18 Sep 2002 Legislative Assembly 3607

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2002

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is my pleasure this morning to welcome to the public gallery students, parents and teachers of the Binjour Plateau State School in the electorate of Callide. It is also my pleasure to welcome students, parents and teachers from Glenala State High School in the electorate of Inala.

PRIVILEGE Redcliffe Dolphins; Ipswich Jets Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (9.32 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. There is a misleading article in the Redcliffe Herald which I bring to your attention today, Mr Speaker, attributed to you. It refers to the Redcliffe Dolphins and how well they have played all year. You claim that they have been the best team and that they are going to win this weekend. I just assure you that the Ipswich Jets will be down there on the weekend and there is every likelihood that you won't even score. Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that is a matter of privilege, Mr Livingstone.

PETITIONS Pedestrian Crossing, Aspley Ms Barry from 402 petitioners requesting the House install a signalised pedestrian crossing adjacent to the "Aspley Court" residential village on Albany Creek Road, Aspley or within 100 metres to the west of the entrance to the village.

Sugar Industry Mr Mulherin from 270 petitioners requesting the House to work with the sugar industry to address issues of best practice, modernisation, training, employment and cost efficiency, in a whole of government, whole of community fashion.

Sugar Industry Ms Jarratt from 288 petitioners requesting the House to work with the sugar industry to address issues of best practice, modernisation, training, employment and cost efficiency, in a whole of government, whole of community fashion.

Sugar Industry Mr Malone from 202 petitioners requesting the House to work with the sugar industry to address issues of best practice, modernisation, training, employment and cost efficiency, in a whole of government, whole of community fashion.

Dingo Eradication, Woocoo Shire Dr Kingston from 158 petitioners requesting the House to arrange for the eradication of dingoes in the Woocoo shire area.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Office of the Governor Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.), by leave: I rise to speak about the annual report of the Office of the Governor. I note that in accordance with the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 the annual report of the Office of the Governor for 2001-02 has been furnished by that office and tabled by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I wish to advise members that I have received a copy of the annual report from the Office of the Governor. I note that this is the third such report since the Office of the Governor was defined as a department for the purposes of financial administration, and I commend the report to members. 3608 Ministerial Statement 18 Sep 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fishing Industry Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: I want to thank Queenslanders who fish for a living or fish for pleasure. They have responded sensibly and responsibly to government proposals that would ensure the long-term ecological health of our marine and aquatic environments. On 1 September the Minister for Primary Industries, Henry Palaszczuk, and I released on behalf of the government two regulatory impact statements which aim for Queensland to continue being an anglers' paradise. The proposals are for all Queenslanders who work in the industry, who love to fish and who enjoy tucking into freshly-landed seafood. This includes families who have made an honest living from the fishing industry for generations. That was one of the reasons why we launched this on Father's Day. The stark reality is that our fish stocks are diminishing with disturbing speed. Pressure on the resource has increased significantly in the past 20 years. Unless we act now to protect the resource, some of our most popular table species may not be on our grandchildren's menu. We are seeking broad public comment until early October on the general marine and freshwater regulatory impact statements, which were developed in consultation with industry stakeholders. So far the Department of Primary Industries has sent out more than 3,000 copies of the regulatory impact statements documents for comment. The feedback received at this stage has been generally constructive and positive, and again I thank people for that. The proposals in the regulatory impact statements include reductions in bag limits for certain species and area and seasonal closures for certain species, and members should understand why we have to do that. How crazy it would be not to close specific areas during spawning. Other proposals include regulations pertaining to permitted fishing gear and amendments to the freshwater fisheries management plan introduced in 1999 to affect bag and size limits, fishing gear, closed seasons and closed waters. An example is the proposal to reduce the recreational bag limits for spotted mackerel and snapper from the current 30 to five. I have to say that I do not know any recreational fisher who hauls in 30 spotted mackerel or 30 snapper. It is certainly not something I have experienced, but I do not claim to be the best fisher around the place. Mr Palaszczuk: The Treasurer is a good one. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, the Treasurer is a good fisher. As all members would know, fish have nothing to fear from me! Ms Bligh: Fish are safe. Mr BEATTIE: Fish are safe; that is right. And they are smart fish, too. They are very smart. Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr BEATTIE: All right. Let us move on. Thank you for that. I just think 'Public Works and Prisons' has a ring to it. Also, the minimum size for snapper will increase from 30 centimetres to 35 centimetres and the minimum size for spotted mackerel will increase from 50 centimetres to 60 centimetres. We are also talking about a new bag limit of five flathead, increasing the minimum size from 30 centimetres to 40 centimetres and introducing a maximum flathead size of 60 centimetres. Commercial fishers would also be asked to pull their weight under these proposed changes. We are talking about everybody, not just one side. A government member: We're on the side of the fish. Mr BEATTIE: That is right; we are. I take the minister's interjection. We are on the side of the fish. For instance, for the first time there would be a spotted mackerel quota on commercial fishers. There are very good reasons for these proposals. We have seen concerning declines in the commercial harvest of snapper from a high of 146 tonnes in 1998 to about 80 tonnes in 2000. The commercial harvest of spotted mackerel in 2000 was more than double that of the years from 1996 to 1999. This is also concerning, because such a rate simply cannot be sustained. I have been very impressed with the constructive public comments I have heard about these proposals. Most people are aware that we cannot take our fisheries for granted. Seasoned fishers will tell you that they are not catching as many fish today as they were 10 years ago. Anyone who wants to be critical of these proposals should just go and ask someone who fishes. Queenslanders realise that they cannot assume that their grandchildren will have the pleasurable experience of cooking up their own catch. It shows that people who fish are selfless 18 Sep 2002 Ministerial Statement 3609 and far sighted, and I thank them for that. I commend them for this and encourage them to continue responding to the proposals for making our fisheries more sustainable. This is about sustainability. We have to have a vision for the future, and we are prepared to work towards achieving that vision.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Women's Round Table Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.), by leave: My Government wants to strengthen our engagement with all Queenslanders, including women and girls. The 2002 Queensland Women's Round Table, which we hosted here at Parliament House last week, highlights that commitment. The round table marked the official start of community consultations for a report called Mapping the future, which I launched during the historic parliamentary sitting in Townsville. The paper examines issues affecting Queensland women and girls now and into the future, but we want to hear from men and boys as well. The Office for Women is holding a series of consultations around the state and we are seeking feedback on the paper until 18 October. I would like to say how delighted I was with the excellent response the round table drew from community groups across the state. It was applauded by the minister, Wendy Edmond, and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health, Lindy Nelson-Carr. The parliamentary secretary and I jointly addressed a number of women here at Parliament House who had attended the round table. Some 154 people representing 71 organisations attended over the two days, including representatives from most government departments. Organisations represented included Sexual Assault Services, Indigenous Women from Thursday Island, the South Sea Islander Association from Mackay, the Older Women's Network, the Ethnic Communities Council, Agforce, Volunteering Queensland, Women at Work, Young Mothers and Young Parenting Groups, and the Youth Affairs Network. Discussions centred on health and wellbeing, education and training, supporting women who are carers, and women who are in leadership. The information gained from the round table, combined with feedback from the community, will help us form a whole-of-government agenda for Queensland women and girls. Community groups present at the round table have volunteered to undertake consultations in their areas about this discussion paper. This means we will be able to tap into their networks and gain important information from many more Queenslanders. I thank everyone who worked hard to make the round table a success, including the Office for Women and members of my Labor women's advisory group. At the forthcoming Labor Party national conference there will be a debate about the number of women who should represent the community in parliament. I had a meeting yesterday with female members of my caucus. A government member: We were delighted. Mr BEATTIE: Thank you for those kind words. I want to put clearly on record that I support an increase in the number of women in our parliaments. It is important for my party nationally to recognise that and to ensure that the rule changes to be debated in October reflect it. Women represent more than 50 per cent of the community. They have demonstrated in this parliament that they have not only made a significant improvement but they have lifted the standard of the parliament, and I for one will be arguing very strongly for a significant increase in female representation in our parliaments. Frankly, it is about time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hawke Report; Enterprise Bargaining Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.), by leave: The productivity gains that were the essence of the public sector enterprise bargaining system a decade ago have been all but exhausted. That means the current system promotes confrontation which can lead to the interruption of important services. It can mean patients being used as pawns. It can mean hospital beds being denied to sick people. No government can ignore that. 3610 Ministerial Statement 18 Sep 2002

