camera program was first introduced in Queensland in 1997—and I acknowledge the Borbidge government and the former minister—and remains a critical part of the state government's agenda to reduce speeding on our roads and so reduce the number of people who 4102 Ministerial Statement 15 Oct 2003 are needlessly injured or killed. The evaluation study just completed looked at the effects of speed cameras on the number of crashes in Queensland from the program's introduction to the end of June 2001. MUARC considered that as 73 per cent of all accidents occurred within a two kilometre radius of Queensland's speed camera sites, a study of these accidents would provide a good indication of the program's worth. The overwhelming finding of the study was that there is a clear association between the introduction of the speed camera program and reductions in reported crashes in areas surrounding speed camera sites. Specifically, the results indicate that when operating at maximum coverage, the speed camera program produced estimated reductions in fatal crashes of around 45 per cent in areas within two kilometres of speed camera sites. There were also corresponding reductions of 31 per cent for hospitalisation crashes, 39 per cent for medically treated crashes, 19 per cent for other injury crashes and 21 per cent for non- injury crashes. These results are unambiguous. They mean fewer Queenslanders being involved in a smaller number of accidents each year. That is 110 fatal crashes, 1,100 hospitalisation crashes, 2,200 medically treated crashes, 500 other injury crashes and 1,600 non-injury crashes that did not occur but would be expected if the speed camera program was not in operation. In terms of total annual road trauma in Queensland, these savings represent a 32 per cent reduction in fatal crashes, a 26 per cent reduction in fatal to medically treated crashes combined and a 21 per cent reduction in all reported casualty crashes. I am sure members would agree that these are excellent outcomes. As part of the evaluation, MUARC also developed a social benefit to cost ratio for the speed camera program. For the period of the evaluation, the benefit to cost ratio was estimated to be 47. This means that for every dollar spent on the program there is a saving to the community of $47, due to crashes prevented by the operation of the program. This clearly indicates that the program is also a highly cost-effective means of reducing road trauma. Furthermore, the evaluation revealed that the total benefit to the Queensland community in dollar terms since the speed camera program was introduced until June 2001 was estimated at $2.866 billion. I am sure all members will agree that these results prove that the Queensland speed camera program is an effective road safety tool and continues to be a major contributor to saving lives on Queensland roads.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Wallum Heath Management Plan Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.10 a.m.): Last month, in conjunction with Maroochy shire, I launched the Sunshine Coast Airport Wallum Heath Management Plan, which I table for the interest of honourable members. The management plan provides for rehabilitation of the heath, which will not only deter larger bird species but also provide habitat for specialised fauna, including the ground parrot, which is 'vulnerable' under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is interesting that the revegetation at Maroochy airport will actually make the airport safer. The non-natural vegetation that will be replaced is habitat for birds that can get in the way of planes and cause incidents. The natural wallum heath is home to the ground parrot which is entirely compatible with 21st century aeronautical technology. As a result Maroochy airport will become unique; the only ecosystem in the world where the birds are on the ground and primates are in the air. Wallum heath is a low-growing coastal heath community adapted to sandy soils low in nutrients. It is diverse and rich in wild flowers and home to a wide variety of flora and fauna, several species of which are threatened. It is restricted to areas between Bundaberg and northern New South Wales. In south-east Queensland, wallum heath once extended over much of the Sunshine Coast, offshore islands and the Gold Coast. This government has reserved examples of wallum heath in its protected estate, for example, in Maroochy, Noosa and Emu Mountain National Parks. Additions in 2001 as a result of the Noosa and Maroochy state land audit, increased the Mount Coolum National Park by approximately 300 hectares— Ms Molloy: Hear, hear. Mr WELLS:—I thank the honourable member for Noosa—and Noosa National Park by 280 hectares. The latter includes a section of high dune land along the western side of the David Low Way at Marcus Shores. The state government, through the Environment Protection Agency, is 15 Oct 2003 Ministerial Statement 4103 also collaborating with industry, local councils and land-holders to protect remnants on private land. The EPA and the Maroochy Shire Council have jointly purchased 75 hectares to become the Coolum Creek Conservation Park. Recent negotiations with the developers of Bundilla have resulted in the dedication of 25 hectares as conservation reserve. The Sunshine Coast University is cooperating in relocating and salvaging wallum species on 15 hectares of former grazing land. The success of this work will be monitored and aligned to a teaching program. This government's commitment to protecting the wallum heath community is clearly demonstrated through these initiatives.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Community Renewal Program Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.13 a.m.): In September 1998 our government established a comprehensive initiative drawing together state, non-government and local agencies to reinvigorate communities in Queensland struggling with complex social and economic stress. Since then, $83.5 million has been committed to the Community Renewal Program, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are fulfilling our election commitments to the people of Queensland. In consultation with residents in 15 local community renewal areas across the state, we have funded 548 projects. Community renewal directs planning and resources to community identified issues, ranging from youth homelessness and family breakdown to inequalities in infrastructure. Community renewal projects provide job creation initiatives, vocational and life skills training, and innovative education and local economic development projects to bring about sustainable solutions and change. In December 1998 we commenced community renewal in Eagleby, Kingston, Loganlea, Woodridge, Garbutt in Townsville, Manoora in Cairns, Inala and the Ipswich suburbs of Goodna/Gailes, Leichhardt and Riverview/Dinmore. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. I refer to standing order 107 and move— That the minister be not further heard. Question—That the minister be not further heard—put; and the House divided— AYES, 15—Copeland, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson NOES, 67—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bell, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Flynn, C. Foley, M. Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, E. Roberts, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Mr SCHWARTEN, continuing: I am glad of that resounding vote of confidence in my ability, Mr Speaker. In December 1998 we commenced community renewal in Eagleby, Kingston, Loganlea, Woodridge, Garbutt in Townsville, Manoora in Cairns, Inala and the Ipswich suburbs of Goodna/Gailes, Leichhardt and Riverview/Dinmore. Programs in Caboolture South and Deception Bay followed in November 1999 and Palm Island in July 2000, and our first term projects included the provision of health services, including child health, and nurses to caravan park residents in Logan; an upgrade of the Woodridge Adventure Park by consulting with local young people on new sporting facilities; and renovations to four schools in Deception Bay by 12 previously unemployed young people. This term $45 million is continuing the community renewal in some existing areas, finalising efforts in other areas and commencing renewal programs in the Vincent and Rasmussen suburbs in the Townsville region. Projects this term include a new $900,000 community centre in Leichhardt, which was officially opened by the Premier on 12 July this year and which provides residents with access to Job Search and literacy and numeracy programs; counselling services and a long day child care centre; $92,310 for a 21-week employment and training program for five young people in Manoora to beautify and upgrade public parks; $453,708 for antenatal education and a playgroup for young fathers to help them bond with their children and meet other dads; and the employment of a public safety officer for three years in Caboolture south, where the vehicle theft reduction project has already helped reduce vehicle theft in this particular hot spot by 50 per cent compared with the same time the previous year. 4104 Private Members' Statements 15 Oct 2003

A government member: Good results. Mr SCHWARTEN: The people on this side of the parliament are interested in this project. Community renewal is achieving its goal of helping develop communities where people feel valued, safe and proud.

BEACH PROTECTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL All Stages; Abridgment of Time Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.23 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to enable the Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill to pass through all its remaining stages this week.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10. 23 a.m.): I advise honourable members that the House can continue to meet past 7.30 p.m. this day. The House can break for dinner at 7 p.m. and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.

NOTICE OF MOTION Water Supply Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (10.24 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That this House believes that the Queensland state government has not done all it presently can to provide adequate financial backing, in collaboration with the federal government, for an improved program of water supply to our farms and cities.

NOTICE OF MOTION Department of Families Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.24 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That this House calls on the Queensland government to increase funding to the Department of Families from areas such as printed promotional material; the Premier's public relations department and media areas—to enable an increase in the number of family support officers; increase in training of current young or inexperienced officers and an increase in the response and monitoring of families with reported problems.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Labor Party Web Site Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.25 a.m.): We have heard much in this House in the last few days from honourable members opposite about parliamentary or political web sites. I would have thought, given the government was setting itself up as an example of modern technology and open, accessible policy for the people of Queensland, that it would be leading the way. I went to the Labor Party web site to find out what their policies are for the next state election. After some degree of difficulty, I went to 'About'. There were some references to 'policy', so I read through them. Each and every one of them was from the last state election. There was nothing there for the next election whatsoever. There was a policy on the crown-of-thorns starfish program which has now expired under this government. I thought I would type in a search and see how many references I could find to 'policy'. There were 148 references. I thought to myself, 'This shows that this mob is an absolute policy powerhouse.' When I started to go through them I found that 137 of those references related to their privacy policy. So there were 148 references to 'policy'; of that, 137 referred to their privacy policy. They said they did not need a privacy policy. It was not until the opposition raised this issue some months ago that they put that on the web site. We are at least responsible for 137 policy hits on their web site. If anyone wants access to the Labor Party's policy agenda for the next state election one has to be prepared to pay $10 because it is not freely available on their web site. Is it any wonder 15 Oct 2003 Questions Without Notice 4105 that this government is out of ideas. It is out of money. We need a fresh start. That is why we need a change of government.

Department of Families; Child Abuse Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): I quote— The protection of children in care is one of the most fundamental priorities of any government. And, if it means having to allocate another $10 million, we'll do it. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. But how does this gel with the actions of the Nationals in government? In 1985 Graham Zerk, the Director of Children's Services, reported to the parliament that, due to a continuing increase in child abuse notifications, his department could not meet its statutory obligations to protect children because it was grossly underresourced. Then Minister Muntz responded by saying— The answer to this serious problem does not necessarily lie in an increase in staff. It requires extensive public education and a greater acceptance of the responsibility of parenthood. Funding of additional staff will never replace the discipline and supervision of responsible parents. Those who choose to be parents must accept the role. The taxpayer cannot be asked to bear the increasing cost of parent neglect. What a doozey! Minister Muntz went on to say that the staffing needs of police, teachers and nurses had higher priorities. I then moved a motion to debate that report. The government used its numbers to defeat the motion. Mr Zerk was later dismissed. There was no royal commission, no investigation, no debate—end of story! In 1988, a submission from the Bjelke-Petersen government to the Burdekin inquiry stated that the majority of homeless children had been wards of the state. Obviously, the government, which has a statutory obligation to protect children whose parents cannot or will not look after them from neglect, abuse or exploitation, brazenly abrogated its responsibilities. The reaction of that government was to give them a suitcase and show them the door. This Opposition Leader has the gall to accuse Minister Spence of playing catch-up. The Opposition Leader should acknowledge the appalling record of his party in government, go back to his positive politics mantra and support the positive agenda of the Minister for Family Services. The Beattie government deserves credit as the first government to address this longstanding underresourcing of child protection. Obviously, more needs to be done to make the Department of Families more effective. Those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Department of Families; Whistleblower Protection Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My question without notice is to the Minister for Families. I refer to an email sent to the minister by a Disability Services Queensland whistleblower who states that previous letters granting him whistleblower status were 'not worth the paper they were written on,' and I ask: is the minister prepared to publicly commit to extending the full protection and safeguards provided by the Whistleblowers Protection Act to any staff of the Families Department and Disability Services Queensland who come forward with substantial evidence and allegations about mismanagement and misconduct within these departments? Ms SPENCE: I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to an email from the whistleblower whom he mentioned in the parliament last week. I have another email from that same gentleman, a Mr Crossingham. He sent this email to his supervisor last week and I would just like to read out a little bit of it. Jan— that is his supervisor— Yesterday I sent an email to our Minister, Judy Spence, and I assume that sooner or later it will get back to you for a please explain. This morning I had a phone call from 's office, a Mr Greg Jackson, and later on I had a phone call from a Mr Patrick Condren who is from Channel 7. I am assuming, maybe incorrectly, that Mr Springborg's office leaked my email to Mr Condren. I spoke to Mr Jackson after verifying he was who he said he was, but refused to speak to Mr Condren and instead directed him to DSQ's media spokesperson for permission. What we see here is that the gentleman who sent the email to me sent it to other members of parliament. What he did not expect was that—and I am sure most of our constituents when they write to us about their personal issues do not expect this—we were going to run to the media or 4106 Questions Without Notice 15 Oct 2003 run to this parliament and make it a public issue. In this case, the gentleman concerned did not want his case made a public issue. We need to be very, very careful when dealing with allegations. I receive allegations from individuals every single day of the week—allegations against our residential care officers or our family services officers. I am really very careful before I start bringing them out here in the public domain, because we have a number of avenues now in place where people can lodge their grievances and have them dealt with independently. There is no need to run to the parliament or run to the media. There are lots of checks and balances in our system. What we are seeing at the moment is a few Disability Services Queensland officers who are fighting for various reasons over some workplace matters. We have their union representative, Mr Mills, emailing all members of parliament and leaking material to the media. Mr Mills, I think, sums up the views of some of our residential care officers. Mr Mills says in his email to all of the members— The policy of deinstitutionalisation also seems to be at any cost to both client and career. I think he means 'carer'. Clients who have known violent histories are placed in the community to support the policy position. Some clients that have assaulted careers— carers— to the state have broken bones and rendering careers unconscious are put out to live in the community to support the policy and it must be noted that the clients cannot stand trial for assault because of their mental status. If we go on and examine what Mr Mills is about and the particular small group of unionists who he is supporting, he has not changed his tune. He has been doing the same thing for a long time. There are a small group of RCOs who, frankly, do not accept deinstitutionalisation and they are still trying to fight against that. Mr Springborg: There are substantive issues. Ms SPENCE: Yes, I have great concern that those RCOs are still in our system. I think that it is unfortunate, but they are there. But if they want to complain, then there are lots of mechanisms for complaint.

Department of Families; Child Abuse Mr SPRINGBORG: I have a further question for the minister. The counsel assisting the CMC inquiry into child abuse has clearly indicated that the minister's department is failing to carry out its legislative obligations in relation to six-monthly reviews of foster care arrangements. In fact, he said, and I quote— It is not possible at this stage for that to occur, given the resources available to the department. The minister concurred with Mr Morgan when she admitted in her testimony, and I quote— That section 88— of the Child Protection Act— is not necessarily being complied with. Has this record of non-compliance occurred only under the minister's ministry, or was it also the case under the previous minister who actually brought in the legislation? Ms SPENCE: It is fortunate that the Premier and I established a CMC inquiry to look openly at all sections of Queensland's child abuse, because what would the opposition do for questions this week if they did not have an inquiry happening? Mind you, this was the inquiry that the Leader of the Opposition opposed and one that he had no confidence in. It is the same inquiry that he comes in here and quotes from every day, the same inquiry where he is trying to unduly and inappropriately put pressure on Mr Butler to report early, because he cannot wait to see the recommendations. I think that all Queenslanders understand now that the opposition is all over the place in a policy sense when it comes to child protection. Yesterday morning, we all saw that there was no policy on child protection. The Premier and I looked up the Queensland Nationals' policies. There was nothing mentioned there. Mr Schwarten: No mention of families. 15 Oct 2003 Questions Without Notice 4107

Ms SPENCE: Nothing. By question time, the Leader of the Opposition wanted to remind us that indeed the Nationals did have a policy and it was to employ 30 child protection workers and that they had announced that policy in August at their state conference and how dare we forget it. Then the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the Matters of Public Interest debate. There was no mention of a policy. He then immediately ran out, called a media conference, found some policy from here, went over to the Annexe, and announced another 200 child protection workers. That is what the National Party would do. In their first two months of government, they would advertise nationwide. Two hundred child protection workers would solve the problems of the Department of Families and indeed fix Queensland's child protection workers. Yes, it would help. Mr Schwarten: Policy on the run. Ms SPENCE: It is policy on the run, but it would help only if these things were done in a systematic and planned way. As I mentioned yesterday, at the moment we are advertising for an additional 79 officers in the Department of Families. We have advertised nationwide and we will be trying to engage the most experienced family services officers that we can. But these things do not happen overnight and it will take quite some processes to get those officers trained and on board. So yes, I agree that additional staff will make a difference, but our child protection system is not just about additional family services officers; it is about our alternative care team. It is about the number of foster carers we have, the number of alternative care places we have for children in care. If the opposition took time to really learn about Queensland's child protection system, if it really took the time to learn all the complexities of the system, it would be able to put together a much better policy than the 200 officers on the run policy. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Stafford, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Teranganba State School in the electorate of Keppel.

South-East Queensland, Population Growth Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Valuing the environment is one of the state government's key priorities. Given that south-east Queensland has the fastest growing population growth in Australia, what is the government doing to protect and expand open space for current and future generations? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Stafford for his question because he, like me, represents a seat which will be directly affected by the visionary policies we have for the future. Recently the Courier-Mail ran a series of articles focusing on the need to expand areas of open space in south-east Queensland. The newspaper highlighted the possibility that, without such open space, urban development could end up stretching in a continuous line from Coolangatta to Noosa and west to Ipswich. The government has no argument with this proposition, and I congratulate the Courier-Mail for running that series of articles. There is one thing I do take issue with. The newspaper coverage was incomplete. It did not give due regard to the government's record in establishing substantial areas of open space. For the benefit of the House I would like to place on record the many initiatives already under way to address this issue. I have discussed these matters with the member for Stafford and I will continue to do so. The first initiative is the regional framework for growth management and SEQ 2021 which, via the Department of Local Government and Planning, provides a strategic and regional approach to planning in south-east Queensland. The second is national park and conservation park acquisitions through which the government has increased the protected estate to approximately 7.8 million hectares. The third is the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement, which will protect 800,000 hectares of state forest by converting it to other protected tenures by 2024. This initiative alone is one of the most significant initiatives of any government to protect open spaces. The fourth initiative is the State Coastal Management Plan and associated regional coastal management plans. These protect public access to the coast and constrain development to preserve the coastal landscape and, of course, coastal biodiversity. The fifth is the regional nature conservation strategy for south-east Queensland, which protects and enhances regional significant biodiversity and nature conservation areas. The sixth is the vegetation management legislation, which protects remnant vegetation on both leasehold and freehold land subject to degradation and salinity hazard. The seventh is a new initiative to give land tax and stamp duty relief to private owners and local governments who agree to protect parcels of land under nature conservation agreements. The eighth is the establishment of a Queensland Trust for Nature to 4108 Questions Without Notice 15 Oct 2003 receive government and philanthropic donations to provide a revolving fund to enable open space areas to be bought, covenanted and resold. I am proud of these achievements but, understandably, this issue continues to ignite the interests of Queenslanders, particularly in the state's south-east. We will need to be innovative to continue protecting open space as rapid population growth continues. The government is now working on a range of further initiatives that will allow all levels of government, as well as private land-holders, to share in the protection of open space. That is our record. It is a proud record but, as in all areas, we cannot afford to stand still. There will be future initiatives as well.

First Home Owners Grant Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his admission this morning that there could be as many as 150 people under the age of 16 in Queensland in receipt of the first home owners grant, and I ask: why did the Treasurer not immediately amend Queensland's first home owners grant legislation after the New South Wales Treasurer wrote to him and all other state governments in April 2001 informing them of the New South Wales decision to close this age loophole, an action subsequently taken only by South Australia? In other words, why has the Treasurer done nothing for two and a half years, despite knowing of this loophole? Mr MACKENROTH: As I informed the House this morning, the preliminary figures indicated that approximately 150 people under the age of 15 had received the grant. Yesterday I asked the Office of State Revenue to check those figures. I think we need to understand that, because there is no age criteria, when lending institutions lodged the applications the actual age was not checked because there was no need to. The Office of State Revenue has gone back to lending institutions and checked the ages. I did not think we would have that information until late this afternoon. I have been informed that, as at 10.30, the figure is 28, not 150. The lending institutions have actually put the wrong date. In some instances they have put the date that they had actually signed it. That is what has happened. I clearly stated this morning that this scheme is a federal scheme. It is not our scheme; it is a federal scheme. We administer the scheme. I would be quite happy to change the scheme to have the rules that I think should be in place, because I do not think millionaires should get the grant. I would be quite happy to change the legislation in relation to millionaires. As I have stated, this year I will amend the legislation in parliament in relation to age. I stated that in my statement to the parliament this morning. I will do that.

Ipswich Ms NOLAN: My question is addressed to the Premier. As the Premier knows, I am proud to represent the new Ipswich. Would the Premier update the House on some of the changes which have recently taken place in this fabulous, dynamic community? Mr BEATTIE: I am only too happy to do that. I thank the member for Ipswich for her question. I was with her on Friday, along with the member for Bundamba and the member for Ipswich West. There are some very exciting things happening in what we all describe as the new Ipswich. Ipswich may be one of Queensland's oldest cities, but it is continuing to reinvent itself with new industries, a vibrant education sector and a reinvigorated community spirit. That is why I keep referring to it as the new Ipswich. I congratulate them for that. Last week it was my pleasure to visit the new Ipswich and open two projects which typify the changes occurring in that community. The University of Queensland's completely Internet enabled campus at Ipswich is gaining a growing reputation as a centre for Smart State innovation, using cutting-edge technology to teach students from around the state. Its development means that students no longer have to leave Ipswich to pursue a tertiary education, and it is a sign that the city has come of age. The third and final stage of phase 1, which I opened on Friday, integrates many student and staff services and will enable the campus to take a lead role in driving the use of new technology across the entire university. In fact, the campus is being used as a catalyst to introduce initiatives such as flexible learning, which means that people can study from various locations, including their homes, through the innovative use of technology. Overall, $51 million has been invested in the site, including my government's contribution of $11.75 million and the former Challinor Centre facilities. In addition to that, Education Queensland gave $8 million to the then Department of 15 Oct 2003 Questions Without Notice 4109

Families, Youth and Community Care as compensation for the site. The investment has been worth every cent. Our contribution to the new Redbank-Riverview connection road was another worthwhile investment, as the member for Bundamba would know. My government and the Ipswich City Council each provided $2.5 million to complete the new road, which provides residents with an alternative to the busy . The opening of the road honours a 2001 election promise that I made. It will benefit the community by providing better access for emergency vehicles and making it easier for local residents to travel to health and educational facilities. It should also encourage closer interaction between the two communities, which are displaying a new civic pride as a result of improved facilities provided under the urban renewal programs. Ipswich is a community that people are proud to call home, and the changes it is undergoing are making the knockers sit back and take notice of one of Queensland's most innovative cities. I want to congratulate the members for Ipswich, Bundamba and Ipswich West for the way they have worked as a team to promote their community. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Supported by the member for Inala, who has worked very hard in the background. Ipswich is doing a great job. I congratulate the people of the city.

Department of Families; Child Abuse Mr SEENEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Families. I refer to the answer the minister gave earlier this morning to the Leader of the Opposition regarding a whistleblower in the disability services area. Why did the minister choose to name that whistleblower in this parliament—something that the opposition has not done? Is this her idea of protecting people who come forward with information? Ms SPENCE: The hypocrisy is amazing. You gave that email to all the journalists in Queensland last week; I did not, but subsequently his name became part of the public record. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We all want to hear the answer. We do not want to hear untruths. Mr SPEAKER: May I suggest that it is impossible to hear the answer when you keep on— Mr SEENEY: The person was not named by us or by the media. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Ms SPENCE: They do not behave like an opposition that wants to hear answers. Today and yesterday they have been behaving more like badly behaved schoolboys. I am quite used to dealing with badly behaved schoolboys. I often found when I was teaching that they were the ones who could not keep up with what was being taught and that was the reason for their bad behaviour. So I am not surprised. As I said before, that gentleman has emailed a number of members of parliament. The opposition gave his email to the press last week, and his name has subsequently been in the public domain. I responded to that gentleman yesterday. I personally wrote him a letter suggesting that he take his extra complaints to the Queensland Police Service, to the CMC or work through the complaints process of Disability Services Queensland. As I said, there are a number of avenues that whistleblowers in this state can use to make sure that their issues of concern get addressed appropriately. If information of that nature is given to me by constituents or by members of the bureaucracy, I immediately refer those or similar types of allegations to the CMC or to the Queensland Police Service, and I would encourage all members of parliament to do that in the future—and that means the opposition as well. If those opposite have allegations or concerns, send them to the proper authorities.

Ipswich Motorway Mr LIVINGSTONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. I refer the minister to the Commonwealth government's continual refusal to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway, and I ask: can the minister please advise the House what is the federal government's current position on the Ipswich Motorway? Mr BREDHAUER: The member for Blair, Cameron Thompson, is a fraud. I have been besieged by him over the last two years demanding that we undertake an investigation into an 4110 Questions Without Notice 15 Oct 2003 alternative northern corridor for the Ipswich Motorway, notwithstanding the fact that a study undertaken by the Department of Main Roads in conjunction with the federal government determined that an upgrade, a six-laning, of the Ipswich Motorway was required. He has badgered me and he has badgered the federal minister to try to get consideration of a northern corridor. After two years of persisting with that, Mr Thompson is now trying to convince the media and others that preliminary advice provided to DOTARS, the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, by my department late last year at the request of the Commonwealth government indicates that the state government was preparing to plan a northern corridor. Nothing could be further from the truth. The information was only provided to the federal department at the insistence of the federal department at the urging of the federal member for Blair, Cameron Thompson, and for no other reason. In October last year I wrote to the federal Transport Minister and I told him that. I told him that notwithstanding the urgings of the member for Blair there would be a need for an upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. I welcome the $66 million that the Commonwealth has contributed to begin upgrading the motorway, but the motorway needs $600 million to upgrade it and the federal minister has indicated he is not prepared to make any commitment beyond the $66 million. I can also tell the House that Cameron Thompson says that the upgraded motorway would not ease the burden on the congestion on the Ipswich Motorway in 10 years time. The study done by Main Roads with the federal government indicates that there would be improved trafficability on that road even in 20 years time with the upgrade. Now the member for Blair has created turmoil in the Liberal Party—and don't we know it! The candidate for Moggill, Bruce Flegg, had a meeting the other night and over 500 people turned up to give Cameron Thompson a flogging over his proposals to have a northern corridor wind its way through the leafy suburbs of Moggill. We know where the member for Blair stands; we know where the candidate for Moggill stands; we even know where the Liberal candidate for Ipswich West, Jean Bray, stands: she supports Cameron Thompson and the alternative corridor. What I want to know is where does Michael Johnson stand on all of this? Why does the Courier-Mail not ask Michael Johnson what he thinks about Cameron Thompson's proposal? We support the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway, and I will continue my campaign with the local members to get the Commonwealth government to fund it.

Emergency Departments Waiting Times Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Waiting time data shows that the Caboolture Hospital failed to meet the standard for immediate treatment of category 1 emergency patients requiring resuscitation. For category 2 patients requiring treatment within 10 minutes, 13 of the 21 reporting hospitals failed to meet the standards, with the Redland Hospital the worst, where only 53.5 per cent of patients were treated within the required time. For category 3 patients requiring treatment within 30 minutes, 19 of the 21 hospitals failed to meet the standards, with the worst being Redland, where only 39.9 per cent were treated within that time, Logan at 42.3 per cent and Royal Brisbane at 44.5 per cent. These are not GP type patients; they are patients requiring priority treatment which most of our hospitals are failing to provide. Will the minister tell Queenslanders what her plan is to address this failure of emergency departments to treat very urgent cases in our hospital system? Mrs EDMOND: Mr Speaker— Opposition members interjected. Mrs EDMOND: Mr Speaker, do you think they would like to hear the answer, or are they going to continue with that blathering? I had the advantage of spending the last couple of my years of schooling with my Irish grandmother. She taught me a lot. One of the things she taught me was about empty vessels. Some members might have heard that empty vessels make the most noise, and I think that is still the case. We should all have Irish grannies; she taught me a lot. Another thing she taught me was not to believe what people get up and rant and rave about because the louder they shout the more inaccurate it is likely to be. The latest emergency department figures show that 99.9 per cent of category 1 emergency department patients across the state were seen immediately by a doctor. There is room for 15 Oct 2003 Questions Without Notice 4111 improvement and I will make sure it happens. Hospitals to record 100 per cent of category 1 patients seen immediately include the Royal Brisbane Hospital, the Royal Children's, Rockhampton Hospital—in my fine friend's electorate—Gold Coast Hospital, Logan, Mater Adults, Redland, Toowoomba, PAH and Mackay. Cairns missed by a whisker with 99.4 per cent. Ms Boyle: It's getting better. Mrs EDMOND: It is getting better. Across the state, 77 per cent of category 2 patients were seen by a doctor within 10 minutes—which is very close to the national target of 80 per cent. This is a tremendous performance by public hospital emergency departments, and how they get sick and tired of being constantly berated in the media by the member for Maroochydore! It is particularly important and impressive given the demands placed on them by increasing attendances of patients who could be better served by GPs because of failed federal government health policies. While clearly we are seeing the most urgent cases in a timely manner, I can assure the House that we will continue to strive for that 100 per cent. The Townsville emergency department is one that is constantly undermined by the member for Maroochydore, but 100 per cent of its category 1 emergency department patients were immediately seen by a doctor. That 100 per cent record has been maintained for the past two years, despite the efforts of the member for Maroochydore. The June quarter figures show that 85.7 per cent of category 2 patients at Townsville were seen by a doctor within 10 minutes when the nationally accepted target is 80 per cent. They have outscored the national achievement. Two years ago Townsville was seeing 53 per cent of category 2 patients on time. We should congratulate Townsville; instead, we hear constant harping and criticism by the member for Maroochydore. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Glass House, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Mundubbera State School in the electorate of Callide. The honourable member for Glass House.

Teachers Ms MALE: My question is to the Minister for Education. The federal Education Minister last week released a report on Australia's teaching work force. The report hit the headlines with its warning that Australia faced a shortage of 30,000 teachers by 2010. In light of this report, can the minister advise members about the state of Queensland's teaching stocks and what the government is doing to attract and retain quality teachers? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and her well-known support of the schools in her electorate. I think everybody in this House would agree that teachers are the important backbone of our schools. It is for that reason, and the value that the community places on them, that they are often the subject of reports, as the supply of teachers is often the subject of reports. The latest report, Australia's Teachers: Australia's Future, which was commissioned by the Commonwealth and was chaired Professor Kwong Lee Dow, has just been provided to the minister. It is the latest in a long list of reports to identify ways to attract and retain our highly skilled teachers. The report, as the honourable member outlined, warns of a national teacher shortage by 2010 on the back of an exodus of retiring teachers. I am very pleased to advise the House that Queensland does not currently have a teacher shortage. However, the average age of Queensland's teaching work force is rising. At 41 the average age of Queensland teachers is the lowest in Australia. Queensland does face some challenges that are not faced by other states in attracting and retaining teachers in high speciality areas, particularly maths and science in regional and remote Queensland. I am also pleased to advise the House that the report outlined five priority areas of action. Queensland is taking proactive steps in each of those five areas. The first was a suggestion that we need to energise the sciences and technology and prioritise innovation in our schools. As I advised the House this morning, Queensland does have a $14 million, three-year plan to revitalise science education in Queensland. It includes new initiatives and builds on the eight centres of excellence in technology, maths and science. The second area of priority was the need for governments to attract and retain Queensland teachers. Education Queensland has recently launched a promotional campaign to encourage more students to consider a career in teaching, and that is having an effect. The government has also recently settled enterprise bargaining with the Queensland Teachers Union which will see Queensland teachers in years 4 to 10 with the smallest class sizes in the country. 4112 Questions Without Notice 15 Oct 2003

The third area of priority was the need to revitalise the teaching profession. We now have in place a range of new professionalism initiatives, including scholarships and grants ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 to recognise and reward our best teachers. The last two priority areas require us to focus on strengthening teacher education and professional learning and supporting future schools through leadership teams and partnerships. I am pleased to advise that there are many projects occurring in that area, including almost $40 million in professional development. What better opportunity could members have to recognise the work and the important contribution that our teachers make than to congratulate them on World Teachers Day. World Teachers Day is on 31 October this year. I will be presenting awards to some of our most talented and inspiring teachers. Local events will be occurring across the state and many schools will be recognising the contribution of their teachers on that day. I would encourage all members to contact their local schools and find out what they can do to recognise the valuable work that our teachers and our teacher aides do.

Department of Families; Child Abuse Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question is to the Minister for Families. Since the investigations commenced into the Department of Families' handling of the safety of children in their care, I am sure detailed reports have been prepared for the minister. As a result of those investigations, can the minister clarify what level of concern has been raised over time either by the official visitors or by a person appointed by the chief executive officer for the review of child placements? Ms SPENCE: It is quite true that a number of reports have been prepared for me for the CMC inquiry. In fact, the government put a whole-of-government submission to the inquiry and I understand that is on the Internet for the public domain. My opening statement to the inquiry is also a matter of public interest. That is also on the Internet, as is the three-hour questioning period that I undertook with the CMC. The CMC has put all of that information on the Internet. I encourage all members to have a look at all of the reports that the government has provided to the inquiry because they provide a lot of detailed information about what we have done in the last five years, what we do see as the weaknesses and strengths in the current child protection system and where we do believe that we can head in the future. I think the information that is going to be provided to the inquiry in the next week and a half will also provide valuable information to help us collectively rethink where we are heading with child protection in this state. At a government level, we do not believe that we have all the answers. There are a lot of very good professional non-government providers and academics who have thought about these issues and will be appearing before the inquiry with their points of view. I understand that all of this information will ultimately go on the Internet and people can have a look at what is being said at the inquiry on a daily basis. I also have to say that not everything the inquiry hears is going to be accurate. The inquiry counsel, Mr Terry Morgan, who is doing the questioning there this week, said on Monday, 'Not all of the facts and opinions that are to be raised in this hearing are substantiated.' We are going to hear a lot of facts and figures and numbers which may or may not be accurate. I guess everyone saw on the news last night that a member of the public intervened in the inquiry yesterday. She was described as a distressed mother who claimed that the Department of Families took away her children. I have to say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on the public record that this person has threatened the safety of my family and I and also caused me considerable personal anguish. She has threatened the safety of departmental officers. I understand that she has also made threats against some people in the media. The person and her husband stalked and threatened the former Minister for Families, and her husband was convicted and jailed for that offence. They also have a long history of harassing a range of people, including the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Regrettably, this case highlights the traumatic work that our staff do every single day of the week and that I, as a minister, do every single day of the week. It is always traumatic for our staff to make a decision to remove children from their families. It is always traumatic to have your children removed. I think we should remember, when we hear allegations from members of parliament, that there are two sides to a story.

Workplace Sprain and Strain Injuries Mr WILSON: My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer the minister to the high rate of sprain and strain injuries suffered by Queensland workers each year, and I ask: what 15 Oct 2003 Questions Without Notice 4113 is the government doing to help reduce the risk of these injuries and the associated costs in the workplace? Mr NUTTALL: Can I firstly thank the honourable member for his question. Manual tasks in the workplace—like lifting or carrying equipment or products, or moving elderly people in aged care homes—are tasks that people in the workplace often take for granted, but they are some of the most high-risk activities in the workplace as well. Injuries from manual tasks accounted for almost half the total number of injury claims in our state in 2001. They are also to blame for more than half the total number of days that workers are actually absent from work. That is why my inspectors and my department have targeted manual tasks in a series of statewide audits since 2000. These audits are part of a joint research program between my department, Queensland University, Curtin University and Q-COMP. They were done to develop a national approach to try to reduce the incidence of these types of injuries in workplaces. In the last audit, inspectors visited 300 Queensland businesses across several high-risk industries, including food manufacturing, nursing homes and accommodation for the aged, and construction related manufacturing businesses. Of more than 1,000 manual tasks that inspectors assessed, one in five, or 20 per cent, required formal written notices of improvement. Verbal advice was also given to many other workplaces where the problems were minor or there was an immediate improvement that could be made. In all, more than a thousand notices were issued. Also included were 32 notices for the unsafe use of equipment, 14 notices for failing to store hazardous substances properly and another 13 electrical safety notices were issued. While these figures do appear high, I am pleased to advise the House that they are an improvement on the government's previous audit program up to the year 2000. Our inspectors have reported to me that more workplaces are actually implementing solutions to better manage the risks of performing manual tasks. Businesses are also improving the documentation of these tasks, improving the amount and quality of manual task training and supervision, and there is an increased awareness of standards that are required under the act for carrying out manual tasks. In some industries and occupations there is no escaping the fact that heavy lifting, moving, carrying and other manual tasks are an integral part of the worker's responsibilities, but if carried out correctly and under the required safety provisions of the Workplace Health and Safety Act there is no reason why these labourers should be unsafe or suffer injury. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland will now analyse the results of this audit and look at ways of sharing the solutions that some businesses have put in place, as well as better educating and advising employers and workers of some of the most common risks. I look forward to updating the House on progress in the near future.

Patient Transport, Tablelands Ms LEE LONG: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I have been advised of the appalling treatment of an elderly, blind and frail woman who needs a walker for mobility. She was recently brought from the Cairns Base Hospital to the Atherton Hospital by ambulance courier but was not allowed to take her walker with her in the courier. Because of this, when she arrived at Atherton she was totally immobilised, and I ask: is it really the Beattie government's Ambulance Service policy to be so ridiculous as to carry the patient only and not any essential aids as happened to this elderly person? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the member for Tablelands for the question she has asked me. I am not aware of the incident that she has talked about, but if she would like to me to take that on board I will get back to her, if I can, by the close of business today with regard to the question she has asked. If not, it will be as soon as I can. I would like to say, first of all, that the Tablelands is an enormous beneficiary of the community ambulance cover—an enormous beneficiary. Indeed, if we look at the electorate of Tablelands and the work we are doing and have done in regard to Ambulance Service delivery, we see that we have done extraordinarily well. For the first time in its 110-year history, the Ambulance Service has a secure funding base. Indeed, we have 110 new ambos spread across the state, which will be very important in upholding the excellence of our service delivery. What the member has asked me about this morning relates to a clinical judgment made by an ambulance paramedic, and that type of judgment is a professional judgment that is made. There have been cases that I have been informed of where it is not to the patient's benefit to actually have a carer in the ambulance with them. I am not saying that is the case in this particular incident, but those sorts of professional judgments are made by our ambulance 4114 Questions Without Notice 15 Oct 2003 paramedics. Can I assure the member that any incident that is brought to the commissioner's attention or my attention is reviewed and investigated by the Queensland Ambulance Service—in exactly the same way as this one will be. It will also go, if need be, to the medical director of the Queensland Ambulance Service. The member will receive a reply as we investigate the issue. I will get back to the member by close of business today if we do know the circumstances and, if not, it will be over the next number of days. I will give the member a fairly good appreciation of that particular incident.

Electricity Prices Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and the minister with responsibility for energy to the fact that recent media articles have indicated power prices are set to rise in Queensland because the Queensland government is supporting a national energy regulator. Can the minister please tell us what is going to happen to Queensland's electricity prices? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question, because this is an issue of great concern amongst regional and rural Queenslanders. In fact, the Cunnamulla newspaper summed it up the other day by reporting another embarrassing Springborg gaff. This is another example where the Leader of the Opposition has let his foot lead his mouth. The simple fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the energy industry. The Queensland government is totally opposed to full retail contestability in electricity unless it can be shown to have benefits for consumers. That is why I made that known loud and clear at the Ministerial Council on Energy in in August. We all know that the Opposition Leader gets his parliamentary questions and tactics from the Courier-Mail. He does not get them from the Australian newspaper, because if he had bothered reading the Australian newspaper on 2 August 2003—and I will table that—he would have read prior to issuing his media release what the Australian said. It said— Queensland last year shocked other states by refusing to introduce retail competition, claiming that prices for most households would increase. That is the one Mr Springborg did not read. The Australian also said— Queensland Energy Minister Paul Lucas said last night he was adamantly opposed to the introduction of retail competition, unless it could be demonstrated that it did not hit consumers through higher prices. He ignored that. A government member interjected. Mr LUCAS: That is right; there were too many big words in that for the Opposition Leader's brains trust. Not only that, he could have read the communique from the Ministerial Council on Energy, which I also table, which made it clear that retail price regulation was specifically excluded from the remit to the national regulator. That was put in there at the request of me on behalf of the Queensland government. I table that as well. But there it is: the Opposition Leader's mischievous or incompetent—one or the other—press release that claimed that electricity prices were going to rise under lack of FRC. The Leader of the Opposition would be far better off talking to the National Competition Council about what it is going to do to the Queensland government as a result of our failure to introduce FRC, because it is going to threaten to penalise us $36.5 million because we are standing up for the people in the bush. When the people of the bush are threatened—like with Telstra—those opposite go down to the National Party conference and roll over. When Mr Costello wants $30 billion, they go to Canberra and roll over—turn their backs and run away. We are serious about looking after the interests of people in the bush. Members opposite would be interested to know that under FRC the bill in Longreach would be $1,957 instead of about $825 and $2,045 in Charters Towers. We are not going to sell out the people of the bush, even if those opposite are, in terms of Telstra and electricity.

Mental Health Act Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I refer the Minister for Health to the Mental Health Act and the fact that constituents have raised a concern that their son-in-law, who regularly stops taking his prescribed medication for bipolar disorder, recently had a particularly bad episode which resulted in 15 Oct 2003 Privilege 4115 hospitalisation. However, as he has an excellent knowledge of the health act, he knew that they could not keep him for more than three days if he did not have an adverse report. He was subsequently discharged from hospital even though the mental health staff knew he was not fit to be discharged and they had no grounds to hold him. He went home and did approximately $30,000 damage to the family home which has resulted in a major family crisis, including the fact that the insurance company will not pay out because he was a member of the family residing in the home. Will the minister advise if the act could be broadened to allow more discretion for the mental health professionals who knew that my constituent's son-in-law was not ready to be released but had no legal grounds to hold him? Mrs EDMOND: For the first time the new Mental Health Act allows family members to actually have a role to play in the assessment of people with a mental illness; previously that was not the case. Obviously I cannot know all the details of this particular case, nor should I, but the decision on whether a patient needs to be involuntarily treated is the subject of clinical assessment. If the member is saying to me that the clinicians knew that he needed to be involuntarily held and that that did not happen, then that is something we will pursue. These are very difficult circumstances and they rely on clinical judgment and assessment. Obviously, the family was able to have him assessed and held while he was being assessed, which would not have been the case under the previous legislation. That would have been done by the police and a JP. If the member for Maryborough wishes to give me information about the patient, I can find out about this and seek permission from the patient for the release of that information to the member for Maryborough. I think it is important that we respect a patient's privacy. We will get back to him. It is an issue that needs to be looked at seriously. It is a very difficult issue. Mental illness is probably the hardest thing for the family and the community to deal with and for clinicians to treat. It is so much easier when a patient has something that one can identify clearly and treat. I will investigate this and get back to the member if he would like to provide me with the identifying details confidentially. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE Answer to Question Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (11.21 a.m.): Earlier in question time today, the member for Robina asked me about a letter that he claimed had been written to me by Mr Egan in April 2001. When I answered the question I did not refer to the letter because I did not recall getting it. I asked my department and my office to check on this. I did not receive a letter. However, I have been able to get hold of a media release from Peter Costello yesterday, from which I take it the member for Robina made up his question. What it actually said was— Mr Quinn interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: No, this is what it said— On 12 April 2001, a senior official of NSW Treasury wrote to all his State and commonwealth counterparts to notify them of this NSW change to the rules." It was not sent to me. It was sent by an official of the New South Wales Treasury. An assistant Under Treasurer in my department received a copy of the changes that were made. They were sent on 12 April 2001. Michael Egan did not write to me. Therefore, I was not aware of any letter because there never was a letter. I believe the member for Robina was aware of that when he asked the question this morning and was simply trying to change what had been said.

PRIVILEGE Answer to Question Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.23 a.m.): I raise a point of privilege. My question was premised on a media report which quite clearly said that Mr Egan had written to all state governments. Mr Mackenroth: Apologise and sit down. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not having a debate on this issue. The member has made his point. 4116 Questions Without Notice 15 Oct 2003

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 4115. Wild Dog Barrier Fences Mr PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines. Will the minister inform the House of new Smart State technology being trialled by the Beattie government to bolster our defences against the incursion of wild dogs into Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. One of the most important weapons for controlling wild dogs and protecting Australia's 123 million head of sheep from attack is the wild dog barrier fence. Queensland administers 2,545 kilometres of the fence which in total stretches more than 5,291 kilometres from the Great Australian Bight to the Darling Downs. Every kilometre of the Queensland section of the fence is inspected at least once a week. However, the fence is in constant need of repair due to damage by animals as well as nature in the form of floods, rust, wind and falling trees. Dingoes and other wild dogs do not normally make holes in fences. However, they are clever enough to follow the fence and take advantage when they see an opening. To address this the government and the wild dog barrier fence panel have approved trials involving two new pieces of Smart State technology designed to discourage wild dogs penetrating the fence. One is a new type of ring lock mesh fencing material developed in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The other is a Queensland made prototype high frequency beeper designed to discourage wild dogs from coming close to the wild dog barrier fence. The beepers are being strategically placed at cattle grid entrances along the fence in places identified as problem areas for dog penetration. Trial areas will be in Chinchilla, Murweh and Booringa shires. The solar powered beepers developed by Brisbane company Shu Roo are activated by heat and movement and emit a high pitched pulse every 15 to 20 seconds. Because dogs' ears are very sensitive, the pulse emitted should discourage dogs from coming anywhere near the grid entrance. The human ear will hardly detect the noise while cattle and sheep will not be affected by the pitch and will have no problem grazing near the sites. In December we will also be trialling a new type of ring lock mesh fencing along a section of the wild dog barrier fence. Developed by Smorgon Steel to design specifications provided by one of my departmental officers, fence manager, Jerry Stanley, the mesh fencing is thought to be stronger than the current net style fencing used and much harder for animals to dig under. Apart from the improved deterrence there may also be substantial cost benefits if the new type of fencing proves effective. Currently, fences cost around $9,000 a kilometre to install, but this new style could cost as little as $6,500 per kilometre, which is a tremendous saving when one considers my department administers over 2,500 kilometres of the fence. In 2003-04, NRM is providing over $800,000 funding for ongoing maintenance and reconstruction of the wild dog barrier fence along with matching funding from local governments of $800,000. Tomorrow, in light of concerns expressed, particularly by Agforce, I will be meeting with them to have further discussions on the issue of wild dog management, particularly in western parts of Queensland because wild dog packs are having an impact on our all important sheep industry.