We need to find a smart way of producing fair outcomes where everyone wins instead of slugging it out so that everyone ends up bruised. That is why the government commissioned Bob Hawke to review the system. I am delighted to announce today, along with the Minister for Industrial Relations, Gordon Nuttall, that Mr Hawke has delivered recommendations that will deliver a better system of public sector enterprise bargaining designed to produce fair outcomes for all. Cabinet had before it this report from Mr Hawke on Monday, and the minister, Gordon Nuttall, will table it for the information of the House during a ministerial statement. It will be released generally to the public and to the union movement for comment, which can extend to 14 October. The Review of Enterprise Bargaining in the Queensland Public Sector recommends a new structure that will ensure the interests of all parties, including the broader community, are taken into consideration. The report recommends a more structured bargaining system that includes a code of good faith bargaining and the establishment of a public sector panel within the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The main recommendation of the report is that collective bargaining with public sector unions continue to be the basis for determining wages and conditions for Queensland government employees. But it also recommends the implementation of a modified bargaining process under which— negotiations must start no later than three months before an agreement expires; the parties must advise the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission that negotiations in good faith have started, and update the commission of their progress two weeks before the agreement is due to expire; negotiations would then continue during a reasonable time frame in which unions can take protected industrial action, unless the commission orders that action is endangering the personal health, safety or welfare of the community; if no agreement is reached in this period, the report recommends the commission conciliate for a maximum of two weeks during which time the commission would have the power to issue orders about bargaining in good faith; and the commission would arbitrate an outcome if that conciliation had not led to an agreement. This is about balance. It is about being fair to our work force but also being fair to the community, and the government thinks there are significant things here for it to consider. I thank Bob Hawke for his expertise in preparing this report which will be tabled shortly by the Industrial Relations Minister. I look forward to consultation with the unions about producing positive outcomes from these recommendations and about achieving the balance I talked about. We will continue our dialogue with the unions over the next couple of weeks—as I said, until 14 October. I am confident that as a result of Mr Hawke's report we can negotiate an arrangement which meets the needs of the government, its employees, their unions and all Queenslanders. Having said all that, I am pleased about the successful resolution of negotiations for agreements in Queensland Health, the police and ambulance service, ambulance and fire communications, and Public Works. We are confident an agreement can be reached in Main Roads. The government is committed to negotiating pay and conditions for Queensland government employees on the basis of principles of balance and fairness. We must balance the need for fair wages and conditions with the broader public interest, including the economic and social impacts of industrial outcomes, the government's role as a major employer, and the community's needs and expectations in the provision of public services. The government is responsible for the stewardship of the state's economy and must agree to wage increases for its employees which can be afforded. I thank the minister, Gordon Nuttall, for his negotiations in relation to enterprise bargaining and the members of the CBRC for their support. The fact that we value our workers is plainly demonstrated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show that the average public sector wage increases in Queensland since enterprise bargaining began in 1994 are higher than wage movements in the private sector. These increases have been relatively uniform right across the public sector. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since August 1994 Queensland average public sector full-time adult ordinary time earnings have increased by 46.5 per cent compared with 36 per cent for the private sector. In this period, the underlying consumer price index has risen by 21 per cent. We have not been lousy. 18 Sep 2002 Ministerial Statement 3611

The wage cost index, which is based on total hourly rates of pay, excluding bonuses, is the most reliable measure of wages growth because it is not affected by changes in the quality and quantity of work performed and excludes structural changes. The cumulative public sector wage cost index increase since 1997 is 17.5 per cent, compared with the private sector increase of 14.4 per cent. I will distribute to all members of the House a briefing that I have received from Treasury in relation to public sector wage movements in Queensland and also some graphs attached to it, which outline very clearly what the wage movements are. Because of time reasons, I seek to include those in Hansard, together with the rest of my ministerial statement. Leave granted. SUBJECT Public sector wage movements in Queensland. BACKGROUND Queensland average public sector wages increases over the period since the commencement of enterprise bargaining in 1994 are higher than wage movements in the private sector. Public sector wage movements have been relatively uniform across the sector and across different occupational groups, whereas the private sector exhibits significantly greater divergence between occupations. Since 1994 cumulative "headline" wage outcomes for public servants are in the range 25-37% (Department of Industrial Relations). The underlying Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased 21% over this period (Australian Bureau of Statistics cat. 6401.0). In addition to these "headline" increases, changes to classification structures and enhancements to conditions of employment have contributed to public sector wages growth of 1-11/2% per annum. Total growth in public sector wages is significantly higher than the private sector for the period; since August 1994 Queensland average public sector full time adult ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) have increased by 46.5% compared with 36% for the private sector (Australian Bureau of Statistics):

Full time adult ordinary time earnings - Queensland

150.0

145.0

140.0

135.0

130.0 Private 125.0 Public 120.0

115.0

110.0

105.0

100.0

Aug.1994Feb.1995Aug.1995Feb.1996Aug.1996Feb.1997 Aug.1997Feb.1998Aug.1998Feb.1999Aug.1999Feb.2000Aug.2000Feb.2001Aug.2001Feb.2002

The Wage Cost Index (WCI) is based on total hourly rates of pay excluding bonuses and is the most reliable measure of wages growth because it is not affected by changes in the quality and quantity of work performed (ie excludes structural changes). Since 1997 cumulative public sector WCI in Queensland is 17.5%, compared with the private sector WCI increase of 14.4%. For 2001-02 the WCI for the public sector in Queensland was 3.7% compared with the 3.0% for the private sector (Australian Bureau of Statistics cat. 6345.0). 3612 Ministerial Statement 18 Sep 2002

Wage Cost Index (WCI) Queensland from Sep 1997

120.0

118.0

116.0

114.0

112.0 Private 110.0 Public 108.0

106.0

104.0

102.0

100.0

Sep.1997Dec.1997Mar.1998Jun.1998Sep.1998Dec.1998Mar.1999Jun.1999Sep.1999Dec.1999Mar.2000Jun.2000Sep.2000Dec.2000Mar.2001Jun.2001Sep.2001Dec.2001Mar.2002Jun.2002

In the public sector, large professional groups such as teachers and nurses have set the pace for private sector wages in these occupations. Further, public sector pay rates for many relatively low-skilled employees are significantly higher than comparable private sector rates, and the gap continues to widen.

Wage Cost Index (WCI) Sector by Occupation, from Sep 1997

118.0

117.0

116.0

115.0

114.0 Private 113.0 Public 112.0

111.0

110.0

109.0

108.0

All

Managers Ass. Profs. Int. clerical Labourers Adv. clerical Basic clerical Professionals Tradepersons Int. production

It seems unlikely that these higher public sector wage increases have been accompanied by more rapid structural change, or are justified by greater increases in productivity than has occurred in the private sector over the same period. As indicated in BN 15668.02, increases in real wages above growth in labour productivity will increase labour costs per unit of output, ultimately reducing growth and employment.

RECOMMENDATION That you note the key aspects of Queensland public sector wage movements since 1994. 18 Sep 2002 Ministerial Statement 3613

The government and its employees and their unions will not always share the same views about the fairness of wages and conditions. This can sometimes result in public disagreements and industrial disputation. We have been, and remain committed to, work in a co-operative manner with the Public Sector Unions and employees to resolve those disagreements. We value our relationship with the union movement. On Thursday, 12 September the Minister for Industrial Relations held a lock-up of senior officers of the Government and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union to try and break the impasse in the negotiations. Throughout a long day of negotiations both sides showed a great deal of good faith and flexibility in looking at the problems with which we were confronted. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Gordon Nuttall and all those involved for reaching an "in- principle" agreement. And I thank the Cabinet Budget Review Committee for its speedy and effective decision making. The union will put this in principle agreement to delegates, seeking their support in recommending the package to members. The package would give Queensland Ambulance Service employees a 3.8% salary increase every 13 months over a 39-month period. This averages out to a 3.5% per annum salary increase. The agreement also involves improvements in career structures and shift work allowances. If agreed in a ballot, the first increase will take effect from 1 July 2002. The agreement continues to build on the partnership that this Government and the union have developed in recent years. That partnership recognises the valuable role ambulance workers perform for the community. As part of that partnership process, this agreement will give approximately 2,200 ambulance employees a fair salary increase, while ensuring that Queensland continues to have an excellent ambulance service. Last Friday, the Government and the police union agreed to wage increases of 3.5% per annum and improvements to the career structure for senior constables and sergeants. Once again, I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations for his outstanding efforts in negotiating a five year agreement which meets both the needs of the police service and the police union. I thank the police union negotiators for the goodwill which they showed in this difficult process. 1. On 22 August 2002, Mr Nuttall and senior Government officials met with the health unions in a concerted effort to resolve the enterprise bargaining dispute and finalise an agreement. 2. At that meeting, unions were advised that the Government could not move beyond the existing offer of 3.5% per annum. 3. The last outstanding issues were resolved. 4. That offer was still for 3.5% per annum although the payments were restructured to make the offer more attractive, especially to the lower paid. 5. That offer was for increases of 3.8% or $25 per week for each 13 months of the agreement. 6. The agreement will span a period of 39 months. 7. In QBuild, negotiations have been finalised for the blue collar workers. 8. This also involved increases of 3.8% or $25 per week for each 13 months of the agreement. 9. The agreement will span a period of 39 months. 10. It also includes some improvements to their superannuation. This agreement will now go to ballot. White collar employees in State Government Security, Project Services and QBuild have settled on the basis of a 16-month agreement operating from 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2003, with a 3% increase on 1 July 2002 and a further 1% on 1 January 2003. We have also reached agreement with the United Firefighters' Union which has accepted an offer of 3.5% or $23 and a roll-over of the current agreement for communications officers in Ambulance and Fire Communications. The parties are close to an agreement in Main Roads and we expect to be able to announce that soon. I am disappointed that we have been unable to reach agreement with the Nurses' Union. We made what we believed was a reasonable offer which recognised the need to attract and retain nurses. We value the contribution and work of our nurses. When this was unacceptable to the union, we agreed to conciliation in the Federal Commission. Again the Government was prepared to accept the recommendation of Commissioner Bacon. The Nurses' Union would not. The matter is now being arbitrated and we will accept the umpire's decision. 3614 Ministerial Statement 18 Sep 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hawke Report; Enterprise Bargaining Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.48 a.m.), by leave: The government and the trade union movement have agreed the current enterprise bargaining system in the public sector in Queensland is seriously out of date. We are currently faced with a system that rewards the squeakiest wheel and promotes confrontation, but, worse still, is impacting on the community's expectations of high quality and reliable public services. As the Premier just outlined, the Report of the Review of Enterprise Bargaining in the Queensland Public Sector recommends a modified approach to enterprise bargaining that ensures that the interests of all parties, including the broader community, are taken into consideration. It recommends a more structured bargaining system that is complemented by a code of good faith bargaining and the establishment of a public sector panel within the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. It also recommends— The government begins negotiations with public sector unions on the development of a "code of good faith negotiations"; and A specialist public sector panel consisting of a maximum of five commissioners be established in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to hear and determine public sector industrial matters. The Hon. Bob Hawke—a former Australian Prime Minister and ACTU president—has also recommended more structured discussions between departments and the trade union movement. The director-general of my department and senior officers would meet formally with the Queensland Council of Unions and the Australian Workers Union at least four times a year to discuss broad industrial issues affecting the Queensland public sector. In addition, the chief executives of each government agency and the secretaries of unions with coverage in that agency would also meet formally at least four times a year to consider issues specific to that agency. As the Premier just said, the report will be forwarded to the major unions this morning for their consideration and consultation, and for the information of all honourable members of the House I now table the report. I believe that this report goes a long way to balancing the rights of unions with the expectations of the broader community and will produce fairer outcomes for all involved. I would like to thank the Hon. Bob Hawke for his efforts in preparing this report, and I look forward to updating the House on the outcomes of these recommendations in the near future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Glenala State High School Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.50 a.m.), by leave: I would like to draw to the attention of members an innovative school that is a fine example for the Smart State. This school's achievements will leave no doubt that Smart State is alive and well in Queensland. The school I am referring to is Glenala State High School, which has representatives in the gallery this morning. Glenala State High School is a Smart State school to be applauded for preparing to become one of Queensland's first schools to reach a formal agreement with the local community to improve educational opportunities for their indigenous students. The program was developed as part of the state government's Partners for Success strategy, initiated under my predecessor, the Hon. Dean Wells, to help indigenous students make the most of their schooling experience. Glenala State High School has one of the largest indigenous populations in a Brisbane high school. The Partners for Success agreement presents the community with key challenges to manage, including the need to improve student learning and retention rates and to increase job and training opportunities. Initiatives include increasing the number of indigenous workers in the school, a buddy system for year 12 and year 8 students and home visits to provide support. Glenala State High School is also to be applauded for its ICT program. Last week the member for Inala and I launched the Glenala State High School Finding the On-ramp to the Technology Superhighway laptop project. The project was funded under my colleague Minister Schwarten's Department of Housing's Community Renewal Program. I congratulate my colleague for his foresight with this innovative program. This project shows that community renewal is about 18 Sep 2002 Ministerial Statement 3615 much more than bricks and mortar and painting fences. Those who think that is all it is about should be listening to what Glenala State High School is doing with this program. Under the program Glenala State High School received $410,000 towards the purchase of 143 laptops and the employment of a technician to support the project. Under the project all year 8 students will have access to a laptop computer to use at school and to take home after hours. Glenala State High School is in the suburb of Inala, which is characterised by a diverse multicultural population of limited economic means. About 20 per cent of Inala residents access computers at home, compared to 64 per cent in some other Brisbane suburbs. The laptop project will help bridge the digital divide for students. It will also benefit the community. During school holidays the laptops will be available for community groups to access and use either on or off the campus. Parents and community members can also attend education classes at the school to improve their own ICT skills and to support their children. Year 8 is the focus of the project, to ensure students starting high school master ICT skills, setting them up for high school life and beyond. Finally, Glenala State High School is a Smart State school to be applauded for its links with local industry. The school is working with Sycamore Youth Service and the Brisbane City Council to establish a joint coffee shop venture adjacent to the Inala Arts Gallery. The purpose of the venture is to provide students with local industry hospitality experience and further enhance partnerships between the school and the local community. The school also employs a work education coordinator, who liaises with employers and industry groups such as the Retail Association of Queensland to provide apprenticeships, traineeships and industry placements for students. I am sure members will join with me in applauding this Smart State school's efforts, particularly the leadership of its principal, Patrea Walton, and her dedicated staff to become a supportive, integral part of its community. Well done, Glenala State High School. Your work puts paid to the sceptics who lack your faith that Queensland can be the Smart State of Australia.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Informed Consent, Health Care Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.54 a.m.), by leave: When a patient is faced with the prospect of surgery, some of the natural anxiety they might feel can be lessened if they receive information enabling them to make educated decisions about their health care. Queensland Health has been conducting a trial project through Ipswich Hospital which aims to give patients access to an even greater range of information before they have treatment. Information sheets, 280 standard procedure-specific consent forms and a video are available to assist patients to make educated decisions. These forms are being used at Ipswich as part of the trial, with Mackay, Princess Alexandra and Rockhampton hospitals to follow. We expect that they will be in use across the state by the middle of next year. The consent forms are now available on Queensland Health's intranet and Internet sites for patients, medical practitioners and other health care providers. There are also 13 patient information sheets for high-risk procedures, with 10 now available on the Internet. They cover anaesthetics, bowel cancer surgery, breast cancer surgery, colonoscopy, hysterectomy, inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, female sterilisation, total hip replacement and total knee replacement. Patients can also access a brochure called Be informed: 12 important questions to ask about your surgery, which is available in eight languages from district health services or the Internet. To assist hearing or literacy impaired patients, we have made a Be Informed video, which is available through 200 public libraries, health districts and via the Internet. Queensland is leading the way in this area, and these publications are aimed at providing information to patients after they have been referred to a surgeon but before they attend the consultation. They let the patient know about the type of information they need to be able to make the best decision about their health care. It helps to ensure that patients are true partners in this decision making and reduces the risk of misunderstandings that could lead to litigation. This is an important project being carried out by Queensland Health which will benefit thousands of ordinary Queenslanders. I commend my department for its efforts. 3616 Ministerial Statement 18 Sep 2002