Transport Inspection Services Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. I refer to the failure of the minister's interactive booking system for vehicle inspections that has resulted in many business personnel having to spend hours hanging on phones trying to get through or having to make multiple bookings. The minister also committed to provide an online booking service that is still not online six weeks after the due date. Industry representatives have been told by the department that the systems were rushed in to meet the increased revenue target. Can the minister confirm that people are now being told, when they eventually get through, that they cannot book too far ahead because there is to be an increase in fees? Mr BREDHAUER: The answer to the honourable member's question is, no, that is not true. I have no advice that people from the department would be giving that information to the public. But if they were, it would be untrue. I will certainly make sure that that is corrected, if it is in fact occurring. I do not accept the member for Gregory's word that it is happening because I generally find when he asks questions in this House they are based on false premises. Mr Johnson: Is the minister saying I am fabricating the facts? It is out in the public forum. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4117

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BREDHAUER: Whether the member is a fact fabricator or a point of order prince, I do not know—or is that a point of order princess; I do not know. Let me assure the honourable member that there is no intention to increase the fees, as he has suggested. If anyone from Queensland Transport is advising people to that effect, I will make sure that is corrected. The other thing that I might point out to the honourable member for Gregory and all other members of the House is that this issue was raised with me by the member for Surfers Paradise, Lex Bell, last week. I provided a detailed answer to the member for Surfers Paradise in respect of this matter last week. My department is still working very hard to rectify the problems in the teething stages of the new system. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 3 June (see p. 2492). Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (11.30 a.m.): This is a wide-ranging piece of health legislation that amends more than 10 acts of parliament, so the policy objectives are varied. Many of the amending provisions within the Health Legislation Amendment Bill are not controversial, but there are some significant exceptions, particularly in one area, dental health. Under these changes the children's dental health program in schools will face potentially an exodus of school dental therapists. Another group that has expressed considerable concern are dental technicians, who are faced with quasi-deregulation, despite having their own registration act. I will be outlining some of these matters of concern and others during the course of this debate. The explanatory notes state that the bill will not have any significant financial impact on the government. I query the minister as to the accuracy of this statement. If school dental therapists cease to work solely in the public dental program, this will have a significant impact. Admittedly, the impact may be that the government is not paying school dental nurses anymore because they will potentially leave the system and there will be a deficit of workers. But it raises the spectre of how the government is going to fill that hole that will be left by this exodus and what it will cost. Many people in the industry are saying that they are not opposed to career paths for appropriately trained school dental therapists, but they strongly question whether the public policy issues, or the impact upon the school dental program, have seriously been examined. I would like to quote from a letter that I received from the Australian Dental Association Queensland Branch President, Don Anning, in August. In it he states— ... are a number of concerns that ADAQ has with the new legislation. These concerns are outlined below. The effect on the School Dental Service One of the significant changes that is of concern to ADAQ is the removal of the restriction on dental therapists working only in the School Dental Service. If passed, this legislation will allow school dental therapists to work in private practice. ADAQ has no philosophical disagreement with this position. However, we are deeply concerned about the impact this will have on staffing levels in the School Dental Service. This Service is already significantly undermanned and stretched to the limit. In our view, the passage of this legislation is likely to mean the end of the School Dental Service as we know it. Many school children will not receive treatment or parents will be forced to seek this dental treatment for their children in the private sector. Although this is a situation that will be of financial benefit to our members, it is hardly an outcome that would satisfy the much touted public benefits test. In other states the demand for dental treatment in school age children is significantly reduced by the benefits of water fluoridation. It is my firm belief that in Queensland, where 5% or less of the population drink fluoridated water, the situation will quickly become unmanageable. The likely demise of the School Dental Service highlights the dangers of adopting policies that have been introduced in some other states without carefully considering the circumstances that apply locally. To consider removing the restriction on school dental therapists working in the public sector without the introduction of water fluoridation is inviting disaster. I put those comments on the record because, as I said, the issue of people having career paths outside the public sector philosophically is one that people do not disagree with, but there has been no policy answer provided by the government as to how to deal with the pending exodus of these workers from the system. Already in the past 12 months 51,000 fewer Queenslanders received public dental treatment, despite the government claiming to have spent eight per cent more on the public 4118 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 dental service. Already in the past 12 months we have seen a cutback in school dental treatments. School dental treatments have always been provided by the state government. In the next 12 months this Beattie Labor government expects to treat 10,000 fewer schoolchildren in the public system. But if we look back over three years, how many fewer children will the government have treated? Fifty thousand fewer children will be treated in a given year. To me, that rings alarm bells about children's health and children's oral health. That is my concern about this legislation, dealing only with these issues of allowing dental therapists to move into the private sector without providing a proper policy solution—unless, of course, there is an intention to remove adequate supervision of the way in which people operate. In the briefing that I received from the department I asked about how the supervision provisions currently operated with school dental therapists. While I thank the officers for their briefing, it became apparent that there was not a clear answer about how the supervision provisions of these school dental therapists operated in relation to qualified dentists. My concern is that these supervision provisions, as they are translated into this legislation, will mean that the government will not in fact have school dental therapists with adequate levels of supervision as they go out into the private sector and expand their scope of practice. Part of that expansion of scope in the private sector is to stop treating only children and to start treating adults. On average, adults have far more complex dental needs than do children. Obviously, they have lived for more years, their other health issues can be more complex and their dental health needs can become more complex. That is why there has been concern about the scope of practice for dental therapists. According to this explanatory note and the briefing, there will be codes of practice, but those codes of practice have not yet been developed. But I go back to when I asked about the existing supervision provisions, realising that there is supposed to be under legislation strict supervision by qualified dentists of what dental therapists can do. I did not get a straight answer as to the type of supervision and the level of that supervision in the existing system. I am most concerned that, given the pressures and the demands for more dentists not only in the public sector but also in the private sector, the lack of supervision of dental therapists will mean that the government will have them performing levels of work that should be appropriately performed only by qualified dentists in a one-on-one situation. That protection is removed by this legislation. When we are dealing with the types of work that is performed on people's teeth and their mouths, work that could potentially have a permanent impact upon their lives—sometimes for good and, if it is not done right, for bad—it is absolutely essential that the appropriate clinical standards are provided and that there is a strong regime within legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! I would ask the House to recognise the students and teachers from the Kingsthorpe State School in the electorate of Darling Downs. Miss SIMPSON: I challenge the minister to explain how children will be treated in the public dental service and the level of that service, given that in this government's own budget papers it anticipates that 10,000 fewer schoolchildren will receive public dental treatment in the next 12 months. That treatment is the responsibility of a state government—always has been—and I am most concerned that children's oral health has really fallen off the plate in terms of the policy objectives of the government and, certainly, any significant initiatives that we have seen brought forward. Another significant issue within this legislation is the deregulation of dental technicians. Though there will continue to be legislation restricting the use of the title, under this legislation the type of work they perform will no longer be restricted to dental technicians. It leaves them in a quasi-deregulated state, which is obviously of great concern not only to those who have those skills but also to those who want to see a certain quality of services continue to be provided in the community. I think it is appropriate that I read into Hansard some of the comments from dental technicians on this very issue. They are the ones who are performing this work. They are the ones who have questioned the recommendations accepted by this government to move for this quasi- deregulation and removal of restrictions upon their occupation. Stephen Griffin, the President of the ACDLA, said in August 2003— On Wednesday 30th July a crisis meeting of Representatives of Australian Dental Prosthetists Association, Australian Commercial Dental Laboratories Association, Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and Dental Technicians was convened to discuss the pending demise of the Dental Technology Industry in Queensland. The 'Health Acts Amendments Bill' being presented by your Government— 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4119 referring to the Health Minister— for the second reading in the next sitting of parliament removes the necessity for people working within the dental technology industry to be suitably Qualified and Registered. From previous discussions with your office we have had indications that the motivation for this change is to introduce competition to reduce the cost of dentistry to the public, a proposition we strenuously question. The access to cheap technical work, referred to in the Price Waterhouse Coopers, 'Review of the Restriction on Practice of Dentistry' and quoted by the minister, has been available to the profession for many years through off shore laboratories in South East Asia and has not reduced the cost of dentistry to the public of Queensland. The review also appears to have a very narrow view of the role of Dental Technicians in the dental team. Dental Technicians construct appliances i.e. Osteo-integrated implants, fixed ceramic and gold crown and bridge appliances, orthopaedic and orthodontic functional appliances, cast metal partial dentures, acrylic partial and full dentures as well as maintaining, repairing and adding to these appliances. These appliances are constructed in consultation with oral surgeons, orthodontists, perodontists, medical practitioners, physiotherapist, dentists and prosthetists. Dental technicians provide major input in the areas of material selection, appliance design, treatment planning and aesthetic considerations. Griffith University has recognized the importance of Dental Technicians and their role in the dental team by creating a degree course in Dental Technology to commence in 2004 as part of their new school of Oral Health. Our industry is concerned about the long-term viability of this course if deregulation of dental technicians occurs. We are concerned for the well being of the public of Queensland and the possible health effects of unregulated operators using dangerous materials i.e. Lead solders, Beryllium alloys and cancer causing plastics, none of which can readily be recognised by Dentists, Prosthetists or the general public but are highly dangerous to patients. These are some of the concerns that are coming forward about the changes in this legislation. The move to give broader scope of practice for some elements of the dental industry while restricting others is interesting. Another issue was raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert Digest No. 8 of 2003. It asked the question: does the bill sufficiently subject the exercise of delegated legislative power to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly? While the committee appears to have brought to the minister's attention a matter relating to subsections 101A and 101C, which are inserted by clause 81 and relate to codes of conduct and the Nursing Act, these codes of conduct also apply across other health professional acts. The minister replied to that by saying that it was appropriate for these, being more administrative than legislative in nature, to be in this type of format. However, significant powers attach under these codes of conduct. I have already mentioned my concern in relation to another issue, which is the level of supervision required for dental therapists, for example—it will no longer be one-on-one supervision—and that issue being brought back under the code of conduct, as I was advised during the briefing, as I recall. The level of supervision for somebody performing significant work upon somebody is extremely important, otherwise we will see a downgrading of quality, and that is of concern. Those issues are not required to be within a regulatory instrument which can be disallowed by this House. The issue of the codes of conduct not ever coming back by way of a regulation, where they can be potentially scrutinised by parliament, was raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I believe it is a very relevant issue. There has been a tendency in recent times to take all of the standards, holus-bolus, out of the legislative and regulatory process and the scrutiny of parliament and place them into these instruments that do not come back before the parliament. While there are some issues which may not need to come back on a regular basis, I suggest that there are significant issues to do with the level of practice that people perform. I think too much has been taken away from the scrutiny of parliament. I draw the attention of the House to the performance of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in providing that scrutiny. The other issue I want to raise is rather an interesting one. It relates to the amendment to the Health Services Act 1991. The state National-Liberal coalition strongly supports the existence of district health councils, and in fact has a policy to strengthen their roles, in providing effective community participation in local health services. This is something we had a strong hand in establishing and championing. This bill amends the Health Services Act 1991. According to the minister's second reading speech, this change is only to provide more flexible membership requirements for district health councils to accommodate periodic vacancies and to ensure the functions of a district health council are not affected merely because of a vacancy. I wonder what the minister defines as a periodic vacancy from a health council. I wonder whether she considers as a periodic vacancy the fact that there has been no operational district health councils for the Royal Brisbane Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital for the last seven months. 4120 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

It is clearly a requirement under the act that there be district health councils, yet for seven months we have not had an operational council for the Royal Brisbane district, nor have we had an operational council for the Royal Women's Hospital. The members of these councils were told that the councils were to be amalgamated and that they could reapply and possibly be appointed to the new amalgamated council. They understood that the councils had been dissolved, so they have not been meeting for the last seven months, as I understand. Where is the minister on this issue? Truly, if the government is serious about community engagement and involvement in the health system of this state, the biggest hospital in this state should have a district health council. I am more than a little suspicious about the provisions in this act and the fact that it has not been mentioned that the biggest hospital in the state has not had a district health council operating. I think we need to actually read a section of the Health Services Act, which this bill is amending, to understand the importance of district health councils. The act states— (8) Functions (1) The functions of a council are to— (a) identify and assess the health service needs of people living in the council's district or who may use public sector health services delivered in its district; and (b) participate in the development of the department's strategic plans for the delivery of public sector health services in the district; and (c) monitor compliance with the strategic plans and health services agreements by the manager for the district; and (d) monitor compliance by the manager for the district with the budgets for the district; and (e) monitor the quality of public sector health services delivered in the district, and (f) decide priorities for minor capital works, and monitor the programs for the works and asset management, for the district ... There is a range of these very important roles that councils are to perform. Furthermore, they are also to participate in the selection of senior executives. What have we seen with the Royal Brisbane Hospital? In recent months we have heard of budget blow-outs of up to $20 million or carrying debts over and issues with which they have apparently had to struggle in regard to meeting budget. They have had changes at the senior executive level. They have had significant issues as far as delivery of services, and there is no community interface. For the last seven months the district health council has not been operational, with members told they were to be amalgamated with another district health council. Clearly this has not happened or those members have not been advised it has happened because I understand a number have sought advice, and still we are waiting to see when this council is to be established. The act clearly says that there is to be a district health council for each district. We have not had a district health council meeting in this area for the last seven months at least, and yet they are supposed to meet every two months. So the department is clearly in breach of its own act. This is important when we consider that once again this is one of the biggest hospitals in the state. The government is big on talking about accountability in community engagement but the procedures for doing that have been undermined or people have been misled as to that process. I note that there are provisions within the existing act to deal with vacancies, and there are some amendments before the House to require that when people resign their resignation is given to the minister. I would certainly welcome her advice as to why there has been no operational district health council for the biggest hospital in the state for the last seven months and why people have not been advised of what is happening. I think it is a disgrace. I think it is an example of a minister who has already retired. Clearly, there are people in the community who want to be involved in these district health councils and who want to be part of the legislative requirement of monitoring compliance of the quality issues as well as the budgets in our hospitals. I would ask how many other districts are also in such a situation. In this particular case we know that members were asked to dissolve the council. Whether that is the formal terminology used I do not know, but certainly council members were of the understanding that those councils were no longer required because they were to be amalgamated into one, and for the last seven months nothing has happened. So we need a please explain from the minister in that regard. Other provisions of this act cover the Health Rights Commission, and I will read the provisions in regard to this. The bill amends the Health Rights Commission Act to clarify the powers of the Health Rights Commissioner and to ensure the effective operation of the Health Rights 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4121

Commission. According to the explanatory notes, the amendments will enable referral of public interest issues to registration boards after successful conciliation, clarify the commissioner's powers to decide not to take action after an unsuccessful conciliation, enable a conciliator to discuss confidential complaints matters with a colleague and clarify that a matter may be referred from investigation to conciliation. One of the issues being raised with me time and again is the need for the Health Rights Commission to be resourced in order to provide a true scrutiny of the Health Department. It is extremely important that we have statutory bodies such as this one that have that role. I am disappointed that there is nothing within this amendment to deal with what is a significant issue—and that is the need for the Health Rights Commission's budget to not come through the Health Department. It would be more appropriate for it to sit with the Premier's Department to deal with some of the issues of the perceived independence of the Health Rights Commission. I also believe there needs to be a review of the powers of the Health Rights Commission and the way that it is performing its duties, because there are internal conflicts within a department the size of the Health Department. Not only is the Health Department and its chief executive officer—the director-general—responsible for the budget; they are also responsible for the standards that they deliver. We need an independent arm that has the strength and the ability to look at not only grievances but also quality issues within a department the size of Queensland Health. That is good process but it is also good for the patients. I raise that issue now because I know that the Health Rights Commission currently needs appropriate and additional funding. It also needs more teeth to do the job that needs to be done. It needs to do the job considering the issues of quality which are being raised. This is not a criticism of staff but a recognition that on quality issues we need to have proper systems in place, proper checks and balances and proper accountability. If Queensland Health was truly accountable under this government, it would also be submitting the Health Department to audit by the Auditor-General. It is interesting that New South Wales does. That is another very important way of providing some statutory oversight. In fact, the last report by the Auditor-General in New South Wales is on the Internet. Mrs Edmond: Queensland Health is audited by the Auditor-General. Miss SIMPSON: With respect, this is performance auditing, which is not occurring. What is happening in other states like New South Wales is that they are still doing performance auditing. It is time there was performance auditing as well as financial auditing. There are other issues to do with benchmarking, clinical indicators and the consistency of those clinical indicators. It is interesting that this has been recognised as a standard that needs to be moved to in another state—albeit a Labor state. It is time we saw independent auditing of performance indicators, benchmarks and how those benchmarks are met. To date, it is all done in-house. If we are going to have a system that serves not only the patients but also those working in the system to achieve those clinical outcomes, we need some accountability in the way that is undertaken. There is a range of other amendments, including amendments to the Nursing Act. I have previously raised the issue publicly of ensuring that people applying for nursing registration do not have a criminal history that affects their duties. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986, and I acknowledge that. I have been on the record as saying that there are still loopholes within the law, despite these amendments, that have been brought to my attention. Through complaints from a constituent, I know of people who have a criminal history and who have still not declared it. So there are people who are already registered who are still working in the system. They may only be a minority, but that is why we bring in legislative changes—to provide some safeguards. People in these health professions, particularly nurses and doctors, are in a position of power over people who are vulnerable. They are in a position of power over someone who is elderly or someone who is frail and infirm. Therefore, it is necessary that there are good regulatory statutory frameworks to deal with issues of registering only those who have a clear history in regard to criminal offences. I also believe there is still an issue about those who already have registration and the fact that they have failed to notify. We still need checks upon existing registrants and their criminal history. I do not feel this issue will be addressed by this amendment, even though this amendment is better than the previous act, and I draw that to the attention of the House. In closing at this time—because I will have more comments during the committee stage of the bill—I will focus on the estimated costs to the government for implementation. As I have mentioned, I believe that this bill has not assessed what the impact will be financially, particularly 4122 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 with regard to oral health services for children and public dental services. Children's oral health services in the public sector are already failing under this government. There is no allocation mooted or talked about to address the fallout of people who are moving out of that sector. If we are to provide these career paths which, as I said, people do not philosophically disapprove of, there is still a responsibility to provide alternative ways of dealing with it. I believe that these issues have not been addressed by the government and there is a cost. The cost is not only financial; the cost is in terms of people's health, particularly the health of children. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (12.00 p.m.): I rise in support of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 which amends the 11 health portfolio acts and one health portfolio regulation. These acts include the Chiropractors Registration Act 2001, the Optometrists Registration Act 2001, the Physiotherapists Registration Act 2001 and the Podiatrists Registration Act 2001. They are to remove broad statutory definitions restricting practices to particular professions and to replace these with specific practice restrictions. Other acts, including the Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001, the Dental Practitioners Registration Regulation 2001, the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthesis Registration Act 2001 and the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999, aim to incorporate the recommendations of the national competition policy review on the restrictions on the practice of dentistry. The Health Act 1937 is to empower the chief executive of Health rather than the Governor in Council to appoint medical inspectors, health officers and other officers. The Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 will give effect to the health practitioners tribunal's decision from the date it is delivered by the tribunal or is otherwise ordered. The Health Rights Commission Act 1991 will enable referral of public interest issues to registration boards after conciliation. Of the final two acts, the Health Services Act 1991 will provide more flexible membership requirements for district health councils and the Nursing Act 1992 will provide a greater degree of public protection to achieve greater consistency. This legislation is all about providing protection for health service consumers and greater certainty to registered providers. It will protect the interests of the public. It will keep consumers well informed and at the same time it will uphold professional standards. I turn my attention to something that is of particular interest to me, which is the amendments to the Hospitals Foundations Act 1982. The minor amendments to be moved today by the minister will clarify that two or more hospital foundations may amalgamate. The amendments have been progressed in response to a request from the Royal Brisbane Hospital Research Foundation and the Royal Women's Hospital Research and Development Foundation. These foundations have sought the minister's approval to amalgamate so that they may streamline their operations. The amendments set out the steps to be undertaken for the amalgamation of two of more foundations and provide certainty about assets and bequests made to the amalgamating foundations. While the amendments primarily support administrative processes, they have required careful consideration to ensure the legal issues involved. There are currently 12 foundations throughout Queensland and these foundations are not-for-profit organisations that play an important role in promoting research and the delivery of high quality health services. The foundations achieve this through private donations, through corporate sponsorship and support, and through fundraising events. Key contributions that hospital foundations make include funding research initiatives to advance our understanding of disease and health care, supporting the training of health professionals, purchasing life-saving diagnostic and therapeutic health equipment, and supporting and playing an active role in health promotion. These amendments will ensure that hospital foundations can position themselves to effectively carry out this important work. Finally, yesterday I spoke in this House about the Townsville Hospital and the number of occasions that service was performed in a 12-month period. People have to question the legitimacy of sensational drivel when confronted with positive figures like those that I delivered in this House yesterday. One unfortunate story can do irreparable damage to a system which produces excellent outcomes and results on a daily basis. How damaging to morale is it? As the minister mentioned this morning, the damage to morale is huge. Not only that, it is immeasurable and reprehensible. Let me say that since we came to office we have delivered record health budgets. The current health budget is $4.63 billion, up almost $2 billion up on the 1997-98 budget. This 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4123 government has committed to increasing the annual health budget by $1 billion over the next four years. Funding to the Townsville health service district has increased by $16.6 million. The 2003- 04 budget is in excess of $208 million. I am last also pleased to advise that a director of medical oncology and a director of haematology recently commenced duties at Townsville. A second full-time oncologist will commence in January 2004. Yesterday I also made mention of the fact that the emergency department throughout the Townsville health service district recorded 53,993 presentations during the last financial year. Let me add that the June quarter figures show that 100 per cent of category 1 emergency department patients at Townsville Hospital were seen immediately by a doctor. This 100 per cent record has been maintained for the past two years. The June quarter figures show that 85.7 per cent of category 2 patients were seen by a doctor within 10 minutes. The nationally accepted target is 80 per cent. Two years ago Townsville Hospital was seeing 53 per cent of category 2 patients on time. Clearly there has been a significant improvement in two years and I would like to thank all the hospital staff involved. In granting me this latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and I commend the bill to the House. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (12.06 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003, which requires the minister to once again go through the very onerous task of amending 11 health portfolio acts. They are designed to provide greater protection for health consumers and greater certainty to registered providers. I want to concentrate today on the change to the Nursing Act. Before I do that I would like to say thank you, on behalf of my constituents who are both dentists and dental therapists, to the minister for her preparedness and her leadership with respect to the changes that have been made to the practice of dentistry. The bill implements recommendations of the national competition policy's review of the restrictions on the practice of dentistry. It makes amendments to a number of acts to ensure that Queensland's obligations under the national competition policy are met without compromising patient care. I, like a number of members here, had a number of discussions with dental therapists and dentists. I am very pleased with the outcomes that we see before us today. On behalf of my constituents I thank the minister for her efforts. I would like to start by talking about the amendments in the bill for the Nursing Act, in particular how they relate to the disclosure of criminal histories for nurses. Following an extensive consultation, the Nursing Act is to be amended to provide for greater consistency between the regulation of nurses and the regulation of other health practitioners. As the minister indicated in her second reading speech, the amendments being progressed by this bill today will provide greater protection for consumers and greater certainty to nurses and midwives. The Queensland Nursing Council is responsible for the initial and ongoing licensing of registered nurses, enrolled nurses, midwives and other persons authorised to practise nursing such as mental health nurses. The Queensland Nursing Council was established in 1993 as an independent statutory authority responsible for the regulation of nursing in this state. It is provided for by the Nursing Act 1992 and the council itself has a mandate to ensure, as far as practicable, that nurses are able to practise in a safe and competent manner. The Nursing Act was certainly seen as a progressive piece of legislation when it was introduced into the parliament over 10 years ago. However, with this legislation the Beattie Labor government has taken the regulation of health practitioners to a new level. The model of occupational regulation adopted through the introduction of Health Practitioner Registration Act in 2001 and the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act in 1999 reflect contemporary expectations about the regulation of practitioners providing professional services to health consumers. The Queensland Nursing Council, of course, being responsible for the ongoing licensing of nurses, must establish appropriate balance between the legislative requirement to protect the public from unsafe and incompetent care with that of the service to the applicants, that is, nurses seeking an authorisation to practise nursing. When deciding whether a person is to be registered, enrolled or authorised under the Nursing Act, the Queensland Nursing Council must assess whether that person is a fit or suitable person to practise nursing. The policy of registration requires a number of things. It requires that the applicant provide evidence that they have successfully completed an accredited course conducted in Queensland or an equivalent course elsewhere; they must provide evidence of a recency of practice; and they must provide evidence of English language competency if, in fact, English is not the applicant's first language. They must satisfy the council that their state of health is such that they are capable of carrying out the duties of a registered or enrolled nurse, without endangering any person to which they may attend, and 4124 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 they must provide verification of their good standing from the person's current or most recent registering authority. This bill will amend the Nursing Act so that the Queensland Nursing Council will also be able to have regard to a person's criminal history when deciding whether a person is a fit and competent person to practise nursing. The council will be able to ask for and be provided with a written report about the applicant's criminal history by the Commissioner of the Police Service. The Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 will not apply to the asking for or giving of this report, and information about and consideration of a person's criminal history will therefore encompass all convictions and charges regardless of when they may have occurred. This capacity will assist the Queensland Nursing Council in accessing information about a person's full criminal history and will allow them to assess whether a person is a fit and suitable person to practise nursing. It will enable the council to have a more complete picture of a person's criminal history, including information about old convictions that may indicate a pattern of behaviour that could compromise the applicant's ability to practise the profession safely and competently. It should be noted, however, that the possession of a criminal history will not necessarily make an applicant ineligible for registration, enrolment or authorisation. Nor does it mean that the Queensland Nursing Council will automatically refuse the applicant. For example, the nature of a person's criminal history may be such that the QNC is satisfied that the applicant is fit to practise subject to certain conditions on their registration, or that indeed it has no bearing whatsoever on the applicant's suitability to practise nursing. Honourable members would know that nurses are amongst Australia's most respected professional groups. They are recognised as professional health care providers who combine the art and science of health care when they look after their patients. However, it must be recognised that the community has a very high expectation that, for the purpose of protecting the public, the integrity of industry participants must be ensured. Consequently, those aspects of the bill that provide for the amendment of the Nursing Act are consistent with the scope of criminal history provisions in other legislation dealing with the employment or registration of people who primarily deal with children or other vulnerable people. Examples of this, of course, are the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 and other health registration acts, such as the Education (Teacher Registration) Act and the Commissioner for Children and Young People Act 2000. As members of the House may be aware, the degree of public protection to be afforded by the Nursing Act will be enhanced, as nurses will have a duty to advise the Queensland Nursing Council if they are convicted of an indictable offence or a practice related offence or if they have been subjected to disciplinary or other action by a regulatory body in another jurisdiction or, indeed, that they are party to a judgment or settlement of proceedings involving negligence. There has always been a real challenge for a responsible government to find the balance between the protection of the public through the Nursing Act and the rights of individual nurses to natural justice and to not have to pay for their mistakes over and over again through the loss of registration as a result of disclosure of criminal history. Nurses are highly accountable to the public and to the profession and to nurses themselves. Nurses may face simultaneous Queensland Nursing Council, CMC, Health Rights Commission and other court proceedings. It is an immense level of scrutiny that a nurse may face at any given time and it is something that honourable members should be aware of when considering this particular aspect of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. With that said, there has been an extensive consultation process with respect to the amendments by the minister. On her behalf, I want to acknowledge the contributions that have been made by the Queensland Nursing Council, the Queensland Nurses Union, the Australian and New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses, the Australian College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing Australia, the Directors of Nurses Association and indeed the Health Rights Commission. As I said before, nurses hold a very high level of public trust and confidence and are very answerable for their actions. This bill further reinforces the responsibilities of nurses to be fit and proper persons to practise nursing, and that is the right thing to do. However, it also makes the call that nurses need to have appropriate workloads and a strong voice in the health care institutions in which they work, a very compelling call that we in this place should all listen to. Mistakes can and do happen—nurses are only human—but nurses are more likely to make mistakes when they are overworked, silenced or coerced by virtue of their role as employees. I am pleased, however, that this bill will also include a provision that it will be an offence for a person to aid, abet, counsel, procure or induce nurses, midwives or other persons authorised to practise nursing to engage in conduct that may be the 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4125 basis for disciplinary action. The bill seeks to provide certainty for nurses, midwives and the public and to create an equity of standard across all health registration boards. Before I conclude, I inform members that I am soon meeting with the retiring chief executive officer of Aged Care Queensland, Mr Michael Isaac. I take this opportunity to thank Michael for his efforts and work and his professionalism in the aged care arena in this state. He is not leaving the industry and is someone who is very committed to quality aged care in this state. I thank him for his work. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips): Order! Before calling the member for Gregory, I welcome to the gallery Ms Leonie Short, the former member for the federal seat of Ryan. Welcome. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (12.16 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003, there is only one aspect of the legislation that I want to speak to but other issues I want to canvass. I have said it in this House before and I say it again today: two of the most important things in our society today are good health services and good education services. In that regard, legislation passed through this place last week in relation to education and training, and the bill now before the House in relation to health is instrumental and will play an integral role in that regard. One of the issues I want to raise—and I know that the minister referred to it on numerous occasions in her second reading speech—is the importance of consumer protection. There has to be consumer protection with everything—be it health services, business or any other services. The minister stated in her second reading speech— This bill also implements recommendations of the national competition review of restrictions on the practice of dentistry. In the past there have been difficulties in attracting dentists to western Queensland and other remote areas of Queensland. Nobody knows this more than the minister—that is, how difficult it has been to attract professional medical personnel in recent years regardless of their profession to any part of Queensland because they could make more money and have a better lifestyle on the coastal areas of the state, whether it be in the south-east corner or along the coastal strip going north to Cairns. Mr Lawlor: There are even problems getting them down the Gold Coast, Vaughan. Mr JOHNSON: As the member for Southport says, it is even difficult to attract them to the Gold Coast. When we do get them to an area, it is paramount that we try to keep them in that area. That brings me to the issue— Mrs Edmond: Marry them off to someone. Mr JOHNSON: Like hell! The one I am going to tell the minister about is married, but he is going. I bring to the attention of the House the situation of Dr Ian Crump, a resident dentist in Charleville for the last few years. In 1999 Dr Crump graduated from the University of Queensland with a four-year return of service scholarship with Queensland Health. He requested that his service be conducted in Charleville due to the fact that Dr Rob Rogers, an outstanding dentist, was practising in the area. Unfortunately, on his arrival Dr Rogers had left, as had the dental technician. Dr Crump was ultimately dumped in the deep end as it became apparent that the senior dentist had been transferred from another location to Charleville due to concerns with his performance as a dentist. This dentist was required to work under supervision, but Dr Crump had only just graduated. The replacement, along with a multitude of issues with Queensland Health, forced his departure. He had numerous concerns with Queensland Health, which I do not want to mention in this parliament. They had, however, been canvassed on numerous occasions. One of the issues related to his departure from Queensland Health was the payment of an outstanding bond of some $32,000. When one looks at the professional services being provided, what is $32,000? What is $32,000 when it means keeping a man of his professional standards in a western community like Charleville? He also canvasses many other areas in close proximity. The government dentist in Charleville is certainly overloaded with work. He has a backlog of patients trying to get in. Dr Crump is in Cunnamulla today. The other areas he covers, such as Cunnamulla, Quilpie and Charleville, have very big indigenous populations. I know this government and the shadow minister are interested in trying to provide better health services in 4126 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 indigenous areas, whether in the gulf or the west. Dr Crump is a professional who has been treated with utter contempt by the Department of Health. It is unfortunate that in June this year Dr Crump withdrew his services in Tambo. He will be withdrawing his services from the whole of the west as of December this year. In September last year I had a meeting with Dr Crump in Charleville. He wrote a letter explaining his departure from Queensland Health. I wrote to the Premier because I was not getting any satisfaction from Queensland Health. I got a response from Rob Whiddon, the Chief of Staff in the Premier's Department, on 4 April 2003. On 22 May, Rob Whiddon responded by saying— It is inappropriate to discuss or intervene in any ongoing contractual negotiations taking place in confidence between Qld Health and Dr Crump. It was recommended the service issue he mentioned be formally raised with the District Manager. These issues could not be resolved at a local level. Those local people in Queensland Health do an exemplary job trying to uphold services in the western parts of this state. On 1 June 2003, Dr Crump wrote to me giving notification of the withdrawal of services for the provision of private dental treatment at Tambo. I met with Dr Crump in Charleville on 13 June 2003. On 15 June, Dr Crump wrote a letter to the Premier. On 18 June I and one of my secretaries met with Ms June Lithgow and Mr Grant Searles in Longreach to discuss Dr Crump's visit to the central parts of the state. The district director of health in the central west, Ms Lithgow, did not have a problem with the work Dr Crump was doing. She said everything was going very well. Dr Crump was happy with that. Numerous phone calls and emails later we find that Dr Crump is leaving the west and taking up private practice in Caloundra. It is Caloundra's gain and the west's loss. It is a sad situation when we lose these professional people from the west because of communication breakdowns or stupidity and inflexibility in policy. I would have thought that, for a paltry $32,000, we could have negotiated some sort of pay in time scheme so that Dr Crump could have paid Queensland Health back and remained in Charleville, providing professional services not only to the overflow from the hospital but also to those people who want access to private practice. One chap from Muttaburra travelled all the way to Charleville to see Dr Crump because he could not get into the dentist at Longreach or Barcaldine. This situation has occurred on many occasions. I know the member for Warrego would agree with this and I am sure the members for Charters Towers, Cook, Mount Isa and others from country electorates would agree with how difficult it is to retain professional people in our electorates. A lot of these people can have a better quality of life and a better lifestyle living somewhere else. As the member for Southport said, it is difficult to attract people to coastal areas. When we get people into these areas to provide these services we do not have to go overboard and make everything as comfortable as possible but we certainly should not put impediments in their way and then find after six months they say, 'I am not getting the support from Queensland Health'—or whatever other government agency—'and I am leaving town.' This is an unfortunate situation. Dr Crump is selling his home. He bought a light aircraft so he could provide professional services to people in outlying areas of Queensland. Now he is leaving the west and going to live in Caloundra. I wish Ian Crump and his wife every success in Caloundra. I hope that in seeing him depart from western Queensland we are not going to also see decay set in to the system. I suppose 'decay' can be used in many ways when talking about teeth. We are going to see a depleted source of professional dentists in western Queensland. The government dentists in places like Longreach and Barcaldine are not going to stay there all the time. They will come and go at will. It is difficult enough keeping them; why can't we bite the bullet and put in place some sort of structure to accommodate these people who want to be a party to the process? I would not know how many tens of thousands of dollars Dr Crump has saved Queensland Health over the past few years that he has been resident in Charleville. I would not know how many tens of thousands of dollars he has saved people in western Queensland in terms of travelling away to get professional services in larger country towns or the coastal areas. Dr Crump said to me on the phone just recently that he had an offer from Caloundra to go into private practice that he could not refuse. The sad part is that a lot of people in western Queensland whom he will not be treating will be wondering where they will get dental treatment. He put a machine into the surgery to do crowns. Crowns are something that not every dentist in 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4127 the bush can do. In a response in February 2003 from Queensland Health to one of these issues, it stated that these treatments that Dr Crump is providing are only emergencies with a limit of $120. Should there be two bad teeth that require treatment he was advised to treat the worst one. Dr Ross McCasher, Director of Oral Health, said that he could only treat the four worst teeth on any one patient in any one year. For God's sake, if these people have decaying teeth, it is a recipe for the erosion of their health. We cannot afford to let people—whether they are Aboriginal people, schoolchildren or whoever—go on with decaying teeth. Under this legislation, are we going to see an erosion of dental services provided to schoolchildren? The minister might elaborate on that when she concludes the debate today. I do not make these comments lightly. I have to say that I am damn angry to see Dr Crump leaving Charleville. He purchased a house there, he set up that practice there and he bought an aeroplane to provide a reasonable service to the people of Queensland. But, no, what did this government do? Turned its back on him and walked away. At the end of the day— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection from the member for Logan. Dr Crump has been trying to negotiate and has been treated with contempt. Mrs Edmond: He signed a contract. He was fully informed. Mr JOHNSON: I know he signed a contract and I know the reasons why he left. But why could the minister not negotiate with him? I will argue all day with the minister. She can go out there and tell the people of western Queensland that, because he signed a contract, she is not going to negotiate to try to keep him there. I would have thought that for $32,000 the minister would have negotiated some sort of a deal that would have kept him in that part of Queensland. She knows how hard it is to keep professional people out there. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr JOHNSON: He wants to stay there, but the minister does not care if he leaves. He is gone as of December. Mr Mickel interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I can hear the vibes from the back, but when it comes to reality, when it comes to the truth— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr JOHNSON: It is all right for the member. He can walk into a dentist in Brisbane, the Gold Coast—anywhere. But those people in the west cannot do that. I think that, for a paltry $32,000, something should have been negotiated to keep Dr Ian Crump in Charleville. In the few minutes that I have left to me, I want to touch on another issue of health within my electorate and it relates to the gem fields clinic, which is just west of Emerald. For some time this clinic has been a very controversial issue. Sister Ann Payne has been the resident sister there for some time. I pay credit where credit is due. I know that Mrs Kerry Windsor, who is the District Director of Queensland Health on the central highlands, said to me some time ago that she wanted to enhance the health services of the gem fields and was in the process of engaging a doctor to be resident at the gem fields to be the private practitioner to give those people professional medical attention. But one issue that a lot of people on the gem fields are very concerned about—and I am going to a meeting there on Friday—is exactly whether at that clinic in future we are going to see bulk-billing. A lot of people are anxious about the bulk-billing concept. I know that Mrs Windsor is going to take the doctor there for an orientation day so that he can meet with many people. But the one thing that I do say—and I give Queensland Health the benefit of the doubt here, and I know Mrs Windsor has worked extremely hard to try to get in place a doctor at the gem fields—is that there has been a lot of concern by the residents of the gem fields that Sister Ann Payne has been treated with contempt by Queensland Health. Whatever the issue—and I know that it is one that is between Sister Payne and Queensland Health—I just hope that Sister Payne has not been treated with contempt and that, whatever the negotiations have been with her, they are going to be fruitful and advantageous to her as well as to Queensland Health. Again, it comes back to one issue. As the minister said in her second reading speech, that one issue is consumer protection. Those people out there have great rapport with Ann Payne. They have great confidence in her, enjoy her confidentiality and the services that she has provided over a long period. I think that it is absolutely essential that we 4128 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 recognise the work that these people do. All I can say to the people in control of Queensland Health is that I hope that, with the upgrade of this facility at the gem fields with the doctor taking up residency, we are not going to see a wind back of services and that we are going to have services that are equal or even better to what we have currently. I believe that the issue of health services throughout Queensland, especially in the western areas of the state, is always contentious. I know in the western areas of the state at Birdsville the federal government has now made an amount of money available for the upgrading of that clinic. I want to put on record here today— Mrs Edmond: Have you got that in writing, because we have been told the federal government is not putting in any money? Mr JOHNSON: I have been told $500,000. Mrs Edmond: Have you got that in writing? Could you send it to my office, because we have been trying to find out. Mr JOHNSON: I will give the minister the details of it. The point that I make is that the clinic at Birdsville is one of the older clinics in the state. It has been operated by the Uniting Church—or Frontier Services now—for many, many years. I want to say on record today that Mrs Rosemary Young, who is the coordinator of Frontier Services in Sydney, and her personnel—not only those who have operated in western Queensland over a long period but all of those people in Frontier Services who provide terrific support to families not only in the area of health but also in the area of social needs of families, mothers and children right throughout the western part of the state—have provided a magnificent service. To the clinic sisters, who have resided at Birdsville, Bedourie and all of those other places down in South Australia over a long period, I say that I think their professionalism has gone unnoticed by many people. On behalf of the people of western Queensland and the recipients of their services over such a long period, I put on the record of this parliament today my sincere gratitude to the Uniting Church and Frontier Services for the magnificent work that they have done in delivering medical services along and in conjunction with the Royal Flying Doctor Service to that part of Queensland. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (12.36 p.m.): I fully support this legislation, which amends 11 various Health portfolio acts to provide greater and improved protection for ordinary Queenslanders obtaining health services. I would also like to acknowledge Leonie Short, former member for Ryan, President of the Labor Women's Association and also dental therapist, who has a special interest in this bill and who is in the gallery here today. The Beattie government and the Minister for Health are committed to ensuring that health care is provided to all Queenslanders at the highest possible standard while enhancing the protection afforded to them. Queenslanders seeking health services have consumer protection through health practitioner registration, the regulation of professional conduct and possible punitive actions against health practitioners under various state and Commonwealth acts. The range of consumer protections contained in existing legislation means that the requirement for certain health professionals to be registered provides a highly effective means of protecting the interests of the public, addressing information available to consumers and ensuring that practitioners hold professional standards. I would like to concentrate my comments on this bill on those amendments that involve dentistry. There are quite a number of dental practices in Mount Ommaney and with over 100 dentists, dental therapists, dental hygienists, dental technicians, dental nurses and orthodontists living in my electorate, interest in this bill is high. In accordance with national competition policy, a review of restricted core practices was established to examine potentially anti-competitive and statutory practice restrictions within certain facets of the health industry. This bill implements recommendations from the NCP review of restrictions in the practice of dentistry involving the Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001, the Dental Practitioners Registration Regulation 2001, the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act 2001 and the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999. The bill's amendments will retain a statutory definition of dentistry to capture only those facets of the practice that pose a high risk of harm to patients. It will continue to restrict the types of people who may practise dentistry, namely registered dentists, dentist specialists and medical practitioners, and the extent to which their duties fall within the definition of dentistry, registered dental prosthetists and allied oral health professionals, dental hygienists and dental therapists. It will retain a simplified statutory definition of dental prosthetists' work. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4129