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Mitsui Coal Holdings Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.56 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to be able to share details regarding my Department of State Development's discussions with Mitsui Coal Holdings Pty Limited to establish offices in Queensland. From 1 October 2002, Mitsui Coal Holdings Pty Limited will establish its Brisbane office on level 8 of Waterfront Place. The current Mitsui office on the 15th floor will remain as is and will not join this office. Mitsui is the world's largest international trading company, with worldwide consolidated sales of over $A200 billion to March 2001. Mitsui employs over 11,000 people in 218 cities in 93 countries. It is also the leading Japanese trading house in the iron ore and coal business. Mitsui is also the largest foreign company in Australia and the second largest exporter in Australia. This is a very positive and significant step forward. I was advised of this exciting development last week during my visit to Mitsui in Tokyo. Senior officials from my Department of State Development, via the Queensland Government Trade and Investment Office, recently received confirmation that next week senior executives from Mitsui Japan will be in town to finalise arrangements for the new office. Mr Tamotsu Sato will run the operation in Brisbane. He is currently scheduled to be in Brisbane by the start of October. MCH will recruit at least an additional four Queensland staff for the new office, largely being senior executives with experience in open cut and underground mining operations. That makes a total of seven employees for the new office, and the company expects those numbers to increase further down the track as operations ramp up. Mitsui is certainly no stranger to Queensland. In addition to the Moura mine and the interests it has acquired recently in the German Creek mine and reserves in Theodore, Dawson and Taroom, Mitsui also has interests in Kestral, 20 per cent, with Rio Tinto having the other 80 per cent; Riverside, 20 per cent, with BHP Billiton having the other 80 per cent; and South Walker Creek, 20 per cent, with BHP Billiton having the other 80 per cent. The Moura mine was the first coal mine in Queensland specifically developed for the purpose of exporting coal, and Mitsui has been involved in the Moura mine since its original development in 1961.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Bunk Beds, Mandatory Safety Standards Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (9.59 a.m.), by leave: Bunk beds have been identified as a significant cause of serious injury in the home, especially to young children. Injuries are mainly due to falls, and almost half of these result in fractures or concussion. The most serious hazard can result in the child being hanged in gaps that allow the body through but trap the child's head. Accident reports show that about 50 per cent of bunk bed injuries are due to falls from the top bunk during the night, 44 per cent to falls from the top bunk while playing and 6 per cent from falls getting up to or down from the top bunk. Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit data reveals that between 1998 and 2001 bunk beds were associated with 450 injuries to children under 15 years of age. A girl, 10, tragically died on the Sunshine Coast earlier this year from head injuries she received after falling from a top bunk. There is an existing Australian standard for bunk beds but compliance is voluntary and there has been a low level of compliance. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs agreed last year to support introduction of a mandatory safety standard for the beds. All bunk beds sold in Queensland from 1 November will have to meet these mandatory safety standards. This will minimise the risk of falling, entrapment and hanging through the use of a guardrail around the four sides of the top bunk and elimination of protrusion hazards and unsafe gaps. The key issues in terms of compliance are no gaps anywhere in the bunk bed above 600 millimetres from the floor between 95 millimetres and 230 millimetres—to reduce the incidence of head entrapment; there must be a guardrail at least 160 millimetres above the top of the mattress on all four sides of the upper bed—that meets the gap requirements in the above point—to prevent falls; and there must be no protrusions over 8 millimetres—this will reduce the risk of hanging as a result of clothing becoming caught on the protrusions. 18 Sep 2002 Ministerial Statement 3617

This is a good safety standard. It will have a significant impact on reducing injuries with new bunk beds in the longer term. However, as older bunk beds will probably not be as safe as newer ones, consumers with these beds in their homes need to think about taking steps to increase safety. They should consider fitting a safe guardrail without dangerous gaps as a safety barrier to stop a child from falling from the top bunk and to prevent entrapment. They should also remove any protrusions, particularly any hooks. As a general rule, no child under six years should be placed in a top bunk. Properly attached ladders are important to provide safe access to and from the top bunk, especially during the night. The Office of Fair Trading will be coordinating an immediate campaign to advise owners of existing bunk beds how to make them safer in both a commercial and domestic environment. We will also be vigilant in ensuring that traders comply with the safety requirements. Supplying goods that do not comply with a mandatory standard is an offence under the Fair Trading Act 1989 and may result in fines up to $40,500 for individuals and up to $202,500 for a corporation.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Condamine-Balonne Water Resource Planning Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.02 a.m.), by leave: At a public meeting at Dirranbandi on 18 July, the Premier agreed to commission an independent review of the science underpinning government water resource planning in the Condamine-Balonne section of the Queensland Murray-Darling basin. This review is being conducted to address perceptions that the science being relied upon by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines in its water resource planning needs improvement to provide the certainty required by irrigators to finalise the water resource plan for the Condamine-Balonne. The review is being conducted by an independent scientific review panel chaired by Professor Peter Cullen, an internationally recognised expert on water reform who recently retired as chief executive officer of the Cooperative Research Centre for Fresh Water Ecology. A community reference group of stakeholders, chaired by Leith Boully, a local cotton grower and chair of the Murray-Darling basin Community Council, has been established to work in conjunction with the review panel and will provide it with community and stakeholder input through the review process. At the Clunies Ross centre at the Brisbane Technology Park in my electorate of Stretton, Professor Cullen and his team will today convene the first of several two-day workshops to receive scientific information and submissions from the public, government agencies, scientific organisations and industry and interest groups. Professor Cullen and other panel members will then undertake a field inspection of the Lower Balonne River system by aircraft this Friday and Saturday. A second two-day workshop will be convened by the scientific review panel during October to consider and evaluate information received in submissions, followed by a final workshop several weeks later. This independent scientific review is evidence of the Beattie government's commitment to ensuring that the Lower Balonne communities have a long-term sustainable future. I also take this opportunity to urge all interested stakeholders to play a positive role in the review so that the water resource planning process can be finalised in the near future. I also take this opportunity to remind all stakeholders who attended the Dirranbandi meeting that all parties have agreed to abide by the decision of this independent umpire.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: It is with great pleasure that I inform the House of the latest developments in relation to the payment of the 2002-03 Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants to Queensland councils. It is good news for Queensland's councils. The grant, totalling $274 million this year, is a significant source of revenue for many councils and is distributed on the recommendation of the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission. As members would be aware, I have been engaged in negotiations with the federal Minister for Local Government, Wilson Tuckey, about an appropriate distribution of this year's grant, pending the completion of a review by our commission of the methodology used. My position, 3618 Ministerial Statement 18 Sep 2002 and the position of this government, has been, and remains, that until the review is completed councils should receive at least the same amount this year as they received last year. Queensland councils share my view, and overwhelmingly demonstrated this in a resolution passed at the recent Local Government Association annual conference. The Queensland Grants Commission also supports this view and recommended a grant distribution for 2002-03 in which no council receives less than it received in 2001-02. After agreeing to this for the first half of this financial year, Mr Tuckey wanted a new methodology to apply for the second half of this financial year. This would have resulted in difficulties for some councils, given that they would have already adopted their budgets based on receiving the same grant as they received last year. However, in response to my repeated requests, Mr Tuckey has now informed me that he is prepared to rethink his second approach and consider agreeing to our recommended grant distribution for the whole of 2002-03 rather than just the first six months, as he previously approved. Mr Tuckey has said that his reconsideration of the issue is dependent upon the Queensland commission finalising its review by 31 December 2002, with the new methodology applying from 1 July 2003—a commitment that I have given on many occasions. The commission has informed me that its draft report is scheduled for release in early October 2002 and will aim to produce a final report by 31 December 2002. Mr Tuckey's change of heart is good news for Queensland councils. It indicates that he is finally listening to the comments and approach of the Queensland government and Queensland councils. He is listening to the position that I have been putting to him since February. Councils now have hope for budget stability in this financial year. My stand has always been that I wanted an assurance from Mr Tuckey that no Queensland council would lose any of its grants this year. I also wanted time to complete our new methodology, with the necessary time to consult with our councils prior to its phasing in on 1 July 2003.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fires and Vehicle Accidents, Community Cost Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.09 a.m.), by leave: Details collected by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service reveal that an estimated $150 million worth of property was lost to fire in the last financial year. The bulk of this loss occurred in 2,494 structural fires attended by fire crews. But while that property loss may seem high, I would like to inform the House that quick intervention by Queensland fire crews assisted in saving property worth an estimated $8.69 billion in the same period. The figures were collected from data provided to fire officers as they attended almost 60,000 emergency calls during the 2001-02 financial year. We all know that our firefighters are among the best in the world, and the value of property saved by crews just gives a small indication of their true worth to all Queenslanders. I think members may also be interested to know that firefighters responded to more than 7,000 road crashes in the recently completed financial year—a record for the state's Fire and Rescue Service. While firefighters are well known for their life-saving work with fires and carrying out fire safety prevention, it is not always obvious to the public just how many accidents and rescues firefighters attend each year. Data shows that in the 2001-02 financial year, fire crews responded to a total of 7,020 rescues and emergencies involving vehicles. That is an average of 19 road crashes a day, every day, for the past 12 months. To give an indication of the workload of car accidents, in the same 12-month period fire crews responded to fewer than 2,500 home, factory and other structural fires. Sadly, the statistics also show that the number of road accidents the QFRS is responding to each year is on the rise. In fact, there has been an 18 per cent increase since the previous financial year when fire crews attended to just under 6,000 road accidents. The QFRS has recognised this growing need and there are now almost 250 fire and rescue vehicles—more than half of the state's urban fire fleet—fitted with the jaws of life rescue equipment. I am sure that it goes without saying that the cost to the community through these crashes is very high. Tragically, every one of these accidents sends a shock wave through the families and friends of those killed or injured. They also have a devastating impact on the emergency services and a range of other groups. This is particularly so in smaller regional centres when often the firefighters, ambulance, paramedics and other emergency service workers are called to crashes generally involving fellow community members. 18 Sep 2002 Private Members' Statements 3619

Queensland firefighters recognised the need to address this rise in road accidents and a few years ago introduced a landmark school based road safety program aimed at young adult drivers. The Road Awareness and Accident Prevention Program—known as RAAP—has been expanded so far that in the last financial year a record 25,169 year 12 students—that is more than 63 per cent of the total number—received the program's simple, commonsense and concentrated messages. The feedback from this program by students, teachers and the emergency service groups involved has been very positive and already other states and territories are interested in adopting the Queensland program into their jurisdictions. I am also pleased to report that in recent years there has also been a slight drop in the number of deaths and injuries recorded in the age groups of young motorists targeted by this program. Hopefully, that trend will continue.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.12 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing or sessional orders for this day's sitting, the House can continue to meet past 7.30 p.m. Private members' motions will be debated between 6 and 7 p.m. The House can then break for dinner and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. Government business will take precedence for the remainder of the day's sitting except for a 30-minute adjournment debate. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.12 a.m.): I note that my Care of Terminally-Ill Patients Bill has now matured and is due for debate. I am currently having discussions with the Attorney- General in relation to the contents of my bill and, in view of the these ongoing discussions, I do not wish to bring the bill forward for debate at this stage. Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION Property Rights Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.13 a.m.): I give notice that tonight I will move— That this parliament acknowledges and recognises the legitimate property rights of all Queensland private land- holders and calls on the Beattie government to provide compensation from the money it already receives in the form of national competition policy payments if those property rights are diminished and reduced by state government regulation.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Queensland Investment Corporation Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.13 a.m.): I have often spoken in this parliament about the two massive budget deficits that we have seen over the past two budgets. Going back to the year 2000-01, there was a loss of some $880 million. In the last financial year, there was an operating deficit of about $486 million. In combination with that is the serious concern that we have about the diminishing performance of the Queensland Investment Corporation under the oversight of the Treasurer, Mr Mackenroth. In response to questions during the year on the performance of that investment Corporation following the budget prediction of a 7.8 per cent return—a 7.8 per cent return that the Treasurer put into the budget—in answers to questions the Treasurer said that in July it made minus 1.74 per cent; in August, minus 1.82 per cent; in September, minus 3.4 per cent; and then in October it made 3.2 per cent; in November, 2.8 per cent; and in December, 2.1 per cent. Then in January, it made minus 0.4 per cent; and in February, minus 0.7 per cent. This was the time at which the Treasurer was then predicting that there would be a five per cent return for the year. Then in March the Treasurer said that it would make a return of 2.54 per cent. Then he told us that the overall result for the year would be 2.45 per cent. Then in April, the figure was minus 2.56 per cent, and in May it was minus 0.07 per cent. We have since learned from answers to questions on notice that the actual result for the year was minus five per cent—not the zero per cent that we were told about at budget time. So there has actually been almost a 13 per cent decline—from 7.8 per cent down to minus five per cent. 3620 Private Members' Statements 18 Sep 2002

What is going to happen to people's superannuation funds, particularly those with accumulation accounts? Those people are seeing their assets decline. What is going to happen to the reserves of this state when money has to be continually taken out of the state's reserves to overcome these massive deficits that are occurring under this incompetent Treasurer? Time expired.

Charter Boat Industry Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.14 a.m.): Two weeks ago the Australian Taxation Office handed down a draft ruling that, if implemented, will have dire consequences for the future of Australia's charter boat industry. This matter is particularly important in my electorate as the charter boat industry largely underpins the success of the Whitsundays as a tourism destination. The draft ruling seeks to amend the existing section 26-50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and would, in effect, prevent boat owners, who on-lease or hire out their vessels, from claiming related expenses, interest and depreciation through the taxation system. The ruling not only prevents boat owners from claiming their expenses as legitimate business deductions into the future but also it will be retrospective, requiring owners to repay moneys claimed over the past four years. I fail to see how entering into a hire arrangement with a boat is any less a legitimate business activity than negative gearing an investment property. The potential consequences of this ruling are breathtaking in their dimensions. At a national level, we stand to lose up to $250 million in annual economic output, up to 2,000 jobs could disappear and our boat manufacturing and tourism industries could incur permanent damage. The true irony of this decision is that it comes exactly 12 months after the twin events of September last year that saw our tourism industry suffer a major blow. In the Whitsundays, we have managed to fight our way back, but I doubt that we could recover from the consequence of this ruling, which would affect up to 95 per cent of our charter fleet. Should this ruling stand, we would see significant job losses involving those directly employed in the charter industry as well as those providing support services. Our marina development program would grind to a halt and our fledgling Queensland Marine Academy would be placed in jeopardy. Like Minister Rose, I have written to the federal Treasurer, Tourism Minister and Minister for Industry. I urge each and every member in the House today who cares about the future of our tourism industry to take up their pens and follow suit. This ruling must be overturned and I seek the bipartisan support of those opposite to achieve this goal. To fail is an outcome too horrendous to contemplate.