It will restrict the provision of dental prosthesis services to dental prosthetists, dentists and medical practitioners, retain the current restriction on the provision of partial dentures to dental prosthetists, provide for the registration of allied oral health professionals by the Dental Board of Queensland, remove the restriction on the employment of dental therapists to the public sector, remove the requirement for dental hygienists to work in a one-to-one ratio with a dentist, and enable the Dental Board to authorise a dental therapist under the supervision of a dentist to perform additional functions if the therapist has the necessary qualifications or skills. The review of restricted core practices identified procedures that pose a high risk of harm to dental patients. Those high-risk dental procedures are restricted to qualified practitioners in order to protect consumers. These restricted practices include the diagnosis of conditions of the mouth, the fitting or adjustment of artificial teeth or corrective dental appliances such as braces, and irreversible and exposure-prone procedures such as extracting a molar, cutting a person's gum to remove a tooth or providing a filling. Unregistered or unauthorised persons who seek to perform a restricted practice will commit an offence, as will persons holding themselves out to be registered when they are not. Title restrictions prevent a non-registrant from using a professional title. Dental therapists and dental hygienists have long been a vital component of Queensland's rural and urban dental line-up, providing valuable public services. This bill provides for registration of dental therapists and dental hygienists to bring them within the scope of the general requirements of the Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001. The amendments also provide for the appointment of a dental therapist and a dental hygienist to the Dental Board and provide for their representation on professional panels convened to determine a disciplinary or health assessment matter involving another allied oral health professional. As I said earlier, the bill removes the restrictions which limit dental therapists to employment in the public sector. It also removes the requirement for dental hygienists to work in a one-to-one ratio with a dentist. When the bill is passed it will be possible to see a dentist and two or more therapists when they visit a nursing home to expedite consultations and provide greater levels of service. A simplified definition of dental prosthesis work is provided, and the bill restricts the provision of dental prosthetic services to dental prosthetists, dentists and medical practitioners. It will retain the current restriction on the provision of partial dentures by dental prosthetists. The amendments will also remove the restrictions on the performance of dental technical work by dental technicians. The removal of this restriction will enable dentists, dental prosthetists and dental technicians to employ staff who are not necessarily fully trained dental technicians to undertake unskilled technical work. I am not aware of any issues involved with this in other jurisdictions and am confident that it will work well here. I congratulate the minister and her department for their efforts in producing these much-needed amendments during such trying times, and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.42 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. This bill amends 11 acts; namely, the Chiropractors Registration Act 2001, the Optometrists Registration Act 2001, the Physiotherapists Registration Act 2001, the Podiatrists Registration Act 2001, the Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001 and associated acts, the Health Act 1937, the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999, the Health Rights Commission Act 1991, the Health Services Act 1991 and the Nursing Act 1992. If ever there was an issue of serious concern to the public not only in Queensland but also Australiawide, it would be health. This bill's amendments are generally in line with those relating to other medical fields. They also implement the recommendations of the review of core restricted practices and national competition policy. The bill imposes penalties for certain offences. We all know that the current dilemma facing the national health system is also reflected here in Queensland. The discontent of doctors in public hospitals, combined with that of the nursing staff and the general public alike, shows that the health system in Queensland is in fact in crisis. Queensland appears to be leading the way in cutting services, reducing staff, denying staff correct wage structures and deterring people from entering the profession. The minister outlined in her speech the need to remove the broad statutory definitions restricting practices to particular professions and replace these with restrictions on practices which pose a high risk of harm to patients. I do not necessarily disagree with the minister that consumer protection must be the priority, because it really must. Registered health professionals provide a highly effective means of protecting the public, according to the minister. Registered health professionals whose conduct is considered to be 4130 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 unsatisfactory or unprofessional should be subjected to disciplinary action by the registration board, the review panel or the Health Practitioners Tribunal. No-one would disagree with that. I am sure that every health practitioner practising in this state is aware of it. The Courier-Mail on 10 December stated— A Brisbane doctor jailed for child-sex crimes could resume unsupervised contact with child patients in three years if recommendations before the Health Practices Tribunal are upheld. The Medical Board of Queensland ... told the tribunal it did not want Michael Harvey Golden's licence to be suspended despite the seriousness of his offence. I ask the minister whether this doctor, who was jailed for these sex crimes, will be permitted to practise and practise unsupervised. If he will, where is the demarcation line between the bill's actual objective and what it will actually allow? I doubt that there are any residents in this state who would use a health service unless they were sure it was provided by a competent and trained health professional in any specialised field, including physiotherapy or dentistry. As the minister states, the bill will ensure that Queensland's obligations under national competition policy are met without compromising patient standards. That is a fair comment. It was stated recently— Medical blunders cost Australia an estimated $350 million each year, and are a major factor in the soaring litigation bills facing governments and medical indemnity funds. The serious things that do in fact occur are continually reported in the paper. On 25 October it was reported that a woman was forced to wait 15 hours to have a shower after giving birth, while her baby was not examined by a doctor within 41 hours. That is unacceptable. That is compromising the patient's care and the baby's care. A Mackay man died from a heart attack after waiting nearly two months for an angiogram, despite his condition being described as high risk. That is compromising patient care. A lot of that goes on. We hear about it almost daily, to the point that people are starting to think it is normal to be possibly subjected to waiting for death before getting into a hospital. Mr Mickel: What? Mrs PRATT: It is true. We hear about these things every day. I could bring forward numerous articles about how people's lives have been compromised. Recently a young girl went to the hospital on the weekend after hurting her arm. When she presented to the hospital, they said, 'Come back in normal working hours.' She did that, although she was in a lot of pain. Even when she went back during normal working hours no x-ray was taken. Two weeks later she was still in considerable pain so they finally did an x-ray. This young girl had to have her arm rebroken because the bone had knitted crookedly. It was frightening for her. She was put through a lot of stress, trauma and discomfort. In the past people have been let down seriously. With the way the bill is written, I question whether compromise of patient care will be removed. I turn to other parts of the legislation which are concerned with the dental profession. The bill is looking at extending the roles and skill levels of dental auxiliaries by providing for regulations to provide other categories of dental auxiliary work and additional functions to be performed by appropriately trained or qualified auxiliaries. Does this mean that, finally, the dental clinics in our hospitals, such as the one at Kingaroy, will have their waiting lists reduced? Just a little while ago the wait time was 180 weeks. At the time the figures were quoted, that was the worst wait time in the state. Will these extra dental procedures bring Kingaroy's dental practices back into line with the majority? Does the bill mean that more doctors will be encouraged to move to rural areas? What incentives will the government offer them? Because currently, as the member for Gregory says, doctors are leaving. Kingaroy has had a change in the last little while. In my opinion, this bill is an excuse to further bind an ailing health system and its practitioners to more legislation that is already falling apart. Why does the minister not amend the bill to cover patients who take legal action against health professionals to a fixed liability, decrease liability insurance costs and take the stretched resources of our health professionals to a new level where more and more people may be induced into taking up a position in one form or another in the industry? We need a government that will make health providers more accountable and a government that will take the pressure off health providers and induce more people into the industry. Then maybe there will be no need for a bill aimed at making professionals uphold their professional standards. I personally believe they all try very hard to have a very high professional standard, but if the system and the support around them are not there then the chances are that the standards 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4131 they are seeking to attain cannot be reached. Perhaps they are a bit too high under the current circumstances. The truth is that qualified health professionals who gain registration must be just that: professionals. They are trained to be professionals. It is the workload and the lack of proper support from the government that are not protecting the interests of the public. There are cases brought into the public arena every day. For example, Lyn has breast cancer and she was advised it was essential to begin her radiotherapy within four weeks of completing her chemotherapy. She was told that she would have to wait 10 weeks and thereby reduce the effectiveness of her treatment. Her life expectancy was compromised because of the system's inability to cope. We have as many as 140,000 patients admitted to Australian hospitals each year as a result of receiving the wrong or incorrect doses of medication. These are not only by patients themselves; they are administered by doctors, health professionals and nurses. It is quite frightening. There seems to be a lack of care and a lack of time to really address the issues. Recently a young mother was taken to Wynnum, where she was told to go home. She was supposed to be there early. She was told to go home because only two staff were on duty. Ambulance officers were told that the hospital was not able to provide more than basic care after hours and little better in working hours due to most of its equipment being stripped away. Then there was a situation where an elderly gentleman from Nanango had an appointment at Royal Brisbane Hospital for 8 a.m. He got down there and still had not been seen by 3 p.m. When they asked what was up, they were told the appointment had been cancelled and the doctor had tried to ring them. He had, but just before the appointment was due. Anyone who has any knowledge of Queensland knows it is a big state. It takes at least two and a half hours to get to Brisbane. If the doctor had failed to leave a message that the patient's appointment was cancelled, why was a message at least not left at the desk? There needs to be some coordination between the staff, the doctors and the patients so that they can get the message through. It is a huge and complex amount of legislation that the minister is trying to bring together, and I do not blame her for that in any way, shape or form, but I do question whether or not it will address the current climate where the health of patients is being compromised. Regardless of what is said, a lot of times service in rural areas has gone backwards and it keeps going backwards. The needs seems to be rising quicker than the steps taken to try to overcome it. Although I do have quite a few reservations with this bill, I hope that the intent of the bill will be carried through, that it will succeed and that patients will be the overall beneficiaries. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (12.54 p.m.): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. This bill seeks to amend a number of bills. One of the amendments arises out of a national competition policy review of dentistry in Queensland. The amendments contained in this bill will strike a balance. It acknowledges the existing skills and abilities of a number of dental health professionals and extends their ability to service patients whilst providing sufficient protection for medical consumers. One of the advantages of this amendment will be increased flexibility in the provision of dental health care. I know the constituents of the Redlands electorate will appreciate the increased flexibility. I have received complaints about dental waiting lists at the Redland Hospital. I am aware that the minister is aware of this and is seeking budget increases to address the dental waiting lists. I am sure the amendment contained in this bill will have a further impact on the dental waiting times, and I commend the minister for listening to the constituents of the Redlands and for taking steps to increase the provision of dental health care. This minister's commitment to improving the health care provision to constituents in the Redlands is further evidenced this year in the budget, where $3.39 million was provided to begin construction of a 128-bed aged care facility based at the Redland Hospital. The Redlands is a beautiful area and we certainly have a growing aged community. This new facility will seek to address the growing need for aged care beds, retirement villages and nursing homes in the electorate of Redlands. A further $877,000 was committed to the construction of a new building for the provision of mental health services in the Redlands area. The minister has provided ongoing support for a range of mental health initiatives in the area, and I commend her for her care and consideration. The opposition continually goes on about the inadequacies of the state health care system. I point out that the biggest threat posed to the state health system is the attack by John Howard 4132 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 on Medicare and bulk-billing. Whilst the opposition is attempting to scare consumers about the services provided in the state system, it fails to acknowledge that John Howard and the federal government are the biggest single threat. By being unable to find a doctor who is prepared to bulk-bill late at night, or even during the day in many cases, it forces these people with in some cases quite minor illnesses and injuries to go to emergency services. It puts added strain on the public health system. There is a significant amount of growth in the southern end of my electorate. I am pleased to see that the bayside health district is monitoring this growth and planning for it. I have written to the minister and have outlined my concerns for some type of outreach program in the southern end. She has written back advising me that the bayside health district is monitoring the growth and is planning for a community based health service in the Redlands. There are difficulties with public transport faced particularly by the bay island communities and Redland Bay constituents. A community based facility would provide them with further access to health care. As I said, I compliment the bayside health district and the minister for being on top of the issue, being aware of this emerging issue and planning for that problem down the track. Another amendment contained in this bill is an amendment involving the Queensland Nursing Council. Nurses are like police: highly professional, highly trained individuals who carry out their day-to-day functions very professionally. The majority of them—upwards of 90 per cent—carry out their duties flawlessly. However, there are rotten apples in every barrel, and this amendment that allows the Queensland Nursing Council to access criminal histories for any applicants wishing to be registered in Queensland as a nurse further enhances the integrity and the high professionalism of nurses in Queensland. This is not about targeting nursing any more than security checks or blue cards are about targeting volunteers. This is about ensuring the integrity and professionalism of an existing service. I thank the minister and her department for the work they have done in bringing this bill before the House. I commend it very highly. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): As previous speakers have indicated, this bill amends a number of acts which will provide greater protection to health service consumers and also more certainty to registered providers of those services. The sections of this bill that I wanted to make some specific comments on related to amendments to the Dental Practitioners Registration Act. I noticed in the chamber earlier that there were representatives of the Dental Therapists Association, who have been very strong and powerful advocates for change in this area. I want to acknowledge the work that they have done on behalf of their members in advocating for changes, particularly to the area of dental therapy. These amendments arise out of national competition policy obligations placed on the state government. The amendments the minister has put forward ensure that our obligations under this policy will be met without compromising patient care. At the outset in this matter I indicate that my wife is a dental therapist and that some of the amendments in this legislation will directly affect the occupation that she is engaged in. I welcome to the gallery our representatives from the Dental Therapists Association. I am pleased that the minister has recognised the valuable and professional services provided by dental therapists within our school system, both public and private. As other members have indicated, our therapists treat schoolchildren in both the private and state sector between the ages of four and up to and including students who are undertaking year 10. They perform a range of operative work such as fillings and extractions on baby or first teeth and have a major focus in their work on preventive measures such as oral hygiene, cleaning and basic tooth brushing. The work that dental therapists do in the school system is invaluable. If the service did not exist, many children would go through their early childhood with significant dental problems which, of course, would severely impact on their overall health. Indeed, many parents would not be able to afford the level of dental care that our therapists provide if they had to access that care through the private system. The standard qualification for dental therapists today is the Bachelor of Oral Health. Many of our existing therapists, including my wife, were trained under the old system which was delivered by Queensland Health out of its training facility at Yeronga. Therapists who hold a Bachelor of Oral Health are currently able to practise as dental hygienists in the private sector. However, this is an issue that the bill will address. Therapists are currently restricted to practising their profession within the public sector. This bill will change that, and I believe that this is a positive change which will impact positively on the availability of dental services throughout the wider community. Once 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4133 this bill is assented to, dental therapists will be able to practise in either the public or private sector. The approach adopted by the government under this bill with respect to dental therapists and other dental practitioners, in order to meet its obligations under the national competition policy rules, was to identify those procedures which pose a risk of harm to patients and then regulate or restrict those practices to properly qualified practitioners in order to protect consumer safety. Under the act, unregistered or unauthorised persons who seek to perform those particular practices would be committing an offence. Dentists and medical practitioners can perform these procedures, along with dental therapists and dental hygienists, to the extent that their duties fall within the definition of dentistry. The member for Maroochydore raised a number of issues which I will address shortly, but I think that qualification does go some way to addressing some of the concerns that she raised. I will deal with the other issues in a little more detail in a moment. For the record, some of the important changes that this bill puts in place with respect to dental therapists and dental hygienists, collectively referred to as dental auxiliaries under the act, are as follows: as I have indicated, there is the removal of the current restriction on dental therapists to be employed only in the public sector; the registration of dental auxiliaries which covers both occupations under the Dental Practitioners Registration Act; the appointment of a dental therapist and a dental hygienist to the Dental Board; and the removal of the requirement for dental hygienists to work on a one-to-one ratio with dentists. Under the bill the minister has the power to direct the board to formulate a code of practice which will provide guidance on the duties and levels of supervision required for dental therapists and hygienists. Earlier I referred to a number of concerns raised by the member for Maroochydore. I am sure that the minister will address each of those. However, as I intended to cover some of those matters in my speech today, I will deal with them now. The first concern raised by the member for Maroochydore was that there would possibly be an exodus from the public sector into the private sector, particularly of dental therapists, and that this would have an adverse impact on the levels of service that the state would be able to provide to students within our system. The experience in other states has been to the contrary. I refer to Victoria, for example, where the Dental Board has advised that after the commencement of the Dental Practice Act 1999 only 12 dental therapists have taken up employment in the private sector. A similar experience occurred in Western Australia and in Tasmania. With respect to the issue of supervision of dental therapists in the private sector, private dentists as employers will have to exercise the same skill and care in the recruitment of competent staff and the provision of an effective system of supervision as occurs in the public sector. Dentists will have to exercise their professional judgment as to the number of employees they may safely employ and the level of supervision those employees require. With respect to the treatment of adults, the bill provides that additional functions may be prescribed for dental auxiliaries, but that will be dependent upon the qualifications and experience of the person concerned. The board will have the final say as to what those qualifications and experience will be. In response to the three key concerns raised by the member for Maroochydore, they are adequately covered in the act. I intend to make a few brief comments and then I will finish on the treatment that the federal government is giving to our health system. I conclude on this issue with respect to dental therapists by saying that I believe that these provisions will provide an opportunity for more affordable dental care to be available to the wider community. At the same time, this bill provides for the protection of professional standards and also the protection of consumers against unqualified persons performing restricted categories of work. I could not let the opportunity go by without saying a few words about the destruction of the Medicare system by the federal government. We have already heard about how the Howard federal government has ripped about $1 billion out of our health care system. In Queensland that results in about $160 million being taken out of the system over five years. Valuable hospital beds are being taken up by many elderly patients—it is not their fault; it is not the fault of their families—because of the lack of funding for aged care placements in the community. The underfunding of Medicare has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the availability of bulk- billing places. In the federal electorate of Lilley, bulk-billing rates have fallen by nearly 24 per cent over the past few years. As a consequence, our public hospital system is being clogged by people who should otherwise be treated by their local GP. 4134 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: Yes, and there are examples in every federal electorate in the country where the amount of bulk-billing has reduced substantially. Peter Costello recently announced that there was a $7.5 billion surplus. The majority of Australians are expressing a view that that surplus should be spent on services such as health, education and others. Some of that money should be allocated to supporting our public health system and in particular Medicare in order to relieve a lot of the stresses and strains which have been placed on our public system. In conclusion, I commend the minister and her staff for the progressive nature of the reforms outlined in this bill. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (2.40 p.m.): After listening to the contribution of the member for Nudgee, it is amazing how Labor Party members continue with the deceit and dishonesty regarding the Australian Health Care Agreement. How can an extra $2.1 billion over five years equate to a cut of $160 million? There is $2,100 million extra over the next five years. That is extra money. Extra means plus, not minus. That is how much extra money there is. When I was the Health Minister negotiating previous health care agreements we got something like a 28 per cent increase because we were able to negotiate such things as funding for Surgery on Time and other special funding. So there was a 28 per cent increase. That was extra money. It was not a cut. After those opposite carried on with all of their Labor Party publicity stunts with the premiers of the other states, they negotiated 20 per cent, and they nearly lost that, too! If they had concentrated on the job they might have got more for Queensland, but 20 per cent or $2.1 billion is extra money and not, as the member for Nudgee said, a cut of $160 million a year. The member for Nudgee has fallen hook, line and sinker for the deceit, the dishonesty and the propaganda of Mr Beattie and his Health Minister, who do not seem to know that $2,100 million extra over five years—that is, going from $5.9 billion to $8 billion in total over five years—is actually an increase. The problem that the Queensland government has is that it wants to cover up its own shortcomings. It wants to blame someone else so that when stories come from people on waiting lists and those who have had operations cancelled it can say, 'Oh, no, it's not our fault. It's the fault of the federal government.' It has been exposed. There is $2.1 billion extra. Let us stop all the deceit and the dishonesty about this $160 million cut. One wonders why people keep saying how dishonest politics is, but this is the sort of thing that makes people think, 'Who's telling the truth? How can the Labor Party say there's a $160 million cut when there's an additional $2,100 million?' Recent figures from the Institute of Health and Welfare show that the usage of public hospital beds has fallen by an average of two per cent per year compared to a rise of 2.9 per cent in the use of private hospital beds per year for the same period. That is not state by state but across Australia, but that is largely a result of the 30 per cent tax rebate for private health insurance which has been well received by many people. In Toowoomba there has been a great acceptance of the private health insurance rebate. That $2.1 billion or 20 per cent increase over and above inflation in real terms is 17 per cent, and even the Premier admitted that during the last sitting of parliament. He admitted that there was a 17 per cent increase. He has told the parliament that there has been a 17 per cent increase in real terms, yet he still goes around saying that there has been a $160 million cut. Anyone who says that there is a $160 million cut is actually lying, because the Premier himself has said, 'Yes, there was a 17 per cent increase in real terms.' It was 20 per cent over and above inflation but in real terms it was 17 per cent. What is the Queensland government doing with all the extra money it is getting not only from the new Australian Health Care Agreement but also in GST money? Just to give the House some figures, during 2002-03 Queensland's estimated revenue from the GST was $5,881 million. During 2003-04 Queensland's estimated revenue from the GST is $6,231.3 million, an increase of $350 million over the previous year. There are a couple of other aspects I want to mention about the health care agreements. When the agreements were first mooted earlier in the year— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! The honourable member will need to make mention of the bill soon. Mr HORAN: I certainly will. I want to say something about dental therapists and radiation therapy. As I said, that extra funding was $2.1 billion which took the agreement up to $8 billion. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4135

There are other important factors, because this bill is about health. As we have seen in previous bills about police and education, the tradition of this parliament is to— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am happy to allow a bit of latitude, but the member will need to touch on the bill soon. Mr HORAN: It is the tradition of this parliament to be able to speak on matters to do with health, particularly those hospitals in a member's electorate. It is the funding which is the foundation of all hospital services and other services that are provided. Between 1998-99 and 2000-01 admissions to Queensland private hospitals increased by 115,000 or 28 per cent. That gives the House a good example of the popularity of the 30 per cent rebate. Between 1998-99 and 2001-02 Commonwealth funding for public hospitals through the Australian health care agreements grew at a faster rate than the Queensland contribution. There was 17.3 per cent growth from the Commonwealth compared to 13 per cent growth from Queensland. For the benefit of the House, I will run through the amounts that were offered. For 2003-04 Queensland was offered $1,421 million; in 2004-05, $1,511 million; 2005-06, $1,600 million; in 2006-07, $1,694 million; and in 2007-08, $1,793 million. That is a total of $8,021 million or over $8 billion. In order to receive the maximum contribution, Queensland was required to at least match the rate of growth in the Commonwealth's contribution and deliver on commitments under the agreement. So let us not hear any more about this $160 million cut. A $2.1 billion increase is an increase. An increase is an increase, so let us not hear any more of these lies, deceit and dishonesty about the matter. Government members interjected. Mr HORAN: The deceit and dishonesty that we are receiving all of the time from the Queensland government is not unparliamentary. I turn now to the issue of Toowoomba's need for radiotherapy and MRI services. The Toowoomba area desperately needs a new, modern, up-to-date MRI service. It is the least that should be provided for a city of around 100,000 and which serves a surrounding population of at least 150,000 to 200,000. In total, probably a good 300,000 people are served in the catchment of the Toowoomba Base Hospital. It is important that there is an MRI service in the area so that people do not have to be sent to Brisbane for that basic service. It has been good to see that the Commonwealth government has now granted a licence for radiation therapy in Toowoomba, and that will be accompanied by some $8 million. That service will be put into one of the hospitals in our city, albeit the Toowoomba Base Hospital or St Vincent's or St Andrew's. The people of Toowoomba have a need for the government to provide funding for those services in a block if that radiotherapy service is indeed placed in one of the private hospitals. It is important that that service be shared around. Similar to the case if it were put into the public hospital, the service should be shared among the three major hospitals in the city so that people from south-western Queensland, the Burnett area and Toowoomba can have access to radiation therapy and not have to be put into vehicles and taken to Brisbane at a time when they are under great stress. I will keep fighting to ensure that there is adequate funding, particularly with all of the extra GST money coming through and the extra money under the Australian Health Care Agreement. Money is needed so that public hospital patients in Toowoomba have access to radiation therapy services. Interestingly, people involved in the provision of radiation therapy in Queensland have told me that they are able to get adequate numbers of well-trained staff. They are putting medical science graduates through a special course offered by one of the Australian universities. They are able to provide those people with the skills to be able to operate radiation therapy equipment. There would not be a shortage of radiation therapy staff if more places were offering similar training for young graduates who want to enter this field. A vote of thanks is required for the Commonwealth government for its provision of $8 million to Toowoomba for radiation therapy. We now need the Beattie government to come to the party and enable the base hospital to issue a tender for the provision of that service or to give it the necessary funds for its patients to access that service in the event that the tender goes to one of the other hospitals. It is important that a big, expensive facility like this is shared around. Similarly, it is important that we have our own MRI. In a city the size of Toowoomba there should be an MRI based in the public hospital. I wish also to speak about the wonderful provision of mental health services that emanates from Centacare in Toowoomba. This service was provided in conjunction with the Catholic education system. It provides psychologists to some of the Western Downs and south-western 4136 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 areas—places such as Roma and other areas of the south-west. It has been a wonderful service. The funding for the service is not forthcoming from the state government. There has been an amount. I have written to the minister about it and the minister has written back. I would like every consideration to be given to this. The people of the south-west did not have this type of service for many years. This service reaches out to many of the schools. It is available not only to the Catholic convents in the area but also to others. It also provides assistance to general practitioners. GPs can refer patients to psychologists based in those areas. Those psychologists were being retained in the area; they were not there before. We need certainty of funding in order to provide that service. Mrs Edmond: Just let me clarify: this is Commonwealth funding that has been cut. Mr HORAN: No, it has not been cut. The funding is being negotiated at the moment. Mrs Edmond: It is Commonwealth funding, not state funding. Mr HORAN: There always has been some state funding involved. They have been seeking the certainty of a three-year contract. Currently, the Catholic Church, through Centacare, is providing this funding. The minister is right in part: limited funding was provided to get the service up and running. Sometimes it is difficult when services are provided on a pilot basis to get something going. However, extra money is being provided to the government and there is also extra money through the GST. This is a wonderful service. The minister stated in her letter that 'pending the outcome of the current negotiations, if funding is secured for the South West Queensland Psychology Service, a one-year service agreement to 30 June 2004 would bring the service into alignment with other non-government services'. It is a good service and it is one that I thoroughly recommend the minister give every consideration to. It is complementing what the GPs are able to provide. It is providing the people, including the children, of the south-west with a psychology service that they never had before. In an area that has been subjected to drought and other difficulties it has been very important. It is also good news for the Toowoomba Hospital that we are to have a permanent district manager. There have been a lot of staff changes at the top level of district manager, and that makes it very difficult for a hospital of that size and complexity to have esprit de corps and well organised systems when there is a continual change of management. Currently, it is under the management of Sandra Thompson—a very capable person who has stepped in before a new person takes over for a three-year term. Prior to Sandra Thompson, we had very capable district management in Karen Roach, who had previously been the district manager in central Queensland. One of the key issues with the Toowoomba Base Hospital is the patients who have to travel to Brisbane—sometimes as many as two small ambulance bus loads a day. Many of these are renal patients who have to access specialised renal services at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, for example. Recently, there have been some horror stories of people having their procedures cancelled at least three times. One person had his procedure at a Brisbane hospital cancelled twice. On the third occasion, he was in the ambulance, down the range and well along the Warrego Highway when a two-way message came through that the procedure was being cancelled due to a lack of beds. It is a real problem and something that needs to be addressed so that the huge workload that is on those hospitals from renal specialities can be catered for. It would be better if we could have renal specialties of that sort in Brisbane. I know the pressure on PA has been huge. Hospitals such as Logan have been sending their patients to PA. That means that places such as Toowoomba and the patients coming down from Toowoomba are not able to access beds, because they are being told that there are no beds or they have to treat the patients from their own areas first. That makes it very difficult not only for the patients but also for the hospital staff. We need extra mental health staff. This has been a difficult area. It was a traumatic time for the mental health staff at Toowoomba some time back following the plane crash. The staff there have worked magnificently through that very deep tragedy. That section of the hospital needs extra staff. There are often complaints about staff shortages and the need for specialist staff. The other thing that we need in Toowoomba is some accommodation in the city for those people who are accessing mental health services and who have recovered and left hospital. Sometimes they do not have anywhere to live. We have a desperate need for crisis accommodation for a number of people of different status, be it women in crisis or youth in crisis. But also in the area of mental health, because we are a regional city, we need crisis accommodation that can back up the services at the base hospital or the community mental health services. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4137

I have had a look at the waiting list figures for the Toowoomba Base Hospital. Those figures are good. I have looked at those figures. It gives me great satisfaction— Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr HORAN: I heard the minister today in a statement talking about how many operations they have done compared with the number in 1998. What the minister does not say is that when we took over at the beginning of 1996 we had the worst waiting lists in Australia. We had the worst waiting times in Australia. In a period of only four months we put in place the Surgery on Time program. In the first 12 months, despite the massive development of that Surgery on Time program—the training of staff, the changing of the structure, the utilisation of the best information from experienced theatre sisters, surgeons, anaesthetists and hospital managers—we reached the target of having less than five per cent long waits in category 1. Then, of course, we had some nine or 10 months until the parliament went into recess in May for the election. As I recall, during that time we got the category 2 waiting lists down to about 80 per cent being on time. So there should be recognition of the fact that it was a coalition government that took the worst waiting times in Australia and entirely reorganised and changed dramatically the way elective surgery occurred in the 10 major hospitals. We put in place the Surgery on Time system. In the first two years under that brand-new system, 13,000 more operations were performed than in the previous two years. The minister should recognise that. Once we put in place that system, it should have got better and better because the foundations were put there, the funding was put there, the organisation of the systems. I must compliment Queensland Health staff for the wonderful way in which they assisted us in doing that. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! Before I call the honourable member for Glass House, I ask the House to acknowledge the school captains and staff from the John Paul College, which is in the electorate of Springwood. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (3.00 p.m.): The Health Legislation Amendment Bill puts forward changes to 11 different acts. In most cases these changes are designed to streamline administrative processes, and any move to reduce red tape is to be commended and deserves the full support of this House. The move to make the membership requirements for district health councils more flexible is a welcome move. The work of the councils is far too important to be constrained by vacancies. Two district health councils cover my electorate, and the work they do is invaluable and we certainly appreciate the time and effort they put into their jobs. Opening up the chiropractors, optometrists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, dentists and dental technicians to competition policy requirements is also needed to ensure open and accountable medical professions. The bill also includes an important provision regarding amending the Nursing Act 1992 to improve public protection. The amendment allows the Queensland Nursing Council the capacity to access criminal histories of applicants for registration, enrolment or for an authorisation to practise midwifery. These changes will mean that applicants who pose a potential risk to patients will not be allowed to practise in Queensland. While some people may have a criminal history, its existence will not automatically prohibit them from practising. It gives the council some flexibility and discretion, but these changes also provide a good safety net, especially if the person is applying for a position which brings them into constant contact with children. There are similar provisions for teachers, and these changes bring nurses and midwives in line with other health practitioners. Another important change within this bill is the widening of the role of dental therapists to enable them, under the supervision of a dentist, to perform additional functions when they have the required qualifications. I believe this will help ease workloads for dentists and allow greater throughput of patients in the long run. Health issues have had a lot of public scrutiny of late and many issues about the federal government's appalling record on health administration have been raised in the House. This federal government must be the only government in Australia to actually underspend—and not by $1 or $2, but by $1 billion. Howard is politically astute enough to realise that health is one of his government's very weak areas and has called on his favourite lap-dog, Tony Abbott, to try to carry the portfolio until the next election. The only saving grace is that he did not appoint former failed minister David Jull as Health Minister. I was certainly outraged to hear Jull's comments about health on a recent edition of the 7.30 Report. He said that one of the reasons why there were fewer doctors in his area was not because of his government's appalling decisions and the fact that it has underfunded Medicare 4138 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 and refused to deal with the bulk-billing issue; according to David Jull, it was because 55 per cent of medical students are female and after they become doctors these women tend to get married, have kids and leave the industry. Mr Cummins: Sensitive new age guy! Ms MALE: He certainly is not! I am sure that if David Jull were Health Minister he would propose a ban on doctors getting married and, as part of their training, medical students should carry out compulsory sterilisation procedures on their fellow students. But, of course, that would apply only to female students. I thought troglodytes like Jull went out with Menzies, but obviously I was wrong. The only thing that David Jull got right was to say that from the federal perspective the health system was in a terrible mess, and I say it is all of the federal government's own doing. Today we heard the member for Gregory say that health is an important area and we must all play an integral role. So why is the National Party not standing up to John Howard and demanding more money for our hospitals? Why is the National Party not calling on the federal government to reinstate funding to the dental health program? I think we all remember that one of the first things John Howard did in 1996 was to stop funding for public dental health. It has been up to this government to take up the provision of this area—a very important area, especially for people in my electorate, to be able to access a public dental health service. But we are certainly struggling to meet the demands out there. I would like to see the surplus that Costello announced—the $7.5 billion surplus—go into reinstating funding for dental health. It is certainly a federal area of responsibility and they are not coming to the party, yet they announce these extra billions of dollars that they have. They are underspending on health, they underspent on the health agreement and it is Queenslanders who are going to pay the price for that. It is going to be Queenslanders who cannot access the health services they require. Why will the coalition not stand up to their federal counterparts and fight for a fair deal for Queenslanders? That is the question that I would like answered. I see that there are no National Party members in the chamber to answer that today. They are not even interested enough to sit here and listen to this debate. While we are on the subject of health, I thought I would take the chance to talk briefly about the Maleny Hospital. It is the only hospital in my electorate as all the other major hospitals are just outside of it. The staff certainly do a fantastic job up there. I have spoken to the Health Minister before about the Maleny Hospital and I want to raise the point in the House that the population is growing in Maleny. The council is certainly allowing additional people to move into the area; they are allowing subdivisions. We would like to see that in the future Maleny Hospital is considered for extended services and the ability for extra nurses to be put on to assist that. We would also like to see a private practitioner open up to provide x-ray services to Maleny. That would make it easy for the whole health system to be met there. They are just a few of the comments I would like to make about health. Obviously I could go on a lot longer. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation to the House and also congratulate her staff and, indeed, the staff of Queensland Health for the excellent work they do. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.06 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. This bill is damning evidence of just how insidious an impact globalisation and national competition policy is having on every aspect of our lives. Here we see things like a definition of chiropractor, optometrist, podiatrist, physiotherapist, dentist and dental technician all coming under the gun just to suit national competition policy. It is supposedly so that increased competition will lead to cheaper services. It is the same failed argument that has been used to justify deregulation of the sugar industry, the tobacco industry, dairying—and the list goes on of industries and sectors that have all been adversely affected by national competition policy and deregulation. The fact that deregulation is pursued so single-mindedly, despite all the evidence of the damage it causes to Queenslanders, just shows how determined this government is to pursue an economic theory at the expense of Queensland's jobs, jobs, jobs and lives, lives, lives. It is a choice of this government— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. The member will withdraw the word 'lies'. Ms LEE LONG: No, I said, 'Lives, lives, lives'—L-I-V-E-S. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. I thought you said 'lies'. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4139

Ms LEE LONG: No. It is a choice of this government because it was the member for Brisbane Central, the Premier himself, who told the Courier-Mail how he was ready to stand up to the federal government to protect the taxi industry from deregulation—for the moment at least. If he can choose to do that for that industry then surely he can choose to do it for others, yet he does not. Instead, he and his government are as happy to be good missionaries for globalisation as the National and Liberal parties. They are determined, even though—according to my advice—this bill threatens the health and lives of Queenslanders because of the wanton destruction of legislative protections that have served us so well for so long. This government is risking the basic expectation all Queenslanders have, and that is the expectation that our health and medical services will be good for their health, not threaten their health as will be possible under this bill. Let me refer to a letter I received—and I have received a number of them—in relation to qualifications and registrations within the dental technology industry as an example of what I am talking about. This letter talks about the kinds of things dental technicians now do, including the construction of aids such as fixed ceramics, gold crowns, bridge appliances, cast metal partial dentures, mouth guards and osteo integrated implants. They operate as part of a team which can include oral surgeons, orthodontists, medical practitioners, physiotherapists, dentists and so on as needed. In their field they have input on the material selection, design, treatment, planning and so on. Importantly, they must have approved educational qualifications and be trained in recognising dangerous materials so that they will not be used in making the various appliances which could be harmful to Queenslanders. What will we see if this legislation is passed? I am advised that we will be allowing anyone who wants to set up shop to perform these same functions without any formal knowledge or education to back them up. This could mean the displacement of experienced and qualified dental technicians by cheaper, unskilled labour. In turn, as could be expected, that will deliver poorer and even undesirable outcomes for patients. The financial savings to the public will be minimal, if there are any savings at all. This legislation also proposes that school dental therapists be allowed to compete in the public sector. To begin with, as I understand, this service is understaffed now. Opening the gates to the public sector will simply make this situation worse. Secondly, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever to our school dental therapists, they are not fully trained dentists. They do not perform the full range of services but are, in fact, quite specialised in what they know and what they do with the younger members of our society—our children. I believe that the first point that the minister needs to explain is how she intends to keep the school dental service staffed and operating. Or is she intending to sell out our children's dental health for the sake of an economic rationalist theory? As school dental therapists are not trained for adult oral and dental care, how does the minister think that handicap will be overcome if these people are allowed to practise freely in the public sector? This is nothing more than a preparatory step towards privatising and corporatising the public sector oral health services. How this government can think a worse service or product for the same price is a better result is a mystery, but then so is its management of the entire Health portfolio. I turn to matters relating to optometrists. As I understand it, the course taken in this legislation regarding prescribing rights for topical ocular medication flies in the face of an overwhelming majority of this government's own ministerial advisory committee on extended practice for optometrists. The minister might like to explain why this is so when some of the topical agents involved can potentially give elderly patients severe heart failure and/or life-threatening bronchio spasms. I now turn to the amendments that this bill makes to the Nursing Act 1992. The government intends to widen the scope for both complaints about and disciplinary action against nurses. Let me make it very clear: while I receive far too many complaints about Queensland Health's service delivery, they almost invariably relate to policy issues, to a lack of resourcing, to administration and so on. Complaints about the nursing staff or any of the medical staff are extremely rare. On that basis I question the need for any widening of the complaint process or the need for any additional disciplinary avenue. Frankly, Queensland Health has a lot more to worry about than the exceptionally high level of dedication and professionalism demonstrated day in and day out by the hands-on medical staff. If the government were to do anything for nurses, I would think removing the gag on speaking publicly would be a good thing. There is no need to invade patient privacy in discussing 4140 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 the way Queensland Health operates, yet our nurses, with their intimate knowledge and experience of this, have no opportunity to speak publicly about it because they are under the threat of their jobs, supposedly in the interests of patient confidentiality—it is more like in the interests of Queensland Health cover-ups, I would say. But even with those gags in place, even with the obfuscation and even, as I recently mentioned in regard to Atherton's doctors, with the betrayal, the community does care deeply about its hospitals and about health services. The Premier knows about that. On his recent visit back to his home town last Sunday, there was a protest. While issues of the unfair ambulance levy and water infrastructure were raised, so were health and hospital issues. Indeed, one banner read, 'What is next Mr Beattie? Home euthanasia? Saves money and beds in hospitals'. From the letters that I have received and the advice that they have contained, this legislation has flaws that threaten the health and wellbeing of Queenslanders and potentially even their very lives. As such, it should not become law and I oppose the bill. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (3.13 p.m.): I love following the brains trust of the One Nation Party. It gives even me an opportunity to sound good. I will confine my remarks on changes to the complaint and disciplinary processes of the Nursing Act, which is incorporated within this Health Legislation Amendment Bill. Nurses are among Australia's most respected professional groups. They are recognised as skilled health care providers, combining education and professionalism with a caring concern for patients. Each year nurses top the Morgan poll for honesty and ethics. However, as in any profession there are occasionally consumer complaints. Each year the total number of complaints about nurses to the Queensland Nursing Council is relatively small in proportion to the total number of registered and enrolled nurses who are authorised to practise in Queensland. Approximately 46,000 nurses are registered and enrolled by the council. However, in the financial year 2001-02, only 117 complaints were made to the council. The protection of health consumers is a key objective of the Nursing Act. However, it has become apparent that the grounds for complaints under the Nursing Act are narrow when compared to the grounds that apply to other registered health practitioners in Queensland and nurses in other jurisdictions. Therefore, the bill amends the Nursing Act to insert new grounds and processes for complaints similar to those in the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act. Currently, under the Nursing Act an aggrieved person may make a complaint to the Queensland Nursing Council only about the conduct of a nurse, a midwife or other person authorised to practise nursing. Once the amendments provided for under this bill come into effect, not only will a complaint be able to be made about a nurse's conduct but also a nurse's practice or other matter that appears to provide grounds for disciplinary action, or a matter for which a complaint could be made under section 57 of the Health Rights Commission Act 1991. In addition, the legislation will define more clearly who may make a complaint, for example, by the user of a nursing or midwifery service; an entity acting on behalf of a user of a nursing midwifery service; another nurse, midwife or authorised person; or another regulatory authority. In order to ensure that the grounds for complaint are compatible with the new grounds for disciplinary action under the Nursing Act, the bill also inserts new grounds for disciplinary action that are similar to those contained in the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act. Disciplinary action will be able to be taken against a nurse or midwife, for example, if they behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct, which is defined to include professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected by the public or professional peers; they are found to have an impairment, for example, drug dependency, that impacts on their professional conduct; they have been convicted of an offence under state or Commonwealth legislation related to the practice of nursing; or they have been convicted of an indictable offence. In order to ensure the proper protection of the public from health practitioners who practise in an unsatisfactory manner, this government is committed to establishing a coordinated and integrated approach to the management of health complaints about registered health practitioners, including nurses. This bill builds upon those amendments made to the Nursing Act in the past to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the Health Rights Commission and the Queensland Nursing Council. Most notably, the bill creates parallel grounds for complaint to the Queensland Nursing Council and the Health Rights Commission. It also requires consultation to occur in respect of various actions that may be taken under the Nursing Act. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4141

The Queensland Nursing Council will be required to provide the Health Rights Commissioner with copies of all concerns raised regarding the health of nurses, the action taken by the council in respect of such matters, and when the immediate suspension powers under the act are used. These amendments will ensure that the information available to the Health Rights Commissioner about nurses is consistent with the information provided about other registered health practitioners. The Queensland Nursing Council has a strong history of working collaboratively with consumers, the nursing profession and groups such as the Health Rights Commission to develop, implement and monitor standards for nursing. The bill will enable the council to take this work a step further. In order to provide guidance to nurses, midwives and other persons authorised to practise nursing as to appropriate professional conduct or nursing practice, the amendments to the Nursing Act will empower the Queensland Nursing Act to develop or adopt other entities' codes of practice. Codes of practice will be admissible as evidence in disciplinary proceedings brought against a nurse, midwife or other person authorised to practise nursing under the act. An extensive consultation process informed the amendments to the Nursing Act, which are before us today. On behalf of the Minister for Health and my parliamentary colleagues, I wish to acknowledge the contribution made by the Queensland Nursing Council, the Queensland Nurses Union of Employees, the Australian and New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses, the Australian College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing Australia, the Directors of Nursing Association and the Health Rights Commissioner. I commend the minister and her staff and I commend the bill to the House. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (3.19 p.m.): The Health Legislation Amendment Bill before us removes from the Dental Practitioners Registration Regulation 2001 the restriction on employment of dental therapists to the public sector. Dental therapists may now choose to work in either the public or the private sector, which will allow greater flexibility, career development prospects and financial rewards for dental therapists. I, like many members, have been contacted by both dentists and dental therapists asking me to outline the relevant issues they have and their concerns. I thank all of them for their input. Last week in this House I commended the excellent community-minded people who make up the Sunshine Coast Health Services Foundation. Sadly, I misspelt the names of some of the board members. I wish to apologise to Grahame Colley, Greg Fahey, Natasha Read, Noel Wareham, Peter Lang, a Mix FM announcer, and Peter Conley. Peter is a valuable part of the group but not a board member. I did get some of the board members' names correct, but I trust that now I have got all of the names correct for the public record. Recently I attended a community forum in Caloundra at which local residents raised concerns about health issues relating to our hospitals and services on the Sunshine Coast. What amazed many in attendance was that one Liberal candidate for the next state election claimed that one of his full-time staffers was forced to show up too early in the day at a free Queensland dental health clinic for treatment. I understand that about 53 per cent of Queenslanders are eligible for free dental care, but surely a receptionist for a professional, whether it be a solicitor or an accountant, if being paid a full-time award rate, should be able to afford their own private dentist. I sincerely hope that we are not hearing Liberal lies this far out from the election. I think this Caloundra forum was the first time I had heard the shadow spokesperson publicly acknowledge what a poor job the feds are doing by underfunding in various areas and creating unnecessary red tape and duplication. Of course, the state opposition claims that it will insist on less red tape but more lists to be collated and more records kept. In closing, I must assure the House that one of the biggest issues that residents on the Sunshine Coast raise with me is when the opposition will bring forward for debate the motion that was given notice of in this House on 15 May, which states in part— That, following support for Taiwan's participation as an observer in the World Health Organization— I sincerely look forward to this debate, because many cynics have implied that this was the opposition's way of trying to excuse the shadow spokesperson for failing to be present on the last occasion health legislation was debated in this House. I know that it will be at the top of the opposition's list of motions to be brought forward for debate prior to the next state election. Miss SIMPSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. That legislation was represented by the opposition officially. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! There is no point of order. 4142 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Mr CUMMINS: I am very glad that the member has raised that point of order. Obviously that motion will be moved for debate with much haste. I will put my name on the speakers list for that debate, which I trust will occur in coming weeks—hopefully before Christmas. I commend the minister and her staffers for the excellent work they do. I commend the hospitals and health workers on the Sunshine Coast for the excellent work they do. I commend the federal government on acknowledging that Kay Patterson was a dud minister and on removing her from that area. I hope that the incoming minister does not just try to put off the issues for another 12 months, until the federal election is out of the way, because people out there are genuinely hurting as the federal government tries to make the Australian system similar to the American system, where only the rich can afford health care. Australians do not want that type of health system. They want to ensure that not only the rich but also the poor and others can afford good health. I commend the minister and her department and I fully support the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hinchinbrook, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Li Yong-jun, the chairman of the board of directors of the Jinchuan Group Ltd, who is visiting the House today. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.25 p.m.): I think we all have to recognise that there are increasing demands in the area of health. Costs are also increasing at a rapid rate. We hear many arguments about who is supplying funding, about its adequacy and so on, but many people out there have increasing health requirements. This Health Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to deal with issues and rearrange things. We need to immediately recognise the necessary changes in relation to dental therapists, dental hygienists, chiropractors and so on. I believe that this bill is doing that in some way, shape or form. Hospitals in my electorate are very important places for the delivery of services for the health requirements of the people of Hinchinbrook. The Ingham Hospital is a very old building. It is getting tired. Some refurbishment was carried out in the 1990s. There has been an evolutionary change in medical health since that time. The Reagan ward itself has got to a point where the floor coverings have holes in them. Staff are patching them up with tape. I think that is beyond what should be expected in hospitals. I think it is extremely disappointing that a decision about the way forward has not been made. Will the hospital be refurbished—I think that would be largely a waste of money—or will a new hospital be constructed? That decision needs to be made in the near future. There is a prospect of phasing in whatever is going to happen. That needs to be looked at very closely. There are difficulties in maintaining a dentistry presence in the hospital. Some time ago we lost the permanent dentist. Since then there has been an ad hoc arrangement of dentists coming up from Townsville. That started as three days a week and then it was reduced to two days a week. One young person now has to go to Townsville for some fairly straightforward dental procedures. Many people come into my office complaining about the lack of service. I would like the minister to acknowledge that this issue needs to be addressed. Importantly, the Hinchinbrook shire has recognised that there is a problem with getting professionals into areas such as Ingham. It has made a conscious decision to provide some funding for accommodation to enhance the package offered by Queensland Health. That shire recognises that it needs a dentist at the hospital and it is prepared to provide funding for accommodation, which I think is very progressive. That shire is very forward in its thinking. It realises that if there are problems and it wants to get around them, then it has to work with Queensland Health. The council made a very good decision. The mayor and the councils have been right behind it. As I understand it, one of the major problems we now face is the substantial difference between what a public dentist gets paid and what a private dentist can make. That may have some bearing on why we are having difficulties in maintaining the presence of a dentist within the hospital system. I believe also that another year has been added on to the course for people studying for a degree in dentistry. There is a bit of a lag time there as regards getting people into the system. The shire even thought at one time that probably the best thing to do was to provide funding for a trainee with a scholarship or something of that nature. Of course, the problem with that is that it takes far too long. It can take up to four to five years to get through dentistry, and then they need another three years of practical experience before they can go out by themselves. The measure adopted was that if they could find a dentist from wherever they would provide the accommodation. That was a gesture of significance in their attempt to deal with that issue. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4143

We have also had the problem of the shortage of a doctor. We have one full-time doctor. Another one comes up from Townsville on a temporary basis. One of the problems we have regarding an anaesthetist is that on many occasions the public process has to be carried out by a private doctor. There has been some excellent cooperation between Ingham Medical Centre and the hospital to fill in on weekends and during periods of time when a doctor was required for anaesthesia. What we are seeing is that the private doctors are filling a gap. They are prepared to do it, but the hospital really needs three doctors. There is only one full-time doctor and one who comes up from Townsville on as needs basis. Of course, that is causing some backup of services. At the present time, the hospital is doing a number of elective surgery procedures for people who are coming from Townsville because they can get in a little bit quicker. The community raised something like $50,000 to buy a laparoscope. I understand that to date they have done three or four procedures using that equipment. What we are doing is providing some backup for Townsville as well, and I think that is a very positive thing. We need the backup services of doctors and dentists to ensure that we have a hospital that functions well. The community is doing everything in its power to fulfil those obligations. The visiting surgeons and the patients who undergo procedures have only praise for the hospital and the way they are looked after during their recovery, which may be only a day. Most of the surgery that is carried out is day surgery, but sometimes the patients have to stay overnight. I have spoken to the minister about the Cardwell Community Health Centre. That centre will be of great benefit to Cardwell in the future. The government put $750,000 into it. The progress is going extremely well. The building is going up. I would say that within a week or so they will get to the point where they will be thinking of putting the roof on it. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr ROWELL: The money is important, but we both had a similar view, whether it was the opposition or whether it was the government, on the need for Cardwell to have this facility. The minister and the government have brought that to fruition, and I would like to acknowledge that. I also spoke to the minister about the naming of the facility. I think that is pretty much in hand as regards Dr Bob Warnock. Dr Warnock was there for some 20 years. He did an excellent job. He was a chap who came out from England. He put his heart and soul into providing a health service for the community over a long period of time. It will be very good if his service can be acknowledged by having that facility named after him. The other thing that we also discussed was the situation as regards a private practitioner. As I understand the Queensland health system, there is an initiative whereby a medical officer has the right of private practice. We have discussed how that works, too. I have approached the federal government, as the minister suggested. We are going at it hammer and tongs to get something out of that system as well. I think one of the big issues is that when there is a private doctor in a town like Cardwell that has a lot of elderly people, the doctor is really on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It does not allow him any time off if he is sick. Doctors can get sick, too. It does not allow for the doctor to be away in order to upgrade his skills. One of the big issues is: how do we give the doctor some time to go away on a holiday and how can we work that in with the private partnership type of arrangement? The minister and I have discussed this. I think it is extremely important that we pursue it, because it is not easy in a place like Cardwell to keep a doctor. Over a period of time I have had to go and chase locums and that kind of thing for the existing doctor. It got to the point where the doctor at the time decided to sell out. The current doctor came along and he was prepared to persist with the system. He is continuing to do that. However, I think that in view of the age of the people and the fact that Cardwell has a growing population, it is important that we come up with some mechanism whereby we can ensure the future of the doctor there. Perhaps an additional area could be put aside in the new facility that is being built so that we could rent the doctor an office. We could also look at the prospects of a secretarial service being provided and reducing the costs of operating in that community facility that we have in Cardwell—or that we almost have. Keeping a doctor in town is extremely important. I believe that with the growing population of Cardwell, particularly with Port Hinchinbrook, the increasing level of traffic along the highway and the fact that it is one of the areas where the mountain touches the coast, it is essential that we have the presence of a doctor and some security of tenure for that doctor. Maintaining a doctor's presence in the Cardwell area is going to be of some significance to everybody in that area. 4144 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Working through that will be a challenge for the health authorities. If some funding can be obtained from the federal government, that will be a plus. But if we can sit down and work through this, I think it will be to the benefit of that region. One of the other things that I would like to raise is the Patient Transit Scheme. Unfortunately, because the people who live in my part of the world live some distance away from the major facilities, if treatment for cancer is needed or people need to go in for an MRI or whatever it might be, there is no prospect of providing that in the hospitals in Tully, Ingham and probably even Innisfail. The Patient Transit Scheme is particularly important. We have areas such as Rollingstone which are pretty much at the 50-kilometre limit. I know that that area is growing significantly. The other day I approached the Townsville health authority about the requirements there. I believe that, in the future, if people live beyond that 50-kilometre limit, they should be entitled to Patient Transit Scheme funding. One of the most important things that we did in north Queensland was to build the hospital in Townsville. It is a great improvement on the previous hospital. Even more important is the fact that we have a medical faculty in north Queensland. Very often young people who come from these areas drift off down south to go to university or get whatever training they need some distance away from home and they tend not to come back. I have experienced that myself. If there is a facility—and I think the first lot of graduates will come out of James Cook University next year if I am not mistaken; I am trying to think back in time—there will be a tendency, as is the case with the police academy, for those people to stay in north Queensland. That may meet the challenge of being able to maintain doctors' presence within the hospital system. The challenge we face now is in relation to dentistry, because it is evident that there is a major shortage of dentists. Somehow or other we have to try to address that issue, and perhaps there could be the provision of a faculty in Townsville. That would be very costly but very much needed. I now turn to the multidisciplinary spinal unit. Even though arrangements were made for it to be there on a short-term basis, it proved to be very beneficial and of some significance to many people with spinal problems. The work done by Dr Lynton Giles was essential for many people who experienced great pain and discomfort with spinal injury. In the future we need to look more closely at that and hope that the excellent work carried out at that unit can be continued through a similar presence. The Innisfail Hospital is no longer in the electorate, but many people who live in the electorate certainly do use that hospital. The $16 million project—and I believe that that should be started some time in April—will be of great benefit to far-north Queensland. That hospital upgrade will take the load off Cairns in terms of that hospital's ability to carry out a range of procedures that it may not normally have done because of the reorganisation of the hospital. That is very much welcome and very much needed in the region. I also constantly hear problems about the time it takes constituents to get dental appointments. While that is the case in areas such as Ingham and Tully, it is also evident at Innisfail. Somehow or other we have to deal with this issue. This bill upgrades certain services, but it will not address the particular problems that have now developed. Those problems are not going to get any better, particularly in light of the fact that graduates are not coming out at the rate needed. One of the great things that has happened in the region is the establishment of the renal unit. It was controversial at the time, but that unit's four chairs have proved to be a major success story. In the new complex there is allocation for as many as eight. The final destination of the renal unit means that there will be six chairs initially, and the community raised some $100,000 plus to get that unit up and running. That demonstrates that there is a desire within the community to try to get benefits. That can be done hand in hand with Health, because the expectation that the government is going to do everything is wrong. There is an obligation—I am not walking away from that fact—but if the community is prepared to get off its backside and give some assistance in order to provide things that are important and which it recognises needs to be done while working hand in hand with the health system, major benefits can be derived. That was the case with the renal unit. There was some very strong feeling about the need for it. It has proved that it was certainly well worth while and was not a waste of money in terms of the government implementing the associated infrastructure, because it is very costly. With all health services, cost is the key, and the actual cost in that regard is quite significant. If communities can do things that can be of benefit, that allows the government to know that it has to participate and also lets it know that the community is right behind it. That makes quite a bit of difference. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4145

In closing, the opposition has had quite a bit to say on this bill. I have also had communications with dental therapists and people who have been involved in the school system in terms of getting around in caravans to check children's health. That is critical, because early intervention means good outcomes. Early intervention reduces the actual costs and the impacts of dental health on that person in the future. With that, I support the bill. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.45 p.m.): I rise to speak briefly to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. This bill has as its principal objectives the implementation of national competition policy review recommendations of restricted core practices for health practitioners. There are amendments to, amongst others, the Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001, the Dental Practitioners Registration Regulation 2001, the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act 2001 and the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999. These amendments will, amongst other things, retain a statutory definition of 'dentistry' to capture only those facets of the practice which pose a high risk of harm to patients. Also, there will be a continuation of restrictions as to who may practise dentistry—namely, registered dentists, dental specialists and medical practitioners. I want to mention again in the House today a great concern that I and many constituents of mine have, and that is the fact that the rate of Medicare bulk-billing in the western suburbs of Brisbane is in free fall. I am told that in the year 2000 around 75 per cent of doctor visits in the federal electorate of Ryan were bulk-billed. Today that figure is somewhere in the region of 50.1 per cent, and apparently it continues to fall. I implore the federal government to take some serious action. I am glad that it finally acknowledged that Kay Patterson as Health Minister was an absolute dud. I am disappointed that she has been replaced with an attack dog like Tony Abbott. I believe that John Howard has a philosophical objective which entails the destruction of universal health care in this country. I think he has done it before, and I think he will not rest until Medicare is in absolute tatters. I want to thank all of those residents in my electorate and the western suburbs who took the time to sign my petition. I know that there were several hundred St Lucia residents who were particularly concerned and a similar number of residents from Indooroopilly who continue to express their concern as to the federal government's objectives in terms of bulk- billing. Another concern I have is the absolute hash that the federal government has made out of medical insurance in this country. I am very concerned that the number of obstetricians practising, particularly at the Wesley Hospital, continues to fall. I know many of those doctors and they put the wellbeing of their patients first. Many of them actually want to continue to be obstetricians. They want to continue to deliver babies. There was a day when obstetrics was the most positive part of medical practice, because obstetricians spent their days delivering babies and it was a delight for most doctors. Many obstetricians nowadays spend their days worrying about insurance claims and the rising cost of premiums. It is time that the federal government took some serious action in that regard. I also had a discussion on the topic of delivering babies with the Maternity Coalition, an umbrella organisation for midwives, mothers and other persons interested in birthing issues. It has a concern, too, with the operation of Medicare. Its concern is that Medicare unfairly prevents midwives from providing primary care services to women during pregnancy. It feels that this adversely affects women who would like to choose a midwife as their primary carer during pregnancy. I refer members to the practice in New Zealand whereby every pregnant woman is expected to choose a lead maternity carer who is responsible for organising the pregnancy, birth and postnatal care. In New Zealand, a lead maternity carer can be a midwife, a GP, an obstetrician or a hospital based team. I note that in Western Australia the federal government has undertaken a pilot program called Community Midwifery Western Australia. It is operating in only a couple of places. I think it might provide pregnant women with some positive alternatives—those who want to choose a midwife as their primary carer. It is time the federal government examined how Medicare affects midwives. With those few words, I support the bill. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.50 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, which makes amendments to a number of significant health portfolios, all important to the community and, in some instances, more so to rural and regional communities. When the review of dental services was mooted back in 2001, a significant number of appointments were made. Certainly, there was a well orchestrated campaign by local dentists to remind local members how important it was to retain the status quo, to keep dentistry restricted to trained dentists and to retain oral hygienists and oral therapists in the public sector. 4146 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

In my electorate a number of folk were acting within the school dental service. Some of them presented a contrary point of view to me. Both sides were articulate and had well documented cases, albeit in opposition to one another. They had good documentation in terms of what they thought should and should not occur. I will concentrate on a couple of areas of the bill in particular, the first being the changes to dentistry. I put on the record my gratitude for the school dental program that has been in existence in Queensland for many years. Importantly, it gets primary school students into contact with oral health services. Many of those students would not necessarily see a private dentist for many years. That can be for a broad range of reasons, such as family finances. It can be because the family prioritises other areas as having more importance. It can be for a number of reasons. For many families, particularly those with a number of children, the budget would not stretch to each of the children seeing a private dentist every six months, as is recommended. Indeed, some families would not be able to afford for all of the children to go to a dentist every two years. The oral hygiene van that goes to the various schools provides a readily accessible service to students and a fundamental oral health service that I think is appreciated by everybody. The dental people who work in the vans detect fairly early the need for even orthodontic services. They do not attempt to do that work but will send a note home to the parents—as occurred in my family—recommending that a child be taken to an orthodontist for at least an evaluation of the needs of the student. They play an important intervention role. They have only ever worked on the milk teeth, recognising that kids can have fillings early on but also recognising that stronger and more permanent teeth will follow. I congratulate all of the men and women who have worked in the school dental vans over many years, because they have provided an excellent service. Two of the school hygienists—one was a hygienist and one was a therapist—who visited my office were from Mount Larcom. As I said, they presented a fairly compelling argument as far as their need to be recognised separately and to be given the ability to operate in both the public and private sectors. On the other hand, the dentists had raised the spectre of the wholesale exit of the therapists and hygienists from the public sector into the private sector if they are given the opportunity. I took note of the comments of the member for Nudgee in that area. He stated that in Victoria about a half a dozen had exited. Mrs Edmond: In other states virtually none. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I hope that experience is replicated in Queensland. Certainly, it would be a tragedy to see our school dental program impacted through any changes in the portability of those skills out of the public sector. That is not to say that hygienists and therapists, now to be called dental auxiliaries, have any less right to be in the private sector. I am trusting, and I am seeking clarification from the minister, that plans are afoot to ensure that additional dental auxiliaries are being recruited and trained to ensure that if there is a drift into the private sector there are sufficient numbers of qualified people coming through the ranks to replace those newly badged dental auxiliaries who do go into the private sector. The other thing that the ladies said to me—this is a couple of years ago; however, I believe the information is no less relevant—is that guidelines that are drafted—and in the legislation and in the second reading speech there is mention of the fact that guidelines or protocols will be documented and gazetted for these new areas of opportunity—must be clear as to the extent of work dental auxiliaries can be directed to do or are free to do. I believe any guidelines need to be free of misunderstanding—not grey but black and white and very easy and clear to administer. Under these new standards of operation, the dentists, the dental auxiliaries and those helping in other roles need to be clear about the extent of their ability to operate, so that there is no unnecessary conflict between qualified dentists and also the dental auxiliaries. The dentists raised the issue of the loss of dental hygienists and dental therapists to the dental van service to schools. Their expectation is that there would be a wholesale walk from the public sector into the private sector once the opportunity was there for the hygienists and therapists to exit. I am encouraged by the minister's statement that in other states that has not occurred, but I reiterate that there needs to be in place a training program and a recruitment program to ensure that additional hygienists and therapists, or dental auxiliaries, are trained so that there is no loss in continuity of service to our schoolkids. Theirs is a primary and essential area of oral health. If the kids have good, sound teeth when they are small, it tends to follow into adult life that they will look after their teeth more carefully. I wish to put on record the need for funding for additional university places for dental training. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4147

Mrs Edmond: Hear, hear! Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I have previously had a swipe at the feds about training and university places. It is a shortsighted redirection of funding not to be training people in these areas. Mrs Edmond: We shouldn't be relying on Botswana doing it. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is true. Certainly, there need to be additional affordable university places available for people to train in that very special area of dentistry. It is not my desire ever to wake up the first thing in the morning and think, 'What have I got to look forward to today? I've got to look into Mr Jones's mouth.' That is not my idea of a job. But obviously some people think it is an area that is intriguing—fortunately for us—and they happily embrace that work responsibility. I would certainly encourage the federal government to look at its funding of university places again and ensure that sufficient, affordable local placements are made available to people who are interested in attending as dentists. I will not raise all that the dentists raised with me. As I said, they were very well organised and articulate in their representations more recently. They talked about the plethora of dental titles in current usage. They state— The term 'oral health therapist' describes an auxiliary whose job description is adequately covered by the two existing terms, school dental therapist and dental hygienist. A third operative dental auxiliary title will only serve to confuse the public and further magnify the information asymmetry which already exists in the oral health market. The answer to that concern is to ensure that there is sufficient education. In the school dental area that is very easily done through school newsletters and through the handouts that the dental van gives to all of the students who progress through their oral inspections. That would ensure that the parents are clear that the dental therapists and the dental hygienists have now been rebadged and that they are able very adequately to look after the needs of their children as far as oral hygiene is concerned. Another issue that the dentists have raised—and I think it is a very valid point—relates to the additional cost of training these new dental auxiliaries. They have said to me that additional training of around 12 months, required to enable an oral health graduate to safely treat adult patients, would extend the time required to complete the course to four years. It would, therefore, be uneconomical to train these auxiliaries compared with training fully qualified dentists. They went on to say that to train a fully qualified dentist, after five years that person can perform the full range of dental treatments for all client groups. If that is the case, it is certainly a valid argument to present in this debate. However, again there need to be fully funded places for dentists at a university to ensure that there are appropriate numbers of adequately trained, fully qualified dentists for Queensland. Another dentist who came and saw me stated—and I am not sure about the accuracy of these statements, but I will put his complaint on the record—that dental therapists cannot relieve pain, cannot extract adult teeth and cannot diagnose the cause of pain. Therefore, the argument that rural communities will benefit from dental therapists being able to treat adults is fallacious. Just as there are not sufficient dentists in rural areas, there would be a lack of therapists. Ms Struthers: Those dental therapists will come to your area with the supervision of a dentist and treat more people than have ever been treated before. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is fine. Ms Struthers: How is that fallacious? How will that not benefit Gladstone? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Excuse me, I was quoting from a statement made to me. I believe that the dentists were very sensitive—and rightly so—that their profession would be compromised by changing the status quo. It is their responsibility and their right to raise those concerns with us as members of parliament. That is exactly what the dentists did. There were other matters that were dealt with by the legislation such as matters to do with optometrists. The explanatory notes state that the bill will restrict the prescription of optical appliances for the correction or relief of visual defects to registered optometrists and medical practitioners. I am given to understand—and I seek a clarification from the minister—that that will not affect this issue about which I am concerned. I have talked to a number of parents whose children have been fitted with coloured lenses that have helped them with certain other disabilities, if you like. Mrs Edmond: Just the colour? 4148 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Yes. Mrs Edmond: There is no prescription? Just the colour? So they can have bright green eyes if they wanted to? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: No, these are the ones that they put on children to assist them with a brain function problem. They are not prescription lenses; they are just a coloured lens. They have been on the TV. But it would not be optometrists who are prescribing them because they do not have any adjustment in the glass; it is just a coloured piece of glass. Certain colours suit certain children to correct dyslexia and a few other of those problems. The way the bill reads, those people will still be able to prescribe the coloured lenses. I seek the minister's clarification of that. The bill also deals with complaints in the nursing field. I know that the member for Aspley spoke very well and was very informed in this area. However there is one area on which I wish to comment. I welcome it not because I believe there are a lot of nurses who will be affected by it—quite the contrary; I do not believe there will be many. However, they work in an area of potential harm. They work in an area where they have intimate, one-on-one contact with children—and often vulnerable children at that—and this legislation introduces criminal history checks. I applaud the minister for bringing that into legislation. It has appeared in many pieces of legislation in the Family Services Department, under the National Party minister, Anna Bligh when she was Minister for Families, and the current minister, who has also brought in legislation which provides for criminal history checks—not only checks of actual charges but checks of allegations—to be carried out. That information is not retained on the person's file. However, it does indicate a pattern of behaviour. Sometimes criminal behaviour towards children is very difficult to prove. However, if there are allegations from a variety of people in a variety of circumstances over a period, even though no conviction occurs, it can indicate a predisposition on the part of that person. It may mean that perhaps the conditions under which they operate with children or other persons can be adjusted so that any risk is minimised or done away with altogether. I welcome also the other areas where disciplinary action can now be taken. Nursing is a specialised job. People who nurse, both male and female, have to have a very special heart of compassion. I applaud anyone who enters the nursing field, genuinely concerned and wanting to work for the benefit and good health of the people. They really do serve. Those are necessary protections not only for the patients but also for the nursing staff themselves. I have raised a number of health issues with the minister both by letter and in this chamber as they relate to my electorate. I will not have time to raise some of them again. I want to thank the minister for the establishment—it is about to occur—of a self-attach dialysis unit for Gladstone. It is welcome and I thank the minister for that. A lot of people will still have to travel, but I am looking forward to it being the commencement of better things for people who require dialysis. We have lost so many good families from Gladstone and Calliope because they just got so tired of travelling. I thank the minister for that satellite dialysis facility. Once it is established, it will prove its worth. Community fundraising has already been undertaken to fit out the room. I believe that a lot of people will be greatly indebted to the minister for the funding to see that unit established. The Boyne Valley clinic is about to be opened and I thank the minister, too, for the construction and the funding of that clinic. It is critical. It is in what some would regard as a lightly populated area, but it is a long distance from emergency help. That area has some sawmills still operating, so quite serious incidents can occur. Also the home care for some of the older people who live out there—even if it is just dressings—saves them a couple of hours travel. I thank the minister for the construction of that clinic, which will be opened in the near future. The hospital at Gladstone continues to face quite a number of challenges. We need more housing for staff. In the past 18 months the price of accommodation has gone up markedly. Currently, the hospital has four houses on the private rental market. Rentals are in excess of $200 a week. If a number of units, flats or houses could be constructed, either through the group apprentice scheme or similar, and the capital could be found for those houses to be constructed, the money saved over time just in terms of the rental cost of accommodation that is required to keep staff close and handy would soon repay any debt that would have to be raised to have those houses built. I bring that need to the attention of the minister, because it is one that will continue to be problematic in my area. Another big industry is on the horizon that will commence construction in the first quarter of next year. The rental rates are not going to reduce; they are going to escalate. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4149

They will escalate from an already increased base. There are other issues that I wanted to raise, but I have run out of time. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (4.10 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. I want to address specifically how this bill impacts on oral health services. As the minister said in her second reading speech, dental therapists and dental hygienists are an integral part of the dental team. They definitely provide valuable services to the public. This bill removes a restriction that limits dental therapists to employment in the public sector. I congratulate the minister on introducing this amendment, despite concerted lobbying from the Australian Dental Association. Dental therapists can work privately in Western Australia and South Australia. I know of a number of dental therapists who are anxiously awaiting this amendment. What is wrong with giving them greater choice—the flexibility and the opportunity to work privately and not to be confined to the public sector? In fact, they may want to split their employment between the school dental scheme and a private dental surgery. The suggestions by some dentists that dental therapists see themselves as pseudodentists is arrant nonsense. They do not want to be dentists; they want to do what they have been trained to do. They know their boundaries and do not want to go beyond what they have been trained to do. Dental hygienists will also be delighted with this bill, which removes the requirement for dental hygienists to work in a one-to-one ratio with dentists. This means that in the public system dental hygienists can do their work in separate facilities. Privately, a dentist would not have to be on the premises for a hygienist to start work. There is no doubt that all dentists, and particularly those who would like to get in nine holes of golf early in the morning, would see merit in this amendment. Seriously though, this bill will certainly ease the workload on dentists. No-one can argue with the need for the registration of dental auxiliaries, such as therapists and hygienists. It is sensible that they are brought under the Dental Practitioners Registration Act. This bill recognises the potential for future development in the roles and skill levels of dental therapists and hygienists. I note that the minister will direct the Dental Board to prepare a code of practice that will provide guidance to dental auxiliaries about their duties and the necessary level of supervision. It is then appropriate that this bill will provide for the appointment of a dental therapist and a dental hygienist to the board and will also provide them with representation on professional panels. Having good oral health is vital to a person's overall health and quality of life. Poor oral health has been linked to a number of medical conditions. We know from recent research that periodontic disease is a probable risk factor for pre-term birth and low birth weight, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It also has a range of consequences, including pain, difficulty in eating and the avoidance of certain foods, which would lead to wider health problems; impaired speech; loss of self-esteem; restricted social and community participation; and an impediment to a person's ability to gain employment. So it is clear that a person's overall quality of life is affected by this disease. The public oral health program in Queensland, which is fully state funded, is the largest in Australia, providing approximately one-third of all adult public sector oral health service visits in Australia. In 2001-02, the most recent statistics that are available, Queensland provided more funding per person for oral health services than did any other state—about $31 per person compared with the Australian average of $18. In this year's budget, the Beattie government allocated an extra $5 million to the oral health budget, providing an extra 17,250 visits for clients. But why do we have state funding only in Queensland? As the House is aware, the Howard coalition government callously pulled out of funding the Commonwealth dental health program from 1 January 1997. The program was set up by the federal Labor government in 1994 to improve access to dental services for disadvantaged Australians. Since then, Queensland has lost more than $100 million in Commonwealth funding to address dental waiting lists and waiting times. While the Howard government will not fund services for pensioners and the unemployed, it pours $345 million a year into subsidies for generally better off people with private health insurance to access private dentists. Is that not ludicrous in terms of social policy! Here we have some $345 million a year going to people who are better off and have private insurance while we remove over $100 million a year from people who need these services. That is three times the cost we are paying as citizens through our taxes to provide those who are better off with dental health services. I think that it is important that we talk a bit about this federal government. I remember the double dissolution election in 1974 when Medibank was an issue. A group of women I knew formed the Labor Women for Whitlam group. They actually used their own money to have some 4150 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 advertisements made. The ad that they settled on said that, under Medibank, we would be able to go to our own private doctor and access health services rather than go to emergency services and join the waiting list. That was the most important issue for those women. Of course, when the Labor Party introduced the legislation I thought that that debate was won. But not when little Johnny Howard is about. While he has had a surplus of $7.5 billion this year, he has removed $1 billion from hospital funding for the states. I fervently believe that is why I am sitting on this side of the chamber. The provision of public goods is a great equalising force in our society. We live in a society now where increasingly the share of gross domestic product going to salaries and wages has decreased every year since 1980, and particularly the lower part of the middle class has been very squeezed. So to ask those lower middle class people who are being squeezed to go and find $15 or more for a visit to a doctor, to ask those people to then find the money for the pharmaceuticals, is creating unbelievable havoc. The other day I got a phone call from a young man who is 27 years of age and lives at Enoggera next door to a family who had two sick children. There is no bulk-billing available there. He said, 'Mr Fouras, they don't have a car. I drive these people to outpatients, to emergency services, to get the medical care because they cannot afford it.' He asked, 'What can we do?' I said, 'While you have John Howard, who can actually use these issues like the Tampa and refugees, and while you have John Howard, who worries the pants off people with the issue of border protection and terrorism, he will do exactly as he likes to you.' It is appalling, really, that we live in a country that has just forgotten that these people should have the right to access their own doctor, should have the right to have these medical services. In conclusion, I think that it is important that we on this side tell the members opposite that there is an awakening in the public about these issues. There is a bit of a fair go left in Australian society, because they believe that these are fundamental services. While I am talking about the $7.5 billion surplus, I want to say very, very forcefully in this House that I actually agreed with the Leader of the National Party when he said that that surplus should not be given back in tax cuts. But I do not agree that it should go just to regional and rural Australia; it should go in making sure that everybody in this country has access to university education, that people have access to dental and health services. That is where it should go. There was $2.5 billion in the last budget that gave people a tax cut of $4 a week. I believe that if the proposition were put to people and they thought about it, they would opt instead for better services in health and education. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (4.19 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I will take a few moments to express to the minister my concern about the lack of public support in the Beaudesert area, even though we were lucky enough to receive a brand new hospital several years ago. We put up a very long fight for the Beaudesert Hospital, which originally had a magnificent maternity section. The former hospital was old and could not provide x-ray facilities and so on, so the fight for a new hospital was carried on for a long time and it was provided. Recently I saw a full-page article in the Beaudesert Times headed 'Shock for mum'. A mum who was expecting post-natal care at Beaudesert was told six hours after the birth of her baby that there was absolutely no-one at the maternity section to provide that service. Once upon a time the maternity section was very large. It still is, even though the hospital does not have the required staffing. We continually see headlines in the paper referring to people who say that they are not allowed to go to the Beaudesert Hospital for maternity because someone else is booked in at that time and two would be too many. To me, that is absolutely ridiculous. The people of Beaudesert are now losing faith in the services that are provided there and are saying, 'Why don't I go to the Mater?', or, 'Why don't I go to Logan?' I can clearly see what will happen. In a few months time the department will be able to turn around and say, 'No-one from Beaudesert is using a magnificent maternity section.' But that will be because of a lack of staff there. I was recently approached by a constituent who was unable to receive treatment at Beaudesert Hospital. The lady was sent to the Beaudesert Hospital by a private medical practitioner who believed that she might require a procedure. She was suffering from dreadful pain and he felt that she might have a bowel blockage. She presented herself at the Beaudesert Hospital and after a wait of three-quarters of an hour she was advised to return to her private 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4151 doctor because it was expected that she would experience a six-hour wait at the hospital. She was also offered the alternative of travelling to Logan Hospital. This lady is a very public-minded person who devotes a great deal of her time in a voluntary capacity to worthy causes. She is very proud of our hospital but has become disappointed and disillusioned by the lack of care and availability of treatment at the hospital over recent years. I also say to the minister that dental services there are nothing compared with what was promised many years ago. I would ask the minister for her support to restore the faith of the Beaudesert people in what is really a magnificent brand new hospital. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (4.22 p.m.): One of the first actions of the mean-spirited Howard government in 1996 was to cause a gaping hole in dental care in Australia. That was by removing $100 million from the federal dental assistance program and scrapping that program altogether. It is pleasing to see that the Minister for Health, Wendy Edmond, has been determined in her efforts to improve accessibility to dental care in Queensland and to improve the affordability of dental care. The minister has done a couple of things in this bill that I think will be quite significant in their impact on making dental care in Queensland more affordable and accessible. She has certainly done a lot to increase funding and inject more funding into public dental health clinics in Queensland. In this bill she has taken steps to remove some of the restrictive practices in our dental health system. She has also made sure that there is due recognition of dental therapists and oral health therapists. That will go a long way to making dental care more accessible for people. The bill duly recognises dental auxiliaries within the scope of the Dental Practitioners Registration Act. Dental auxiliaries will now also be appointed to and have a say on the Dental Board. The restrictions that have limited dental therapists to employment in the public sector have been removed. I have worked actively to support efforts to improve accessibility to and the affordability of dental health care. In a former life at QCOSS I worked on the Bite Back campaign—a national campaign to try to restore the federal dental assistance program. Over the past few years in Queensland I have worked alongside the Dental Therapists Association and the very committed women particularly in that association who have been trying to remove those restrictive practices so that they, too, can practise on adults and in the private sector, not just on children in the public sector. They had a very successful It's Crunch Time campaign. I commend the efforts of those dedicated workers in achieving what they have achieved, and I acknowledge the support the minister and Queensland Health staff have provided to their efforts. They had to take on the dentists. I think it is fair to say that the dentists have been very nervous about threats to their practice base—I suppose we in professions all would be—but I want to reassure people in this House that, certainly from the information I have received from them, dental therapists know the limits of their skills. They know the limits of their practice base, but they also know that they are well trained and have been providing outstanding care in Queensland, as have dentists. We have a great dental health system; it is just not always affordable for people. The dental therapists know their limits. They are not trying to do something that will make the sky fall in. They simply want to be duly recognised for the training that they have done. It is university training. I want to reassure some of the members in the House today. I think the members for Tablelands and Maroochydore had some reservations about the removal of these restrictive practices. These oral health therapists will be able to perform a lot more support work to dentists under the supervision of dentists. That is the important qualifier, I guess: it will be under the supervision of dentists. They are not trying to operate separate from dentists. Dental therapists and oral health therapists have been performing a lot of good work on kids. They have been drilling, filling, extracting, cleaning and doing all of those horrible things we hate having done to us. They have been doing all of that on children's teeth primarily. They have worked on some adults but primarily on children. I do not know the difference between filling the tooth of a 15-year-old boy and filling the tooth of a 21-year-old adult woman. It has been an unnecessary restrictive practice. I see a future whereby dental therapists will be able, under the supervision of dentists, to be out in the regional areas more than they are now, working to provide more care than is available now. I certainly see the removal of these restrictive practices as a very positive aspect of this bill. I commend the minister for the efforts she has made to bring this about. 4152 Privilege 15 Oct 2003

Dental care is out of the reach of many low-income people. The Queensland government has taken very positive steps in my own local area. The QE II public health clinic received an allocation of over $400,000 recently, which will be used to provide 1,659 additional visits. I am not sure how those calculations are made, but I trust that means that a lot more people will be getting a lot more care in my area. Probably at least weekly I hear from people who are having trouble getting into the clinic locally. So that represents good news for local families—local families in suburbs like Acacia Ridge. Thirty per cent of the people in my local area of Acacia Ridge earn less than $200 a week. Imagine if they went to the dentist twice in a few months. Their $200 would be gone very quickly. That is the sort of reality we are facing here. People cannot afford the private dental system, cannot always afford private health insurance and cannot wait on waiting lists for public dental health clinics. It is important that we continue to support our public dental health clinics. It is certainly important that we continue to bite back against the federal government's savage cuts to and removal of a very important Labor initiative, that is, the federal dental assistance scheme. I want to assure local residents in my area that I will be snapping at the heels of the federal members around me. Gary Hardgrave does very little other than bleat. We never see any action out of him. One issue I ask him to take up with his federal colleagues is the reinstatement of the federal dental assistance scheme prior to the next election. Mrs Edmond: Every state government in Australia, even when they were not Labor, called for that. Before the change in government in the other states, every state—Liberal, National and Labor—called for the reinstatement of that. Ms STRUTHERS: Yes, and a federal Labor government is committed to reinstating the federal dental assistance scheme. I will certainly be keen to make sure the Liberal colleagues around me do their bit to bite at the heels of their mean-spirited Prime Minister, who does not seem to understand that people in suburbs like Acacia Ridge on less than $200 a week cannot afford private dental care. I urge dentists to embrace the opportunity provided through this bill to work alongside dental and oral therapists in the private system and to work more widely with adults. This is an opportunity for them, not a threat. It is not a threat to their practice or their standards of practice. I urge them to get behind these changes and really work well with the dental therapists to develop a good, comprehensive code of practice that can instil public confidence in the system and reduce any of these unnecessary concerns about these pseudodental practitioners getting more and broader work or a broader practice base. These are certainly very positive changes and I commend all of those who have been involved in the development of this legislation. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE Whistleblowers Protection Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (4.29 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition again displayed his ignorance of Queensland law by attacking me over naming a person who has made a number of allegations about Disability Services Queensland officers. I did not breach the whistleblowers legislation—no breach of any law. It was the Leader of the Opposition who referred to the author of last week's email as a whistleblower. I am not aware of the allegations for which he has been granted protection. However, for the purposes of the email linked by the Leader of the Opposition to the media, in which Mr Crossingham alleges an officer on duty with a client was drugged and the client drank disinfectant, I am advised that Mr Crossingham did not have whistleblower protection nor has he sought it. I fully support staff and the department making public disclosures and then gaining protection under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, but I make no apology for naming this person. We are not talking about a foster-child or a protected witness. We are talking about someone who freely identifies himself in letters to politicians and bureaucrats. I would never name anybody if their security was at risk. Mr Crossingham was contacted by Mr Patrick Condren from Channel 7. I can only assume that Mr Springborg gave his contact to the media. The fact is that it is the opposition which sought 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4153 to publicise Mr Crossingham's unsubstantiated allegations and now feigns surprise and outrage because I have merely filled in the name. As I pointed out this morning, there is more than one side to a story. If the Leader of the Opposition is interested in finding out the facts behind the matter, I am happy to provide him with a briefing. Had he sought this in the first place I am sure he would not have brought these matters up in the House. This is a stunt by the Leader of the Opposition, whom I have exposed this week as being truly bereft of policy.

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from p. 4152. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (4.31 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill which, for the most part, I agree with and think is good legislation. It seems a little ironic at times that when public health services are strained to the limit we actually have a bill before the House that narrows the framework of what is defined as a health professional. I have no problem or disagreement with that. It also adds a significant degree of legitimacy to parahealth professionals such as dental hygienists and others. One of the interesting things about being a new member of parliament is that you end up totally confused, because one of the main games in the House seems to be to blame the feds for everything that goes wrong. We see more passes than in the Rugby World Cup at times! Yet the feds and the states seem to blame each other for the clear crisis that the health system is in, but again it is all about money. Let us look at the difference between a chiropractor and an osteopath. Most honourable members of the House will be aware that chiropractic as a discipline came from the previous discipline of osteopathy, which involves a significant amount of deep tissue massage before doing a manipulation. Therefore, it could be argued that osteopaths are chiropractors but that chiropractors are not necessarily osteopaths. That may sound like it has nothing to do with the bill, but members should look at the licensing for these areas. I have an osteopath in my town of Maryborough who complains quite vigorously about all of the separate licensing fees that he is already required to pay when he already has those skills and has proved time and time again that he is qualified to practise. I notice that the member for Indooroopilly remarked on the fact that in his electorate the level of bulk-billing has fallen from around 75 per cent or 70 per cent down to 50.1 per cent. We would be thrilled with that in Maryborough because our bulk-billing is more like 30 per cent than 50 per cent. That is a real problem for poor families who cannot get to see a doctor. Most good doctors in Maryborough reserve the right for their low income— Mrs Edmond: Have you raised it with your local federal member? Mr CHRIS FOLEY: No, not yet, but I might do that. For many doctors who do not participate formally in bulk-billing, there are still many doctors in Maryborough who still bulk-bill their patients who are of a lower socio-economic nature. In fact, one very cluey constituent of mine suggested that as there is some spare space at Maryborough Hospital perhaps that could be used to set up a free clinic. In other words, the doctors who could be attracted to work at that clinic would only bulk-bill in return for having that space provided for them for free. I realise there would be all sorts of— Mrs Edmond: You are not allowed to under the health regulations. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Yes. I was going to say that I realise that occupational health and safety issues would rule that out. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Yes, but it is at least a novel idea and is thinking outside the loop. At Maryborough Hospital I have a very good working relationship with Michael Allsop, who is the manager. We work together to work through complaints. Obviously any health service in Queensland receives a great number of complaints of that nature. One of the jobs of a local member is to work through those. In relation to dental therapists and dental hygienists, I applaud this legislation and the minister for thinking outside the loop in trying to use paraprofessionals—although they are 4154 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 professionals in their own right—to provide services that can easily be done. That will help to bring down the workload on dentists themselves. The American experience is somewhat different in that they have a number of barefoot doctors. I have some American friends who tell me that when they go to see their medical practice they rarely see the doctor but instead see the doctor's assistant. I have been having some extensive discussions with Dr Paul Cotton, who is a good friend of mine and who is the chairman of the Fraser District Health Service. He has been working on a pilot program to deliver health services to the Biggenden area in conjunction with a local health practice. I applaud all the initiatives to think outside the loop. I look forward to when other professionals can be trained to do some of the jobs which do not necessarily require a qualified medical practitioner. Forward thinking in that regard is always a welcome thing. Other than that, I have no particular problem with the bill and would seek to endorse it and vote on it in the House. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (4.36 p.m.): I, too, am pleased to support the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I particularly want to talk about some issues around changes with regard to core practices, the Health Rights Commission and health practitioner tribunals. Before I do so, I will make some general remarks. I would like to put on the record that I strongly support the changes with regard to dental therapists, particularly in Cairns and for far-north Queensland. With a lot of country and remote areas, this will be a change that will improve accessibility to dental services. I have no doubt that it is a right and proper move. I also recognise that we are making some changes to the disciplinary provisions for nursing staff. While these will hardly ever be required, nonetheless they are the right and proper provisions to put in place. I take the opportunity to give my sincere thanks to the nursing staff at Cairns Base Hospital. As members would understand, through the long period of the physical redevelopment of the Cairns Base Hospital, they did undergo much in the way of stress with all of the changes going on around them and around their patients. There have been further changes since the redevelopment, but many of these have been positive changes and will contribute to reducing the stress on nursing staff at Cairns Base Hospital. Most particularly I would like to inform honourable members that we have made a significant change in the management of nursing staff. We have stopped the practice of hiring casuals and agency staff and instead have increased the number of permanent nursing jobs at the hospital. Since May of this year there has been an increase of 78 permanent nursing jobs, which I am pleased to say are organised around the hours of choice of those who have taken the jobs, keeping in mind family friendly policies. It is much better for the nursing staff to have that security and predicability and it is much less stressful. I am also sure that it means that the quality of the service they are able to provide to patients at Cairns Base Hospital has improved. Cairns is lucky in that, while it still has some recruiting problems of course, it does not have anything like the problems that there can be in rural and remote Australia. I was absolutely dismayed to hear that the new federal Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, has a supposed solution to the nursing recruiting problem, and that is to pay more for nursing staff in cities and less for those in remote areas. I dare suggest to our own Minister for Health that he would undo all the good work that she has done—that is, take away the additional benefits and incentives that are necessary if nursing staff are to serve in remote areas of the state of Queensland or indeed our nation. He would in fact not only take away the incentives and the benefits; he would actually take away some of their base wages and pay them less. What a nonsense! Indeed, we are headed for an even rougher ride with Tony Abbott in charge. There are important changes in this bill that will affect a wide variety of health practitioners, including those who are normally known as allied health practitioners. I take this opportunity to tell members of the House the good news that we are increasing some allied health practitioners in the new rehabilitation stroke unit at the Cairns Base Hospital, in particular physiotherapists, occupational therapists and an additional position for a speech pathologist. These are indeed welcome. As we worry about the majority of our health professionals who work in hospitals—that is, our doctors and nurses—we too often do not pay enough attention to the important role played by allied health practitioners. So far as the amendments in this bill are concerned, they build on the practices that we have had in the past through the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 and the Health Rights Commission Act 1991. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 contains amendments to health practitioner registration legislation to implement recommendations of the review of restricted core practices which was established in accordance with national competition policy. There has been some confusion about the purpose of practice restrictions contained in the 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4155 health practitioner registration legislation. The practice restrictions do not regulate the practices of registered health practitioners; rather, they describe practices that people without the necessary training or qualifications cannot undertake. The review of restricted core practices recommended removing broad statutory definitions restricting practices to particular professions and replacing these with restrictions on practices which pose a high risk of harm to patients. The bill will insert specific practice restrictions to replace the current practice definitions which are used to prohibit non-registrants from practising chiropractic, optometry, physiotherapy and podiatry. It should be noted that practice definitions and restrictions do not currently apply to medicine, occupational therapy, psychology, speech pathology and medical radiation technology. Spinal manipulation is to be restricted to registered chiropractors, medical practitioners, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Spinal manipulation is a form of treatment that uses body leverage and a physical thrust to the spine to restore joint and related tissue function. It is important, therefore, that we protect patients from those who are not qualified and could cause serious damage. The bill will also restrict the prescription of optical appliances for the correction or relief of visual defects to registered optometrists and medical practitioners—again, a safety provision. I am pleased to say that we are making some changes to improve the performance of the Health Rights Commission. The Health Rights Commission has been a worthy body which has of course soldiered on since its establishment in 1991 but has been bogged down in terms of the time taken to address some of the complaints placed before it. This bill amends the Health Rights Commission Act 1991 to clarify the commissioner's powers and to streamline the administration of the Health Rights Commission. This will be welcomed. Patients and consumers across society are more likely to complain when they believe that they have had bad service, and it is important for our government to find the mechanisms to make sure that the complaint process is resolved as speedily and yet as thoroughly as possible. Additionally, the bill changes the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 to strengthen consumer protection. The Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act provides a consistent approach to disciplinary matters involving health practitioners across 13 registered health professions. The act establishes professional conduct review panels to deal with routine disciplinary matters. The Health Practitioners Tribunal is established by the act to deal with serious disciplinary matters. The tribunal is constituted by a District Court judge who is assisted by two professional assessors and one community assessor. It generally deals with matters that, if substantiated, may result in the cancellation or suspension of a practitioner's registration. It is therefore a serious body to deal with matters of great import and requiring, potentially, the cancellation of a practitioner's registration. I am also pleased to note that the amendments will provide that a decision of the Health Practitioners Tribunal will take effect from the date that it is delivered by the tribunal or as otherwise ordered. This is a fine bill. I am pleased indeed to be part of the health legislation committee and to commend all of those within Queensland Health who have, over the years, prepared us for all of these amendments. Their work often goes unrecognised, and I do thank them for their very many hours over a long period of time. Most importantly, however, I thank the Minister for Health, who is an amazing lady. Her grasp of the detail of her portfolio right around this state is tremendous. I was in fact speaking with her about some positive changes being made at Cairns Base Hospital this morning and she reminded me, the local member, of a couple that I had forgotten about, because she is so well across her portfolio. It is a great pleasure to be on her health legislation committee. I of course support this bill. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.46 p.m.): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I note that the objectives of the bill seek to amend a broad cross-section of relevant health legislation. The ailing state of our state's health system is of great concern to all Queenslanders and is an issue that should be of the utmost priority for the state government. In speaking to the debate I take this opportunity to bring to the House's attention the very difficult situation being faced by not-for-profit community owned private hospitals as well as touch on some other issues in relation to health care in my electorate. There are two community owned hospitals in my electorate. These are the Pittsworth and District Hospital Friendly Society and the Clifton Cooperative Hospital. The Darling Downs and southern downs also have a number of other community owned hospitals in places such as Killarney and Allora in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs. These hospitals are uniquely structured in that they are owned and run by the community 4156 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 and significant community effort goes into ensuring that they remain adequately resourced and staffed. This is a significant cost to the community and places a large amount of pressure on them to continuously seek new ways and means to extract money from regions that have been under extreme drought for many years. It is a difficult task, but it is one that is taken up with great determination. The presence of these hospitals is absolutely vital in terms of the acute and non-acute health services they provide and also for their injection into the local economies. It should be noted by those opposite that the services provided by these community owned and run hospitals take an enormous amount of pressure off state government health services, including nursing home and hostel facilities. This is a fact that the figures clearly display. Statistics showing the average hospital activity for the top five Darling Downs private hospitals, which include Pittsworth and Clifton, for the period 1997 to 2000 show activity totalling 8,794 acute bed days and 9,360 nursing home type bed days per annum. These figures clearly show the ability of these hospitals to care for local people in their own community and, in effect, take the pressure off the Toowoomba and Warwick public health facilities. However, in recent years it has become increasingly difficult to continue the services of these private hospitals with the increasing costs of administering health care. The greatest blow to the financial stability of these hospitals has come from the skyrocketing cost of obtaining professional indemnity insurance. Relevant figures show that between the 2000-01 and 2002-03 financial years average professional indemnity medical malpractice premiums have risen from between $3,500 and $4,000 in 2001 to between $32,580 and $39,780 in 2003. This is an average increase of approximately 850 per cent. However, I know for a fact that some of these hospitals have faced increases of over 1,000 per cent. This is despite the fact that the risk profile of these hospitals has been unchanged and there have been no known claims. This financial constraint is really pushing these vital rural health facilities and if it continues they will need to scale back their operations. The state government in no way covers these hospitals for professional indemnity insurance, and they are unable to obtain alternatives such as the AON Risk Services group insurance scheme. They are being left out on their own. I have been in contact with the Health Minister and the Treasurer for many months in an attempt to get them to consider options for assisting these hospitals to cover the towering costs of premiums. I have put forward some options for them to investigate, such as the Victorian government's assistance to the Victorian bush nursing hospitals that enables those hospitals to purchase hospital cover through the Department of Human Services' HealthCare Agencies Insurance Program—an arrangement that is reported to be passing on savings of up to 50 per cent, or around $30,000. But unfortunately both the Health Minister and the Treasurer have refused even to give a commitment to investigate the viability of offering similar assistance in Queensland. This continued refusal to act is a great disappointment to both me and the communities that I represent. It also speaks worlds of the state government's lack of a real commitment to rural health care. I again today urge the Health Minister to act to provide assistance for these hospitals. They provide an invaluable service to our rural communities and take significant pressure off the public health system, for which the state government has responsibility. I have also in recent months approached the Health Minister requesting her to consider the possibility of allocating funding to the Pittsworth Private Hospital in order to accommodate non- emergency public and nursing home patients, rather than have them taken by ambulance to Toowoomba Base Hospital. Enabling these patients to be treated in Pittsworth might save the public health system and the Ambulance Service considerable time and resources. I have also requested her to investigate the possibility of a public bed in the Pittsworth Hospital to utilise the facilities and to take unnecessary pressure off the Toowoomba Base Hospital. That is the type of whole-of-government approach that I believe is required to create a health system in rural and regional areas that seeks to effectively optimise the use of resources and the facilities available. The Health Minister informed me in answer to question on notice No. 994 in June of this year that the Toowoomba Base Hospital had the staffing and infrastructure available to meet the needs of the Pittsworth community. However, this response misses the point of my requests on behalf of the Pittsworth Hospital and fails to appreciate the benefits of facilitating this arrangement that could arise for both the Toowoomba Base Hospital and patients in Pittsworth. These are community based approaches to provide sensible and more cost-effective health care that could create a satisfactory result for local patients. I again urge the minister to investigate these options. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4157

The member for Toowoomba South, my colleague who represents part of Toowoomba, has referred to a number of health issues relating to Toowoomba and both of our electorates, and I would like to reiterate many of his comments. Finally, though, I wish to highlight concerns I have recently received from constituents in relation to state government funding for cardiac services at the Toowoomba Base Hospital. I have been informed that the Toowoomba Base does not currently have the services of a cardiac specialist and will not receive such services until well into next year. This situation is of huge concern to people in Toowoomba and the Darling Downs, as they are now being forced to endure long waiting periods for specialist attention through a private cardiac specialist, which also comes at significant expense. I would like the minister to clarify this situation in her response and, if possible, inform the House as to the situation in relation to the services of a cardiac specialist at the Toowoomba Base Hospital. In raising these concerns with the House, I would like to express the highest praise for staff at the Toowoomba Base Hospital and stress that it is a funding issue and not a quality of care issue. The staff at Toowoomba Base do a wonderful job with the resources that they receive. Certainly, the level of patient care is exemplary, just as the quality of care in the private hospitals in my electorate is exemplary. The same applies to Millmerran Hospital. Rural and regional health requires an increased focus by the Health Minister and the state government. Rural and regional communities provide wonderful services under difficult conditions, and we must do everything we can to ensure that they can continue to so effectively service our communities. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (4.53 p.m.): As a member of the minister's health legislation committee, I am very proud to take part in this debate. I wish also to take the opportunity to express my admiration for the minister for her achievements during my time in this House and on the committee. It will be a great loss to Queensland and to the Health portfolio generally when she retires; certainly, she is well deserving of it. In particular, I wish to refer to a couple of points made by my colleague from Toowoomba, the member for Toowoomba South, Mr Horan, then touch on the radiotherapy issue, which is an active one in Toowoomba at the moment, the dental service that can be provided at the hospital, and finally mention the good work undertaken by the Toowoomba Hospital Foundation. Mr Horan, the member for Toowoomba South, made some comparisons of the state of health in Queensland now compared with what it has been in years gone by. However, what he failed to do was compare the record under the Borbidge government, when he was Minister for Health, particularly as it relates to Toowoomba. At that time, Toowoomba had overall the worst waiting lists in the state and it had the worst percentage of budget overruns in the state. Now Toowoomba rates as one of the best in the state. Although there is always room for improvement, it is difficult to attain a perfect record at the moment due to the Medicare crisis in particular, the lack of doctors bulk-billing and the consequent pressure on the public hospital system. However, as I said, the Toowoomba Base Hospital has had remarkable achievements in recent times, and I would like to acknowledge the work particularly of the head surgeon, Dr Bob Franz. I congratulate all who work at the Toowoomba Base Hospital on these considerable achievements. The second topic I wish to touch on is the radiotherapy issue, as raised by the member for Toowoomba South earlier today. I have had some involvement with this subject matter since my election. Shortly after my election, I was asked to be on a committee organised by St Andrews Private Hospital in Toowoomba with a view to having a radiotherapy service provided in Toowoomba. Since that time, I have met with the Minister for Health on a number of occasions and made representations to her to put forward the Toowoomba case but also that of the Darling Downs, south-west Queensland and, indeed, northern New South Wales. I was also keen to see whether the Commonwealth could extend to Queensland the same type of consideration that it was providing elsewhere in Australia, particularly in Victoria. Therefore, I welcome the recent announcement in the press of an $8 million funding commitment towards the development of a radiotherapy clinic in Toowoomba and further funding of $2 million for services on the Gold Coast. Whilst these announcements are made by way of press release, I understand that there has to be written commitment and agreement reached with the state in this regard; nevertheless, it is good news. However, what must be remembered is that over the last few years, particularly under Minister Edmond, the state government has funded the replacement of nine new linear accelerators and the rebuilding of Queensland's foremost radiotherapy centre and a $50 million 4158 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 treatment centre at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and the Townsville Hospital, as well as building, equipping and staffing a wholly new $8 million radiotherapy centre at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, which includes two bunkers, CAT scanners and so on. However, I would like to raise two concerns arising out of the apparent intention of the Commonwealth to provide this service in Toowoomba. Firstly, because this proposed service, being Commonwealth money, is taxpayer funded, it is clearly imperative to ensure that cancer patients who rely on the public system receive free treatment at whatever facility ultimately provides the service. Therefore, I seek an assurance from the Commonwealth, particularly from our federal member, Mr Macfarlane, that the Commonwealth will build guarantees of ready access and free treatment for public patients into the agreement that it reaches with the provider of radiation therapy services in Toowoomba, whoever that might be. The second point is that it is critical to ensure that there are enough university places made available to train adequate staff, such as radiotherapists, physicists and radiation oncologists, to address the shortage of qualified staff in this state and, indeed, around the country. I, therefore, support what our state minister has asked the Commonwealth to provide in this regard, and that is 15 additional university training places for radiation therapists at the Queensland University of Technology. The third topic I want to briefly touch on is the dental waiting conditions that apply in Toowoomba. This, of course, was referred to in general terms by the member for Algester. She referred to the fact that the Commonwealth withdrew from this area some years ago and that, as a result, put a huge strain on the state resources in having to provide this very necessary service, particularly for people in lower socioeconomic areas. I want to acknowledge, however, that the position in Toowoomba is likely to improve quite markedly shortly owing to the fact that an amount of $180,000 in extra funds has recently been allocated on a yearly basis, I believe, by the state government to provide additional services. I think it equates to about 800 to 900 appointments or sessions in addition to what has already been provided. I think that will go a long way to alleviate the position. I sincerely thank the minister for that consideration. Finally, I want to make some remarks about the Toowoomba Hospital Foundation. It is one of Toowoomba's finest charities. The aim of the foundation is to raise much needed charitable funds for hospitals and health services in the Toowoomba district. Each year the success of the foundation increases to new heights. For a little over 10 years the Toowoomba Hospital Foundation has worked tirelessly to raise more than $750,000 for equipment, staff development and research in the Toowoomba Health District. It has been responsible for a number of special events as well as securing donations from the community. The 2002-03 period saw the foundation again increase its performance, with the total amount of support from its fundraising initiative reaching $240,000. In a rural area that is particularly drought affected, this level of support from the community is not only impressive but inspiring. The traditional supporters of the foundation have been Harvey Norman, Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority, L. J. Hooker, Queensland Hoteliers Association, Australian Culinary Federation, City Golf Club and PRD Nationwide. These organisations have given considerable support over the years to the foundation, helping them to raise significant funds for the benefit of the community. The Pure Land Learning College deserves a special mention as it made a major donation of $120,000 for the advancement of health education. There are many other supporters and it is great to see that that goes on. There are people who donate voluntary help such as Mrs Shirley Bourke and her team. The board of directors provide tremendous voluntary service. It is made up of the chairman, Ray Taylor; the deputy chairman, Noel Williamson; the secretary, Gerry Landy; members, Roslyn Reilly, Brenda Tait, Horst Brosi, Andrew Cumming, Judy March, Lewis Rowling, Peter McInnes; and ex-officio member, Kym Volp. One cannot forget the great work done by the executive director, Peter Rookas. I want to make particular mention of Mike Browning, who recently departed as deputy chairman. I commend the work that they do and I commend the minister for the work that she has done in relation to this area. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.03 p.m.): In rising to speak to this bill today I want to talk about some issues that are relevant to health services in my electorate of Southern Downs. A number of hospitals service my community, both public hospitals and, as in the electorate of the honourable member for Cunningham, non-profit community hospitals as well. I would like to talk about some of those hospitals and some of the issues that they have faced. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4159