Mr M. Williams Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.17 a.m.): As a result of delays in the judicial system, a family in my electorate is being traumatised again. On 16 February 2000, Marcus Williams disappeared in the gulf during a commercial diving operation near Sweers Island while putting in mooring anchorages for zinc boats. The coroner's inquiry was originally to be held at Mount Isa, but was transferred to Cairns. The family was advised that the matter would be heard over a two-day period commencing on 6 August 2002 at 9 a.m. The family travelled to Cairns, arrived at the court and were advised that the magistrate was too busy to hear the matter. Some pressure was applied and the magistrate agreed that he would allocate half an hour. Subsequently, he agreed to two hours. That time was extended to almost three hours and then it was adjourned to an unknown date, possibly November, if one is available. The wife of Marcus—the daughter-in-law of the resident in my electorate—had to travel from Melbourne. Legal representation for the family had to travel from Brisbane. As well, witnesses from other parts of Australia also had to travel to Cairns. This family is now looking for a definitive allocation of a date and a time to ensure not only that economic travel arrangements can be made but also that they know that this case will be heard for sure so that, as a family, they can have some closure on what has been a very sad chapter in their lives. There does not appear to be any reason why this matter cannot be dealt with expeditiously. I look forward to the Attorney-General being able to take some interest in the matter to ensure some finality for this family. 18 Sep 2002 Private Members' Statements 3621

Townsville Football Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (10.20 a.m.): Two weeks ago it was imperative that I remind my parliamentary colleagues who took part in the historic Townsville sitting that they had indeed arrived in paradise—not only paradise but a city with everything. I know that all members will agree with me. Mr Purcell: Hear, hear! Ms NELSON-CARR: Thank you. I feel it is incumbent upon me today to repeat my cry. All members have been witness to our wonderful region; but not only do we have weather that symbolises paradise for most of the year, we have the best home grown talent members are ever likely to see. An opposition member interjected. Ms NELSON-CARR: I think the flu was brought to Townsville and you infected the whole region! We have the Cowboys, we have the Barras, we have the Fire, we have swimming sensations, we have the trots, we have international darts champions and we have the Crocodiles, in whose home the parliament sat. Despite reports from our southern counterparts, there was not a scoreboard or sweaty singlet in sight. Score—1 for Townsville and 0 for southern media. Today I rise to congratulate my local football team, who played a spectacular grand final on Sunday. Centrals made the Townsville and District Rugby League grand final day their own. They achieved a clean sweep of premierships at the sports reserve. The Tigers claimed their third A-grade premiership since 1997 with a deserved 26-12 victory, condemning arch rivals Brothers to a sixth grand final defeat in as many appearances since 1996. It was a fabulous game played before a packed and excited crowd, another demonstration of support by the Townsville community, who turn out in droves to take part in community events. As patron of Centrals Football Club, it was great to witness a momentous game and a momentous day in which they won premierships in all three grades. I know all agree with me that Townsville is a very special place, but on Sunday it was Centrals' day. Up the mighty Tigers!

Speed Cameras Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (10.21 a.m.): The use of speed cameras in Queensland is in need of urgent review. Speed cameras along with other speed detection devices can be an important tool in the effort to increase road safety and to reduce the road toll. Every member of this House would support that end, just as I believe every member of the community would support greater road safety. It is becoming increasingly obvious, however, that the admirable primary function of speed cameras as a road safety tool has been overtaken by their ability to contribute to the government's revenue stream. The way in which the speed cameras are being operated has destroyed community confidence in the road safety effort. The community needs confidence that the speed cameras are being operated in a way that will most effectively reduce the incidence of dangerous driving and the horrific road toll. That community confidence has been lost. There needs to be an immediate independent audit of the way speed cameras are used in this state to ensure their deployment has the maximum effect on the road toll. That independent review needs to first examine how the cameras are currently being used. Evidence that has come to light this week certainly reinforces the emerging community view that they are still being used as revenue raisers and that the guidelines set down for their operation are being ignored. I table a series of photographs of speed cameras being operated in a manner that clearly is in breach of those guidelines. I also table for the benefit of all members a copy of the guidelines within which the Police Service is supposed to operate the speed cameras, which are clearly being breached. This document also refers to a minimum requirement for police to operate those cameras. That is despite the Minister for Police assuring this House that there are no set quotas for speed infringement notices. That confirms that the minister cannot be trusted with the operation of these cameras. The temptation to use them as revenue raisers is just too great for a cash-strapped government. We need an independent audit to ensure that these cameras are most effectively used to reduce road trauma in the community and not to raise revenue for the government.

Frank Street, Labrador Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (10.24 a.m.): I rise today to speak about Frank Street. Frank Street runs off Brisbane Road in my electorate into the electorate of my parliamentary colleague the member for Southport. Frank Street is the preferred route for residents and visitors who travel 3622 Private Members' Statements 18 Sep 2002 to Southport and Surfers Paradise. It is also home to many who live along it. As urban renewal and development have encouraged new residential apartment construction and a renewed interest in the Labrador area, the traffic congestion on Frank Street and the surrounding streets has increased. With an unfortunate lack of parking facilities in an area that has much to offer to the public, changes are needed to Frank Street to help alleviate the traffic congestion and address the safety concerns raised by residents. Recently I announced to my electorate that the Department of Main Roads will undertake community consultation to look at Frank Street. In the coming weeks residents will receive a newsletter from PPK Consulting outlining the consultation phases. It is disappointing that the Labrador-Biggera Waters Progress Association cannot understand the need for the government to consult with the community. Instead, it appears the association would prefer that the government take the association's word as that of the people who live along Frank Street and the rest of the community. Not surprisingly, Councillor Margaret Grummet has not accepted good advice when it is given. It appears that the council is happy to approve development access to Frank Street, knowing full well that this will increase the amount of traffic using the already busy Frank Street. Council is part of the consultation and Mrs Grummet is well aware of this. Community consultation is important and, as I have discovered over the past week, this is an issue that will affect those who live along Frank Street just as much as those who travel along it. As such, there has been a wide range of views represented. The intersection of Broad and Frank Streets is an area that I have highlighted to the minister and the department, as traffic flow in this area is restricted by the pedestrian lights. However, it is imperative that the whole of Frank Street is looked at to ensure a design is reached that will better serve the whole community. I will continue to work closely with the minister, the department, the member for Southport and the local residents on the Frank Street project and will continue to represent my constituents on this matter very strongly and responsibly. Residents can continue— Time expired.

Caloundra Health Services Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (10.26 a.m.): I would like to read into Hansard a letter from a mother from Dicky Beach in Caloundra which highlights the appalling state of our health system in Queensland, particularly in Nambour General Hospital and the Caloundra Hospital. It is an indictment of the current minister. The woman said— I, Annette Dwarte of 9 Sutherland Street, Dicky Beach, wish to lodge a complaint about the Nambour General Hospital system. Sunday 18-8-02. My nine year old son cut his foot in a park. He had a piece of glass lodged in his foot and I took him to the Caloundra Emergency Department where he was x-rayed, and told to bring him back Monday morning. Monday 19-08-02. I then arrived back at Caloundra Hospital 9 a.m. and was told to take him to Nambour Hospital. We arrived at Nambour 11 a.m. with my son's x-ray. We sat waiting until my son was seen by a doctor at 5 p.m. who sent him for an ultrasound and give pain killers. I was then to told to fast my son from 12 p.m. Monday night, ready for Tuesday. Tuesday 20-08-02. Arrived at Nambour Hospital 7 a.m. with my nine year old son and five year old daughter. We sat in emergency until lunch time. Then son was seen by a doctor who sent us to children ward to wait. My son was getting hungry, so I spoke to the staff and had told them that he had fasted from 12 p.m. last night. They then put a drip in his arm and told to wait. 5.30 p.m. came and we were told a four hour wait. The waiting and the stress had taken me enough, so I got my children and left. My children had had enough. My son had not eaten for over 24 hours. Wednesday 21-8-02. My son was taken to the Currimundi Medical Centre and the glass was removed in one hour. Relief for my son. Something needs to be done about the Nambour Hospital system. It stinks. People walking out at the long list— Time expired.

Hinterlink Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): The Hinterlink is here. Last Monday I launched a new community bus service for the Gold Coast hinterland. The Hinterlink is an innovative response to the problem of providing public transport in outlying suburbs along the fringes of residential developments. I have been working on this issue for almost two years since it was first brought to my attention that public transport was lacking on the western side of the Pacific Highway. I have surveyed over 2,000 residents. I met with community groups and constituents and I undertook extensive research to identify demand and to seek solutions. Local operator Surfside Buslines responded quickly and willingly to the problem when provided with the research and the evidence. They are to be congratulated for their initiative and commitment. CEO Luke Grey and operations manager David Bischara have come up with a brilliant system—a small, dedicated 24-seat transporter which travels four routes through Mudgeeraba, Tallai and 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3623

Worongary six days a week. Morning services are scheduled and are on a hail and ride basis and link travellers to the existing route 2 service, which will then get them out to the wider Gold Coast or even on to the Brisbane train. In the afternoon the Hinterlink meets the route 2 bus and returns residents almost to their door—and all for $1.50 a trip. Two dedicated bus drivers will ensure consistency and provide a caring and attentive service for the residents. The Hinterlink is a pilot program which, if successful, Surfside hope to repeat in other parts of the Gold Coast. Members might like to pay attention, because it could even be a blueprint for all the other operators in Queensland to address the need for services in outlying suburbs and hinterland areas. The service has been received very well. The launch went very well. The Hinterlink is becoming a popular and recognisable feature of the landscape. It has great patronage. But the words of local resident Brett Marr, a spritely older gent who no longer drives, best sums up the service. He said on the day that he was a prisoner in his own home and was trapped until the Hinterlink came along. Time expired.