The Goondiwindi Hospital in my electorate, for example, not only services the Goondiwindi community but also provides a significant service to a very large catchment community in northern New South Wales. Last year and earlier this year there were some issues with regards to changes in staffing at the hospital insofar as the medical superintendent was concerned and how that impacted upon, in particular, birthing facilities for expectant mothers in that area. As I understand it, most of those issues have now been resolved. I note that there has been a fair bit of interaction between the two representatives and the local governments out there—the Waggamba Shire Council and the Goondiwindi Town Council. Mayors Tom Sullivan and Tom Woods did a great job on behalf of the community in taking these issues forward. We had an arrangement in place—and that continues—of visiting medical officer agreements. Some of the issues surrounded concerns that the government was not able to provide the cover that those visiting medical officers required to be continued and to provide particular services at that hospital. I am pleased that in more recent times we have gained the services of some additional doctors to be able to service that community. That will fill a particular void there as well. It is also interesting to note that with burgeoning house prices throughout Queensland, Goondiwindi had also been going through this over the last few years. I know the honourable member for Warrego would appreciate that there were probably far more people wanting houses in the community than were available. It is one of the restrictions that has existed there for people coming to the town who have particular professional skills, whether they are nursing skills or whatever. The opportunity for them to be able to attain the housing they need at a price that is attractive for them to live there has been an impediment. The Waggamba Shire Council was talking about the involvement of council in providing some form of subsidised or assisted housing to attract medical and nursing personnel to reside in that particular community. It takes me a bit further east of there to the small town of Yelarbon. This town had been serviced by a visiting doctor since 1968. It was a doctor who had the right of private practice, who was a medical superintendent at the Inglewood Hospital who had the right of private practice in Inglewood, Dr Cole Owen—an outstanding general practitioner with a range of very significant skills, a person who had risen to the highest ranks in representing medicos throughout Australia. He was the president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Rural Doctors Association in Queensland and also Australia-wide. He is a person who made a very significant contribution. Recently that service which he was providing to that community for half a day a week on Thursday has been discontinued because of a range of reasons. One is the increasing cost of providing the service compared with what he was able to return out of it and another issue was a change of venue. I have been trying to attract another doctor to come there in an effort to be able to fill that particular void. Whilst this small community of Yelarbon is not isolated by western Queensland standards, there are factors which cause it to have some significant isolation issues. It is some 50 kilometres from Goondiwindi and over 40 kilometres from Inglewood. Because of certain socioeconomic and age issues, such as people's mobility and capacity to travel, it was very important that there was a visiting doctor in that area. Whilst the service was taking just short of a dozen patients a week, those dozen patients now have to make other arrangements. I am very hopeful that we will be able to find somebody to fill that void. It is interesting to see the impact of a decision such as this. Only a couple of years ago that small community of Yelarbon was successful in gaining access to a pharmacy under the Commonwealth government's remote pharmacy scheme. That is an excellent scheme. I am sure there are many members in this chamber today who have pharmacies in their electorate which have been provided in remote or isolated rural communities as a consequence of that remote pharmacy scheme. I think we need to give credit where credit is due. It is a good scheme. I know that the people have very much grown to appreciate that service and use that service as much as they possibly can. The real concern about this decision of the doctor not to continue this visiting service is that it may impact upon that pharmacy. I have been advised that that pharmacy is faced with closure. That is why it is very important that we work as a community. I pay tribute to the local community for the work that it has done in trying to attract the services of another doctor or to make provision for suitable premises for a doctor to be able to continue to provide that service. We all know that there are certain issues to do with accreditation. The CWA hall in town was the place where the doctor previously provided the service. That hall is not going to be available with the discontinuation of the CWA in the town of Yelarbon. I am very concerned about the 4160 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 withdrawal of the service. I understand that the doctor needs to make certain decisions. It is a commercial arrangement, but if we could do things as a community to overcome that, then I think that the general community would be far better off. Many of those elderly people and also people who do not have ready mobility would be better served by the provision of a doctor there. We are trying to do what we can to make sure that that pharmacy can stay open, or at least stay there in abeyance pending the final outcome of this matter. I also have in my electorate the hospitals of Inglewood and Texas. They are serviced, like all of the hospitals in my electorate, by absolutely magnificent staff. Those hospitals have been undergoing some significant redevelopment in recent times. I note that that is in the budget and that the hospitals are looking good. Of course, there are accreditation issues to make sure that the hospitals are up to standard because of the number of elderly patients that they need to deal with. Those people are really nursing home patients. They used to be mixed in with the general patient community. I think that the minister would be very proud of the work that is being done at those hospitals because the division within the hospital now in terms of where those patients are placed and where the acute patients are placed is very real. I think that it is important that we have that division, because there are different issues when a hospital is dealing with patients who might have dementia or particular issues relating to people when they are elderly compared to other acute patients. Some of them may be children and young people. Recently, I had a look at the Inglewood Hospital and the way in which that division has been done is really, really good. Also, what is happening at the Texas Hospital impresses me greatly. They have addressed the issue of accreditation. Stanthorpe Hospital is another excellent hospital. All I can say is that there are a couple of issues with regard to Stanthorpe and Warwick that need to be addressed. It is not really a government fault. One would almost think that my electorate is located at the end of the earth because of the difficulty we have in attracting dentists. For about 18 months, those areas in my electorate did not have a couple of dentists. The money was there to do that, but we were not able to attract dentists. We were able to then attract a couple of dentists. Then one moved on and the other one moved to another position. Basically, we are back to square 1 one again. That 18-month waiting list for non-urgent work, which was a concern to many people, was able to be substantially addressed with the finding of those dentists. But then there were the changes in recent times with people moving on to other areas and some of those problems have manifested themselves again. This is an extraordinary problem that many of us seem to have. Whilst we have some extremely livable communities—and I know that Stanthorpe on the Granite Belt is a livable community, as is Warwick—whether there are issues that dentists and other professionals have with regard to going into our public hospitals or wanting to move into those communities, I suppose we will never know absolutely. But there are some significant issues. Of course, the patients—the people who require those services, the people who are suffering—are the ones who will be disadvantaged the most if we are not able to fill those positions. I note that some people say that we should pay people more, we should provide them with more incentives, et cetera, et cetera. My personal belief is that whilst that may help in some cases, I am not necessarily convinced that it helps in all cases, because people will live where they want to live. They will work where they want to work. If there are other opportunities around that are more in tune with their thinking or their lifestyle, then they will make decisions along those lines. For many people, being closer to colleagues or collegiate support, being able to have time off rather than being on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week for a month, as some people are, is attractive to the way in which they want to live and enjoy their life in this day and age. Also we have the other issue that if a person is in a relationship, often the husband or the wife who has not been appointed to the position has to make some decisions about their future as well. That can sometimes mean that the partner leaves a job to accompany their husband or their wife who has got a job in what they might consider a more isolated area. That then creates issues in terms of their children's friends, their schooling—all of those sorts of issues. This is a serious problem. It is something that concerns me. It is something that I am seeing again with regard to my community. I think dental services have become a real emerging issue since about the middle 1990s. I am not saying that it was not an issue before that, but certainly in my electorate it is becoming more and more of an issue as each year goes by. If I look at the correspondence that I received now compared to the correspondence that I used to receive when I first became a member, I see certainly a significant growth in demand for dental services in that area. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4161

I also pay tribute to the Oaks Nursing Home, which is associated with the Warwick Hospital, for the work that they have been able to do. I am sure that the minister is aware more than anyone else—and we all reflect on this fact—that we have an increasingly ageing population. That is going to place an enormous demand on our health services and on recurrent expenditure in the future. We all know that. It is going to be an absolutely enormous demand. To an extent, we have been able to offset that with technology. That has helped us. People are now staying in hospital for shorter periods and we have been able to address some of those health funding issues. We know that technology is expensive, but we also know that the cost of dealing with the health service needs of an ageing population is going to challenge governments, both at a state and federal level, well and truly into the future. Of course, the real key is going to be making sure that people can be healthier for longer—making sure that people exercise more, making sure that people eat better food. An honourable member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: They say that chocolate is full of endorphins and makes people feel good, but I am sure that it has some side effects. I think that it is a matter of people looking after themselves better—exercising more, eating more carefully and eating better. There are a whole range of issues. Only recently it concerned me to pick up the newspaper and to read that the standards for bathroom scales in Australia are going to increase to 150 kilograms and in the United States they are going to increase to 200 kilograms. That probably will not affect someone like me or the member for Broadwater, but this is an important issue. Australia has obesity problems, but there are even greater obesity problems in the United States. That is as a consequence of a higher energy intake in a modern diet and the fact that people are not burning it off. People are eating more refined carbohydrates, they are not exercising and they have a high intake of fats in their diets. People know that, but they do not seem to be able to get off the treadmill. They have to get off the treadmill, because the resultant cost to our health service is going to be greater and greater and greater as we go into the future. While a significant section of our community is trying to address these issues, we need to take a holistic approach. While there are education campaigns that talk about people exercising more and eating better, the message just does not get through to some people. It is the same with antismoking campaigns. Mrs Edmond: That is why it is good to see what they are doing in Texas. Have you been watching what they have been doing in Texas? They are all trying to lose weight and exercise. Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, I am aware of the program involving the students at the Texas school. I have been out to that school. It is great to see the kids out there each morning walking for 25 or 30 minutes or whatever the case may be and then trying to extend that to the community. I presented some certificates to the student participants in that program. Of course, the real test will be whether what they learn now as students can be kept going through to their adult life and beyond. Those learned habits are very important later on in life. Mr Terry Sullivan: They will all be running around in singlets if they take the lead of their local member, won't they? Mr SPRINGBORG: It was probably the member for Bulimba who sowed the seed of this when he was out in Texas. These programs are important because kids always bring home from school what they have learned. They will say, 'This is important for the environment,' or, 'We learnt this at school.' A supportive home environment that recognises and reinforces that is very important. I acknowledge the role of Queensland Health and the school in Texas, as well as the community at large for picking that up. Earlier this year I had the chance to go there and present certificates to those school kids who are involved in that particular program. I think we need to be very careful about the nutritional message we give to people. That old pyramid we were taught at school indicates that people should eat less fats, more carbohydrates and more fruit and vegies. Unfortunately, a lot of people consume more carbohydrates than they actually burn, and they are not the right sorts of carbohydrates. People just think that if they consume all of this bread, rice and so on they will be okay. But if they are not out there leading an active life, we know what happens. These sorts of issues are important. If people are going to be consuming these sources of energy, they need to be able to burn them off or they will have health problems down the track. 4162 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

I acknowledge CareFlight and the other aerial retrieval services that service my electorate. They ensure the emergency care which is so necessary to provide better health care and a better chance of survival. They can provide us with that umbrella of care we require. I would like to mention two hospitals in my electorate—the Allora community hospital, which has just changed ownership, and the Killarney community hospital. They are very important hospitals. I know that the minister has said in this place in the past, 'You would affect Queensland Health's functioning if you had your way in providing a couple of public beds to each of those hospitals.' I understand what the minister is saying. However, if Killarney hospital, with its beds and services, did not exist—I also mention the medical indemnity issue—current patients would have to go somewhere. They would move into the public system. Let us say those extra five, six, eight, 10 or 12 people shift into the public system. Would it not be better to put one or two beds in those hospitals to provide a greater chance or survival and take the weight off the public system in the event that they closed? Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (5.23 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill before the House makes changes to a number of pieces of legislation. I understand that the reason for the changes was a national competition policy review that looked at the anticompetitive conditions in those acts and came up with some changes. An example is ensuring that practitioners uphold professional standards. They always have, but it is a matter of putting systems in place to ensure that remains the case. Also, applicants for registration must hold appropriate qualifications and must be fit to practise. Only a registered medical practitioner may use the title 'medical practitioner'. Similar restrictions apply in relation to each of the 13 health practitioner registration acts so that, for example, only a registered physiotherapist may use the title 'physiotherapist' and only a registered dental technician may use the title 'dental technician'. I understand that there has been a fair bit of debate in relation to the use of the title 'Dr', although that is not dealt with in this bill. For instance, since 1979 chiropractors have been able to use the title 'Dr' provided that it is clearly mentioned that they are a doctor of chiropractic. I believe that dentists are in a similar situation. I do not think we need to change that system. It seems as if it is working okay. I know that there is a bit of a dispute going on, but I think one complaint in 20-odd years is not too bad. Spinal manipulation is to be restricted to registered chiropractors, medical practitioners, osteopaths and physiotherapists. The amendments in this bill will ensure that only registered professionals with the necessary training and qualifications will be able to lawfully engage in spinal manipulation. As a person who uses chiropractors, I agree with that amendment. At different times we have all heard stories about people who have developed serious problems after being treated by people, maybe in good faith, but who are just not as good as others. I wish to raise a number of issues in relation to health in general. Certainly in my electorate of Warrego there are a lot of wonderful people doing their best to provide a good health service. In recent years that service has been excellent. Regretfully, I must advise the House that that excellent service is deteriorating. I am not being political with this; that is just the way it is. The system is letting us down. Those people are trying very hard, but it just seems as though the system is starting to fail us. It is my responsibility to advise this House that that is happening. As many would be aware, doctors are under pressure, especially specialist doctors who are living out in towns such as Roma. Roma is a major centre that operates a lot of specialist services. Aircraft are used to commute to the various towns and areas. There is a lot of pressure there all the time. It is very hard for specialists in those towns to find locums and, when they do, they are very expensive. The doctors are under a lot of pressure. Tara in my electorate normally has three doctors. For over 12 months now we have had one doctor doing all of that work. The poor guy has just been worked to the bone. It is just not fair on him. I know that Queensland Health has tried its best in this instance to help with that; however, I still think we have to do more. We just cannot let a community's health service deteriorate like that. We are quite lucky that there were enough private doctors in the past to provide that service. But if private doctors cannot provide that service on a continuing basis, a second medical officer in that particular hospital will be needed. I believe that a second doctor is coming soon. That may help a little, but there is still a lot of pressure on those doctors out there. They are working very hard to provide a service. Waiting lists are blowing out more than what we have had in the past. We have always had a short waiting list and we have been very fortunate that in a lot of rural towns and communities 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4163 people have been able to get in to see a doctor. It is now getting much harder. I have had people ringing up saying that they cannot get in to see a doctor. It is disappointing that this is happening. Dentist services are very thin on the ground, again with a waitlist. Unfortunately, I have to report that, quite frankly, the patient travel scheme is really off the rails. It is just not working the way it did. It was a very successful scheme. I have a recent example when a constituent of mine went to see a private doctor and got a referral to a specialist in Toowoomba. That private doctor signed off on the patient travel form. The constituent then went to the hospital to get that signed off by the medical superintendent and had to wait for an appointment to see a doctor. We had two doctors seeing the one patient for a travel form. Surely there is a travel officer or someone who can just sign the damn thing off! Why are we blocking up a system with bureaucracy when there is no need to? If the private doctor cannot fill out a form, it would be a bit surprising to me. If there is a problem for some reason, surely they can sort it out. The guidelines are there. I do not see why a patient had to go and see two doctors simply because the system failed and they would not sign off on a travel form. That is one example. There is a very interesting situation that has happened in St George—another area in my electorate—where a number of positions have not been filled for quite a long time. People out there understand that professional people cannot always be found and that these jobs are hard to fill. But when it drags on and when there are quite a lot of positions that have not been filled, it gets pretty serious. For instance, in St George we have either lost or not had an adolescent mental health worker since March 2002, an adult mental health worker since May 2003, a social worker since December 2002, a medical health promotion officer and an occupational therapist. They are basic services that should be able to be provided to the community and we have not filled those positions. The system is grinding to a halt. At the moment, people who should normally be able to have a reasonable service are not being provided with that service by the government. There is a proposal in Cunnamulla to centralise the laundry service. An audit is being done in the far west at present to see if they can combine the Augathella, Morven, Quilpie, Cunnamulla and Thargomindah laundry services and have one laundry service. Here we go again. We lose jobs in those towns. What are people going to do in the case of flooding when the truck or whatever it is cannot get out? Are people going to try, on a daily basis, to get laundry going either way to a central area—Charleville or somewhere? I do not know why we have to put ourselves through all this agony. I believe that Cunnamulla has just completed a refurbishment of their laundry. It might not be as good as it could be, but certainly if a bit more money was put into it it would probably get it going and it would be pretty good. The reality is that if we just keep on taking away those services, it winds back the whole system. It is just not satisfactory. I would certainly like to see some funding put into those laundry services and those jobs kept in those towns. We would then be able to concentrate on the major issues rather than to keep on defending ourselves all the time—trying to defend jobs and trying to keep the services in those communities. Another issue that I wanted to mention was the Medical Aid Subsidy Scheme. I wrote a letter to the minister about this. It was about representations from Jodie Smith who had a reclining bath chair, shoulder harness and headrest extension on order for her son Jake since 10 September through the Medical Aid Subsidy Scheme. She was advised on 25 August 2003 that, due to demands on the scheme, there is currently an indefinite waiting list for aids and that she should consider making alternative arrangements in the relation to the supply of equipment. Jake's physiotherapists— ...recommended that he be supplied with accessories for his Convaid Cruiser to assist in maintaining posture and safety. The bath chair is a necessary aid to safely support Jake, who at the age of seven, is difficult to support in the bath by his mother. I would appreciate it if there is something that the minister can do for Jake to see whether she could hurry things along there, because his mum is certainly in a bit of trouble. I would appreciate whatever assistance the minister could provide. There are a number of other issues in this legislation that could be discussed. It contains a number of changes to many acts. Generally speaking, I think that there are going to be some improvements out of it. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (5.36 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 before the House. I think, without compromise, that there would not be a member in the House who would not agree that one of the most important issues that 4164 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 affect all of us and our electorates is community health and the way in which our hospital system works. It does not matter whether there is a hospital in our electorate or whether we rely on nearby hospitals to provide a service. I am fortunate that in Mackay, very close to the boundary of my electorate, we have a great hospital, the Mackay Base Hospital. At Sarina we have a very effective country hospital. One of the great things about the Sarina Hospital is that in the short term that we had in government we announced a major upgrade to the Sarina Hospital to build a centre for the slow stream rehabilitation of patients. It is one of those things that made the hospital sustainable in the longer term. I think something like $520,000 was allocated to upgrade that hospital. It not only put on board the rehabilitation unit but also it enabled some major work to the hospital in the process. When the rehabilitation unit was announced there was a huge outcry from the Mackay area. It was said that if there were patients who had to travel from Mackay to Sarina, it was such a long way and that they would never make it. It was also said that the people who were supporting them would have to travel from Mackay. It amazed me at the time because people regularly have to travel to Mackay to partake of the services, but when the issue was turned around the distance to Sarina seemed so much further than what it was from Sarina to Mackay. Anyway, that rehabilitation centre went ahead. The hospital has played a great role in the health system in the Mackay district and continues to do so. The real problems that I have relate basically to the provision of services. Currently at Sarina there is a dental clinic, which is a great clinic. It has the best equipment. Unfortunately there are no dentists there currently. There is a huge delay for people who have to go to Mackay to attend to the needs of their teeth. In country areas like Sarina where there are a lot of elderly people that becomes a real problem. On top of that is the fact that there is very little public transport between Sarina and Mackay. That creates major problems for people living in Sarina. I really do not want to speak to the legislation for any great length of time, but there are a number of issues I should raise and compliment people on. I take my hat off to Dr Max Mansoor at Glenden. There have always been real hassles with providing a medical service at Glenden over a long period. Dr Max turned up four years ago and has provided a tremendous service to the people of Glenden and the surrounding area. He is unflappable and has fitted into the community excellently. He does get some support from Mackay in terms of locum relief and those sorts of things, which are very important. If there is a problem there, I urge the minister to ensure that he be given support. There have been some letters calling for upgraded support and services for Max to continue that service, but the last time I spoke to him there had been no positive reply to those requests. Until the time that Dr Max arrived at Glenden there were real hassles with supplying services in the area. That area is now heavily expanding into the coal industry. When there is an accident in the region, it is a very major issue. If I recall correctly, Dr Max was calling for some support in the trauma management area. I do not have the files with me at this stage, but I can get back to the minister on that. It is very important to support him in that area. As I said, any accident in the area is usually a fairly major one, whether it happens on the cattle stations or the coalfields. Another service supporting that area from the outer reef to 200 or 300 kilometres inland is the Central Queensland Helicopter Rescue Service. I recall the history of that great service. There had been many proposals over a long time to place medical rescue aircraft in Mackay, but in mid- 1994 a proposal was put forward to make that happen. It did not come about until 1996 when we came into government and I put the proposal to Mick Veivers through Emergency Services to get extra funding over and above the $350,000. In the end, we were able to raise about $650,000 towards the hiring of an aircraft and putting together the crew. The first committee was formed under John Bird, Col Meng and Dick Marshall—and there were others on that committee—and it has done a sterling job over a long period. Tony Shield is the current CEO of the organisation that runs that helicopter service. This helicopter service has been a lifesaver for many of those rural communities to the west of Mackay and, surprisingly, to the islands to the east of Mackay, particularly the tourist islands, and the fishing vessels and coal transporters or carriers that work in and out of the biggest coal port in the world at Hay Point. That helicopter is flying every day. Sometimes it does two, three or four missions a day. Tonight I would like to detail to the parliament the number of people that it has saved over that time, but unfortunately I do not have that record with me. However, I personally know of many people where there is no doubt that that helicopter service saved their lives. 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4165

It is important to put on the record the history of those types of services and the great support that that helicopter service gets from many people in the district in terms of raising funds, because many community organisations and businesses very heavily support the funding of that aircraft. The current cost to run that aircraft for a year is up around the $1.6 million mark. As I said, the current annual funding is in the vicinity of $900,000. I think it is $875,000 currently. So there is quite a big gap to make up. QR and many coalmines and organisations throughout the community support the running of that aircraft. As has been the case with other members who have made contributions to this debate, I, too, could list quite a number of people who have contacted my office in the past 12 to 18 months in terms of being able to access specialists either in Mackay or Townsville. This is not an issue I want to be politically overreactive about, but it is a fact of life that specialist services in Mackay appear to be lessening and more and more people are either having to travel to Townsville or Brisbane to access specialist treatment, and that in many ways is not a good outcome. For example, a lady at the top end of the valley at Finch Hatton suffered a back injury in October 2001. Her condition deteriorated as she worked her way through the public health system in Mackay. There was a whole history of her files being lost and diagnoses being misinterpreted. It was quite a mess. She went through that until July 2003 when she received notification for an appointment with a specialist. It appears that things have changed for the better. In the last contact I had with her she had had an operation which appears to have been effective in terms of minimising her back pain. As other members have detailed, there really needs to be a close look at the way in which specialists are supplying their services. I am not sure how we can get around that, but in Mackay there is a real need to upgrade the system used by consulting specialists. There are problems in that people are going to Townsville after being scheduled for an operation, but something happens and they are sent back only to return to Townsville two or three weeks later. In many cases those people are not getting support in terms of patient transfer subsidies. Rather, they are doing that off their own bat. Usually it is just too hard to access such funding. For people who are in pain or in some way disabled, travelling to and from Mackay and Townsville or Mackay and Brisbane becomes a pretty traumatic experience. With those few words, I support the legislation. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (5.48 p.m.): I rise to support the bill before the House and to thank the Minister for Health for the leadership that she has given and is continuing to give in her portfolio area. It is interesting to note that the member for Southern Downs has been taking a more leading role in the opposition's health media stunts. We can understand that, because the member for Maroochydore has not understood her portfolio area. We hear the whingers in the parliament, but they are not doing anything. Because the Leader of the Opposition—even though he is negative in all the other areas—says that he wants to have positive politics here, he has taken more of the leadership role from the member for Maroochydore. There have been lots of whinges from the opposition and from some crossbench members, but they have failed to address the big challenges. I can understand this from the crossbench members; in their position they have the luxury of not having to deliver and can just point out the faults, so I will leave them go for the time being. However, I need to mention the coalition. The really hard job is to convince their mates in Canberra to put the money into health where the money should be. But they are dingoing out on that, putting their tail between their legs— Mr Shine: And running away. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN:—and they are running away. Not all of them are in a singlet running away from the people of Queensland. However, the Leader of the Opposition has given the lead: young, fit Lawrence, turning his back on Queenslanders and running away at a moderate pace. What we want in our leaders is someone who stays put. We want someone who will face up to the difficult decisions and someone who will stand up to his National and Liberal Party mates in Canberra who have dudded the people of Australia by billions of dollars. Mr Reeves: He can run but he can't hide. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: The member for Mansfield is correct: the Leader of the Opposition can run but he cannot hide. Over the last few months many of us have displayed the Medicare petitions at our street stalls. It was like selling hot cakes. People would walk by and all we had to say was, 'Medicare petition. Save Medicare.' People were clamouring for it. The National and Liberal Party members opposite have failed dramatically and they do not want to do the real work. 4166 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

I want to thank this minister and this government, because this bill has some worthwhile elements to it. I wish to speak briefly about the district health councils, which have been set up to initiate and monitor minor capital works programs and to have some community input into the planning, delivery and evaluation of the hospital and community based health services. The councils are not involved in the day-to-day management of the health services, but they play an important role for health service districts. The district health councils have a direct reporting relationship to the minister and consist of up to 10 members, with equitable community representation. Some concerns have been raised about the requirements for membership of district health councils under the current Health Services Act. It is considered that greater flexibility for membership would be beneficial. That is why the minister has brought in these changes, which are very sensible. Currently, the Health Services Act specifies that district health councils are to consist of a minimum of eight and a maximum of 10 members. However, the act is unclear as to how the functions of a council are affected at times when there are fewer than eight members. For example, what happens when a vacancy occurs or there is a resignation of a council member? This bill amends the Health Services Act to remedy that situation. The membership requirements for the district health councils will no longer specify a minimum number; rather, the legislation will specify that the district health councils will be comprised of up to 10 members. I wish to comment briefly about the Prince Charles Hospital district health council. It must be remembered that that district does not just relate to the hospital. It covers all of Brisbane north of the river up to the Pine Rivers Shire, including some of the Pine River, and up to the Redcliffe hospital district. It goes from Moggill to Pinkenba. It covers a large area, not just the suburbs and health services in Chermside but also those of Ashgrove, Fortitude Valley, Strathpine and in the city, with the sexual health and AIDS services at Biala, Pine Rivers, Sandgate and Toowong. It has a significant area of coverage, particularly for community health services. I pay tribute and thanks to Mr Ted Howard, the chair of the Prince Charles Hospital health district, because he and his board have worked extremely closely with the executive of the district health council. They have developed a community consultative committee under the auspices of the council which has assisted members in linking with the local residents, non-government health care providers and not-for-profit organisations. Mr Michael McDermott, Mr Peter McInnes, Dr Debra Anderson, Mrs Wendy Skitch, Mrs Sue Waite, Dr Greg Stafford and Mr Rob Hutchinson have done a fantastic job. I wish to raise one issue with the minister. Earlier this year I wrote to her asking whether there could be some administrative support for the district health councils. I know that is a difficult issue. However, we know that community engagement is an important issue in so many other areas, and I would hope that we would see community engagement for the community health councils as an important issue. Linking with groups such as the Burnie Brae Senior Citizens, which has 1,300 members, the Kedron Wavell Services Club, which has many thousands of members, and getting input from those organisations is important. I would ask the minister to consider my request. Finally, I congratulate the board for working with the district health executive. Sadly, Ms Deb Podbury has been taken from us by the minister. I am very upset about that and so are our local people. But we know that for Deb's sake and for the sake of Queensland Health she will do an excellent job in the PA district. She is well regarded in our area and we are very sad to see her go. She is a true health professional. We also thank Dr Michael Cleary, the acting district manager and the executive director of medical services; Ms Cheryl Burns, the executive director, Nursing Services; and Mr John Wylie, Director of Corporate Services. We also thank Hayley Middleton, who has been the administrative support for the district health council, who is moving to a new role. In conclusion, district health councils play an important role in giving community feedback. I thank the minister for establishing them and I look forward to the minister's continuing support for the district health councils. I support the bill before the House. Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (5.55 p.m.), in reply: This has been one of the most wide-ranging debates I have sat through in this House. I thank the deputy speakers for their tolerance. Most members talked about the excellent work done in their local hospitals, for which I thank them. I think that shows just how much wonderful work is happening right around Queensland and why we have such a high satisfaction rating from Queensland Health facilities. However, much of what 15 Oct 2003 Water Supply 4167 they said had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation before the House. There were a couple of general themes which, while they have nothing to do with the bill, I feel I have to comment on. A lot of the concerns raised were to do with the shortage of health practitioners—medical and dental—and nurses. These are issues that I feel very strongly about and am concerned about. I believe this is the major issue facing health services around Australia over the coming generations. I raise in this House regularly the need for more funded university places. I believe—and I have said this before—it is immoral that in a country as wealthy as Australia we are reliant on luring qualified medical staff, allied health staff and nursing staff from Third World countries. We are relying on countries such as Botswana, Iraq and Fiji to train professionals that we can lure to Queensland and Australia and, at the same time, we make it virtually impossible for young Queenslanders and Australians to get into medicine, nursing and allied health professions. A government member: It's a disgrace. Mrs EDMOND: It is a disgrace. It is not because we do not need them or that we or the Commonwealth are restricting numbers. Indeed, we import about 1,600 medical practitioners in Queensland at this point and without them we could not run the services around the state. The member for Mirani has two Fijian doctors running the Sarina Hospital. I think Australia should be playing a key role in health provision for people in countries less fortunate than Australia, rather than robbing those countries of their medical staff. However, I do acknowledge that we need significant increases in the number of university places for all allied health staff. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, et cetera, they can finish university and walk into a job virtually wherever they like, because of the desperate shortage. Part of that shortage has come about because we have expanded services around the state in so many places. We have increased the number of community mental health staff by hundreds. That is one of the reasons we find it difficult to recruit. I think we have soaked up every available community mental health worker. A number of the members called for the state to fund their local private GPs, their local private hospitals and, indeed, the gap in medical rebates. All of these are problem issues, but they are issues for the Commonwealth. These are the areas that it funds and supports. I urge members opposite to support the Labor Party's fight to retain Medicare and our public health system. Queensland has a system that we can be proud of, but we have to fight to keep it instead of simply kowtowing to the Commonwealth government. We in Queensland have much greater reliance on the public system because in much of the state there is no private system, there are no private specialists, there are no private practices. Therefore, we have to really fight to keep it. I will go on to deal with the bill and the specifics raised that actually related to the bill after dinner. Debate, on motion of Mrs Edmond, adjourned.

WATER SUPPLY Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (6.00 p.m.): I move— That this House believes that the Queensland State Government has not done all it presently can to provide adequate financial backing, in collaboration with the Federal Government, for an improved program of water supply to our farms and cities. Queensland is facing a water crunch. Some parts of this state are facing a water disaster—no less. Several rural areas are struggling for survival and even the cities are beginning to feel the grip of the big dry. The Gold Coast, for instance, has shown a signal lack of foresight and watched in dismay as the level of water in the Hinze Dam fell below the critical 40 per cent capacity. This situation has come about through a combination of a lack of vision on the part of the federal government, a lack of will on the part of the state government and a lack of cooperation from mother nature. Can I say—and I will leave it at this—that I am similarly disappointed in the lack of support from the coalition within this House for an issue which they say they support, which is the supply of water to our state. I ask the House and members of the public to draw their own conclusions. Roger Stone of the Queensland Centre for Climate Applications has expressed fears that we are experiencing a long-term reduction in rainfall. I do not have to remind members based in rural electorates of the devastation that even less reliable rainfall can cause. Then again we live in a 4168 Water Supply 15 Oct 2003 land of droughts. They have been around since the year dot, and perhaps we are going through, yet again, another cycle of dry years. We do know that the demand for water is climbing as Queensland attracts thousands of new residents every year. Surprisingly, although this population boost has been forecast and well recorded, we have done next to nothing to cater for this growth in demand from new residents and from new industry. Why? We have to go back to 1994 when the Council of Australian Governments endorsed water reforms which became part of the national competition policy agreement. Amongst the reforms was the requirement that future infrastructure developments be subjected to tests of economic viability and ecological sustainability. States that did not comply faced stiff penalties. Now we can see the results of this devastating policy. Dam building in Australia virtually ended with the introduction of these so-called reforms. There has been no repeat of such fine examples of water management which were established with government assistance before the competition policy throttled development. No wonder we hear claims that our river systems are overstressed. There have been no more Emerald immigration schemes. This scheme was a joint scheme between the federal and state governments and was based around the Fairbairn Dam. Today it provides benefits to a wide range of stakeholders. It has seen the population of Emerald increase from 2,000 in 1966 to 11,000 in 1999. The dam also made possible the development of major coalfields and associated power stations and other industries—the flow-on benefits—reflecting the multiplier effect resulting from such schemes which now underpin the prosperity of the region. On the Gold Coast a stubborn refusal, in my opinion, to look ahead has led to the situation where ratepayers are now having to chip in to provide a large pipeline to tap into the Brisbane Valley water storages. Meanwhile, it has put a plan for a new dam near Beaudesert on the backburner. Some vision! It is not as though Queensland has no potential for water supply improvement. A water engineer of the calibre of Martin Albrecht, of Thiess Pty Ltd, maintains that in Queensland only 11 per cent of that resource is used. So although we are continually reminded that Australia has the world's driest inhabited land mass, we do have abundant, largely untapped water resources. It is simply a question of efficient management distribution. So with a growing population we surely have both an opportunity and an obligation to develop this resource in a sustainable manner. There is a substantial potential for a future resource development on the Fitzroy and Burdekin Basins, all of which run to the east coast, as well as other schemes in the gulf. The visionary Nathan dam on the Dawson River has been stalled because the private developer and the Queensland government cannot see how it can comply with competition policy criteria. A $120 million scheme would enable the development of up to 30,000 hectares of irrigated agriculture in the Dawson Valley as well as supporting a coalmine and a new power station. The project has negotiated all the normal hurdles, but it apparently does not stack up on a short-term basis. The Snowy River Scheme did not stack up. Today that scheme brings us $3.5 billion in produce every year. The Murrumbidgee irrigation area alone continues to support a population of 50,000. I would suggest that, without it, the area would be home to less than 2,000. The Snowy and the Darwin to Alice railway are both examples of where the greater benefits to the nation are recognised through government contributions. It is not all about profit. It is about vision for the future. But neither of them stack up in the eyes of our competition policy masters. What they do not see is the multiplier effect of infrastructure projects. They have no notion of generation of investment, of taking on projects which are simply not feasible for short-term market players. However, these market players are not the ones who are going to feed us in 20 or 30 years. They will not be providing jobs or opportunities for our children or grandchildren. We keep hearing the word 'sustainable'. Our inland towns, with the exception of towns like Emerald, are staring unsustainability in the face. They need infrastructure every bit as much as the Gold Coast or Brisbane does. Closer to home in my electorate of Lockyer, we have been crying out for a permanent reliable source of water for the state's most important food bowl. We know that with the estimated 130,000 megalitres of treated water available from the mooted Brisbane grey water pipeline the Lockyer Valley can increase production from $85 million to an estimated $235 million per annum. Flow-on benefits are suggested to be as high as $300 million or $400 million a year. Today everyone except our food growers has access to water. Farmers who live on the very doorstep of the Wivenhoe and who grow the food that we eat are desperate for water. Their aquifers are drying out and their crop production is dipping. This wonderful industry that employs thousands of workers and uses the services of local trucking 15 Oct 2003 Water Supply 4169 companies is in danger of a wipe-out. Our farmers have been hung out to dry literally. Some of them in the lower Lockyer in particular could have had fresh water from Wivenhoe as it is only a few kilometres away. The reason is not hard to see. It is called vision. It is something quite foreign to the bean counters in Brisbane and in Canberra. It is a word that is lost on the economic rationalists to whom user pays is a religion. This was first investigated in 1998 when consultants Sinclair Knight Merz reported that the pipeline from Lake Wivenhoe to Lake Clarendon would cost $19.6 million and carry 22,000 megalitres a year. I have repeatedly raised it in parliament and have been instrumental in efforts to bring this plan to reality. I pleaded with parliament eight times. Now the state government has agreed to investigate the proposal again. I appreciate the Premier's commitment. The Lockyer farmers deliver food to our tables. They are big exporters as well. This is where I come back to my point that there is a lack of will on the part of the state government. There is a lack of will because any plan to give the state a water supply for the rest of the century and beyond goes down the gurgler because NCP drives water prices out of reach. I say to Premier Beattie: cut loose from this competition policy madness and please, as you said before, use your vision. We do have imagination and vision in Queensland. The problem comes back to the NCP and its mantra, user pays. The spin-off benefits do enter the calculations. It is a scandal in this day and age when we have the technical know-how and advanced construction techniques that visionary projects like this are simply turned down because the figures do not add up. We need generational investment, not just ways to make a quick buck. The first settlers in Queensland got digging when the drought struck. They used picks and shovels to dig wells more than 100 feet deep to insure against future droughts. Now our needs are greater and a bigger investment is called for. We should be looking 40 to 60 years ahead. Water is a scarce commodity over most of the Australian land mass. Every drop has to be treasured. But let us take stock of the situation. As far as rainfall is concerned, roughly a third of Australia is true desert with negligible rainfall. About a third has unreliable but normally adequate rainfall for grazing. Another third has fairly good seasonal falls. That third is as big as Europe. Some of it is sparsely populated, undeveloped and remote. In the interests of time and despite my passionate interest in this subject, I will cut out part of my speech. I am sure that the members of this House appreciate the interest of state government and federal government in cooperating on the issue of water. In summing up, the forces of international pressure and state government prerogatives have served to rob Queensland of any chance of installing viable drought prevention mechanisms. Surely we can ensure a water supply to Queensland. Time expired. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (6.10 p.m.): I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Lockyer. Water is the defining resource for the development of Australia. While we live in the driest settled continent on the planet, my electorate includes some of the wettest parts of the country where rain is usually measured in metres. It is a situation that constantly highlights to me how vital the properly considered development, use and conservation of our water resources are to all of our futures. On a national level, our limited water supplies are being pointed out to the Americans in the present free trade negotiations. Why? As proof to them that no matter how efficient our farmers are, they will never be able to capture too much of the US market simply because there is not enough water here to support ever-increasing levels of agriculture. Nationally, that is the situation. At the same time, we are seeing the abandonment of proper water resource planning in this state. In the far north, there has been only one major agricultural dam in existence, and it was built nearly half a century ago. Among the problems with the water planning process of this government is the length of time it takes. Nevertheless, accuracy is of vital importance and all necessary measuring devices and data gathering should be put in place at the start of any such process. In the case of the Barron River water resource plan, that should have been done on creeks, rivers and streams when moratoriums on surface water users were first introduced in 1996 by the then National Party government and in 1998 when moratoriums on bores or ground water were introduced. My electorate has recently seen the completion of the Barron River water resource plan, a document with an expected life of around 10 years. The present plan is based on a range of assumed figures, catchment performances and aquifer reserves that are based on questionable data. Yet millions and millions of dollars worth of primary production is now at risk. 4170 Water Supply 15 Oct 2003

I refer again to my own electorate when I speak of the impact that this process has on future development. In many ways, the main hope of the community from the Barron planning process was for a go-ahead on the construction of a new dam on the Walsh River at Nullinga. Tinaroo is facing ever-increasing demands from a host of users ranging from recreational and tourism operators, to changing crops and more intensive farming, to the environment and also the ever-growing urban centre of Cairns. This creates uncertainty among all of those sectors as to what their future water supply might be and how secure their existing one is. That uncertainty will no doubt be reflected in business and investment decisions. Other water supply options for the region have been closed off by the creation of World Heritage areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. At the end of the day, Nullinga was and remains one of the only practical ways of providing the additional water supply infrastructure the north needs for strong future investment and growth. While it is this Beattie Labor government that has scotched that future with its rejection of Nullinga, the Nationals are equally to blame for the poor state of water resources in far-north Queensland. It was the National Party that campaigned heavily on the basis of building the Tully- Millstream hydro-electric scheme, which promised not only an environmentally sound power supply but also massive additional development. It was the National Party that, after coming to power in 1996, promptly turned its back on the project and on the far north by abandoning something it had made a highlight of during that campaign. I believe the position is very simple: the globalisation-supporting major parties do not want to build new dams or other vital water infrastructure because it is their intention to sell off water services—to privatise them, as has already happened in so many other countries around the world. The building or otherwise of expensive capital projects will then be a matter for the new private owners who will not have to answer to an electorate, just to their shareholders. We have already seen how well privatisation works with the collapse of Victoria's public transport and the track record of privatised water world wide is not a good one. Yet that is the path the National/Liberal/Labor threesome seems intent on taking us on. There is a responsibility on both federal and state governments to provide for the proper development of the nation. They are certainly able to work well together in the interests of globalisation. They should work as well together for Australians and Queenslanders, in particular to provide adequate, affordable water, which is the lifeblood of the nation. It would be remarkably good not only for the future of Queensland but also for the nation to see our legitimate water needs met properly. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (6.16 p.m.) I move— Delete all words after 'House' and insert the following— 'commends the Queensland State Government for its national leadership in sustainable water management and its outstanding efforts in managing water in rural and urban areas; and condemns the Opposition for its secret plan to tax city residents to subsidize water infrastructure in the Lockyer and Darling Downs that has been assessed as financially and environmentally unsustainable.' I refer to the contributions of the member for Lockyer and the member for Tablelands. I have to say, with all due respect to them, that whilst I appreciate the passion that they may have for representing their electorates—and I would not criticise them for that—it is time that they both moved on with respect to their views about the opportunities for new infrastructure and what, in fact, the water resource planning process in Queensland is all about. I attended the recent COAG meeting at which the national water reform agenda was trumpeted by the Deputy Prime Minister. If one looks at the papers that were prepared for that meeting, it is with some pride that I can report that on every point that the Deputy Prime Minister had been campaigning, Queensland either topped the list or nearly topped the list in advancing the national water reform agenda. What is that national water reform agenda all about? It is about providing for the economic and environmental security of this country in the long term. At no other time in Australia's history have all governments come together to appreciate that water is a finite resource, that no longer can every child get a prize, and that there are limits to the amount of water that we can take from our river systems or our underground aquifers. Those fundamental assessments which occur here in Queensland are about planning for the long-term future for this state. While the member for Lockyer was somewhat generous about the Premier's statements on further looking at the grey water pipeline proposal to the Lockyer, I have to say that this 15 Oct 2003 Water Supply 4171 government would have loved to have been able to deliver that project to the Lockyer. We would have been heroes, not just in the Lockyer but in our traditional consistencies as well. The fact that we could not announce the go-ahead on that project was not due to a reluctance by the government to pursuing that particular proposal; it was due to the fact that, under the circumstances that came out of the exhaustive studies, it could not be made to work. We have not buried it. We want to keep it alive because we want it to work. We have the desire to make it work. A suggestion was made that there are no dams being built. The member for Burnett may in fact have something to say about that, because right at this moment a very large dam is under construction on the Burnett River. One cannot go around the place saying that there is no new infrastructure building built or that there is a lack of vision by this government to the long-term provision of water not just to our cities but to the rural areas as well. As members opposite should be aware by now, for the past six months a water supply strategy for south-east Queensland and a water supply strategy for central Queensland have been under way. Those strategies look not only at water needs for the next five years or 10 years; they look at the water needs for those regions for the next 50 years. That is long-term planning. It has never been done before in this state, but that is our commitment. Those opposite know, in terms of south-east Queensland at the very least, that unless we plan now for long-term population growth, industrial growth and the growth they are so passionate about, we do ourselves a great disservice. The path proposed by the National Party—slugging a $30 annual tax, as has been suggested by the member for Darling Downs—is not the way to go. This secret tax agenda, to slug Brisbane residents for this proposal, is just another short-sighted proposal which I am sure, now that it has been exposed, a lot of people in south-east Queensland will be very interested in. I turn very briefly to the contribution of the member for Tablelands. One of the great falsehoods she spoke about tonight— Time expired. Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (6.20 p.m.): I rise to second the amendment moved by the minister. I know from dealing with the member for Lockyer over a period that he is quite genuine in his concerns about water in our region. However, the hypocrisy of the coalition amazes me. We see that hypocrisy when we look at some of the comments its members have made. My electorate of Ipswich West takes in a part of the lower Lockyer. I would be probably the first Labor member since Federation to represent that area. Coalition members have the hide to run around the place talking about what the Beattie government is not doing in relation to water. They have represented the area for the past 100 years, and what have they done in relation to water? They have done very little. Most probably they have done nothing in relation to water. The member for Darling Downs has proposed this sneaky Hopper tax. That is the only way to describe it. That would mean 643,140 Brisbane dwelling owners being slugged with a $30 sneaky tax. It is unbelievable. Water is an issue I have been heavily involved with in my electorate. Water is a very complex matter. Not always do farmers want recycled water. A variety of other options can be looked at and should be looked at. In the area of the lower Lockyer that I represent there are three dams particularly used by the irrigators. None of these dams is in my electorate, but Atkinsons Dam is right next door to it. Atkinsons Dam holds 30,000 megalitres, Bill Gunn Dam holds 25,000 megalitres and Clarendon Dam holds approximately 18,000 megalitres. These dams also play a very important role in feeding the aquifer. There are two main watertables through that area. One is down to 50 per cent of its capacity and falling. The other one is 100 per cent full and salty. The salt water is now running down into the one that is down to 50 per cent of its capacity. I do not need to tell members that we have real dramas in relation to salt and that something needs to be done about it. One of the things this government has done is organise to have the inlets into Atkinsons Dam widened. The contract on that has already been let and I must say that it has taken a fair while. The government has put in $672,000 and the irrigators have put in $120,000. That means that $792,000 is being spent there now. Those inlets will be completed very shortly. That is just one area in which we will make a difference in relation to water. The other area relates to the Brisbane River irrigators. I would like to read a letter I received from these other irrigators which just shows the involvement we have had and the great role played by the minister. I had farmers come to me because they had real concerns in relation to 4172 Water Supply 15 Oct 2003 the allocation of water they had in their area. I went to the area with one of my staff. We marched all over the properties and were taken around in vehicles to look at their concerns. I then contacted the minister. The letter written to us states— On behalf of the Brisbane River Irrigators I would like to take this opportunity to thank you most sincerely for taking the time out of your busy schedule to come and meet with us ... As you can appreciate our livelihoods depend greatly on the surety of our water supply. Without this we are unable to enter into supply contracts and plan future cropping programs. The Minister, Hon. Stephen Robertson, has addressed all of our concerns and given us a short term guarantee of our respective quotas. I will not read the rest of the letter; it is self-explanatory. The minister has given them that short- term commitment and now we have a plan. It is all well and good to look at all of these other harebrained schemes. The member for Darling Downs said that the recycled water proposal was viable. It does not stack up. We would like it to stack up. I would love it to stack up. Independent evaluations have been done. It has been looked at by a variety of groups, from City to Soil to Vision 2000 and government. There were independent people looking at the proposal. It simply did not stack up financially or environmentally. There were real concerns in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. It was believed that the damage done would outweigh the benefits received. That does not mean for one minute that this government is not committed in some way to overcoming those problems and trying to come to terms with the water issue. Time expired. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (6.25 p.m.): I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lockyer but not so pleased that inadequate water supply continues to be an issue of concern for the people of my electorate, especially in light of the fact that the population is now at 40,000 and increasing on a daily basis. Currently the Cooloola shire's primary water source, Borumba Dam, is at only 48 per cent capacity, which means that we are once again eight per cent away from being classed as critical. Last year my electorate experienced major drought conditions, and it would be disastrous if we were once again subjected to these conditions as a result of limited storage capacity. In 1994 the then Labor Primary Industries Minister announced that, due to the rapid population growth in the Mary River Valley and on the Sunshine Coast, the Borumba Dam walls would be raised to deal with the increased demand for water. The dam was to be progressively raised 25 metres between 1997 and 2010 at the projected cost of $49 million. Nine years down the track, the raising is still to eventuate. In 1994 the government also announced a new dam to be built at Amamoor Creek. This, too, has not eventuated, even with cabinet at the time giving the necessary guarantee that hundreds of thousands of people would be able to get the water they required well into the next century. The then Primary Industries Minister also stated that the Labor government's water strategy provided an economic solution without excessive impact on the local environment and communities. I find it interesting, however, that this government is planning to push ahead with the construction of a $200 million Paradise dam near Bundaberg, even though scientific and economic reports have shown that there are better environmental and economic alternatives to the construction of this dam. What really annoys many residents is the fact that the question of whether there will be a new dam or whether the raising will occur is never adequately addressed. I have no doubt that my electorate would appreciate an honest answer as to what is actually happening and the reasons for it. If this government has come up with a much better way of ensuring a continued, usable water supply, then my constituents will be satisfied. I am aware that, fortunately, Gympie does have a forecast for rain over the next few days—every drop helps—and we may not experience the dry conditions we faced when the drought was at its worst. It is, however, vital that we can be prepared for the very worst case scenario. I know that there is a lack of appreciation on the part of many in this House and many members in the urban population not only in relation to the importance of water in our personal, day-to-day lives but also in relation to how essential water is to the people who work on the land. As an ex-city dweller, I admit that I took water for granted. I did not even know what a rain gauge looked like, much to the amusement of my new country neighbours. The thought of running out of water was never an issue for those of us in the CBD. It was something we never even contemplated. However, now that I reside in a rural area I have come to realise how precious a commodity water really is. 15 Oct 2003 Water Supply 4173

The residents of my electorate are frustrated at having been kept in the dark for so long about what their future water resource options are to be. They do not care who implements the best water policy, whether it be the federal government, the state government, Labor or the coalition. They just want to know that they can be confident regarding water access and availability. Presently we know that there has been talk within the Department of State Development about securing land for any future upgrades of Borumba Dam and about plans to look at different scenarios such as hydrological modelling. These strategies hold little comfort to an electorate which has been waiting for the promise of increased storage capacity to be fulfilled for years and years. As this motion is directed at water issues throughout the whole state, I have to be honest and say I can only really speak on behalf of my electorate and the needs of my constituents. However, from what my colleagues have already said, there seems to be something amiss in regard to water supply generally. Finally, I must say I am extremely disappointed that the National Party members refused to speak on this motion, even as many of their electorates are in the midst of water allocation problems. The reason is that the motion mentioned something negative about the federal government. I find it reprehensible that an issue as vital as water resource management has been politicised by the National Party and I believe this will be one further nail in the coffin for the party, particularly in areas such as the Gympie electorate. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (6.30 p.m.): I am pleased to support this amended motion because the Beattie government's record on water management and reform is one that every Queenslander can be proud of. Rural Queensland reaps many of the benefits of Queensland's smart water management. Some of those benefits are financial—not only their own increased productivity, but through strategic investments and incentives from the government to give industry a hand where it is most needed, or where it can do the most good. Some of those benefits flow as a result of our water policies like the reforms to the water entitlement system, the implementation of the water resource planning process and the introduction of water trading. One of the most successful programs this government has run in terms of 'bang for your buck' is the $41 million rural water use efficiency initiative. The four targeted industries of sugar, fruit and vegetables, cotton and dairy have been able to save over 180,000 megalitres of water every year—water which is now available for more agricultural production. And it has boosted the annual value of production in Queensland by some $280 million. If you want to approach it like an economist, that is a 600 per cent return on your investment. It is worth noting that these achievements were reached against the backdrop of the worst drought in our history, making these results even more impressive. A key feature of the initiative is that it follows through on the one thing the Beattie government makes a real priority, and that is developing partnerships that will make the most difference to people on the ground. The initiative reduces water wastage by using more efficient irrigation equipment, and educating and training irrigators to better manage crop irrigation. This initiative has been incredibly successful. A couple of months ago I had the pleasure of touring with local canegrowers and looking at the Capello farm, the Blackburn farm, the Fordyce farm and the Vickers farm near Balnagowan. One of the things that they really pushed home to me was that at times they might not agree with our policies, but this policy of providing assistance in partnership to look at ways that we can conserve and better use water was one thing they thought that this government had done very well. They pleaded with me to speak to the minister to ensure that the program would be extended. When I raised this matter I was delighted to hear from the minister that the scheme would be extended beyond its initial four years so it can help more land-holders who are at the forefront of what you would call smart irrigation in this state. Mr Lawlor: I bet they'd love to hear anything from the National Party. Mr MULHERIN: Yes. Another area that will make a big difference to Queenslanders, both now and in the future, is the Great Artesian Basin sustainability initiative which helps land-holders in western Queensland with repairing and rehabilitating their old artesian bores and replacing bore drains with pipe distribution systems. In the old bore drains, more than 90 per cent of water is lost to evaporation and seepage, meaning that the water was lost from the basin and lost to the land-holder. It is hard to think of a more shocking waste of water. But capping and piping bores and bore drains is expensive and most land-holders cannot do it alone. That is why the Beattie government shares these costs with 4174 Water Supply 15 Oct 2003 the land-holders and the Commonwealth. Our commitment to the scheme is $16.4 million. In the coming year alone, we will spend around $7 million. These capping and piping systems are more efficient. Not only will they conserve our precious and dwindling artesian water resources; they will also deliver substantial productivity gains to land-holders. They have also solved the many other problems of open bore drains, like a proliferation of pest animals, weeds and danger to stock. Since the scheme's initial inception, 452 bores have been capped and some 4,515 kilometres of open drains have been replaced with pipes. Those works save more than 95,000 megalitres of water every year. One final matter I would like to mention is the fact that this government has demonstrated its firm policy of reinvesting SunWater dividends into the corporation—directed specifically to provide benefits to rural Queensland. These projects make it very clear that the Beattie government is continuing to deliver real, tangible and direct benefits to Queenslanders. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.35 p.m.): I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lockyer. I acknowledge the contributions of previous speakers, for and against his motion, and the information that they conveyed. I would also like to acknowledge the Premier's continued support for the piping of water across the range into the Lockyer Valley. I commend him for that continued support. Water supply is a constant concern to people in the community. We had a critical period when it looked as though the supply to industry was going to be reduced to the point where some industries would not be able to operate. These were not the smaller industries; these were the major employers of the city area. We were on the brink of a 50 per cent reduction in water allocations to these industries, which would have meant a considerable cost to the companies and a considerable cost to the electorate. However, we got rain in February, and I suppose that was the saving of the place in the short term. However, there is still a lot of important planning that needs to be done regarding water strategy in my electorate. In relation to the matter that prompted the member for Lockyer's motion—that is, the piping of water to the Lockyer—I would have to say that we used to be a nation of vision. He referred to the Snowy Mountains Scheme. I would also include the railway system right across the continent of Australia. When all of those schemes were put in place they were not cost effective. They certainly did not provide a commercial rate of return. They were an investment in the future. The governments of the day—whether they were the state governments, the federal government or joint funding—invested money knowing that the return would be in the long term and not necessarily financial but in the form of community benefit. We have lost that vision. We now have people making decisions who base almost all of their decision making on the bottom line—the rate of return, the demand for a five-year commercial return. We do not recognise anymore that government is best placed to bear the costs of major infrastructure and maybe apportion those costs on a pro rata basis to the users of the infrastructure. The government, whether it is state or federal, can bear the major up-front cost—the capital cost—for the relevant construction. For a long period of time, particularly in the portfolio of Local Government but also in the Environment and Natural Resources portfolios, the disposal of human effluent has been a concern. There have been programs run through local governments where there was a joint subsidy to ensure that effluent was not deposited into the watershed, that it was tertiary treated and recycled in some way. We have not gone to the stage of some European countries where it is actually used for human consumption. However, in many, many, many electorates the local governments have accepted their responsibilities, and they have tertiary treated their effluent waste and used it on non-contact sporting fields and in other appropriate areas. The application of treated effluent and grey water across the divide in the Lockyer could have tremendous economic benefits. The positive implications include— An honourable member interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. I apologise. An honourable member: No, you were right. You said the Lockyer and across the divide. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Okay. There could be growth in cropping of appropriate types, there could be growth in jobs, and there could be a reduction in the discharge to the waterways. That has been a major priority for local authorities across Queensland for quite a number of years. In fact, it has been an imperative imposed on local authorities. 15 Oct 2003 Water Supply 4175

The capital cost of piping that water to the Lockyer and other appropriate districts will only escalate; it certainly will not decrease. The practicality of doing it is evident as well. If one looks at a map of Queensland they will see gas pipelines that are built very quickly. There are efficient pipelaying companies that actually specialise in this. Also, pump stations can be run efficiently and at low cost and it is a non-volatile matter to be piped. All of these things can be achieved. It is expensive, and that is where I believe there is room for a joint venture between the state and federal governments. I am disappointed in the federal government's attitude. I am disappointed that it appears unwilling to discuss the possibility of this being a funded capital project. The cost may be too great for the state to handle, even on borrowings. It is a national scheme. It is one that I believe will have benefit to the community in the future as the south-east corner grows. Time expired. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (6.40 p.m.): No-one who has been paying attention can question that the Beattie government has demonstrated time and time again its commitment to managing and protecting our water resources for all Queenslanders, whether they live in the bush or the city. One of the best ways we can achieve this is by working with local councils, because councils deliver water to their residents and are best placed to deal with issues that are specific to their individual situations. One of the ways we can help councils is with money through subsidies for capital works and other schemes. In the last few years the Beattie government has committed nearly $45 million in subsidy payments. Last year alone 71 communities were helped by these funds which paid between 40 per cent and 80 per cent of each scheme's total cost in communities from Stonehenge, with its 50 residents, to Brisbane and of course Toowoomba. In Toowoomba the government is working with the council to recycle effluent from Toowoomba's Wetalla Waste Water Treatment Plant for rural, industrial and mining purposes in the region with benefits such as the fact that Acland Coal's production could be increased from less than one million tonnes a year to more than two million tonnes a year; a guaranteed water supply significantly progresses the Charlton- Wellcamp Industrial Estate's viability; associated success with Charlton-Wellcamp further enhances calls for the second range crossing; and water quality into Gowrie Creek could be improved. I want to particularly address the devastating effects drought has on residential communities through their industries, their businesses and their homes. The Beattie government recognises this and has responded in many ways over the years it has been here. The drought urban water supply task force addresses every possible option to help communities with limited or no town water supplies as a result of drought, and we have already seen that task force take some decisive actions and give top priority to alternatives that will provide permanent solutions to both current water shortages and during future droughts. We have seen approval for drought subsidy payments to finance permanent new bores for Finch Hatton and Yaraka in the Mirani and Isisford council areas—and the member for Mirani, were he here, should be very pleased to hear about that—and a secure water supply for Capella. At the end of last month I understand that $300,000 had been paid out under the drought stricken local government urban water supply scheme with another $1 million committed to help councils that are facing a loss of water supply by covering the costs of carting water or for capital works like new bores or pipelines to secure water sources. Extreme and difficult times force us to be innovative and to look for different and new solutions to our problems. One solution in which I am particularly interested is the as yet untold potential of desalinisation, and this is not only due to the fact that one of Queensland's foremost producers of mobile desalination technology is from my own electorate. As desalination technologies become cheaper and as water becomes more valuable to us, desalination is an increasingly viable option. The idea that we can produce water we can drink by taking the salt out of bore water, surface water or even seawater holds great promise. I commend the minister for his support for desalination, whether it be an on-farm mobile desalination unit or a plant supplying a whole town. The member for Darling Downs will be gratified to know that Dalby in his own electorate has decided to install a desalination plant which, once completed, will be the biggest desalination plant for potable water in this state. He would be pleased to hear it if he were here. It is a first for local government in Queensland, and the Beattie government is supporting it with nearly $1 million in funding. Other local governments are looking at following that lead. For example, over $100,000 has been committed to the desalination plant at Jundah, which I know will please the member for Gregory, were he here. This government goes beyond times of drought and plans for the future, and we will reap the benefits of such plans with the south-east Queensland water supply strategy 4176 Water Supply 15 Oct 2003 and the central Queensland water supply strategy for years to come. I am pleased to commend to the House the amended motion. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (6.44 p.m.): There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the supply and maintaining of constant clean water to the people of Queensland is the most important issue to face the future existence of all residents of city and country towns and must be viewed as such. The reliability of a constant water supply to those who farm is also vital for the future of the farming industry and the Queensland economy. There is no doubt in the truth of the words that water is a finite commodity. In speaking to this motion I point out the huge role water infrastructure has played in the life of the people of the south Burnett, and make no mistake: without the foresight shown by early governments, the Burnett would be a much poorer community. Parts of my constituency have experienced boom-bust years, wet years and dry, but many of these residents are now grateful for the water infrastructure that was put in place years ago—that is, that people thought longer term than just two or three years ahead. For instance, when the Tarong Power Station was commissioned water was piped from the Boondoomba Dam near Proston. That water has not only allowed a power station to keep the lights on in Brisbane and to power industry; it has provided a vital supply to hundreds of properties to the north of Kingaroy. Due to the 2001 redistribution, this area is no longer in my electorate. But I have seen first-hand the great benefits the pipeline brings to the Wondai shire and areas north of it. There are piggeries and grazing properties which all enjoy a reliable, piped water supply for stock use. The Boondoomba Dam has also become something of a major tourist attraction to the area. When one considers that tourism is a major industry now for many inland towns, they can see why it has become so valuable. It draws boating, sailing and fishing enthusiasts from right around the state. The Bjelke-Petersen Dam near Murgon is another example of a water supply fuelling growth industries in the district. From the south another pipeline serves Tarong Power Station, and recently the small township of Blackbutt was connected to that pipeline when it found that the town literally ran dry of water. Some believed that it was due to the pumping dry of the water table by irrigators, but others blamed the prolonged drought. Some say that there has been no storage infrastructure, but that, as the minister says, is not true. The sole exception to that is Paradise dam, which, as we are told, is currently under construction. But the truth is that governments can bend rules to their own advantage, as demonstrated in the Burnett. When the power station looked like running out of water in the big dry of 1995, it was decided to build an emergency pipeline from Wivenhoe to keep the boilers going. That decision was made in February and negotiations for an easement started immediately. Within nine months the pipeline was in place and ready to be accessed. The wonderful thing was that the day the minister officially came to turn on the tap, so to speak, the rains came and the drought broke. We would be quite happy for the government to build a lot more pipelines to a lot more places and never have to turn them on. The fact is that so much was achieved so quickly when the need arose, so it proves that it can be done. Money was no object when the power station that supplied more than 30 per cent of the state's power was in fact in peril. However, the pipeline is a valuable stand-by for the power station. Other users en route are now benefiting from it, and I do not think members would find one single person who would complain about it. Long pipelines have traditionally been ruled out due to their high capital costs, and at today's rate I am told that a pipeline would cost around $1,200 per metre or $1.2 million for a distance of 1,000 kilometres to link up a water-rich region to the north with an overloaded system in the south, but that the cost of owning and operating such a pipeline works out at not more than $1 per day per household—a seemingly small price to pay for a reliable source of clean, fresh water. I know the people of Coominya, just a few kilometres away from the Wivenhoe, would be willing to pay to have that reliability and the opportunity to develop industries in the area. Kingaroy has grown to the sizeable town it is because of the certainty of a good water supply. Kingaroy has a large piggery industry and rapidly expanding abattoirs, but without increased water allocations growth in towns is jeopardised. Time expired. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (6.49 p.m.): I take this opportunity to speak on an issue that is dear to my constituents and also to all Queenslanders, which is ensuring the proper use of water resources. Water is vital to our communities, our industries and our environment and that is why 15 Oct 2003 Water Supply 4177 we need the kind of specific commitment this government has demonstrated to meeting all these needs through robust water planning. The fundamental basis of the COAG water reforms, as the minister has already informed us, is the realisation that water is a scarce commodity and should be used as efficiently as possible, and that is the basis of this government's approach. Queensland has abandoned proper water management practices, was the member for Tablelands' comment. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government encourages efficient water use, such as reducing use and recycling, as the member for Mackay stated earlier in terms of the benefits of rural water use efficiency. It is a considerable improvement on the approach that is advocated by the opposition. The water infrastructure task force report produced by the last coalition government is a case in point. It is a report that suggests no less than 160 dams or other pieces of water infrastructure for Queensland, with no indication of how they would be paid for, whether they would be needed or what the environmental damage might be. The government's approach is different. To promote the best, sustainable use of water we adopt an approach to meet water needs in a way that meets the national reform agenda and the best interests of Queenslanders. We believe in helping water to move to the highest and best use. Queensland's water trading market, kicked off in my electorate of Burnett by the minister at the Greensill farm, which is a classic example of a progressive farmer using this innovative program, is one of the best ways to achieve this. Secondly, we encourage efficient water use, such as the rural water use efficiency initiative—a huge success in the Burnett with a broad acceptance by all farmers throughout the region. Thirdly, if demand for water cannot be met in either of those ways, we investigate the development of new water supply sources that ensure economic viability, ecological sustainability and social responsibility. Our approach specifically recognises that in some cases—different from what the member for Lockyer asserted earlier—dams may be the answer, but only when we have properly explored all options. For me, the clearest example of where a dam was needed and where the needs of the community could not be met through other strategies is, of course, the Burnett River Dam—again close to my electorate. But the fact is that dams need to be paid for. Under the national water reform agenda, the full cost of any new water infrastructure should be recovered and, if water users cannot afford the cost, then the government steps in with a transparent community service obligation or subsidy. It is vital that we direct taxpayers' dollars to their best possible use, whether it is encouraging water efficiency or building a pipeline, a weir or other options. Water is fundamental to opening up many parts of Queensland, but we now all live in an era where commodity prices, international competition and the skills of our workplace play a much bigger role in determining our economic futures. The days of 'build a dam and an economic use will come' are long gone. The Beattie government's innovative water planning processes and our secure system of tradeable water entitlements provide a strong foundation for the sustainable use of water for current and future generations of Queenslanders. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 18—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 18—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.03 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. 4178 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from p. 4167. Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (8.30 p.m.), continuing in reply: I will be moving nine amendments to the bill at the committee stage. The amendments were circulated last week. The amendments correct minor errors in the bill and contain minor amendments to the Hospitals Foundation Act 1982. The latter have been progressed in response to a request from the Royal Brisbane Hospital Research Foundation and the Royal Women's Hospital Research and Development Foundation to amalgamate so that they may streamline their operations. The purpose of the amendments is to support administrative processes. They set out the steps to be undertaken for the amalgamation of two or more foundations and provide certainty about assets and bequests made to the amalgamating foundations. There are currently 12 hospital foundations throughout Queensland. The foundations are not-for-profit organisations that play an important role in promoting the research and delivery of high-quality health services. The foundations achieve this through private donations, corporate sponsorship and support, and through fundraising events. Key contributions that hospital foundations make include funding research initiatives to advance our understanding of disease and health care, supporting the training of health professionals, purchasing lifesaving diagnostic and therapeutic health equipment, and supporting and playing an active role in health promotion. These amendments will ensure that the hospital foundations can position themselves to carry out this important work effectively. I table the amendments and the explanatory notes. I give my apologies to the House for having to introduce these at the committee stage. The request came to us later than we would have liked. But they are not controversial and they are being done at the request of the foundation. I turn now to the members' contributions to the debate. The member for Maroochydore was concerned that the changes would lead to an exodus of dental therapists from the very, very important school dental therapy model. I have to say that we looked very carefully at that. I know it is an issue that has been raised by the dentists. When we bring in changes we have to expect that people whom those changes concern will try to protect their turf, and I think that is what we are seeing here. Certainly there is no evidence of this happening in the other states where dental therapists have been able to treat adults and in the private sector for a long time. Certainly it has not been the case in the state to most recently move in this way—Victoria—as the member for Nudgee explained. I should indicate that he probably has a great knowledge of this as his wife, Jenny, is a dental therapist. Another concern raised by the member for Maroochydore, if I understood her correctly, was that it would lower standards. I cannot see that that is the case. We entrust our children to dental therapists. I think it is important that we recognise that we put the most vulnerable young people into the care of dental therapists. So we are not indicating that we will be lowering standards by allowing dental therapists to have a wider range of service delivery in the private sector or with adults under supervision. The role of dental therapists has changed over the last few years. We have seen a significant increase in the amount of education they need for their qualifications. It has moved from a TAFE course to a university degree. In recent times we have had a bridging course to make sure that oral hygienists and dental therapists reach the same level of skills. Once this legislation has passed, with a widening role, we will be working on a code of practice for dental auxiliaries, whichever stream they are in. Supervision again comes under the code of practice. Yes, I understand what the member was saying in terms of supervision in that it is not one on one. I do not think it has ever been one on one. Dental therapists working in the schools work under supervision. But a number of dental therapists will be working in the school with a dentist supervising a number of them at any one time. They call on the dentist if they need advice and, of course, the dentist monitors the work they are doing. Miss Simpson: Can they actually be absent from the site, though? Mrs EDMOND: They are not necessarily on the site, no. Monitoring is done in a variety of ways and always has been. It can be through a phone call or if they have a child who needs work 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4179 that they are seeking advice on, they might bring that child back at a time when the dentist will be there. That is how it is done. It is also done by dentists checking up on the work as it is done. The member for Maroochydore also claimed there was a reduction in the number of children treated. The member has done this before. She does not understand that the numbers that are in the MPS are not hard numbers in that they are estimates. That is what they say they are; they are estimated numbers of treatments that are going to be provided. I say that in all sincerity, because the member has raised this in relation to emergency department figures. We have now actually exceeded those emergency department figures. It is not a case of when we put in an estimate we say that after that we are not going to see or treat anyone; they are how many people we are expecting to treat. Sometimes it is more and sometimes it is less, but often it is a range. In the case of the number of services we provide for children, in 2002-03 the range that we estimated was 330,000 to 350,000. At the time when we did the MPS, which was some months before the budget and before the end of the financial year, it could have looked as if we were not going to achieve that. However, I am informed that the actual number of completions for this period was 336,749. But we do not have those actual figures in until significantly after the date that the MPS is finalised. So it is not a case of reducing the number or capping the number; it is a case of trying to guess how many kids we are going to see during that period. The member also read a letter from Don Anning, who is a good bloke. I know Don, too, and have talked to him about this bill and many other issues. As I indicated earlier, it raised concerns about encroachment on dental therapists' dental turf. I have to say that over the 10 years that we have been dealing with this issue—and I think I had my first meetings about this back in about 1994—the dentists have come a long way. Originally, they totally opposed any move for anybody else to do any of the extra work. They have come a long way. We have people who are very, very reasonable now and have been working well with us, including—and I have to pay tribute to him—Dr Rick Olive, the chair of the board, who has been very helpful. I will read from an article written by Dr Paul Renner, another very experienced dentist. From memory, he was also a president of the ADAQ. I will not read the entire article, which appeared in the ADAQ News earlier this year. A couple of points are worth repeating. He says— ADAQ has been involved in the consultative process for almost ten years with several of our members putting in countless hours working on submissions and the like. As one of those members who has been involved since the beginning of the process, I can say that at all times during the process ADAQ has had at the forefront of its arguments that dentists and dental specialists are the only group qualified to lead the dental team, and that no member of the dental team should perform functions for which they are not trained. He says, 'Have these arguments prevailed? I believe so.' I think that is a key thing. After all this work, he actually believes that we have met the rigorous conditions that they put in to protect everybody concerned. Another issue that was raised was about the impact on dental technicians of changes and deregulation. Again we are seeing some turf protection here. Some issues have been raised. I have met with the dental technicians, I have read their submissions and I have heard what they said, but it does not actually stand up to real scrutiny. They are raising a lot of concerns, but that is not the experience anywhere else where dental technicians are not required to be registered, et cetera. Our dental technicians will still be registered and we think that is appropriate. They want to continue to be registered. However, they have raised concerns that it would reduce the quality of the work and they have said that the work could come from elsewhere. I pointed out to them—and the member mentioned this tonight, I think as a result of my pointing it out to them—that for a long time there has been absolutely nothing to stop people ordering work from overseas. In fact, I know that people order oral bridgework and dentures, et cetera, from Hong Kong. There is nothing to stop that happening. There has not been in the past and there will not be in the future. With regard to quality, again I read from Dr Paul Renner's report. He said— What this will do to the dental technicians profession in the state only time will tell. I think that is a fair comment. He continues— It does however provide the opportunity for dental technicians, dentists and specialists to train their staff to legally perform some of the procedures which had been restricted under the Act. It will be possible for staff to construct mouth guards, bleaching splints, trays, denture repairs etc. While it is possible that non-registered people may set up laboratories to provide technicians' services, I would expect that the overwhelming majority of dentists and 4180 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 specialists will continue using the services of registered dental technicians who must be properly trained for the majority of their work. I support that. I believe that dentists and dental prosthetists have a vested interest in maintaining the quality of their work and, therefore, they will seek work done by highly skilled people. It allows dental technicians themselves to actually employ lesser skilled people to do some of the more menial work and free them up to do the more complex work and, therefore, make savings. I turn to the health service district council amendments. The member asked me to define a casual vacancy. A casual vacancy is one that occurs outside the normal reconstitution of a council, for example, where a member has increased commitments and finds that they can no longer continue their involvement with the council. They could move out of the area or we have had occasions where, sadly, somebody has died. In the last couple of weeks I have written to one council member who has not attended a meeting for six months. The other members believe, but do not know for certain, that that person is overseas. I have explained in that letter that he is in breach of the act and that he should indicate that he is either standing down and resigning from the council or, if he does not do that, he will be deemed to have resigned. It is quite complex to put that in place. Currently, the Health Services Act specifies that district health councils are to consist of a minimum of eight and a maximum of 10 members. However, the act is unclear as to how the functions of a council are affected at times when there are fewer than eight members, for example, when a vacancy occurs due to the resignation of a council member. The member for Maroochydore asked why we were changing this. The department has received legal advice that this should be remedied to prevent any possible future problems. For that reason, appointments to councils have been held over pending the passage of this legislation. We did not want to cause the councils any embarrassment by finding themselves in a position where they may be seen to be making illegal decisions. This has caused delays while we await this legislation to fix the problem in the Health Services Act. Therefore, it is a clarifying amendment rather than any real change. It does not take away from the strength of the councils, but it does give them surety in knowing that they will be acting legally. The district health councils associated with the Royal Brisbane and Royal Women's Hospitals have been further complicated by the act and by the fact that we are amalgamating that health service district. At the moment we are in the process of appointing members to it. Some general comments were made about the Health Rights Commission. Those comments were not really about the changes that we are making but were of a general nature. I am delighted that we were able to attract David Kirslake from Western Australia to be the new Health Rights Commissioner. He has held that post for a year and his impact has been quite dramatic. He has significantly improved the systems and the efficiency. The number of complaints awaiting resolution has dropped from 400 to about 10 or 12, which is a wonderful result in just a year. Extra funding has been put in over the last couple of years. There has also been a review into whether the Health Rights Commission should sit associated with Queensland Health and funded through Queensland Health, or whether it should sit in the Ombudsman's office, the Premier's office or somewhere else. The review found that there was no problem with it sitting where it sits and being funded by Queensland Health. There was no indication of any interference by either myself or the Director-General of Queensland Health. Since David Kirslake has been there, I do not think I have received a single letter of complaint about the Health Rights Commission which, again, is an example of him doing a great job. The Nursing Act speaks for itself. With the criminal history check, while consideration will be given to other aspects in the future, what we are doing will bring it into line with all of the other health practitioner legislation. I thank the health committee members from this side of the House for the contributions that they have made. Most of them spoke largely to the bill and added a little bit of local colour in relation to the hospitals in their electorates. The member for Gregory, Mr Johnson, did not have anything to say about the actual bill, but he did raise a number of issues about scholarships that bond dentists. In Queensland, dentists, doctors and other allied health professions are in the unique position of being able to access scholarships that bond them for work in the public sector and most of that actually takes place in rural areas. I have to say that without the bonding process, we would be in a desperate state as pharmacists, dentists and doctors, and virtually every physiotherapist, podiatrist, occupational 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4181 therapist and speech therapist in rural areas is a bonded scholarship holder. This is unique. None of the other states have this system. Quite frequently at the end of university training people who have accepted a scholarship for previous years decide, after a year or so of getting higher pay, that they no longer want to be bonded. If we allowed all of them to slip out of that bonding, we would have hardly anyone working west of the divide. To allow them to skip that bonding is not appropriate. Dr Crump was a Queensland Health scholarship holder. He had four years of service under the terms of his scholarship contract. I understand that he served two years in total. As the member for Gregory said, Dr Crump still owes over $32,000. There has been ongoing negotiation between Queensland Health and Dr Crump. However, he has refused to pay this money back. Instead, he has offered to provide services to public oral health patients for a fee. Basically, he wants us to pay him to treat the patients we want him to treat through the public health system. My department is currently attempting to negotiate a workable solution with Dr Crump. In some cases there are real hardships. Queensland Health is not heartless. It does try to negotiate with people if there are exceptional circumstances. I know of one case where the bonded scholarship holder had a very sick child and he and his wife needed to be in Brisbane, close to intensive paediatric services. Of course, we took that into consideration. It is not fair on everybody, including the people who miss out on getting the scholarship, if some people accept scholarships and then renege on them. The member for Nanango did not speak much about the bill. She did raise an issue about doctors who abuse children. I think we all find child abuse abhorrent. I remind members that the Health Practitioners Tribunal is a judicial body constituted by a District Court judge, who determines what conditions are imposed on offending practitioners. These conditions are listed in the register. The conditions in relation to the doctor mentioned by the member have been listed in the register maintained by the Medical Board of Queensland, which is available to the public. I have been advised that the key condition on that doctor was that he not treat any patient under the age of 14 years without a chaperone over the age of 18 years or an adult guardian being present. That condition was to apply for a period of 36 months from December 2002. A number of other conditions were also imposed on that doctor. The member for Nanango raised a number of issues about medical blunders. I remind her that we do have the Health Rights Commission. I think we have wonderful staff. We have about 66,000 of them—about 41,000 full-time equivalents. We treat hundreds of thousands of patients each year. Even if half a per cent of those are seriously affected, it is too many. That is not something we want. It is for that reason that the Labor Party established the Health Rights Commission back in the mid-1990s to deal with complaints. Of course, people who have complaints also have legal redress. We have legislated for that through a range of areas, including the recent PIP bill. The member also asked whether oral therapists will be able to reduce waiting lists. I hope they will. I hope that, by having a wider range of health practitioners—in this case oral health auxiliaries—to reduce the load on dentists, dentists will be able to focus on things that are more complex and we can get through more patients. I found it difficult to understand the member when she said that we are making it too hard for health professionals to get in. There are concerns about shortages of health professionals. If anything is making it too hard, I think it is the fact that we are losing fully funded places at universities. Restrictions on university places are making it hard for people to get in. We are doing everything we can to encourage extra health professionals. The member for Redlands talked about the pressure on oral health services, as did many other members. The member for Toowoomba South clearly had not read the bill and was not sure what it was about. His contribution was just a general spray on health, basically saying what Prime Minister Howard says. Most of what he raised has been answered by the member for Toowoomba North. The member for Tablelands had a lot of conspiracy theories. I have not heard so many conspiracy theories since I think the 1960s with the reds under the bed. I do not think much of it had to do with the bill. I thank the member for Hinchinbrook for his positive comments about the work we are doing in north Queensland and his acknowledgment of how difficult it is to get dental staff. The member for Gladstone recognised the important role played by school dental therapists. It was quite apparent that she had actually been briefed by both the dental therapists and the 4182 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 dentists, because she knew both arguments. She also recognised the need for more university places for dentistry and dental auxiliaries. I have been particularly welcoming of the new school for dentistry that will be started by Griffith University on the Gold Coast. It is a big step forward. It is not just for dentists; it is also for other dental practitioners such as dental prosthetists and dental auxiliaries. The member for Gladstone raised the issue of coloured optical appliances. I can confirm to the member that the bill applies only to optical appliances that correct a defect in sight. There was a case put that we should make it apply to all eye products. I did not accept the argument that it should apply to cosmetic, coloured lenses or to the coloured lenses in glasses that are used by some groups for dyslexia and other things. The member for Maryborough disputed the definition of 'chiropractic' and 'osteopathy'. That is covered in the health practitioners registration legislation rather than in this bill. This bill deals only with a particular restricted practice and whether or not doctors and physiotherapists should be stopped from using spinal manipulation techniques. In fact, we all agree that they should be able to continue to use them. The member for Cunningham did not speak about the bill. He is another member who wants the state to fund private hospitals in his electorate. He was concerned about the increased cost incurred because the cardiac specialist has moved from the public sector into the private sector. I advise him that Queensland Health is currently recruiting a replacement for the public sector. The issue of rebates for private specialists is something for the Commonwealth government. I cannot recall any of these members ever standing up and supporting us when we have been lobbying the Commonwealth government about these issues. I am aware of the gap and the impact that has on people on low incomes. The member for Southern Downs talked about the issues at Goondiwindi Hospital. I am sure he knows as well as I do that private issues, including all manner of partnership changes, made the negotiations particularly difficult last year. I am delighted that it has been sorted out. He also commented on the fact that the medical super with right of private practice from Inglewood finds that going to Yelarbon does not pay enough. I presume that most of those are done on a bulk- billing basis. Of course, that is an issue we have been raising regularly. Again, I hope the member has raised it with the Commonwealth. He also acknowledged the major work of refurbishment that is being done by Queensland Health in our public hospitals in his electorate. The member for Warrego raised the issue of titles for doctors. That is not handled in this bill; that is handled by the education legislation. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) in charge of the bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mrs EDMOND (8.59 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2— At page 10, line 11, '2001'— omit, insert— '2002'. The amendment to clause 2 corrects a drafting error in clause 2(1)(b) of the bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14— Miss SIMPSON (9.00 p.m.): I want to ask a question regarding clause 14, specifically at page 21 and the definition of 'exposure prone procedure' from lines 1 to 4. There is a definition of exposure prone procedure which is in relation to the amendments to the restricted practice of dentistry. I have had this issue raised by the Dental Association where they query this particular definition. They said— 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4183

The definition of 'exposure prone procedure' which is part of the definition of the restricted practice of dentistry as outlined in the Bill. The term itself is satisfactory but there does seem to be some inconsistency with respect to the definition of 'exposure prone procedure' in this legislation and what is otherwise widely accepted as the definition of 'exposure prone procedure'. In the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 'exposure prone procedure' is defined as: (a) a sub-mucosal invasion with a surgical instrument; or (b) a procedure dealing with sharp tissues or bone spicules in a body cavity or sight. However, the usual and internationally accepted definition of 'exposure prone procedures' is: A procedure characterised by the potential for direct contact between the skin (usually finger or thumb) of the health care worker (HCW) and sharp surgical instruments, needles or sharp tissues (spicules of bone or teeth) in body cavities or in poorly visualized or confined body sights (including the mouth). An exposure-prone procedure is any situation where there is a potentially high risk of transmitting a blood-borne virus between a HCW and a patient. They go on to say that the definition in this bill— ... describes actual procedures rather than the potential risk of any procedure to result in the transmission of disease between a dentist or dental auxiliary and a patient. They also make some comments about the term 'surgical instrument' and query the definition of that and the fact that a sharp is also potentially a surgical instrument. I want to draw that issue to the minister's attention as it has been raised by the Dental Association. While they say the term is satisfactory, they raise an issue of whether it is consistent with other definitions in international practice. I would appreciate the minister's comments. Mrs EDMOND: There are probably as many definitions as there are textbooks. The bill defines it in this way because the recognised meaning of the term is found in a document entitled Infection Control in the Health Care Setting: Guidelines for the Prevention of Transmission of Infectious Diseases, which is published by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian National Council on AIDS. The guidelines themselves do not define the term as such, but what they do is describe the general situations under which an exposure prone procedure might occur and have used those to develop this one. It probably means that whoever was doing it would come up with a slightly different form of words, but I think we all have the same meaning in the end. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clauses 15 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Miss SIMPSON (9.04 p.m.): This clause deals with an amendment to the schedule dictionary where it refers to the definition of a dental auxiliary. This means— ... a person qualified for dental auxiliary registration in 1 or more of the following categories— (a) dental therapy; (b) dental hygiene; (c) another category prescribed under a regulation. I wanted to ask the minister if she could advise the House as to how many people currently are dental therapists employed in the public sector and what the minister understands to be the number of dental hygienists who are in the industry. I want to get a profile as to the existing work force. To repeat that: I would like to know how many dental therapists are currently working within the public sector and could the minister also advise as to the numbers of dental hygienists. Mrs EDMOND: Dental hygienists are largely employed in the private sector. I do not think we would have any numbers for those. Relatively few, I am told. I do not think we have the number of dental therapists on hand. I also make the comment about the other category. The 'another category' was put in there because what we have seen in recent times is the changing from oral hygienists and dental therapists and the merging with the bridging course. We now tend to call them oral therapists or oral health therapists. In the future there may be another category that also meets the changing demand. We wanted to have something in there that we could allow other groups to come into at that time. I do not think we have a number on us at the moment. I do not know that we would be able to get it tonight. 4184 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

We have dental therapists in the gallery. We will get the number for the member for Maroochydore if the member will allow me to come back and give the number at a later time. Miss SIMPSON: I thank the minister for that. I would be interested to know how many dental therapists are employed in Queensland Health at this time and the full-time equivalent number. I would be happy for the minister to come back to me. I do not expect it tonight, but if she could supply that information it would be appreciated. That is the number of dental therapists who are employed by Queensland Health and particularly the full-time equivalent numbers and also what the vacancy rate is, if I could ask for that as well, for dental therapists within the public sector as this is about understanding what the work profile is. Also there is the issue of training, while we are talking about the evolving needs and changes within the type of health care professionals who are delivering oral care. I would appreciate the minister's advice as to what she anticipates to be the numbers of people coming on line in these areas of training in the next three to four years. I appreciate that that information may not also be available tonight, but it is also an important issue so far as understanding what the potential profile of the work force is in this area to meet demand. Mrs EDMOND: I have some information from June 2002, so it is not the latest but the best we can do at the moment. In terms of dentists, there were 313, and these are all full-time equivalent figures in Queensland Health; dental therapists, 243.99, and that is very close to 244 dental therapists; oral health therapists, 62.42; and dental technicians, 168.2. I am advised that there are 100 dual trained—that is, oral hygiene and dental therapy, and that information has come from Ms Short, who was imported from New South Wales to provide the bridging course for it, which is why she would know that information offhand—and 30 hygienists in the private sector. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clause 33— Miss SIMPSON (9.10 p.m.): This clause, which comes under amendments to the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act, actually deals with a number of provisions. With particular regard to technicians, there really seems to be an ambiguity in the legislation as to how dental technicians are to be treated under this legislation. On the one hand their work is being deregulated yet on the other hand they are still partially regulated in that they have a board and they have to pay fees of registration to that board. As the minister says, as an industry it wants to maintain a high standard. In her second reading speech the minister stated— A person not registered as a dental technician is prohibited from taking or using a restricted title, such as 'dental technician', under the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act 2001. However, there will be the removal of the restriction on the performance of dental technical work. It seems to be a half-baked regulated system where on the one hand anybody can do the work yet the title is protected and those who choose to do the training and to be registered have the protection of the title. It just seems to me that there is this contradiction in the type of regulatory regime that is now being put forward for this particular occupation. I know this was talked about earlier in the second reading debate and the minister addressed it in her summation, but there is still a lot of concern with dental technicians in this area that moves to deregulate their industry as far as those who can practise in this area in Queensland will in fact undermine what they believe should be the standards that should be set. I put that on the record. I have concerns about that as well. It just seems to be a half-baked registration system where on the one hand anybody can do the work yet on the other hand they still have to be registered to hold the title. I want to make some other comments with regard to this clause, because it does cover a number of provisions. There is also the issue of restrictions on those who are practising in the area of prosthetics, and I would appreciate the minister's advice as to the number of prosthetists there are operating in the public system. I know that there was also a trial undertaken at one time to enable these particular health workers to expand their duties within the public dental system. I would appreciate it if the minister could outline what the plans are to expand the duties of prosthetists in the public dental system to enable more timely access to the making of prostheses, because this has been an issue of access and timeliness in the public system. Mrs EDMOND: I am just trying to think. Public access to dental prosthetists actually occurred some years ago when we changed the legislation which allowed them to have direct access to the public. I am just trying to recall the provisions for edentulous mouths where there are no teeth 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4185 or in mouths where a dentist has given a certificate of oral health saying that there are no other problems in the mouth other than what they are seeking for partial dentures, et cetera, or for prosthetists who had passed an oral pathology exam where they do extra studies so that they can identify issues. In terms of dental prosthetists in the system, Queensland Health employs quite a number of dental technicians. It will continue to expect them to be registered and their title protected. It is a mixed bag in terms of how we go about this in Australia. Some states do not have any requirement for registration or restriction on their practise and some do. It is mixed right across Australia. There is no suggestion that the work is very different or the quality of the work is very different. In fact, it makes it possible for dental technicians, as I indicated earlier, to perhaps get lesser skilled people—those who do not want to do the entire course but only want to have some training, perhaps in-house—doing the simpler procedures, et cetera, without everybody who is doing that work, even the most simple work, having to be fully qualified dental technicians. That should reduce the cost and make them more competitive with some of the work that is being imported, and we would hope that that is the case. In terms of the number of dental prosthetists, we mostly use dental technicians. Dental prosthetists tend to work in the private sector and access patients themselves. In the public system we tend to have dentists working alongside dental technicians. If one goes to Nambour Hospital, for instance, there is quite a significant laboratory there full of dental technicians. Clause 33, as read, agreed to. Clauses 34 to 53, as read, agreed to. Clause 54— Miss SIMPSON (9.17 p.m.): Minister, this clause relates to the health councils. I have already made some critical comments with regard to the delay in the Royal Brisbane Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital having an operational district council. It was with some irony that I listened to members opposite wax lyrical about the benefits of district health councils, yet the largest hospital in this state has not had an operational district health council for something like seven months. Minister, this is just an unacceptably long delay for a district health council to be operational. I would like an explanation as to how it can be allowed to go so long without that matter being resolved and also why those council members were advised that there was going to be an amalgamation of these councils and that certainly had not proceeded to enable them to reapply or to seek to be on that new amalgamated council. Seven months is just a ridiculously long time for two very significant hospitals not to have active district health councils. In fact, this is a breach of the very act of parliament that the Health Department is supposed to meet by having a district health council. That is why I believe that there has not been a satisfactory explanation as to why such an important matter as a district health council for the Royal Brisbane Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital has been allowed to just languish for seven months. Mrs Edmond: I answered that before. Miss SIMPSON: There has not been an explanation from the minister as to why it took so long to address this issue. For seven months there was no district health council for the biggest hospital in this state. This government talks about community engagement. This is a fairly basic and, I believe, effective way of doing that, and it needs to be a way that is used more and more to engage with the community, particularly in regard to what the act terms as the role of a district health council, which includes monitoring the budget and issues of quality with health service strategic plans, and also being involved in the selection of the senior executive. If, in fact, there has not been an operational district health council at these hospitals, how can the minister employ a senior executive and meet the criteria of the act? Has this compromised some of the selection processes for the senior executive, given that this is a criterion set out in the act? I would appreciate the minister's advice. Mrs EDMOND: I did answer this earlier. With regard to the employment of the senior executive officer at the Royal Brisbane Hospital, a chair of another district health council acted as the consumer representative on that panel. We identified that there was a problem with the legislation and we have put all appointments in abeyance until we corrected that legislation. That is what we are doing tonight. In the meantime, recruitment for the district health council has taken place. That is going on at the moment and it is about to be appointed. It will be appointed very soon. Clause 54, as read, agreed to. 4186 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Clause 55— Miss SIMPSON (9.21 p.m.): This clause removes the minimum number of people who are required to sit on a district health council. While I appreciate that the minister has said that there needs to be some flexibility, I actually believe there needs to be some assurance that there is still some minimum number of people who are required to be on a district health council, given the fact that these district health councils are supposed to be involved in important liaison with the community. It is possible for there to be only two or three people on these committees. Although the minister has set a maximum number, there is no minimum number. Surely it would have been more appropriate to still have had a minimum number but with a time frame of grace to rectify that minimum number if they have resignations that mean they do not have a quorum. It seems to me very dangerous not to have some way of ensuring a minimum number of participants. Particularly given the fact that the biggest hospital in the state currently has a minimum number of zero and does not have a district health council, I am most concerned that there be some guarantee that we are not going to have a district health council of zero, two or three members when there are very important community engagement and monitoring functions that district health councils are supposed to perform. Mrs EDMOND: Appointments will be made to the district health councils once this legislation is passed to ensure that each council has the appropriate number of members. However, having a hard and fast minimum has created difficulties in the past. It has raised questions about the validity of decisions made if for some reason or another only seven members are on the council. There are a number of councils where that has occurred from time to time and there are a number at the moment. For some councils in rural areas in particular it can be quite difficult to get that number of people on the council. If a couple of people resign at the same time, they can be left with a hole. The problem is that there have been question marks about the validity of decisions made by people when they have had less than eight. That is exactly why we are enacting this legislation. The intention of the councils is that we have between eight and 10 members. In some areas that is quite difficult. In Cape York it has been extremely difficult to get eight members. Quite often we basically have to coopt health workers. That is not the real intention of the act, either. We are really trying to get community representatives. I try very hard not to have people who are employed by the health system, but in some cases that cannot be avoided. The appointments will be made having regard to the need for community representation on the council, the expertise and experience required. I have also tried to include gender equity and also on each council to have at least one indigenous representative. That has been one of the particular difficulties in appointing people to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital council. One of the people identified was not able to be appointed at the very last minute because she also served on another body that would have made that totally inappropriate. That meant it had to be held. Their functions include identifying and assessing health service needs. I would stress that these are advisory councils. Their role is not to run the health system. Therefore, while we welcome and seek their advice, I can assure people that the Royal Brisbane Hospital has not diminished its service to the community. Clause 55, as read, agreed to. Clauses 56 to 59, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mrs EDMOND (9.26 p.m.): I move amendment No. 2— 2 After clause 59 At page 45, after line 8— insert— 'PART 8A—AMENDMENT OF HOSPITALS FOUNDATIONS ACT 1982 '59A Act amended in pt 8A 'This part amends the Hospitals Foundations Act 1982. '59B Insertion of new s 71A 'After section 71— insert— ''71A Amalgamation of bodies corporate 15 Oct 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 4187

'(1) Two or more bodies corporate may apply to the Minister to be amalgamated as a single body corporate. '(2) The application must— (a) state the names of the bodies corporate applying to be amalgamated; and (b) state whether— (i) all the bodies corporate are to be dissolved and a new body corporate established; or (ii) 1 of the bodies corporate is to continue and the others are to be dissolved and subsumed into the body corporate that is to continue; and (c) for an application to which paragraph (b)(i) applies, state the name proposed for the proposed new body corporate; and (d) for an application to which paragraph (b)(ii) applies, state which body corporate is to continue; and (e) state the object or objects to which it is intended the proposed new or continuing body corporate will apply its property; and (f) state the name of each hospital proposed to be an associated hospital for the proposed new or continuing body corporate; and (g) include or be accompanied by the other information or documents the Minister reasonably requires. '(3) If the Minister is satisfied the bodies corporate should be amalgamated, the Minister may recommend the Governor in Council make a regulation for the purpose of amalgamating the bodies corporate. '(4) A regulation under subsection (3)— (a) must amalgamate the bodies corporate by— (i) dissolving each body corporate (the "discontinued body corporate") and establishing a new body corporate (the "new body corporate"); or (ii) identifying the body corporate that is to continue (the "continuing body corporate"), dissolving each of the other bodies corporate (the "discontinued body corporate") and subsuming it into the continuing body corporate; and (b) may do any of the following— (i) provide for the assets and liabilities of a discontinued body corporate, without any conveyance, transfer or assignment, to become the assets and liabilities of the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (ii) provide that the rights and obligations of a discontinued body corporate become the rights and obligations of the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (iii) provide that if a legal proceeding might have been continued or started by or against a discontinued body corporate, it may be continued or started by or against the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (iv) provide that in an instrument (other than a statutory instrument) in existence at the amalgamation, a reference to a discontinued body corporate is a reference to the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (v) provide that the general fund established by a discontinued body corporate becomes part of the general fund of the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (vi) provide that any trust fund of a discontinued body corporate becomes a trust fund of the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (vii) provide that a bequest to a discontinued body corporate, whether made before or after the amalgamation, is a bequest to the new body corporate or continuing body corporate; (viii) make provision to facilitate anything else for, or relating to, the amalgamation. '(5) On the dissolution of a body corporate under this section, its members go out of office. '(6) A new body corporate is taken to have been established under section 7. '(7) To remove any doubt, it is declared sections 56 to 61 do not apply to an amalgamation under this section. '(8) In this section— "bequest" of property includes devise, gift and grant of property.'.'. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 60 to 113, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mrs EDMOND (9.27 p.m.): I move amendment No. 3, which proposes to amend the part that 113 is heading— 4188 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

3 Part 13, heading— At page 71, line 4, 'ACT'— omit, insert— 'ACTS'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 114— Mrs EDMOND (9.27 p.m.): I move amendment No. 4— 4 Clause 114— At page 71, line 7, 'Act'— omit, insert— 'Acts'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 114, as amended, agreed to. Schedule— Mrs EDMOND (9.28 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 5 to 7— 5 Schedule— At page 72, line 2, 'ACT'— omit, insert— 'ACTS'. 6 Schedule— At page 72, after line 3— insert— 'HEALTH RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1991 '1 Section 3, definition "professional conduct committee"— omit. '2 Section 3— insert— ' "Nursing Tribunal" means the Nursing Tribunal under the Nursing Act 1992.'. '3 Section 3, definition "disciplinary body", paragraph (c)— omit, insert— '(c) the Nursing Tribunal; or'. '4 Section 130(4), 'a professional conduct committee'— omit, insert— 'the Nursing Tribunal'.'. 7 Schedule— At page 73, line 8, '2001'— omit, insert— '2002'. Amendments agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mrs Edmond, by leave, read a third time.

Title of Bill Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.30 p.m.): I move— That the title of the bill be agreed to. Before this House finishes this bill, I want to put on record the value we place on the work of Dr Robert Stable, who will be leaving Health after a very distinguished career and moving on, I 15 Oct 2003 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 4189 presume, to another distinguished career in the future. He will be leaving Queensland Health at the end of this month. This will be the last bill that goes through while he is the director-general. I would like to place on record my appreciation of him. Government members: And ours. Mrs EDMOND: I think everybody who has known him knows that he has been an utter and total health professional from his early days with the Flying Doctor through to his distinguished career— Mr Purcell: His time at Prince Charles Hospital, too. Mrs EDMOND:—and his time at Prince Charles Hospital. I would also like to thank the Queensland Health staff who have put 10 years of effort into this legislation. Motion agreed to.