Country Race Clubs Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (10.29 a.m.): Many country race clubs are about to be closed down. The Minister for Racing has mouthed platitudes in this House that she supports country racing. The minister clearly has misled the parliament and the wider community. The Beattie government and the minister should shoulder the blame for closing down country racing and not blame everybody else. I remind government members that Wayne Goss tried to close down a few country railways. The government is about to close down dozens of race clubs across Queensland. If it thought closing down a few railways was big, it should see the result of this. I am pleased that the Minister for Police supports me in this. When told that the Mount Isa race club might be closed down, the minister said, 'Over my dead body.' We are with the minister. We do not want race clubs closed down. We want him to support us in the cabinet to make sure that country race clubs keep going. They are the social fabric of all rural communities. We want to make sure that country races keep going. This minister and this government are prepared to spend $64 million a year on all sorts of foreign companies—Macquarie Bank and Time Warner—yet they will not put one red cent into country racing. That is disgraceful. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Queensland Investment Corporation Mr HORAN (10.31 a.m.): I refer the Premier to the conservative and very successful investment policy historically followed by the Queensland Investment Corporation of not taking more than a five per cent stake in any company, and I ask: can he confirm that QIC diverted from this policy to take a 10 per cent stake in Macquarie Airports, a company whose net worth has plunged 70 per cent since its listing in April? Is this not more evidence that government interference is affecting the QIC's investment performance, and why is his government putting the superannuation funds of Queensland's public servants at greater risk? Mr BEATTIE: No, I cannot confirm that, because the QIC operates as an independent investment arm. The government does not interfere, has not interfered and will never interfere. Very simply, it is an investment arm and we do not interfere. The suggestion in the question that there has been government interference is not true. It is not only not true; it is untrue. Therefore, it is not only not true; it is untrue, it is not true and it never will be true. Let us be really clear about it: there is no truth in it at all. Mr Lucas: What does the survey say about that? Mr BEATTIE: Any survey of government ministers and backbenchers would confirm that it is not true, because it would go against good management practices. I want to be very clear and serious about this: Queensland's investment arm, the QIC, does not take government direction. We do not give it and nor would we. That would be quite inappropriate. Let us talk about performance. The Leader of the Opposition raised issues about superannuation performance. Let us look at how good the QIC's performance has been. I have a 3624 Questions Without Notice 18 Sep 2002 list of the 2001-02 earning rates for comparative defined benefit funds in other jurisdictions. This has been a rough year. Mr Purcell: Tough. Mr BEATTIE: It has been a very tough year. The figures are as follows: the Commonwealth, minus 6.4 per cent; New South Wales, minus 7.3 per cent; Victoria, minus five per cent; Queensland, minus five per cent; Western Australia, minus 5.3 per cent; and South Australia, minus 5.3 per cent. So what is it? It is equal best in Australia. Mr Schwarten: You can't do the impossible. Mr BEATTIE: You cannot do the impossible. As we know, the Treasurer is currently attracting investment funds to Queensland. To say that we are in some way immune from international circumstances, which the Opposition Leader suggests, is a nonsense. What does it mean? That while the Treasurer is overseas he should drop in to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein? What a nonsense. That is the logical consequence of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He is saying that the Queensland government should be able to control Wall Street. The reality is that that is not true. No-one could have foreseen what happened on September 11. Mr Horan interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those are the ramifications of what happened, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. The forecast 2001-02 deficit was based on estimated investment earnings of zero per cent, which represented actual year to date earnings at the end of May. During the month of June, equity markets performed very badly. Where? Around the world! International benchmark indices fell by 7.8 per cent and Australian equities fell by 4.2 per cent. As a result of 2001-02, the provisional rate of return for consolidated investment funds was minus five per cent. But that was equal best in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking the Treasurer. What does he say about his federal mates? They returned minus 6.4 per cent. Does that mean John Howard and Peter Costello are duds? If Terry Mackenroth is responsible for minus five per cent, what is John Howard responsible for? Armageddon!

Student Travel Assistance, Regional Parliament Mr HORAN: I refer the Premier to the payments provided to schoolchildren to attend the Townsville sitting of state parliament, assistance that enabled many children from far-flung areas of the north to learn how parliament functions, and I ask: is the Premier prepared to extend that privilege and opportunity to students in other parts of the state to enable them to attend parliament for educational purposes? Mr BEATTIE: We have run a program in this parliament, as Mr Speaker knows, for some time to encourage year 7s to attend here and be educated as part of the civics education program, or whatever it is called, in schools. We ran a program in Townsville and we did so for a very good reason: to show north Queensland how the parliament works. Mr Speaker, we did that because, as you know, in the south-east corner it is easier for schoolchildren to be driven here. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I have only just started. Members opposite should give me a break. I have not even spoken for a minute yet. I am about to come to every tiny little bit of this. Patience is a virtue. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: If the pair opposite keep it up, they will have high blood pressure and they will be in the control of the Minister for Health. If that does not strike fear into their hearts, nothing will. All I can say is: Wendy, it is over to you. They are waving the white flag. Wendy is our secret weapon, and all members opposite know it. Let me come back to the question. We ran a specific program in north Queensland. We did that because in the south-east corner it is easier for people to drive here—for example, they can drive from the member's town of Toowoomba—and we did that because it was an historic occasion. I am not giving a commitment to do this today but we are prepared to look at some of our country schools. It is not a matter that I am going to pledge a commitment to today. It is something that I am happy to talk to the Minister for Education about. We have limited budgets. Mr Horan interjected. 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3625

Mr BEATTIE: This is a serious question. I am prepared to give the Leader of the Opposition some courtesy in relation to country schools. We ran a specific program in Townsville, because we wanted kids to come from as far north as Bamaga— Mr Bredhauer: Saibai Island. Mr BEATTIE: Yes. As the member for Mount Isa knows, they came from as far west as Mount Isa. They came from as far south as Rockhampton. It was a great central point for attracting kids. That is why we did that. I think the member would agree that it was a good idea. We are prepared to look at some of the country areas. I do not want to talk about timing; this may be some years down the road. I think there is merit in it. It worked so well in Townsville that we are prepared to have a look at it. It is something we will need to work on. It will depend on budgetary constraints.