BEACH PROTECTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 14 October (see p. 4012). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.31 p.m.): This bill relates to the development of Monterey Keys, a land development along Saltwater Creek on the Gold Coast. The land is within a coastal management control district. According to section 45 of the Beach Protection Act of 1968, before a subdivision in such an area can be approved and registered by the Governor in Council, it may require a landowner to surrender to the Crown land in relation to which an erosion-prone area plan relates. Apparently, such a plan applies to land abutting Saltwater Creek. Following approval of a subdivision by the Gold Coast City Council, the developer has apparently entered into contracts to sell land which falls within the land known as subdivision SP 143333. Notwithstanding discussions between the developer and the Beach Protection Authority that have been occurring since 1998, the matter has not been able to be resolved by the Beach Protection Authority and it has been demanding that the developer surrender land along Saltwater Creek. The developer has taken judicial review against the decision of the Governor in Council to require the registrar of titles not to register a subdivision until the land along the creek is surrendered to the Crown. Crown Law has apparently advised that this is a legitimate decision to make. Suggestions have been made that the registrar of titles is contemplating approaching the court under his own act to determine what the legal position might be as to powers to refuse registration. I understand that as recently as yesterday Crown Law and the developer's lawyers were exchanging emails about bringing this application before the court. The bill, as I understand it, will render such action basically ineffective. I want some questions answered by the minister when he sums up. Why is the government seeking to subvert the answering of what is a legitimate legal question in the opinion of Crown Law? The government claims that the developer has approached it to facilitate having the land registered in relation to those blocks that have been sold. It also claims approaches from purchasers. It has indicated that it has not discussed the legislation with either party. Contact with the developer indicates that the developer is opposed to the legislation. I understand that, in the contracts to sell land prior to developers being able to provide title, purchasers are aware that the contract will be complied with only when the developer can provide title following registration. Once registered, the developer is required to convey title. Until then, both parties are engaged in speculative contracts which, if they fall over, give both parties certain legal rights to sue one another. One can presume only that the purchasers of these blocks took appropriate legal advice as to their rights prior to entering into the contract of purchase, so they would be aware of the potential risks they would run if the developer was unable to deliver the title. The effect of this bill will be to exclude the land in question from the ambit of the Beach Protection Act, so allowing title to be registered and thus delivered by the developer to purchasers. It thus favours the speculative purchasers over the speculative developers. The bill is being rushed through parliament urgently as the Beach Protection Act is to expire on 20 October and be replaced by new legislation, the Coastal Protection and Management Act. As a matter of 4190 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 law, there is no legal necessity to legislate before the repeal of the Beach Protection Act as legal rights under the act continue, notwithstanding its repeal and replacement. The area of land not covered by the bill will still remain owned by the developer and, thus, will be subject to the Beach Protection Act and its replacement legislation. Further subdivision will, in the Beach Protection Authority's view, not be permitted until the erosion-prone land claimed by the Beach Protection Authority is surrendered to the Crown. The developer claims that the land in question is not, in fact, erosion-prone land. It apparently is at least 10 to 15 kilometres away from the coast. The developer is considering bringing an action to challenge the inclusion of the land within the description of erosion-prone land. The developer further claims that land in adjoining developments similar to the land the subject of this bill has been registered and sold previously. The government claims that the developer is seeking to avoid registration so that the contracts fall over and, thus, the developer can resell the land at the increased price due to the rising market. Rather than seeking to do this, the developer claims that it has provided purchasers with three options: namely, terminate immediately without penalty; leave contracts stand with the risk of the seller terminating on 30 December 2003, as currently provided, or 30 December 2004 if the seller extends the contract; or extend the contract until registration is achieved by paying interest of 10 per cent of the purchase price annually until title can be delivered. Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member is saying it is 10 per cent monthly. I understood that it was 10 per cent per annum but paid monthly. In making my contribution tonight, I have to take what the minister says at face value. The minister consulted with me yesterday, and I acknowledge that. He passed on certain information to me. He gave me the courtesy of approaching me on this particular matter and offering me a briefing, which I understand a staff member took up this morning in my absence because of an issue in the parliament. One of the difficulties is trying to distil the necessity for this out of what the government is putting forward. The Beach Protection Act expires on 20 October and the new regime under the Coastal Protection and Management Act comes in just after that, so there is a need to move on this particular matter. This legislation has not sat on the table of the parliament for the expected 14 days, and that does cause an issue for the opposition in trying to get to the bottom of the matter. Some pieces of legislation for which we offer support are much simpler than this. I understand that some people would say that the concepts are simple. However, we have had some interaction with the developer to try to ascertain their view as well. I know that the honourable member for Gaven has been involved and is seeking to advocate on behalf of the constituents in his area, and I understand that. We are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff and trying to make a value judgment on this. I am not disposed towards opposing the legislation. I do have some reservations about the legislation and the haste with which it has been brought before the House. Some of these issues have been around for a fair amount of time—I understand since 1998. I would probably question why the government, knowing that the Beach Protection Act is going to expire on a certain date, has left it to this particular stage to put legislation through parliament—really, at the eleventh hour—to clarify this and to provide for certain outcomes. It is my considered opinion that, if this sort of action were necessary, we could have done this before now. There is another issue I would like to raise. We need to be very concerned about any action that we take that in some way interferes with a person's legal right when they are actually engaged in that particular process, because there is a judicial review action currently before the court. As members would know, I have previously supported legislation in this parliament—and will continue to do so—brought in by the government to clarify something which the court has actually established, which we arguably believe is against the principles of a piece of legislation or against the principal policy intent of the government of the day and the mandate it has. That is fair enough. I have reservations about supporting legislation that is actually going to be passed by the parliament which will have the effect of negating or nullifying that action. I understand the government's view, which is basically that this judicial review action is a legal point made in desperation by the developer to frustrate what the government believes it can reasonably expect and what it has reasonably said the developer should do under the Beach Protection Act insofar as that erosion-prone area is concerned. That is the government's viewpoint. I understand that there are some legal questions involved. 15 Oct 2003 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 4191

Members should keep in mind that the Judicial Review Act came into force in this state about 10 years ago. It may have happened when the minister was Attorney-General. Mr Wells: It did indeed. Mr SPRINGBORG: I acknowledge that some excellent legislation was brought in when the minister was the Attorney-General. I have always said that. If members read the contributions that I have made to Hansard over the past 14 years, they will see that I have always been prepared to give credit where credit is due. However, whilst it is true that judicial review is sometimes used by people to frustrate what is a legitimate decision of government by nitpicking, we have to consider that we put judicial review in place to give people certain rights to question the action of a decision maker, government, government department or government agency. That grew out of the Fitzgerald reform process. Maybe we could argue that it is being abused in certain circumstances; nevertheless it is there. I have some concerns about a piecemeal process that allows us to come in and legislate to take away somebody's right to pursue legal action when they are actually in the process of pursuing that legal action. I would have felt a little more comfortable if the action had proceeded through the court and then, pending the outcome of that, we came back to this place to make a decision. I have already consulted with the Speaker about an email that I have received from the developers. I have sought leave from the Speaker to have their points tabled and incorporated in Hansard. I understand that the minister has probably seen this. I think that it is fair that people have a chance to see the points of contention that exist over this legislation. I table certain advice and information that has been exchanged between the developer, Crown Law and the government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Are you seeking to incorporate any material? Mr SPRINGBORG: I seek leave to incorporate the first document in Hansard. Leave granted. Dear Kevin Please find below information directly relating to the second reading speech. Furthermore, in relation to the explanatory notes of the new section 62, where they make it quite obvious there are numerous estates affected by this registration issue... not mentioning one of them, but now making them all legal... Why have they singled out Monterey Keys? In relation to the second reading speech of Wells I note: 1. The developer did not "knowingly enter into contracts with perspective purchasers for the land at Monterey Keys knowing that the Registrar of Titles could not register the purchase until he, the developer, had surrendered the land along the creek". Rather: (a) Before the plan for the previous stage, 18A, was registered, we contacted the BPA who advised that before the plan could be registered BPA consent would be required but that it should "take no more than a day or 2 to obtain." (b) The adjoining developer at Oyster Cove is in exactly the same position and has registered dozens if not hundreds of dealings with its land without any difficulty whatsoever. (c) Even after the BPA back flipped on its initial advice that there wouldn't be a problem with registering the survey plans along the lake the plan for 18A was registered. (d) We are not aware of any other example where registration of a plan in a similar circumstance has been held up for this reason anywhere else in Queensland. There may be such examples, but we wrote to the BPA asking them to advise what those examples were more than 10 weeks ago and there hasn't been a response. 2. Despite what the Minister says in his second reading speech, the issue of whether or not the legislation prevents the Registrar of Titles from registering the subject plan is anything but clear. In fact, the issue is sufficiently unclear that the Registrar of Titles is electing to bring a case stated to the Supreme Court to seek a ruling on that issue and as late as 3.00pm yesterday Crown Law faxed to us a draft Application for our comment in relation to the case stated. A copy of that material from Crown Law is attached. 3. The Developer did not write to purchasers who have contracts to purchase the land at the Monterey Keys Estate advising them that unless they make an additional annual payment of 10% of the purchase price they will lose their contracts at the end of December 2003. The contract has a standard provision entitling the seller to terminate the contract if it cannot get the subdivision finalised. Notwithstanding the developer offered purchasers the option to leave the contract as it stands, to terminate now with no penalty or to look at commencing construction on the proposed lot through which the purchaser would get the use of the proposed lot without having paid the purchase price in exchange for which the developer asked for the payment of some interest until the developer could secure registration. 4. The developer is not being intransigent in refusing to surrender the land. The Act does not require the developer to surrender the land, rather it is a condition the developer needs to satisfy if the developer subdivides the land in the so-called "erosion prone area". The fact the developer does not in fact have to surrender the land unless it 4192 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 proceeds with the subdivision is the justification given by the government for effectively resuming land without compensation. 5. The developer has the right to seek judicial review of the bureaucrats' decision to resume the land the developer has owned for about 15 years without compensation. Judicial review is the only appeal right which the developer has and the mere exercising of that right should not on any grounds be described as intransigence on the part of the developer. 6. The land surrender condition was ostensibly made to require the surrender of land in an erosion prone area. The land is not erosion prone as any analysis would establish. Rather, the land was part of a blanket declaration of erosion prone land adopted by the Beach Protection Authority in 1996 through which all land adjoining tidal waterways was declared to be erosion prone, whether it was or not. 7. The BPA's own reasons for its decision quite clearly indicate that the BPA did not give any consideration to whether the land was in fact erosion prone. Regards Brent Dallow For Kabale Holdings 07 5573 6800 0416 202 304 Mr SPRINGBORG: I table the other supporting material for the record of this parliament. When reading the minister's second reading speech and listening to him yesterday, one could have formed the conclusion—and maybe the minister did not seek to do this—that the developer had written to the speculative purchasers and said to them, 'Okay, this is the situation: if you want to maintain that piece of land, then you must look at paying the 10 per cent per annum monthly.' I have seen a letter that I acknowledge was given to me by the minister, who has been open enough with me. There were three options. That was one of the options, but another option was that the seller allow the buyer to terminate the contract with no penalty. The third option was to leave the contract as it stands. The contract provides for the seller to terminate the contract by way of notice on 30 December 2003 or extend the contract for a further 12 months. I mentioned that earlier, but I think it needs clarification that the developer did provide those three options. Another issue that I have is that there has not been an opportunity for the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee to review this matter and to look at the fundamental legislative principles that are concerned, as well as the rights of the parties involved. That committee might have addressed things for the benefit of this place as well. Basically, we now have a situation where the parliament will pass legislation that will seek to resolve issues that exist between the developer and the purchasers. Another issue that I would like to raise is the broad designation of the area as an erosion- prone area. I understand that that designation may have predated 1998. Could I have seen a date around 1996 in relation to this? Perhaps the minister could clarify that. The developer has said that it is some 10 to 15 kilometres away from the beach or the coast. He raised a point that the issue of erosion in that area is subjective, that it does not seem to have a scientific base. I do not know the area. The honourable member for Gaven whose electorate it is may know the area better, but I understand that there is some subjectivity over whether there is erosion currently occurring there. It may well be concern over the erosion that may occur there. Other opposition members and I have previously said in this place that we have to be very careful about regulating away people's property rights. Government has had a long-held position in this state that, if we remove somebody's rights, we usually do so by acquisition and there is compensation involved in that. However, I acknowledge that there are certain statutes that protect riverine environments and riparian environments. I acknowledge all of those things. That has been established. However, I am concerned that there seems to be a creeping approach from government, not only here but elsewhere in Australia, where we are seeking to regulate away somebody's rights. Sometimes the science is rather subjective. I would like to hear from the minister about what proof, scientific or otherwise, exists that this is an erosion-prone area. Is the concern that erosion may happen there or is there substantiated evidence that erosion has happened and continues to happen in that area? As I understand it, the strip of land involved is some 18 to 22 metres wide and obviously impacts upon the piece of land that the developer has occupied for, as I understand it, some 15 years. There are some specific questions that I would like to raise. Why are we doing this at the eleventh hour? Has the legislation been discussed with the developer and the purchasers on the way through? Has it been discussed to ascertain their particular views? I ask why, in the four years 15 Oct 2003 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 4193 of negotiation with the developer, the Beach Protection Authority has not suggested that the land in question be subdivided from the land potentially subject to the Beach Protection Act so that the sale of the land could proceed while issues as to whether the land along Saltwater Creek was erosion prone could be determined. Also, I seek further clarification from the minister with regard to the court's capacity. We are advised that there is a substantial issue of law that could be determined through judicial review. I will listen to what the minister has to say. I have to leave the chamber for a moment, but I will be listening to the debate from the back of the chamber. As I said, I am not predisposed to opposing the legislation. I am taking what the minister says at face value. I have some genuine concerns about the process. Some of the issues raised by the developer appear to be legitimate, but the minister may be able to provide some answers in that regard. I say again that this type of legislation needs to be very carefully done, particularly when there is legal action afoot. Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (9.51 p.m.): Firstly, I would like to clarify the issue of urgency. The urgency is brought about by the human suffering that has resulted from the procrastination in registering the titles. Many constituents involved in this issue have come to see me personally. The health of some of these people is starting to suffer. People have bought into this scheme and find that they have not been able to meet the market. It has been rapidly increasing in value and they have been left behind. I advise the Leader of the Opposition not to leave the chamber, as one of those who came to see me was the National Party candidate for Southport, Mr Bob Bennett, who was pleading for me to do something about it. Ms Boyle: It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition did not stay in the chamber. Mr POOLE: He is not interested. Ms Nelson-Carr: You clarify it. Mr POOLE: I will clarify it. It is a pity the Leader of the Opposition will not listen. One of these bleeding hearts who came to see me was none other than Bob Bennett. This bill seeks to remedy a great injustice that is being visited upon a group of people who have done nothing but act in good faith. In January this year about 15 families signed contracts to purchase land on the peninsula of Monterey Keys in my electorate. Some of them had moved from other states to start a new life in Queensland and looked forward to building their new homes on the Gold Coast. Contracts were signed and prices were negotiated. In the meantime the property market on the Gold Coast continued to flourish, with the attendant increases in land prices. Monterey Keys is a waterfront subdivision abutting the Broadwater and is largely situated along a finger of land commonly known as a peninsula, with about half the lots fronting a lake and others fronting Saltwater Creek, which flows into the Broadwater. In the case of Monterey Keys, the developer received approval from the local council for the land to be subdivided without first obtaining the appropriate certification from the Beach Protection Authority. Since the land is within the erosion-prone area as defined under the Beach Protection Act, the developer had to obtain Governor in Council consent for the subdivision. I did not hear that discussed in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. In September last year the developer was granted conditional consent for his plans, meaning that the Beach Protection Authority would allow the survey plans to subdivide that large parcel of land and be registered on the condition that it complied with the Beach Protection Act and the ruling of the minister and Governor in Council regarding the buffer zone. That buffer zone is a 20- metre wide strip of land that would separate the divided allotments from Saltwater Creek. The course of action for the developers was simple: cede the buffer zone and the plans could be immediately registered. But the developer refused and believed that it should not be given up as environmentally fragile land, despite the legislative imperatives, and believed that the covenants on the divided titles would be enough. Put simply, because the developer refused to comply with the condition of registration, the plans could not be registered. As long as these plans remain unregistered, the subdivision cannot be completed and the people who have in good faith signed contracts to buy this land cannot start to build their homes. This is not the fault of the EPA or the Beach Protection Authority. They are doing their job to protect the beaches of Queensland. It is not the fault of the registrar of titles at the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. His hands were tied because of the developer's refusal to comply with the conditions. In the interests of those people, the registrar decided to go to the Supreme Court to decide whether the plans could be registered, but it was not guaranteed that the decision 4194 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 would favour the prospective land-holders or that a decision would be reached by the end of December, when their current contracts expire. When those contracts expire they may not be renewed, but the prospective land-holders could probably buy in at the increased market value, which would probably be an extra $200,000 a block. It would mean that the prospective land-holders would have been out while the developer blamed the government, even though he has been the one all along with the ability to fix the situation by simply complying with the conditions of registration. Mr Purcell: The law. Mr POOLE: The law. The prospective buyers are now anxious that the contracts may not be able to be executed before they expire at the end of the year and that they will be massively out of pocket if they decide to accept the developer's offer of a contract extension with an interim 10 per cent interest payment of the purchase price paid monthly until the contract terminates on 30 December this year. Then and only then will the buyers be considered when it comes to renegotiating a new contract of sale. Bring on the white shoes! The developer is holding both his prospective buyers and the government to ransom, and this House must not stand for it. This bill will amend the Beach Protection Act and the Coastal Protection and Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act to allow the registrar of titles to register the plans for the blocks affected by the developer's action. In doing that they will also ensure that the coastal environment is protected by effectively preventing any further subdivision at Monterey Keys until that buffer zone is surrendered to the state in line with the condition that has been in place for more than one year. The 15 prospective land-holders have suffered a great stress and anxiety. I have seen health deteriorate since the time I started handling the issue, over the last few months. This bill will end their worries and this sorry situation. I certainly commend the bill to the House and I certainly commend this minister for listening to me and listening to the people. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (9.57 p.m.): I rise to support the Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. This bill amends the Beach Protection Act 1968 and the Coastal Protection and Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001. The protection of coastal developments from erosion is an essential component of proactive coastal management, and the surrender of land to the state to maintain a buffer which will allow natural coastal processes to occur unimpeded has been a critical aspect of this strategy for a long time. It is and will continue to be a priority of this government and must not be diminished in any way. In the case of Monterey Keys the developer has sought to question the decision of the Governor in Council on land surrender and in so doing is holding up the registration of titles for land which he has continued to sell to purchasers. This is despite the Gold Coast City Council clearly stating that it would take over the management responsibility for the surrendered land. While the developer has a view on the interpretation of the Beach Protection Act 1968 and on the ability of the registrar of titles to register lots without the conditions of the Governor in Council being complied with, he is fully aware that the government has taken advice on this matter from the Crown Solicitor and that we do not believe such a registration can occur. Therefore, he is aware that it will not proceed with any such registrations until the conditions of the Governor in Council have been complied with. I believe the present bill will send a clear message to the development industry and the community on the importance we place on coastal management legislation and land surrender in particular. I am very encouraged by the impending commencement of the Coastal Protection and Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act. I spoke at length on that legislation when it was being introduced in 2001, so I will not repeat my comments other than to reiterate the importance of this legislation, which serves to protect coastal waters for future generations and also ensures that future confusion over land registration is eliminated. I have been well aware of this situation at the Monterey Keys development. I want to clarify exactly what this situation is in a nutshell. It is a situation where essentially people had purchased blocks of land on the shores of a lake so that they could live out their dream of living on the water. While I support a position where we do not continue to develop canal and other inappropriate coastal developments, I can understand the need to have that dream. It is a very common one. Where there has been land made available on closed locks, as in the case of Monterey Keys, and there is a whole suburb of residences on one side of the lock, it was perfectly reasonable for people to expect that when some land opened up on the other side of the lock that they would be able to purchase there and build their homes there. That is the pursuit of the dream. 15 Oct 2003 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 4195

These buyers bought these blocks of land in good faith with the reasonable expectation that, like their neighbours across the water, they would be able to go through a normal sales process and build their residences. So members can imagine their heartache and frustration—and this happened a good 12 months ago and over a period—when all of this was delayed. Through no fault of their own the process was delayed indefinitely. Then they started to be asked or even bullied by the developer into either paying more for their land than they had originally agreed or to just giving it up and losing the purchase altogether—in effect, walking away from and surrendering that dream that they had. With the soaring land prices in the past 12 to 18 months and the dwindling availability of waterfront blocks, which is as it should be, they had their opportunity when they bought 18 months ago. There is no way they would be able to purchase land at the same sort of prices as they did then. They were left with financial devastation and heartache. As the member for Gaven said, this has been an enormously stressful situation for a lot of people involved in this process. Their health and their financial situation has suffered. I am delighted to see these efforts, particularly the efforts of my colleague the member for Gaven. He is probably phoning some of these people now to let them know the good news, possibly one of the constituents who made representations to him, Bob Bennett, who is actually running for the seat of Southport. So Robert Poole, the member for Gaven, has gone through with these representations to the minister in complete fairness and without any regard to any personal feelings that he may have had towards the constituents who brought these issues to him. He did this with total regard to the process of natural justice and fairness that was the right of the purchasers and the need to continue to protect and to ensure the future conservation of erosion-prone lands in coastal areas. I want to congratulate my colleague and I want to congratulate the minister and the minister's advisers who have put together these amendments very quickly in order to address a very urgent situation. I am sure that they will have a positive environmental result with the continued protection of Saltwater Creek now assured. It is a very positive result for innocent purchasers who will now be able to continue to pursue their great Australian dream. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.03 p.m.), in reply: This is the line in the estuarine sand that one cannot go across. This is a line that any government must draw and say, 'Go across that line and you will be attempting to show that our legislation and the rule of law in our state is not worth the paper it is printed upon.' Had we not taken this stand at this point, then our attempts to protect our coastline and our riverine areas would have come to nothing. That is why it was necessary to take this stand on this day on this particular issue. A catalyst for the government taking the position it has taken is this letter, which I will table. It is a letter from Monterey Keys to a couple of the purchasers. It states— As you are aware, we are experiencing a delay in obtaining registration for the abovementioned plan. That is their plan. The delay is being caused by the Beach Protection Authority. How did the Beach Protection Authority—the advisers, the decision-making body in my department advised by engineers which has been operating for many years—cause this delay? They caused this delay by insisting on the law of Queensland which, under the Beach Protection Act, says that erosion- prone land must be surrendered to the Crown in the right of the state of Queensland—to the people of Queensland. They caused this delay by saying to the developer, 'No, we must acquire this land in order that it might be protected for the benefit of the environment.' The developer, back in 1998, which was a date that the honourable Leader of the Opposition mentioned, said, 'Well, please don't take it to Executive Council at this stage. Please let us make further submissions. We would like to have a covenant, a set of agreements, whereby we promise to protect this land for environmental purposes; nevertheless, have it as part of the land which we own and on-sell to purchasers.' In an attempt to bend over backwards to assist and to be reasonable and to hear the other side and to take the point of view on board, the Beach Protection Authority said, 'Okay, we will hear your submissions.' They came back with the submissions and the Beach Protection Authority again said, 'No, it is land acquisition. It is acquisition of this erosion-prone land.' The matter subsequently came to me. I said, 'No, it should go to Executive Council.' They made further representations. I said, 'No, take it to Executive Council.' It went to Executive Council over a year ago. The Executive Council of the state of Queensland, elected by this parliament and representing the people of Queensland, said over a year ago, 'Land surrender'. The response of the developer in these circumstances was to go on as if nothing had happened and describe this decision of law, this formal act of governance by the Executive Council of 4196 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Queensland, as a delay and continue to enter into arrangements for the sale of land to various people, 15 of whom are affected. This was a decision to sell land to people when the developer knew that that land could not be registered, or at least would have been able to get legal advice to the effect that that land could not be registered. They entered into a contract for the sale of land that could not be registered because by law the registrar of titles must not register land that has been the subject of a decision by Executive Council to the effect that there must be land surrender. This was over a year ago. During that period of time the government—my department—sought to make it clear to this developer that it was a requirement of law that the land should be surrendered. Notwithstanding that fact, the people got a letter like this. The letter went on, and this is why I say this was a catalyst, to state— The seller is prepared to enter into an agreement with you which will guarantee the contract is not terminated by the seller. The contract said that the seller could terminate it in December. So they were prepared to enter into an agreement that would guarantee that the contract is not terminated by the seller. What is that agreement? If members read down a little further, they would see that a condition of granting this extension is that interest would be payable to the seller and calculated at the rate of 10 per cent of the purchase price per annum payable in equal monthly instalments. In these circumstances, the people would be able to get their land if they paid an additional 10 per cent. If they did not pay the additional 10 per cent, what would happen? Of course, the contract would be cancelled and the developer would undoubtedly have the option of entering into an agreement at 2004 prices with somebody else. The effect that this has had on a number of the purchasers has been drawn to my attention. One of them wrote— I have great concern for my husband. He had a small heart attack four weeks ago and finding out about this problem has brought on a lot of stress and at the moment he does not need this. We've already moved my son to Helensvale State School to be closer to our block of land. I've already moved him twice in three months. I cannot afford to move him again. He's already struggling at school. We have to travel one hour to take my son to school every day. I would really appreciate it if something could be done. Another person writes— My parents, who have always effectively placed all their earnings into a mortgage to eventually step their way into their waterfront home, have now at the age of 60 and 62 had their lifetime goal taken away from them. My father, who has had treatment for depression in the past, is now suffering from major depression due to all that has taken place. My mother has also been seeing a heart specialist in the past few months and does not need all this unnecessary stress and has also been suffering from depression. How might I make them feel positive and motivated when they fear losing their home? My parents have sold a property which they have had to undersell to avoid bridging financing costs to enable them to settle on their block of land and build at Monterey Keys. They are the consequences for the people who have been offered this extremely unusual proposal that they can keep the contracts they have entered into provided they pay an extra 10 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition asked a number of questions, and they were questions which can reasonably be asked. They are questions which an honourable mind could entertain. Let me answer them. He asked: why is the minister seeking to subvert the course of law by virtue of the fact that there is a judicial review application? Well, I am not. The parliament is making the law. This is the law and this law, if passed by this parliament, will say that land surrender is what is required for the protection of our coast. That is what this law will say. The judicial review application that the developer is undertaking the developer may continue to undertake if he wishes, but it is not a merits review. Judicial review is not a merits review. Judicial review is a review of the process. The most that a successful judicial review application by the developer could achieve would be to make the minister and Executive Council go back to make the decision again. If they made the same decision, then nothing would be further advanced. If this parliament makes a decision, if this parliament sends a signal to the world that we will insist on the integrity of our coastline and our riverine areas, if we send a signal that we will insist on preserving that which is the heritage of the people of this state, if we send a signal that this parliament is prepared to stand on this line in the estuarine sand in order to protect the rights of the public to go on to what they own and to protect our natural heritage from being destroyed, then this state will be better off. The Leader of the Opposition asked if this is erosion-prone land. Whether it is erosion-prone land is a matter which is determined by the Beach Protection Authority. The Beach Protection 15 Oct 2003 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 4197

Authority is operating under a statute, the Beach Protection Act. It is advised by engineers. These are not matters that we make a decision about by looking at how high the tide is on a particular occasion. It is not eroded land that is referred to in the legislation; it is erosion-prone land. In fact, anything that is subject to tidal influences could be argued to be erosion-prone land. The small strip that the government is seeking and has determined will be surrendered to the people of Queensland—the small strip along the littoral of that creek—is not a great imposition and is not a great area of land. It is not as if the people who purchased the land will be unable to go on it. They will be free to come and go on it. It does not impede their right of passage or anything like that. That small strip is to remain in the possession of the people of Queensland in order that it can be protected and in order that our coastlines and littorals can be protected. The Leader of the Opposition asked, and asked very fairly I think, if we are going to step in every time something like this happens. No, we are not. This is an unusual case. A very proper decision made by the Executive Council of Queensland is being used by this particular developer as a reason—an excuse—for impoverishing Australian citizens. I read the letter out to the member. A decision by the Executive Council that he should surrender the land is being used as a reason by this developer as to why he should put an extra 10 per cent on the sale price of the land. The government of Queensland is not going to have its appropriate and proper decision- making processes used as a reason for taking additional money from Australian citizens. Tonight I am inviting the parliament to send a very strong message that the government takes its coastal management seriously. I am asking the parliament to endorse the policies that I bring to bear in respect of these matters, and the policy is this: there is a prima facie presumption that where there is erosion-prone land there will be surrender of that land to the people of Queensland, not a covenant. This does not mean that we rule out covenants in all circumstances. There may be circumstances where covenants would be appropriate, particularly if they were in conjunction with land surrender or perhaps where, in an unusual set of circumstances, there was actually a better outcome for the environment if there was a covenant. But the prima facie position is that there must be land surrender. Depending on all the particular facts of the case, that is what we need to subscribe to tonight, and that is what I am inviting the parliament to do. Stand up for Queensland's coastline. Stand at the line in the estuarine sand that says, 'This belongs to the people. This is the right of the people of Queensland. This is where degradation of our coastline and degradation of our littorals ends.' That is what I am asking the parliament to do tonight. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr SPRINGBORG (10.18 p.m.): I just have a few points of clarification, and I appreciate the words of the minister. From our perspective, this is not an issue of opposing proper beach protection. No-one could accuse us of that; that is not what this is about at all. The Beach Protection Act became law in 1968—the very year that I was born—under a conservative government. As years go by we enhance these pieces of legislation to make them better. We often repeal them and replace them with better legislation, and I do not think that anyone is going to be arguing against the principles which the minister has enunciated and espoused tonight. I have not said anywhere tonight that the minister was not genuine in his actions. I just said that there were some issues that I was concerned about that we needed to have clarified. I did not say that the honourable member for Gaven was not genuine in his actions in representing his constituents. If the member reads the Hansard, he will see that I have not said that anywhere. We know that for people in these circumstances there is a lot of heartache, with financial problems and so on. We just wanted to make sure that in the time available to us we were giving as considered a view of all of the issues to this parliament as we possibly could. I did that in my presentation, saying that the government argues this, the developer argues that and so on. The member for Gaven mentioned the issue of Bob Bennet. I was aware of that. One of the difficulties of standing in this place is not being accused of any favouritism. The member has taken a particular view and has stood equally for all people. That is fair enough. I did not want to 4198 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 be seen to be favouring a person who is standing as a candidate for us in a seat on the Gold Coast. The issue is what is stated under the law we are to pass tonight. I seek a couple of further points of clarification under this clause, even though the issues might go into other areas. The minister says that the bill of the parliament will become the law of the land and is supreme, and I accept that. The effect of this will be that the action which is in the court will have no effect. It will cease to have any effect after this goes through the parliament and that is nullified. That is the decision that this parliament makes. That judicial review process will no longer have any standing. I imagine the minister would probably agree with me on that, unless my interpretation is way out. I mention the issue of what consultations there might have been. The minister said in his second reading speech that there had been extensive consultation with the honourable member, who is obviously advocating very strongly on behalf of his constituents, as is his right. Letters demonstrating the heartache of the buyers were read into the Hansard. Were people made aware during this process of what the legislation would in effect do? I suppose developers knew what it would do. The minister argues that it is basically giving effect to what the law of the land is, anyway, and removing certain speculative legal doubts. Also, in the process the Beach Protection Authority has been following in the past four years, in its discussions with the developer, had it suggested that this particular subdivision of this piece of land might have been a way of resolving this as an interim process? As I understand it, this basically gives effect or recognition to those blocks of land so that they can be effectively subdivided out and titles can be issued, and the issue of the other land in question needs to be further resolved. There is still potential legal action that could come from the developer for that land outside of the area over which a title would be granted; is that right? I will allow the minister to take some advice on that. I understand there may still potentially be some action on that land which is not a part of the land that will effectively be subdivided out—the land that is basically in question. Mr WELLS: Prompt me, if I miss anything that the member has asked. Firstly, with respect to the judicial review proceedings, judicial review proceedings can continue if the developer wishes to continue them, and the result can be a determination of whether there was any error of process. But as to the question of merits, this parliament will determine the question of merits. The judicial review proceedings can no longer be a peg on which the 10 per cent additional charge can be hung. This decision of the parliament will enable those contracts to be completed now rather than held over. It takes away the agonising wait that these people would have to suffer until the judicial review proceedings were ended. That is the effect of the judicial review provision. In relation to whether litigation occurs with respect to areas of land outside of the littoral area, I do not have a crystal ball which would tell me what a lawyer might want to bring an action about in respect of any block of land let alone these. All I can say is that this legislation would leave the legal rights and the capacity of the developer to litigate in respect of everything else completely open. Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the minister for his points of clarification. There are another couple of matters that I wish to raise for further clarification. The minister indicated that if these issues were to happen in the future it would, of course, be taken on a case-by-case basis. Have there been precedents or other examples where similar actions have been taken to the action that the parliament will in effect be taking tonight? I understand also that the Titles Office was taking further advice as a part of its legal standing as far as issuing those titles in question prior to this bill coming into the parliament. The third point is that of the designation of an erosion-prone area. The minister indicated that there might not necessarily be evidence of erosion. Nevertheless, it can still be designated as an erosion prone area. I understand that to be broadly the case because of certain soil types and so on. One issue I raised in my speech is that we can easily provide a blanket designation in certain areas. It may very well be that there is a large area in that region that is subject to this declaration. But I think we could also argue that just about all of the land in Queensland is subject to erosion in some way. Even rocks are subject to erosion in some way. I suppose there needs to be a basis by which any authority benchmarks that which needs to be designated as such for protection of the environment and I suppose also preservation for what the minister said—for people being able to use what is rightly theirs to be used. I would think the minister would understand where I am coming from. It becomes a little flippant to say that it is erosion prone and that is it. There certainly needs to be some form of benchmark against which those sorts of designations are imposed and some scientific basis. 15 Oct 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 4199

I understand that the minister indicates that it is an independent statutory authority that makes such a decision, and the decision is not made by him. He is informed of that. I suppose he has a role in regulating those designations. I appreciate those particular points. But I would be interested to know if there was any substantive material available from the Beach Protection Authority which substantiates this particular designation. That is something that we do need to provide a degree of scrutiny of. I am not saying that they have not necessarily done the right thing. I just say that there needs to be a benchmark and a set of guidelines against which these things are tested and that they do need to be scrutinised from time to time. The same applies with respect to the Vegetation Management Act. The minister has a process for checking. I understand that that is a different process, but the minister has ministerial authority in terms of making sure there is groundtruthing of areas designated as areas of concern. That is all I am saying. For any designation that we provide, for it to have standing and credibility we need to be able to substantiate the basis for making the decision. That is all I am saying. I think that is a reasonable expectation, because otherwise we devalue the credibility of the statutes and those agencies, whether they are statutory or direct government departments, that make such decisions. There are three questions. One relates to the scientific basis for such a decision. The next concerns the Titles Office seeking legal advice and whether that was the case. The third is whether there are other examples. That might help address any concerns other members have in this place. Mr WELLS: The concept of an erosion-prone area is a concept which is as old as the legislation which was brought in by the National Party in the year in which the honourable member was born. The erosion-prone area in this particular case is a line measured 40 metres landward of the mean high-water mark at spring tide, except in certain circumstances. It is a legal definition and the legal definition is inserted on the advice of the engineers advising the Beach Protection Authority. In respect of consultation with the developers, my department has been bending over backwards for years to try to accommodate the repeated representations of the developers to the effect that they wanted to have covenants rather than to have land surrendered. They did not want to give up this land. My department listened to proposal after proposal and each one was not sufficient to satisfy the Beach Protection Authority. Were they consulted? They were consulted for years and many attempts were made to accommodate them. In the end the developer wrote to my department and said— ... and really unless our situation is resolved we must insist that it does, then the impact on property development in Queensland will be enormous and the security of tenure for property owners who acquired title in breach of the BPA's interpretation will be brought into question. Clearly the legislation is unclear, and what is required is a pragmatic solution. This is that pragmatic solution. A pragmatic solution was requested by the developer. We will give them one. The pragmatic solution is that the land belongs to the people of Queensland. The land will be protected for the people of Queensland by the government of Queensland. This parliament will have the opportunity to determine that the rights of Queenslanders are not going to be eroded along with the spring tide. The rights of Queenslanders are going to subsist and stand there, right where the law has for many years drawn the line. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, by leave, read a third time.

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT) AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 9 September (see p. 3274). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (10.34 p.m.): While the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003 is an amendment to the Transport 4200 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Operations (Road Use Management) Act, it is a very important piece of legislation. My colleague the honourable member for Toowoomba South and I had the pleasure of watching one of the most enjoyable games of football anybody has ever witnessed in this state when USA played Fiji in the World Cup at Lang Park this evening. Government members: Suncorp Stadium! Mr JOHNSON: Honourable members opposite might say Suncorp Stadium. I was in the Borbidge/Sheldon government when we advocated to have Lang Park upgraded. I was one of the people who did advocate that upgrade. I have to say to the government today that that stadium is absolutely magnificent. The new surface there is absolutely magnificent, regardless of what people might say. The US tonight were very unlucky in not winning that game. Fiji won 19 to 18 and it was a magnificent game of Rugby. If that is any sign at all of what the World Rugby competition is going to be about in Australia this year, we are in for a great deal of good Rugby not only here in Brisbane but also right throughout this country. This is a very important piece of legislation. When we talk about the amendments to this bill we must also talk about the shonks within the road transport industry. I am talking about people who want to overload road trains and semitrailers and send them to their destination, whether it be interstate or intrastate. Those drivers who run those operations are the ones who are subject to scrutiny by road transport inspectors within Queensland or interstate. The real issue here is that most times these people are the ones who are running their operations on hire purchase and against the rules and regulations of transport and the national road transport system. I say to the minister that I think this is a very responsible piece of legislation when we address this aspect of it. I know Hughie Williams from the Transport Workers Union has been very vocal in recent times about the issue of the loading of transports and also the operations of drivers themselves. The real aspect here is not only profitability but also sanity within the industry. In 2003 the real responsibility lies with the operators themselves. These people are out there trying to earn a fair dollar, run a fair operation and do the right thing within the confines of the law. But at the same time we have those shonks out there who want to break the law. No-one knows more than I do about the honest operators who work within the law, who are out there trying to earn an honest dollar. Then there are those unscrupulous operators who want to go out there and do everything against the law to get a dollar for themselves and at the same time subject the whole world to an unsafe environment, whether it be on the road or in fair competition. This piece of legislation tonight is certainly going to tighten some of those loopholes and is going to allow this situation to be more closely monitored. At the same time, industry today is very competitive. When we talk about competition, we must bear in mind the guidelines that govern competition. In relation to this legislation, we will see a tightness that will make absolutely certain that unscrupulous people within the road transport industry are brought to heel. That is fair. Let us talk about road safety. This morning, the Minister for Transport delivered a ministerial statement on speed cameras within the state. I was very proud of what the minister had to say not only about the deliverance of road safety but also what those road safety measures meant to this state. It is not just about reducing the road toll in the state; it is also about reducing the number of people who are totally or partially incapacitated or, indeed, who are reduced to nothing at all. After reflecting on the figures that the minister quoted this morning, I hope that everybody in this chamber tells the multitudes exactly and precisely what this road safety initiative means. This legislation encompasses road safety. When we talk about hoons on the road, we know what the hooning legislation has achieved with the confiscation of vehicles and so on. This legislation is no different. Issues involving loading vehicles properly, driving hours and so on are all a part of the road safety operation. I do not care who knows it: I am proud to stand in this chamber and support the minister or anybody else who wants to uphold the traditions of road safety and correct driving procedures within the state. I am a member of a family that comes from the road transport industry. I know that my family and the industry at large support this legislation. Another aspect of the legislation that I would like to refer to is the new technology relating to random breath testing. We have to embrace this because technology changes from day to day. Roadside random breath testing is a very important part of road safety. In this chamber last evening, I was the responsible opposition spokesman dealing with the legislation for the drug testing of police officers. This issue also comes into perspective when we talk about technology changing and alcohol testing of drivers. 15 Oct 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 4201

In some countries, driving under the influence of alcohol is severely penalised in more ways than we could ever dream of. Australia's .05 system probably lets us off very lightly. I believe that the day is fast approaching when we will see zero tolerance on our roads. Members might think that that is pretty tough, but again I refer to people who have been severely affected because some idiot was driving while under the influence of alcohol. When drivers are under the influence of alcohol, people are killed, or severely maimed or injured. In light of that, we have to look at the long-term problems dealt with by this legislation. I do not say that lightly, because a lot of people are in wheelchairs, on crutches or are limbless because of drunk drivers. I refer to the amendments of section 78 of the act. These amendments support the new penalty regime that applies to speeding. This new regime commenced on 17 April 2003. It allows for the suspension of drivers detected in the extremely dangerous category of more than 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. I have been guilty of speeding myself. Indeed, probably many in this chamber have been guilty of speeding. The point that I make is that we have to be more responsible for our actions. When I was a young fellow, my father always said, 'Son, you must be responsible for your actions.' Mr Bredhauer: He was a wise man. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. Let us consider the increase in the population in this state. I heard the Premier say recently that 1,000 people a week come to live in Queensland. Our built-up areas are becoming more condensed and there are more motor vehicles on the roads. More children are going to schools. Our schools and hospitals are becoming overcrowded. At the same time, we are forgetting where our responsibilities lie. When we talk about the problems associated with speeding and the issue of the road toll, and when we refer to the maimed and the injured, as the minister said in his ministerial statement this morning we must uphold these changes. I do not have any problem with that and the other opposition members do not have any problem with it, either. It is important that we remember that the road toll in Queensland is dependent on the way we drive and the responsibility that we take. I also raise the issue of the conveyancing of passengers within the state. In 1988 when the people mover legislation was introduced, in a lot of ways it was probably a dream come true that the legislation addressed the short-term initiatives of the government in those days. Again, we could not dream of the change in population that we see within the state today. In 1988 and 1989, the conveyance of passengers from, say, Dreamworld to Pacific Fair on the Gold Coast would have happened once a year when people went to the Gold Coast for their Christmas holidays. However, now it is an everyday occurrence. Legislation needs to allow for future needs when referring to the conveyancing of people. Whether we are talking about projects such as the monorail from Broadbeach to the casino or the Kuranda skyrail, this legislation will allow for improvements in the future. It puts in place a structure that will allow for all types of transport conveyancing so that the multitudes who want to live in this state can take advantage of that. We live in changing times. Technology involving rail, road, air, skyrail or monorail transport is changing all the time on the international stage in Europe, the US and Asia. In Australia, magnificent personnel are developing technology that will put us at the forefront of the 21st century. I congratulate the government on identifying with those changes in technology. If we are going to embrace those changes and take Australia, and particularly the state of Queensland, into the 21st century, we are certainly at the forefront of making that change in a responsible way. It gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation. I know that from time to time changes are put upon us without notice. I know that technology changes and we have to keep abreast of what is happening to advantage our people. At the same time we have to create a safe environment for the people who want to travel within the confines of not only Queensland but also Australia. The opposition will support any piece of legislation that will create an environment in which we have safer roads, safer railways and safer airways. I know that everybody in this House will support that. This morning the Minister for Transport made a statement about speed cameras. He knows as well as I do that I was the responsible minister at the time speed cameras were introduced into Queensland. That was not an easy decision to make. Former minister Jim Elder had the relevant paperwork on his desk before the Goss government lost power in 1996. A lot of people say to me that it was not National Party policy, but I say that sometimes we have to break away from policy to ensure we create an environment that will be advantageous to everybody. Studies by Monash University show that that legislation was proper, correct and advantageous to the people of not 4202 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 only Queensland but also Australia. The health system of this state has benefited from that legislation, and others have benefited from that technology over the last six or seven years. On behalf of the opposition, I support the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (10.51 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003. I will speak about the amendments to what are commonly known as the chain of responsibility provisions of the transport operations act. These amendments relate to two main areas. The first is protection from self-incrimination when giving evidence in a court. The second is ensuring that all of the persons who influence the loading and operation of a heavy vehicle or heavy vehicle combination may be held accountable for their actions. The member for Gregory has probably done more miles in reverse than I have done forwards. I spent my time behind an LNT 9000 with a 13-speed 903 Cummins. I know what it is like to jump in the cab for the first time and find that you have a 14-hour road trip and a day in which to do it. It is not easy. I am aware of the situation with drivers. Therefore, I support this bill wholeheartedly for the fact that everybody is held accountable. Honourable members may recall that the Transport Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2), which was passed through the House late last year, contained a number of amendments which addressed chain of responsibility matters. These amendments enable authorised officers to obtain information while at the same time protecting key witnesses from prosecution based on the information they provide. This protection does not apply if the information provided is false or misleading. The information obtained could then be used to take action against other parties in the transport chain. The other significant amendment was to allow prosecutions to be commenced against parties other than the driver without first requiring a conviction of the driver. The latest proposed amendments relating to the chain of responsibility reflect the government's strong emphasis on having legislation that keeps pace with contemporary business, which the member for Gregory has already mentioned, and reflect the learning from court experiences and prosecutions. The current provisions in section 50AA, which came about as a result of amendments last year, provide protection from self-incrimination to people while they are providing a statement to authorised officers during investigations into heavy vehicle offences. It has since been identified that this protection may not extend to witnesses in relation to evidence they give in court. However, should they be implicated in other offences this protection would not apply. I spent the last two years of my career in the transport industry in a management role. It is a difficult situation when you have 40 vehicles going one way and 20 the other way, deadlines and so forth. Undue pressure is put on drivers. I hope that this legislation creates the situation whereby everyone plays a role—not only the driver of a two-tonne truck on a deadline, the 40- tonne going north or whatever. They all play a role and they are all accountable for their actions and for the safety of the vehicles. The second way in which this bill enhances the operation of the chain of responsibility provisions is by aiming to ensure that all of those who influence the loading and the operation of a heavy vehicle or combination are able to be held accountable for their actions if they result in breaches of transport legislation. There is another issue with drivers getting someone else to load the truck. That happens a lot with the interstate work where drivers just turn up, load up, hook up and away they go. They may turn around in a matter of hours or in a matter of days, but the problem with drivers is when they pick up and deliver. That is the crux. That is the time issue they face. The load may not be ready. It might be ice-cream. It may be TNT which is doing the loading from one interstate capital to another. Not all but a lot of drivers just do not take the time to check the tyres, see if the chain hooks are down tight and see if the winches are done up well. Even the professionals will actually drive maybe two or three kilometres around the corner to see if anything is loose, anything comes up or anything settles. The concept of an 'influencing person' is fundamental to the extended liability or chain of responsibility provisions in the transport legislation. The bill proposes to broaden the definition of an 'influencing person' so that owners or registered operators of prime movers will be responsible for the operation of any trailers attached to the prime mover, even if the trailers are owned by others, as we see with TNT and Ipec. A lot of big freight companies actually use subcontractors with prime movers only. 15 Oct 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 4203

Mr Johnson: It is not always the big companies; it is the cowboys, too. Mr STRONG: That is true. It is not always the big companies. They set standards. Unfortunately—I was one of them for quite a while—it is the subcontractors who are pushing that bit harder. They are paying $3,000 or $4,000 a week on some of their prime movers, so they have to make it work. This bill puts everybody in a position of being accountable, whether you are loading the truck or whether you are designating a load. This is something we have to all play a role in for the safety of everybody. This legislation will hurt some people. It will hurt subbies. They might have to slow up a bit or take a more responsible role. TNT or NQX—I am not using those names in particular but as examples of major transport companies—may have to look at their turnaround time. I take the comments made by the member for Gregory. I know what he is saying. I agree. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.58 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the legislation and to speak on two or three elements of it. This bill increases the area in which offences can be laid in relation to the heavy vehicle industry. I live a little way out of town, on a corner where I regularly have very large vehicles pressing down from behind. There is no way possible that a 16 wheeler that is as far behind as from me to the member for Gregory coming down the hill could stop if a roo jumped out or if for any other reason I had to brake. They would go straight over the top. That can be because of cowboy drivers, as the member for Gregory has described them. It could be because the drivers are pushing the envelope as far as fatigue is concerned or pushing the envelope as far as time is concerned. Irrespective of the cause, the result is going to be the same. A small number of heavy vehicle drivers speed. It is always novel to me to see a 'speed limited' sign on the back of a vehicle. It will have 'limited to 100 kilometres an hour' while it zips past you doing at least 120 and disappears into the distance. Other bad drivers overtake on double lines. While they have better visibility because they are higher, the fact is that the lines are there for a very important reason. The offence provisions apply to the driver of the vehicle. But this legislation extends that liability beyond that, and I welcome that extension. We have had a number of investigations into the heavy transport industry. Those people—usually the more minor players—who have had the courage to speak out have indicated that the drivers are not always the ones at fault. They may be carrying out the orders of the owners or other people interested in the trucking business. So to draw those owners into the chain of responsibility is very, very important. The second group that have been targeted by this legislation in relation to offences are those who overload the vehicles—whether or not it is known to the driver; often they can pick it up by the way the vehicle handles—as far as the mass weight is concerned. They get picked up by the scalies. The drivers have been the ones who have had to cop the brunt of the illegal action and yet in many instances they have not been in control of the situation that has led to a breach. The extension of these offence provisions is welcome in that it draws into the net as far as possible all those who could have an influence on the driver as regards the amount of time they drive, their fitness to drive, their willingness to take the set breaks or the safety with which they drive. It draws the owners and others who may be influencing on-road behaviour into that chain of responsibility. I also welcome the extension of immunity in regard to giving evidence in court. As I said, there have been a number of investigations into the heavy transport industry. There has always been a handful of people brave enough to speak out, often at great risk to themselves and not only as far as their employment is concerned. There have been instances where it has been stated that even their personal safety is at risk. The extension of immunity to allow those people brave enough to step outside of their comfort zone and give evidence in an attempt to clean up the industry is welcome. The bill also puts into legislation some of the new penalty regimes that were introduced earlier this year. One of the most severe measures is the cancellation of a licence for those drivers who are detected exceeding the speed limit by 40 kilometres per hour. There is one matter that I wish to raise which is of concern to me. I believe that if someone is in a 100 kilometre zone or a 110 kilometre zone and they are exceeding the speed limit by 40 kilometres, they are driving dangerously. Even though there are a lot of vehicles that are designed to drive at that speed, our roads in Queensland in particular are not designed for that speed. I am not saying that we have 4204 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 bad roads. We have bad sections of roads, but we do not have roads that are designed for 150 or 160 kilometres an hour. That is as much because of the gradients of the curves as the road design itself. The area of concern that I have is in construction areas where there will be roadworks in train. They might be working on a job Monday to Friday. They will pack up Friday afternoon and all of the speed signs remain uncovered. There is really not a dangerous situation. They have had the reduction in speed signs often for the safety of the people working on the road. For several days there will be nobody in sight, but the speed on a 100 kilometre highway strip, which is not presenting a dangerous situation, is still 40 kilometres an hour. If you have been driving at 100 kilometres an hour, it is easy to exceed the 40 kilometres. You go from 100 to maybe 80, 60, 40 or maybe 100, 80, 40 at those construction sites where, I reiterate, there is no danger present. Mr Bredhauer: The police actually say that it is more confusing for motorists if you change the speeds after dark or on long weekends. So the motorist might drive through one day and it's 60 and he drives through another day and it's 100, and he doesn't understand. So the police are saying it's actually better to leave it consistent. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Yes, but I can see that that is the sort of area where people are going to be booked for exceeding the speed limit by 40 kilometres. They will be doing 80 in a zone that is normally 100. There are no evident risks, yet their licences will be able to be cancelled for a period of months because they have exceeded the limit by 40 kilometres. It sounds extreme, but they might have been doing 80 in a 100 kilometre section where there are not any evident dangers. Some road repairs mean that the road will be rough. There will be large cuts to the side of the road where the road is being rebuilt on the extremities. There is often safety tape, star pickets or some other kind of delineator to show that there is a danger and the speed does need to be reduced. But where it is patchwork or work of a less dramatic nature, then people do tend not to drop to the 40 kilometres, especially when there are no road workers in sight. I would like to put on record my concern for those people who might have their licences cancelled for a period of six months for doing 80 kilometres in what is normally a 100 kilometre speed zone, even though it is signed at 40. When you reduce speed from 100 to 40, it feels like you are just about walking. They are the main issues that I wish to comment on. The bulk of the rest of the bill is to do with the machinery needed for RBT and the changes that are going to be implemented over time to comply with the new National Measurements Act. I certainly have no objection to that. I draw to the minister's attention again that issue of exceeding the 40 kilometres per hour in cases which involve a speed restricted area. I would seek some obvious flexibility on the part of the police and on the part of the minister in terms of people who are apprehended for exceeding the speed limit by 40 kilometres not in a normal situation but along a road designated 40 kilometres during the period of a repair, particularly when the time during which the person travelled over the road was not dangerous in itself. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.07 p.m.): I rise in support of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003. This bill amends the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 to strengthen the existing law by ensuring that appropriate sanctions are in place for offenders who drive unlicensed while they are suspended for speeding more than 40 kilometres over the speed limit. The current penalty provisions for unlicensed drivers are provided for within section 78 of the act and specifically cater for the various types of unlicensed driving. An extensive review of the unlicensed driving provisions was conducted in 2002. Parliament endorsed reforms applying to these sanctions in November 2002. At that time we saw the introduction of provisions which allowed the court to exercise some discretion in applying disqualification periods depending on the circumstances. The provisions are now very clear as to what sanctions are to apply in each situation. For example, a court can impose a disqualification of between one and six months where disqualification by a court has not occurred. However, a six month disqualification applies for those who are caught driving while already disqualified due to demerit point offences. In April 2003 the government introduced new penalties for speeding as part of the comprehensive review of penalties and sanctions that is being conducted. A key feature of the new penalties was the introduction of an automatic six month licence suspension for the offence of speeding more than 40 kilometres over the speed limit. This was a new concept for 15 Oct 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 4205

Queensland but one that was already adopted in many other states and one that research continues to support as the most effective form of legal sanction for repeat offenders. The new speeding penalties more appropriately reflect the risks and dangers associated with this behaviour by linking the severity of the penalty with the degree of crash risk. This reinforces to the public the link between speeding and road crashes. Licence suspension acts effectively as a specific deterrent to road safety offences, its purpose being to encourage individuals to take more responsibility for their driving behaviour. Given the close relationship between the potential crash risks associated with drink-driving and speeding, there are clear road safety benefits to be gained from introducing licence suspension sanctions. Despite extensive public education and enforcement campaigns, speed continues to play a prominent role in contributing to the road toll, with the statistics on speed related deaths alarmingly high. Last year alone 50 people were tragically killed, leaving families and friends grieving, their lives forever changed as a result of someone's selfish and irresponsible actions in breaking the law. These offenders have become desensitised to the message that speed kills and misconceptions have formed in their minds that it will never happen to them. They continue to speed, placing themselves and all other road users at risk. These people are a hazard on our roads and the penalty needs to be harsh enough to provoke attitudinal and behavioural changes if the government is going to be successful in deterring these drivers from repeatedly breaking the law. The introduction of a new type of speeding suspension created a new breed of unlicensed drivers not previously catered for within section 78. The amendments within this bill incorporate the penalty that is to apply to offenders who are caught driving while suspended for the offence of speeding. Through the introduction of a six-month period of disqualification, offenders will face a harsher, more definitive period of expulsion from our roads that is consistent with the disqualification periods we impose for other types of unlicensed driving. Up until now if a person was caught driving while suspended for speeding more than 40 kilometres over the speed limit the court had the power to impose only a monetary penalty and no subsequent disqualification period, thus creating a deficiency where offenders would receive a lesser penalty for committing a further driving offence while suspended. These people are considered unlicensed and need to be incorporated into the existing classifications of unlicensed drivers so that they will be penalised appropriately and consistently. Offenders who continue to drive while suspended are showing a blatant disrespect for the law. This bill reinforces the clear message that the government is getting tougher on illegal driving behaviour by imposing tougher penalties and follows suit with the new penalties for speeding offences, which are essentially the motivation of this amendment. I am confident that, by introducing a penalty that is sufficiently harsh enough to remove these offenders from the road for extended periods, the bill will send a clear and consistent message to the community and raise the level of deterrence to offenders who insist on performing these driving behaviours. There has been a lot of community support for the new speeding penalties with attitudinal research consistently reflecting that the majority of the public strongly supports harsher penalties for these offences. With this in mind, I am confident that this bill will continue to raise community support for harsher penalties now and into the future. Bigger fines, more demerit points and loss of licence is what the public can expect as punishment to those who insist on driving irresponsibly and at the expense of another person's safety. I am very pleased to see a tougher approach being taken against these offences, and I praise the government for introducing legislation in an effort to make our roads safer. I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (11.13 p.m.): Tonight I am pleased to rise to speak to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill. As has been explained by the shadow minister, the member for Gregory, this bill contains information and changes which will have an impact across-the-board. Nobody in this House is better qualified to talk about transport issues than the shadow minister. Some people have said that he has diesel in his veins and that sometimes he blows plenty of smoke. That may be the case. He comes from a well-respected family in the transport industry, and it will obviously be there for a long time to come. It is important to get this issue right, because the transport industry is a major and essential industry. Transport across-the-board, whether rail or road, is essential to our wellbeing and the future of our country. Road transport has played a very important part in this regard since time began, as it will into the future. However, there is more that we can do. We have come a long way. I used to drive an old Mack truck and a trailer to take produce, whether wool or livestock, to 4206 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 markets such as Rocklea. I would unload it and then drive back again. Things have changed dramatically since those times. The rules of the road in those days would not be allowed today, and that is reasonable. We have progressed. We have come a long way and become more safety conscious. There are more speed limits, more conditions, more checks and balances, and there should be. There has to be safety on the roads. We have to ensure that loads are safe, particularly when we hear of those tragic incidents of people travelling the road in all innocence and something falls off a truck and causes serious injury. That is just tragic. It would be the worst thing for any driver to know that maybe something they have not done or not checked falls off, whether it be a pipe a metre long or half a metre long, which might fall into the path of a car and hurt somebody. In days gone by cables, pipes and wires were used to tie down a load. Luckily, none of mine ever came off, but it could happen so easily. Today they use sling type winches to tie it down. They are so much better and more efficient, but when they get old they wear out and break. There are certainly ways to ensure that those things are safe and better than they were in days gone by. In terms of the bogie trucks that are used, inspections are better in a lot of ways. That brings me to a point, and that is that the road transport inspection service is an absolute disaster. We can introduce all the legislation we like into this House, but it is not going to solve this problem in the transport industry. Presently, those people who operate trucks have great difficulty in getting machinery inspections done. I hope that the minister takes into consideration the plea that we are making, because there is a very serious situation building. People just cannot get their trucks inspected within a reasonable time. They can book ahead, but get caught interstate or rain can delay them. There are various reasons why they cannot make it to their set appointment. I understand that even Dalby used to have a couple of inspectors but there are none there now. I am not even sure if there are any in Toowoomba. Sometimes those in the industry have to wait months to get a machinery inspection done and if they cannot meet that date for whatever reason they have to book it again for months later. Those people cannot afford to lose a day, two days or three days if they have a load, and they therefore cannot always be there for inspections at certain times. In days gone by there was a bit of give and take, but at least people had their machines inspected in a reasonable and practical way. Today it is totally impossible. It is a total disaster and there will be trucks on the road that are being driven without registration. In fact, there are numerous instances of which I am aware where truck operators are cancelling their registration and reregistering just to get them on the road. That is crazy. I plead with the minister to make sure that that no longer happens. It should not. But the system is collapsing. The explanatory notes state that the bill inserts provisions requiring a driver or another person to give information about an influencing person's role in an extended liability offence. That is often the only way to ensure that the root cause of offending behaviour in the heavy vehicle industry can be identified and enforcement action taken. We do not want cowboys on the road, but it is also very un-Australian to have dobbers. I am disappointed that that is the way the minister has to go with it, but I accept what the minister is trying to do. We have to make sure there are no cowboys out there. But I also do not think that we should encourage dobbing. As the shadow minister said, there is a lot of detail in this bill and we will be supporting it. However, I would ask the minister to take note of my comments that we cannot get road transport inspections and we desperately need them. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (11.21 p.m.): I did actually have a full 20-minute speech planned for this evening. However, after listening to the member for Gregory and his passionate support for this bill, I really have to say that he has said it all. Mr Johnson: Do you want to become a member of the National Party? Ms KEECH: No, you can come over to this side. That would be a better choice. The member for Gregory discussed the objectives of this bill, which are twofold. One is to make our roads safer and the other relates to technical amendments which, as the member for Albert, I also have some interest in. Before I comment on those, I say that to me one of the most important issues with respect to this bill is that it is the last bill, I believe, that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads, the Hon. Steve Bredhauer, will be introducing into this parliament. As a member for an electorate which is one of the fastest growing areas of Queensland and where roads are a major issue, I wish to put on the public record our thanks to the minister for his tremendous interest in and contribution to roads and transport in the electorate of Albert. 15 Oct 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 4207

I have always been amazed not only by the reforming nature of the legislation introduced by the minister but also by his attention to detail. On several occasions when I have spoken off the cuff with him about a particular intersection there has been no ministerial adviser around, he has had no notebook on which to make notes, and I have been amazed when the next day he is able to talk to me once again about that particular intersection and give me his response. Mr Pearce: Good memory. Ms KEECH: He has a good memory but he is also a caring minister who wants to do something to help people in relation to roads. I thank the minister for that. He will be sorely missed. I wish to speak briefly about the provision in this legislation which relates to the State Transport (People Movers) Act 1989. The Willowvale Residents Action Group is particularly happy to see this provision amended given that it has been under incredible attack from Ecotrans, which is a developer that is trying to put a cableway through the Willowvale area. I thank the co-chairs of the residents association, Jean Campbell and Mike Snare, for their work to protect the environment. In conclusion, I congratulate the minister. The bill is wonderful, as the member for Gregory said. In the lead-up to the minister's retirement, if he is ever busy I am sure the member for Gregory could come down to Albert to promote the achievements of the Beattie government with respect to Main Roads. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (11.24 p.m.): The Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill provides for a range of measures to reduce accidents due to speeding, drink-driving and illegal practices in the transport industry. I welcome any measures at all that will improve the behaviour of drivers, because it is now official: far-north Queensland drivers are amongst the worst drivers in Australia. According to the Cairns Post report of this week, we are one and a half times more likely than fellow Aussies to drive around drunk, we are more abusive to other road drivers, and one in 20 of us has been assaulted by another driver. These shocking figures are amongst the findings of the latest survey by AAMI Insurance. The AAMI crash index released on Tuesday of this week revealed that 53 per cent of motorists in north Queensland have admitted to driving when they were probably over the limit. The survey also found that nine in 10 northern motorists have been the subject of road rage. One in 20 said they had been physically assaulted by another driver. Some 71 per cent said they had been tailgated, and almost as many had been subject to rude gestures from other drivers. One-third will toot their horn when they think another driver is doing the wrong thing and, what is worse, we are getting even more angry at the wheel. Cairns police superintendent Steve Hollands was reported as conceding the region had a high rate of drink-driving, but part of this was because of the vigilant policing that targeted the peak times for random breath testing. I commend the police on their excellent work both in trying to reduce drink-driving and also other road offences. I think members will agree that it is a pretty sorry state of affairs, and I am certainly not proud of what is happening in far-north Queensland. As I said, I hope that measures such as those in this bill can start to turn around that situation. Interestingly, nationally, 88 per cent of the survey respondents admitted that they speed sometimes, and far-north Queensland drivers have been frequently clocked going more than 40 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. I therefore welcome the fact that this bill contains amendments to support the new penalty regime that applies to speeding. This new regime commenced on 17 April this year and included the introduction of a six months drivers licence suspension for drivers detected in the extremely dangerous category that I have referred to of more than 40 kilometres an hour above the speed limit. The amendments within this bill address the sanctions that are to apply to a person who is detected driving while their drivers licence is suspended for speeding. These people are considered unlicensed and are dealt with under section 78 of the act. This section is clear as to what constitutes an offence and the penalties and sanctions that apply to the different types of unlicensed driving. The imposition of an automatic drivers licence for a specific offence, in this case speeding by more than 40 kilometres per hour over the limit, is a new sanction type within Queensland. Therefore, this category needs to be reflected within section 78(3), which sets out the disqualification periods to be imposed for different types of unlicensed driving. While it has been possible to deal in the Magistrates Court with persons who are driving while suspended for speeding, the provisions up until now have only allowed the court to impose a monetary penalty, with no subsequent disqualification period. The amendments within this bill will 4208 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003 accommodate this new approach by incorporating this new classification of unlicensed driver and will allow for consistency in the sanctions imposed for all unlicensed driving offences. I certainly hope this has a further deterrent effect on those drivers. While 88 per cent of the respondents, as I have said, to the AAMI survey admitted to speeding, 58 per cent of them believe that speed cameras are nothing but revenue raisers. I know that is a very widespread view in the community, so I was very interested in the report the minister had in the House this morning in relation to the evaluation of the Queensland speed camera program. It is worth putting that on the record so that I can have this to convey to constituents who talk to me about this issue. The review was carried out, as it said, independently by the Monash University Accident Research Centre. It looked at the effect of speed cameras on the number of crashes in Queensland from the program's introduction in 1997 to the end of June 2001. It is extremely rewarding to see the impact that that program has had. Specifically, the results indicate that when operating at maximum coverage, the speed camera program produced estimated reductions in fatal crashes of around 45 per cent in areas within two kilometres of speed camera sites. There was a corresponding reduction of 31 per cent for hospitalisation crashes, 39 per cent for medically treated crashes, 19 per cent for other injury crashes and 21 per cent for non-injury crashes. I think those are terrific results. The accident research centre also developed a social benefit to cost ratio for the speed camera program. So for the period of the evaluation, the benefit to cost ratio was estimated to be 47. This means that for every dollar spent on the program there is a saving to the community of $47 due to crashes prevented by the operation of the program. So this clearly indicates that the program is a highly cost- effective means of reducing road trauma. I hope that will put paid to that debate we have in our community that the only thing that speed cameras do is raise money. Clearly, that is not the only thing they do; they have a very important effect in reducing road accidents. I hope that this independent evaluation will change the perception in the community about the speed camera program. I certainly welcome, as I am sure do other members, the confirmation of its effectiveness. In common with other members, I would like to thank the minister for his support for road safety initiatives. He has been very supportive of me in my electorate in relation to two particularly dangerous intersections. The first is the Brinsmead-Kamerunga Road which has been improved by the introduction of traffic lights. The safety of parents and students at the Caravonica State School, located on this same busy western bypass, has also been improved by the introduction of traffic lights last year. The safety of roundabouts on the Captain Cook Highway, which passes through my electorate, has also been improved in recent years for both drivers and cyclists with both state and federal funding dedicated to a variety of projects. However, I am still concerned about the safety problems on the highway in the vicinity of the Smithfield shopping centre, where pedestrians cross the road rather than use the existing underpass, exposing themselves to significant danger. While additional fencing has been erected to discourage this practice, I have recently written to the regional manager of the Department of Main Roads to request an assessment of other possible options to improve safety at that location. I would like to conclude by commending the minister for his commitment to his Transport portfolio and congratulate him on his significant achievement to far-north Queensland and, indeed, across the state. As with other members, I would like to say that we commend him for that work. He is one of Queensland's best Transport Ministers and he will be sorely missed. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (11.32 p.m.): A number of speakers tonight have covered various aspects of this bill. So to save repetition, I might move straight to raising a road use issue in my electorate which is starting to cause growing concern and which needs a proactive response from both the state and federal governments. I am referring to the Gateway Arterial and the need for its upgrade. Traffic on the Gateway, as the minister and the department are aware, is increasing on a daily basis. One of the impacts of this, particularly during peak hour periods, is the effect it is having on Nudgee Road, which runs parallel to the Gateway for several kilometres through my electorate. In congested periods motorists using both standard and heavy vehicles are using Nudgee Road as a bypass to the congestion that is growing on the Gateway. Specific pressure points are in the vicinity of the Kingsford-Smith Drive access and the Toombul Road and airport roundabouts. Because of the increasing congestion at these points in 15 Oct 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 4209 peak hours, Nudgee Road is seen as a quicker access for those vehicles that are not progressing across the Gateway Bridge or that are progressing north beyond the airport. The Kingsford-Smith Drive access to the Gateway is not adequate to provide quick and easy access to the Gateway and this is encouraging vehicles to use Nudgee Road on northbound trips. I know from recent correspondence I have received from the minister that this issue is one which is currently being examined by the department. The effect of this is a growing impact of traffic, particularly heavy vehicle traffic, through residential areas in my electorate, particularly through the suburbs of Northgate and Banyo as motorists gain entry onto the northbound section of the Gateway at the Nudgee Road entry point. The solution to much of this problem lies in the duplication of the Gateway Bridge and the consequent realignment of the Gateway Arterial north of the bridge to a point just to the west of the Nudgee Golf Course. This would eventually free up the existing Gateway route for local and airport traffic. The state government is playing its part in addressing this growing problem. In June this year the minister announced the establishment of a project team to develop a private-public partnership business case for a $1 billion duplication of the Gateway Bridge and motorway. I welcome this announcement as it is expected that the Gateway will reach its capacity by around 2010, only seven short years away. A major concern, though, is the commitment of the federal government to this project. As the Gateway Arterial is a National Highway, it is necessary for the federal government to commit funding for this vitally important road project. Whereas the Gateway is a major arterial road which services traffic travelling to the north and south coasts and beyond, it is also an important component of the road system which removes traffic from residential areas in my electorate. I commend the minister and the state Department of Main Roads for its initiative in taking proactive steps to address the need to upgrade the Gateway Arterial and I hope that we will soon see a similar commitment from the federal government. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (11.35 p.m.): I would like to congratulate the minister on bringing this very important bill before the House. It is important that this bill is passed tonight. It is about time that we sheet home the blame to those people who set truckies on the road with impossible time frames to get from A to B, with huge power packs pulling dogs of at least one and these days possibly three. When we pull out to pass these rigs we think, 'How am I going to get around that?' They go very fast and a lot of them are overloaded. I remember when I was on the Public Works Committee the Transport Department put scales in culverts and found out that the majority of trucks that travelled over certain roads were 100 per cent—not one per cent, two per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent—overloaded. And we wonder why our roads are chopped to pieces when it rains and are so badly knocked about. I can hear Hughie Williams laughing, thanking the minister, Steve Bredhauer, very much for putting the responsibility where it should be. Most drivers drive responsibly, do not want to be overloaded, do not want to be driving too fast and want to be able to have a life as well as drive a truck. Most have mortgages up to their eyeballs with the huge power packs they have on hire purchase or for which they have bank loans that they are trying to pay off. If they blow a couple of tyres between Sydney and Melbourne or Brisbane and Melbourne or Sydney, they just about do whatever profit they could have expected to gain. The owner-drivers are driving for what they are told to drive. It is a very tough life to be a truckie today. This legislation has come about not before time. It is great legislation. I thank the minister. Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (11.37 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank the opposition, particularly the shadow minister, the member for Gregory, for their support for the bill. All the members who have spoken tonight have supported the bill, and I thank them very much. I particularly thank the member for Gregory for acknowledging what a fantastic job the Beattie government has done at Suncorp Stadium and what a great venue it is for Rugby, whether it be Rugby League or Rugby Union, and for acknowledging that we are in for a fine old time during the next six weeks during the World Cup Rugby tournament. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: I think the member for Toowoomba South has been verballed. I am sure he had a good time at the Fiji versus US game tonight. I would also like to thank my departmental officers who put a lot of work into this bill. It is an important road safety initiative, as the member for Gregory indicated, in all of its aspects. Road safety has been a passion of mine for the five and a half years that I have been the Minister for 4210 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Bill 15 Oct 2003

Transport and Minister for Main Roads. I know it is a passion that was shared by Vaughan as my predecessor. I know also that every member of this House is genuinely committed to the issue of road safety and trying to reduce the incidence of road fatalities and road accidents. I thank the departmental officers who have done a great job in helping us to bring this legislation to the parliament and my ministerial staff who have also done a good job. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr JOHNSON (11.40 p.m.): Clause 3 amends the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. A very valid point was raised by the member for Warrego in relation to dobbers. Clause 3 states— (6A) Subsection (6B) applies if the person is called as a witness in a proceeding against someone else for the information offence. (6B) The person is not entitled to refuse to answer a question in relation to the information offence ... As I said in my address this evening, I believe that this is a very integral piece of legislation as far as the road transport industry goes. There is always that element within the road transport industry that wants to create an environment—I do not like the word hatred—where they can try to bring somebody down. Whether that relates to the employer or the employee, it is in this particular part of the legislation that we have to be very careful of to ensure that that situation does not get out of control. While we talk about the sorts of people who can bring this part of the legislation into disrepute, we must be very careful that we get the aspects of the evidence right. That is the case whether it involves the employer, the employee or a third party for that matter, and I am talking about the third party now. A lot of times it is the third party who can create an environment that brings this issue into disrepute. In respect of this part of the legislation, I refer the minister to what the member for Warrego said about dobbers. This is one aspect of the legislation that can further create a liability not only for the operator but also for the employees of that operation. Mr BREDHAUER: It is funny how at half past 11 in the morning they are whistleblowers and at half past 11 at night they are dobbers. I appreciate the sentiments that the honourable member has expressed. The ability to require information is basically so that if we are endeavouring to prosecute people under our chain of responsibility provisions, we have the capacity to ask people to provide information that could help lead to a successful prosecution. I think that is important. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: That is right. The member for Gregory has acknowledged that it is important that the chain of responsibility legislation is able to target owners and operators as well as the drivers, but the power to require information is an important part of that process so that we are able to establish a body of evidence that will enable us to launch a successful prosecution in the appropriate circumstances. I do give an assurance to the member for Gregory that Queensland Transport would exercise those powers responsibly and that if, at any time, there were any concerns that the member had about a particular case, I as the minister and I am sure my successor would be prepared to have a look at it. Mr JOHNSON: I thank the Minister for Transport for that summary of the clause. This is a very important part of the legislation. From time to time a lot of heat can be generated within the department and within this area of operation in relation to operators and also the employees. I thank the minister for that. I reflect on the words of the member for Albert. It may be that we are fast approaching an election. It also seems to me that this may be the last piece of transport legislation that we will see debated in the House before the next election. I would like to take this opportunity to say to Steve Bredhauer, the Minister for Transport, that his is not an easy portfolio. It is a tough portfolio. A lot of time and personal sacrifice goes into it. I know what it is like. I did it for two and a quarter 15 Oct 2003 Adjournment 4211 years and Steve Bredhauer has done it for five and a bit years. It is a portfolio that I believe is very important and integral to the operation and ongoing productivity of Queensland on a daily basis. Steve Bredhauer works with the same personnel whom I worked with in the ministry of Transport and Main Roads. Those people are very professional. Steve and I have had a few areas of combat across the chamber over the last few years, but I wish him every success in the future. I wish him well in his endeavours. Whatever is at the bottom of the rainbow, I hope that it includes a pot of gold for him. I thank him for the challenges that he has given to me. I know that I have given him a few challenges, too. It is a great portfolio. Regardless of who takes over the portfolio from the minister—and I hope it is me—I hope that we will see great interactivity again. Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for his remarks. However, I do not think we should get too excited about an election. The Premier has said that it will probably not be due until about May next year. This is my last piece of legislation for this year and I appreciate the sentiments expressed by all honourable members in the House, and most recently by the member for Gregory. I would not get too excited about an election yet. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 13, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Bredhauer, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (11.48 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

One Vote, One Value Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (11.49 p.m.): I rise to speak tonight about the worth of Queenslanders and whether George Orwell got it right when he said that some are more equal than others. We live under a system which says that, within reason, every member of the electorate of Queensland has an equal say in the selection of our government—in other words one vote, one value. This came about to counter earlier electoral boundaries which granted greater value to the votes of those who lived outside the populous south-east. At first glance it seems a reasonable proposition. Of course Queenslanders, wherever they live, are as good as each other. Queenslanders, wherever they live, should have the same value put on their vote. One could be forgiven for thinking that there was no reason to question that premise but, sadly, while we are all now supposedly treated equally, when it comes to the value of our votes in electing government we are not treated at all equally by those governments once elected. The truth is that those of us who live outside this dot on the New South Wales border, where 54, or two-thirds, of the 89 seats are held in a mainly urbanised area, are told by the major parties at election time how important we are. We are told that our issues matter. We are told that our opinions are valued. We are told that we deserve better. We know that we are the wealth makers for the state with our agriculture, mining and other primary industries, but once the campaigning is over and the government of whichever persuasion is settled in we are all but forgotten in favour of the wealth takers here in the south-east. If our vote is worth the same as that of someone living in Brisbane Central, then surely we also deserve the same access to all of the state-funded facilities of our Brisbane Central friends. Someone in that electorate is not far at all from the free-entry Queensland Museum, the free- entry Queensland Art Gallery and the free-entry State Library. They have a wide selection of state-funded and supported cultural events and activities in state-provided locations such as South Bank. They can even walk to and fro across the Brisbane River on a footbridge that cost some 33 times more than the recently announced revamp of the hospital at Atherton. Our vote is 4212 Adjournment 15 Oct 2003 worth the same, but when we see that the pedestrian comfort of people down here gets more money spent on it than facilities in a hospital in my electorate it becomes blindingly clear that we are not treated the same. An equal vote maybe, but definitely not equal health care. Mr Terry Sullivan interjected. Ms LEE LONG: That is your story. The only thing one vote, one value has done is allow this urban sprawl to turn its back on its fellow Queenslanders and do so while hiding behind a very soiled moral argument. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is regularly pilloried for the supposed gerrymander which operated in his day. Well, what we in rural Queensland now face thanks to one vote, one value is the worst gerrymander anyone has had to endure. I think we would all have to agree that some are definitely more equal than others.

Death of Mr J. Tweedale Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (11.52 p.m.): I am sad to announce that the Pine Rivers community recently lost one of its best known and hardest working residents. Jim Tweedale of Petrie passed away on 5 September at the age of 85. I remember Jim as a man never afraid to speak his mind but, more importantly, as someone who was always prepared to put in the hard work to make our community—indeed, the world—a better place in which to live. I am told that Jim's community spirit began early in life. Jim served on a hospital ship during World War II and during this time had the sad experience of watching some young men drown simply because they could not swim. This inspired Jim's community spirit, and when they had a pool constructed in their backyard the Tweedales offered it for use by primary schools for swimming lessons. This was when their pool was one of just a handful in the Pine Rivers shire. Jim's life of community involvement and selflessness continued from then on. He was involved in setting up the Petrie ambulance centre and worked to assist the unemployed and the homeless in our area, including taking some needy people into his own home. But by far Jim's greatest community achievement—his legacy, in fact—was the establishment of Handihome. One of Jim's daughters has a disability, and it was his desire that she should lead as normal a life as possible that saw both Jim and his wife, Jean, wanting their daughter to experience independent living, but they knew that she would always need assistance to do so. With this in mind he came up with the Handihome concept—a large family house for people with disabilities that they would be able to call home, that is, in their own community. Jim and local chemist Pam Gorring, who sadly died about 10 years ago, began fundraising in 1981, the Year of the Disabled, and in 1984 the Kallangur Handihome opened its doors to its first residents. All the residents were people with disabilities who were supported by their care workers, families and friends. It received a 50 per cent Commonwealth government salary subsidy. Six people continue to live in the first Handihome. Jim wanted to do more. He was the driving force behind a second Handihome being built at Strathpine. This second home housed 12 people but, sadly, it was outside the guidelines for government funding. But this did not daunt Jim. Jim and his committee began a period of frantic fundraising which included raffles, garage sales and donations, as well as the famous Pine Rivers Handihome lamington drives which supplied locals with fresh, delicious lamingtons for many years. I even had my turn at making those lamingtons. Jim will be sorely missed by all in our community, but he will be fondly remembered for all his hard work.

Oakey Police Station Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (11.55 p.m.): Tonight I would like to talk about the state of the Oakey Police Station. The staffing complement there is one sergeant, two senior constables, two constables and an administration officer. There is currently a request pending for an additional officer. The sergeant has an office which is also used as an interview room and which houses radio equipment as well as a safe. When interviews need to be conducted the sergeant has to cover up all paperwork, including notice boards, and relocate to another room. The day room and general office for staff presently has four chairs and shares desk facilities for existing staff. The administration officer has an extremely narrow office area—more like a cupboard. If she were a larger person it would be extremely difficult for her to negotiate her way through to her office, as there is a photocopier which is used by all of the staff at the entrance of her desk area. She cannot open the locker due to the photocopier being located next to it. She 15 Oct 2003 Adjournment 4213 cannot see who is at the counter and has to walk around a partition to serve customers. There needs to be two-way glass installed so that she can view customers prior to serving them. The front entrance is totally inadequate for the elderly and disabled. It consists of stairs and a narrow landing with no roof. The doors open inwards, and they have a tendency to knock waiting customers in the back when anyone enters. During times of rain there is always a puddle left at the entrance area. The admin officer has to open both doors to allow people with disabilities to enter. This is a very tiny area. Photographs for licences are also taken in this area, thus reducing the limited space even more. All external doors are glass, not bulletproof, even though the windows have security screens. A security device has been installed for the admin officer, but this is merely a siren alarm which is located outside the building. It is not connected to the police radios and, as such, is quite a useless device. The external light has been repaired but continually blows. All wiring for the building can be easily seen hanging underneath the building. This could easily be damaged through acts of vandalism. The toilet facilities are male only. The females have to use the same toilet, and to access these people have to go along the veranda, which is exposed to the elements. When the station is unmanned by officers and the admin officer in attendance, it is necessary for her to lock three external doors just to use these amenities. The present building has two verandas running along the length of the building. If the existing walls could be relocated along the outside perimeter of the building this would give approximately three metres of extra space to the entire building. However, there is a drastic need to remodel and extend the entrance area, making it more accessible and workable for everyone concerned. Between the existing police station and courthouse building there is also a section of land available that would easily accommodate extensions to the police station. There are presently three large offices vacant at the courthouse building, with the addition of one office which is used once a month. There are six covered car parks which are available for courthouse staff, and the police have to park their vehicles in the open. There is a garage for the police car, which needs to be locked away to prevent vandalism, but the roller doors do not lock. There are two cells located in a separate building, with only one being operational. The second has been decommissioned for some time. The major priority for staff located at the Oakey Police Station is for an interview room which could also be utilised as a meeting room. On many occasions it has been necessary for staff to interview people on the veranda, especially in cases where there have been a number of arrests. Time expired.

Kuranda Heritage Train Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (11.58 p.m.): The Kuranda heritage train, which every year takes more than half a million tourists between Cairns and Kuranda, is no doubt well known to members of this House. After leaving Cairns station, the train travels through the residential suburb of Cairns North, past the Pioneer cemetery, houses, motels and the Cairns North school. It then passes adjacent to the communities of Aeroglen, Stratford and Freshwater travelling between the Kamerunga Road and the canefields and the Barron River. It is along the stretch of line at Stratford that there are two community beautification projects. The most recent of these is 10 colourful garden beds planted by John and Yvonne Carrick with support from Queensland Rail and Cairns City Council. I commend them for their commitment to that beautification program. The train then goes on, stopping at the heritage-style Freshwater Station before it crosses Freshwater Creek and heads to Redlynch, where it passes the old Red Beret Hotel. It then goes over the rainforest Kuranda range through the Barron Gorge National Park on its way to the lovely Kuranda Station beside the Barron River with its famous landscaping and hanging baskets of ferns. I have painted this picture to remind members who have travelled on this line of its wonderful scenic values and just how unique it is. But like railways anywhere in Queensland, it too has potential dangers for the careless, the unlucky or the unwary. As well as the heritage train on this line, it is used by freight trains and the Savannahlander train which goes to Einasleigh, and accidents are always a possibility. 4214 Adjournment 15 Oct 2003

A Queensland Transport project to address public liability issues surrounding all railway lines has been initiated to protect Queensland Rail from being sued for failing in their duty of care to protect the public from harm. The proposed means of addressing Queensland Rail's public liability problem is the construction of a 1.8 metre high chain mesh fence along the entire length of the railway line up the Queensland coast, including the scenic Cairns to Kuranda railway line. While this strategy may be the most appropriate for achieving Queensland Rail's goal along the majority of the line, it is not, in my view or in the view of the communities that I represent, at all appropriate for Queensland's most scenic railway journey. I met with Queensland Rail and Queensland Transport personnel to explore alternative options that would be more acceptable to the community while meeting the needs of Queensland Rail to address their public liability exposure. I am pleased to report that agreement has been reached to undertake a new, independent risk assessment to explore alternative strategies to the construction of a 1.8 metre fence to meet Queensland Rail's needs to protect the public. I understand that public education, slower train speeds and signage are just some of the alternatives strategies to be explored. I have the support of the Minister for Transport for this approach in an attempt to retain the scenic character of the Cairns-Kuranda railway experience while addressing the public liability issues. We are seeking, and hope to find, a win-win solution for both Queensland Rail and the community.

Public Liability Insurance Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (12.01 a.m.): Tonight I want to talk about public liability insurance. It is a big issue. It is in all our communities and it is an issue that we want all to resolve. We all want to try and have a situation whereby our communities are able to carry out their normal functions without, first of all, having the concern that they cannot obtain insurance. Even if they can get insurance, if the cost is too high then the possibility is that in many instances those functions cannot continue. Over the last week I have had some examples whereby major functions are held throughout the year. One example that comes to mind is the Augathella rodeo. They have a new year's rodeo that happens every year. They had a meeting recently and the cost of the public liability is one of the reasons why they have decided not to have one this year. It is the first time in many, many years that they will not have had a new Year's rodeo. It is a combination of things, but public liability is one of those. That is the issue I want to discuss tonight. I think that we have to do much more and we can do more. There are a lot of things out there that can be done. For instance, the Community Care Underwriting Agency has been successfully operating for 10 months in six other Australian states. It is only after intense lobbying by the state opposition that the Beattie government has opened discussions with this agency. For example, it is a joint venture with Allianz Australia, NRMA Insurance and QBE, who have the primary purpose of helping not-for-profit organisations operating in New South Wales, the ACT, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania. The Community Care Underwriting Agency product is designed for not-for-profit organisations whose activities include community events, community centres and home care and organisations that have the following characteristics: provide services to the broader community; not-for-profit organisations that have a turnover funding of no more than $2 million per annum; does not distribute profits to its members; and comprises mainly of volunteers. The Community Care Underwriting Agency insurance product in other states is open to amateur sporting clubs, groups offering arts, cultural and recreational services, artists operating with government grants, welfare and community groups and ratepayers' associations. One of the main advantages of this group as a scheme was the agency's ability to collect data on the claim, experience and practises of the community groups and an ability to adjust premiums to better reflect risk and claims experiences. Time expired.

School Achievements, Mackay Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (12.05 a.m.): I would like to speak about the outstanding achievements of a number of local high schools in Mackay. Students from St Patrick's College in Mackay recently competed in the state finals of the Apex debating competition. I am delighted to report that the team of five year 12 students defeated the Murgon State High School team to be 15 Oct 2003 Adjournment 4215 announced champions of the Queensland competition. My congratulations go to the team members, who are Georgina Strohal, Danielle Muscat, Andrea Boyd, Drew Sullivan, Mitchell Black and their teacher Mark Gibbs. The St Patrick's team winning run began in Mackay where they progressed undefeated from five debates. They then won against Mount Isa's Spinifex State High School and Caloundra Christian College in the semifinal. This is a wonderful result from this impressive Mackay school, which has a record of excellence in many different fields of endeavour. Not only have these St Patrick's students proven themselves as individuals to be talented and persuasive public speakers, they have brought pride to their school and our local community. I wish them the very best of luck when they compete at the national finals next year. Another school that has excelled recently is Mackay State High School. It was a great pleasure to learn of Mackay high being named the Queensland winner of the Schools Conflict Resolution and Mediation Competition. I commend the efforts of team members, who are year 9 students: Bridgett Griffith, Viviene Taylor, Natasha Salty, Marla Costabeber, Brittany Taylor, Amelia Taylor and their SCRAM team coach Ms Cheryl Bryan. No doubt this success reflects many hours of hard work and dedication. The Mackay High School community can be justly proud of this outstanding achievement. The SCRAM competition judges students on their conflict resolution mediation skills. Mackay State High School won the award after a playoff against the West Moreton Anglican College. The competition was held at the Queensland Law Society House and is run by the Queensland Law Society in an endeavour to encourage and develop student skills in solving disputes through mediation and negotiation. The scenario for this year's mediation was four friends on a local train who have to choose whether to admit to an incident that upset members of the public. Admitting the incident could lead to severe punishment but not admitting to the incident would cause all students on board the train to receive detention. Students from the SCRAM team played the characters and also the mediators to resolve the conflict. I believe this unique competition is extremely worthwhile and praise Mackay State High School for their involvement. The skills these students have developed through SCRAM competitions are character-building and will be valuable in preparing them as future leaders. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish the Mackay State High School SCRAM team the best of luck when they compete at the national finals in Sydney on 31 October. In addition to these successes, I would like to mention the wonderful achievements of Pioneer State High School's robotics students. Pioneer high is able to provide students with access to valuable learning experiences, such as robotics, through their centre of excellence in science, maths and technology. Pioneer State High School recently competed in the Australian Robocup Junior National Finals. The school entered two teams in the robotic soccer tournament. In an outstanding effort Pioneer State High School year 12 student Brendan Trevorrow won the state final of the soccer tournament. I extend Brendan my congratulations for this wonderful accomplishment. He is clearly a talented and technologically gifted student. I also praise the efforts of the second team, consisting of students Brian Pearse and Adam Ford, who unfortunately were eliminated in the quarterfinals. In another display of excellence, the Pioneer High team of Nick Schumacher and Tyrone Trevorrow competed in the open dance category at the Robocup finals, winning the Queensland title and placing third in the Australian finals. No doubt great teamwork and technical expertise was required to achieve this outcome. Time expired.

Water Licence Tax Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.08 a.m.): Once again today we have seen the absolute hypocrisy of the members of the Beattie Labor government in this House as they have tried to beat up a story about a non-existent tax that the coalition was supposedly planning to introduce. At the same time irrigators across the state are currently receiving their first batch of water bills for the $250 tax for each water licence that they hold. That is $250 to renew a water licence that most people have held for many years. We are seeing the introduction of this new Beattie Labor government tax at a time when members in this House are trying to create issues about other taxes. Just like Labor's unfair and inequitable ambulance tax, this tax will hit some people many times depending on how many 4216 Adjournment 15 Oct 2003 water licences they hold. It is another case of this Beattie government double-dipping at every opportunity with its hand in taxpayers' pockets for a new tax that simply does not produce any increase in services available to the people who pay it. It is simply a money grab. At the time the new tax was introduced into state parliament we in the coalition moved a disallowance motion to disallow the regulation that would introduce this tax, but Labor used its massive parliamentary majority to force through the new tax in this parliament. Every one of those members who have made snide references about new taxes today voted in favour of this tax. Now, farmers across Queensland are being sent bills for $250 simply to renew a water licence that they have held for many years. Unlike Labor, the coalition is prepared to minimise the impact of this tax. The mechanism to do that already exists, although when the water users get their $250 bill in the mail the department does not tell them of the mechanism that is available to reduce the impacts of this new tax. Section 1055(2) of the Water Act allows water users to amalgamate water licences so that the water tax is only levied once on each property or once on each group of amalgamated licences. But the department does not make that clear. It sends a bill in the mail with forms to fill in requiring a whole lot of information, but there is no attempt to make known to the people who are being asked to pay that tax that a mechanism exists for them to reduce the amount that they have to pay. We will ensure that property owners pay this inequitable tax only once. We will ensure that, like the unfair and inequitable Beattie government's ambulance tax, this tax will be levied once only on property owners. Surely $250 per property is enough to cover any cost of renewing water licences. But this tax was never intended to have a relativity with the cost of renewing water licences. It was simply a money grab from a government that is broke.

Leader of the Opposition, Gold Coast Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (12.11 a.m.): The National Party is running a TV ad showing the Leader of the Opposition jogging along a deserted bush road. Some say that the scene chosen was very apt because it depicts the honourable member with his only true friends. They are not very thick on the ground at all. However, I am sure of one thing, and that is that he is heading in a westward direction as far away from the Gold Coast as possible. A recent article in the Gold Coast Bulletin headed 'No-show Lawrence' states— National Party fans were disappointed Lawrence Springborg had to cancel his projected policy dinner at the ANA Hotel earlier this month. No wonder he cancelled. As we found out this morning from the web site, the party has no policies. No wonder he cancelled the policy dinner. The article continues— It was the second recent Gold Coast no-show for the National Party boss. He was to have a major breakfast at Mudgeeraba's Woodchopper's Inn in July, where he was tipped to announce candidates to contest the Gold Coast seats. He cancelled that as well. So they do not see a lot of him down there, I am afraid. As I said, he cancelled the policy dinner which was to feature the Leader of the Opposition because the number committed to attend would have made the function look like— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Member for Warrego! Mr LAWLOR:—that deserted road in the TV advertisement— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego! I warn the member under standing order 123A. Mr LAWLOR:—for the National Party. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego under 123A. I will send the member out any minute now—honestly. I want to hear the member for Southport. Mr LAWLOR: It is not the first cancellation, it is not the second and it certainly will not be the last. The Gold Coast was once the National Party's heartland. Now it has become a no-show for the National Party Leader, an extraordinary development given that just under three years ago the National Party held four Gold Coast seats, including that of the then party leader. We on this side of the House would welcome the current leader to the Gold Coast. It is a pity that the 15 Oct 2003 Adjournment 4217 declining and ageing ranks of the National Party on the coast do not share our enthusiasm. Please, Lawrence: you're a good bloke. Come to the Gold Coast. We appreciate what you are doing to the National Party and we want to see you on the Gold Coast. Your few supporters on the Gold Coast are pining for you and want to meet you before the next election. Mr Hobbs: You're as weak as water. You're as weak as water. You're a gutless bastard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Warrego to withdraw those comments. They are totally unparliamentary. I would suggest that the member go for a quiet walk. I am not sending him out, but I suggest that in the member's interests he go for a walk around the block.

Booroobin Sudbury State School Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.14 a.m.): I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the Booroobin Sudbury School, a centre of learning. This school, the parents and students and its experienced registered teachers believe that there are no justifiable reasons for this school to have its accreditation withdrawn. They believe that the school has fulfilled the educational needs of its students and more in that it has prepared its students for life and has done so since the school's inception in 1996. It is not the school which has changed but the Education Department's requirements. It has moved the goal posts, changed the rules and in so doing has jeopardised the future existence of this school. Some 23 students and staff and six support personnel set out from the Booroobin school to walk to parliament to deliver documentation and a petition to the minister. They also wanted to implore her to re-evaluate the situation surrounding the decision by the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board. The consequence of this decision is a loss of funding for the school which could result in the inability of the school to attract overseas students. Without these students there is a distinct possibility that the threat of closure due to non-viability could be realised. The documentation presented to the minister which I table contains a submission by the school's representative, Mr Derek Sheppard; a letter from staff member and registered teacher, Lois Tarling; and a short history of the long-term graduate students who have attended the Booroobin Sudbury school. There is also a letter from the students who, when I met them, displayed a remarkable ability to conduct themselves and converse on any matter in a way that would be the envy of many adults. These students have approached learning in a way that is very different to that of state schools. I must say that I have never seen students so passionate in their support of a school. The loyalty and passion the teachers have for this school is very ably displayed in a letter from teacher Gary Mitchell, who holds a teaching Diploma in Secondary Physical Education, a Diploma of Health and a Bachelor of Education Studies along with other qualifications. There are various other letters supporting the Sudbury school from overseas where similar schools operate successfully. Ursula Wagner of the Montessori School in Zell, Germany, writes— For more than ten years our school has had the possibilities to study the positive effects of self determined learning in children and it's more than 50 years for the Montessori schools in Germany. This and other letters show that although the Booroobin Sudbury school is a self-determined learning school for children, it is not a new school on the world educational stage. A letter from Andrew Clements, a development researcher and school owner in Greece, was very strong in its criticism of the move. From New Zealand a letter from Dianna Scullin, the principal of Tamariki school, states— More and more all over the world it is being recognised that there is a huge need for students to be educated in particular democracies so that they may take part as responsible adults in democratic societies. Along with other letters from overseas, there is also a copy of a non-conforming petition in support of the school with 152 signatures of people around the world. The last desperate letter is to Mr Beattie to ask him for his support or intervention on behalf of the school. Perhaps this school represents the future of education; I cannot say. But what I do know is that this school wants its students and the students want the school. There has never been any violence, just a real desire to learn.

Amnesty International Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (12.17 a.m.): On 5 December 2002 the Hon. Dean Wells moved a motion that this House join Amnesty International in its campaign to support the human rights of 4218 Adjournment 15 Oct 2003 women. In particular, the minister asked members to support Amina Lawal, a young Nigerian woman who faced death by stoning for having a child out of wedlock. I am pleased that the motion was supported unanimously by all members of the House. In 13 countries, including Nigeria, Pakistan and the Sudan, women do not even have the protection of the most basic human rights. Universal rights which guarantee all people, regardless of their gender, race and religion, the right to life, liberty and equality are only a dream in so many of these countries. As a proud member of Amnesty International, I congratulate the Australian branch on its campaign to stamp out violence against women. In particular, the despicable honour killings where women and girls are tortured and killed by their family members for failing to live up to religious laws have been consistently targeted by Amnesty International. In my speech of 5 December I stated that countries like Australia should put strong pressure on the countries which continue to condone these barbaric practices. This evening it is therefore with great pride and pleasure that I report to honourable members that Amina Lawal's death sentence was overturned last month by Nigeria's Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, this victory is only a fleeting one for the women of Nigeria. Two other women are currently awaiting decisions on their appeals against the death penalty for similar so-called offences. Clearly, the battle for the basic rights of women, their right to freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination, is far from over. Pamela Bone, Associate Editor of the Age in a 4 October article stated that international public opinion can be a world superpower. International public opinion can be a superpower for change only if countries which uphold United Nations universal rights are prepared to act. In her article Bone stated that the former Irish Ambassador to the UN, Conor Cruise O'Brien, described the UN as humanity's prayer to itself, to be saved from itself. With the continuation of violence against women, and recent atrocities in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Iraq, more than ever humanity's prayers need to be answered by action from the United Nations. This evening honourable members have every reason to feel proud of the Amnesty International motion which they supported unanimously in this House last year. We have every reason to share the joy of Nigerian women as they continue in their courageous and dangerous work of changing the Sharia penal code. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.20 a.m.