Virgin Blue Flights, Smart State Mr CUMMINS: I refer the Premier and Minister for Trade to the fantastic announcement by Virgin Blue that it will begin direct flights between Sydney and Maroochydore from 17 October I believe, and I ask: should this silence the knockers who do not seem to understand that the Smart State is about jobs and business for Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Kawana for his question, because he has long been intent on creating real jobs on the Sunshine Coast. Prior to being elected to this parliament, he was deputy chair of the Sunshine Coast Economic Development Board. Before that, he was a director of the well respected regional tourism organisation, which the Minister for Tourism would know of; Phil Harding is on that body. I understand that he flew on Virgin Blue for the first time on the flight to Townsville for our recent north Queensland visit. I thank him for his question. He understands that by enticing people such as Richard Branson to invest in Queensland we get more jobs and more opportunities for Queensland businesses. Virgin Blue, Alliance and Australian Airlines are all proof that targeted assistance delivers wins to regional Queensland. That is why Tom Barton runs that program. That is why we are getting Smart State investments here: to become the backbone of a new aviation industry and to support tourism. Only someone who wants a dumb state would argue against it; only someone who is anti Queensland would argue against it. They are the only people who would argue against it. As the member says, Virgin has announced the start of direct flights from Sydney to Maroochydore next month. This will mean an additional 1,000 seat capacity per week, a big increase on the current 1,610 Sydney-Maroochydore seat capacity currently provided by Qantas. I am informed that Virgin expects to employ 10 people at Maroochydore at the outset. Businesspeople, tourists and travellers will have easier and cheaper access to the Sunshine Coast. This is big news for the Sunshine Coast, which depends heavily on domestic travel. If people in Sydney need more incentive to do business or pleasure trips to the fabulous Sunshine Coast, they will have it as a result of these new flights. I also note that Virgin opened its new terminal in Brisbane on Sunday, which is surely a further sign of the company's commitment to Queensland. Since opening for business in Brisbane two years ago, Virgin Blue has generated about 1,100 jobs in Queensland and more than that Australiawide. It has met or surpassed every commitment it gave Queensland. It now services Brisbane from Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin; the Gold Coast from Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide; the Sunshine Coast from Sydney; Mackay from Brisbane; Townsville from Brisbane; and Cairns from Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin. With the Maroochydore connection, the total number of Virgin Blue seats in and within Queensland will be 36,303, or 1.8 million seats a year. This has been one of the best investments ever made by a Queensland government. That is smart. That justifies the program in Tom Barton's department. I am also delighted with the announcement yesterday that Singapore Airlines will bring another two flights per week into Brisbane. This will increase the capacity of Singapore Airlines into our capital city to 236,000 seats per year, double the capacity of 18 months ago. Another region will also receive a payload of good news next month when Australian Airlines services begin into Cairns. I was in Cairns on Saturday and the place was abuzz with anticipation. Australian Airlines will bring 350,000 international tourists a year to Cairns, and the airline estimates that this will result in a boost of up to $500 million a year to the regional economy. That is why Tom Barton runs an incentive program. That is smart. That is jobs for Queensland. 3626 Questions Without Notice 18 Sep 2002

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the next question, I welcome to the public gallery students, parents and teachers from Mayfield State School in the electorate of Chatsworth.

Q-Link, Townsville Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to complaints that have been made to the management of Queensland Rail in relation to the operation of Q- Link in Townsville, including the illegal sale of freight to pay for staff functions, the use of Q-Link vehicles to carry illegal tobacco, the stealing of freight, management using QR expenses to travel to the State of Origin, management travelling to Tasmania for a one-hour meeting and staying for three days, kickbacks for contractors in return for the use of a bus for staff to attend a booze-up, and illegal use and storage of firearms. I ask: can the minister confirm that a senior manager has been permitted to resign without complaints against him being investigated? Have all complaints about improper behaviour been referred to the Queensland Police Service or to the Crime and Misconduct Commission as required? Mr BREDHAUER: The short answer to the member's question is yes. I am advised that QR became aware of allegations about improper practices at the Q-Link depot in Townsville in about June. It undertook some investigations of its own into the allegations that had been raised at that time. As a result of that, disciplinary action was taken, including the termination of the employment of one of the people who was involved in the behaviour which QR was investigating. I might say that the gentleman to whom the honourable member for Gregory has been speaking and who was having coffee with his policy adviser in Townsville when parliament sat there a couple of weeks ago is one of the people who has been investigated and disciplined by— Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I did not have coffee with anyone and I did not talk to anyone in Townsville a couple of weeks ago. Mr BREDHAUER: He was in fact one of the people who has been disciplined by QR because, I am advised, he was unable to explain how a large quantity of alcohol—nine kegs of beer and a carton of spirits—had gone missing from the Q-Link depot in Townsville. I advise the honourable member to exercise caution in relation to the claims that he made. There are serious matters here which have been investigated by Queensland Rail and disciplinary action has been taken against a number of people who Queensland Rail believes have not been able to satisfactorily explain their actions. Matters have also been referred to the Queensland Police Service and to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Queensland Rail is cooperating with both of those agencies in the conduct of investigations into the claims that have been made. In respect of the issue about whether a person resigned, yes, I can confirm that a person resigned but neither QR nor I as the minister is able to stop a person from tendering their resignation from a paid position with QR or any other government agency. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE Singapore Airlines Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.46 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. I indicated before that Singapore Airlines had made that announcement yesterday. My apologies to the House. It actually made the announcement this morning. I do not want to mislead the House. I table a copy of the news release it has just issued in relation to the new services. Resumed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Jondaryan Woolshed; Sheraton Hotel Mr SHINE: The Premier would be well aware of the lobbying undertaken by many people in relation to the Jondaryan Woolshed. I understand that much of it has been directed to the Premier personally, and I ask: can the Premier inform the House what the outcome has been in relation to this most important historic Darling Downs facility? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question, because he has lobbied me about this. He has lobbied me, lobbied me, lobbied me, lobbied me and lobbied me about it. In 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3627 the end, I had to agree. He lobbied me so much that in the end I agreed. My government values the state's heritage. We have been considering our position in relation to the Jondaryan Woolshed for some time. The woolshed has been through some very tough times. My government has offered support and direction. I am pleased to detail today that the state has offered assistance in two parts. On Friday, 6 September, we offered $100,000 in cash and a significant level of support and assistance in kind. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: This, however, is provisional on the Commonwealth coming to the party. Kerry, they do not like the hard work you do, mate. They do not like how effective you are. What an effective member the member for Toowoomba North has been. The member for Toowoomba North— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Isn't that typical! He works; they whinge. He works; they whinge. This, however, is provisional on the Commonwealth coming to the party with its promised $260,000. Even though it is not in Kerry Shine's electorate of Toowoomba North, he has been extolling the virtues of the woolshed being preserved to me personally, and I accept what Kerry tells me about the importance of this shed in the region's heritage. The member for Toowoomba North's persistence has been backed by the Jondaryan shire mayor, Councillor Peter Taylor, who also spoke to me about it at the salinity summit. Both have been at me for some time to have this issue resolved. Even former Premier Russell Cooper has been on the case. He spoke with me about it when we met in Toowoomba at last month's preparatory school function. I want to assure the good mayor and his community that we will do our bit. However, any support comes with a price. We have to be careful not to bail out any enterprise that simply gets into difficulty. We did offer the woolshed a business plan and it did not take up that generous offer, which was disappointing. A subsequent rescue package centres on the Commonwealth and the local community playing their parts. The member for Toowoomba North was so persuasive in his arguments to me that I funded this out of my own department's budget. That is where it has come from. Keep it up, member for Toowoomba North! You are a great local member. While talking about achievements and Smart State things, I want to acknowledge that when I opened the newly refurbished Sheraton Hotel this morning, Andreas Trauttmansdorff, the managing director, congratulated the state government on its Smart State initiative. We are about Smart State. Every one of the new 410 rooms is going to have high-speed Internet access fitted. Why? Because he shares our vision for the Smart State, and you bet it is smart. Laptop road warriors, the modern business people travelling around the world—that is the jargon—need Internet connection. What a great idea to have one of our international hotels, the Sheraton, connect them. I was delighted to have been at the opening this morning.

Ministerial Travel, No Frills Airline Mr QUINN: I refer the Premier to his answer to a question on notice regarding the number of flights taken by ministers to Cairns, Townsville or Mackay since he announced the government's no frills airline policy in December 2001. In his answer he indicated that ministers had taken 84 flights to these destinations up until the end of June this year and I ask how many of these flights were with Virgin Blue. Mr BEATTIE: I obviously do not have that information off the top of my head, but if I recall correctly, we have had a significant increase in the numbers since the parliament sat in Townsville. I am also happy to share with the House that on Saturday morning I went to north Queensland, not just to attend the Cairns amateur race meeting but also to open two significant heritage trails in Atherton, and the local member for Tablelands was there. A government member: Don't you come from there? Mr BEATTIE: The member didn't know that? Yes, I come from Atherton; I thought I would share that with you. I attended two significant heritage trail openings, one at Hallorans Hill and the other at the Chinese Temple, and I flew up by Qantas. I thought I would share that with you, too. You attack me with these things, but I flew to Townsville by Virgin Blue, up and back, and on Saturday morning I flew to Cairns by Qantas. Most of my ministers—those who were available—travelled up by Virgin Blue to Townsville, and we will continue to use these services. An opposition member interjected. 3628 Questions Without Notice 18 Sep 2002

Mr BEATTIE: We will use not just Virgin Blue but also Alliance, Qantas and Australian Airlines where we possibly can. Let me come back to the question on notice. I spelled out in the question on notice the number of flights that ministers at that time had used. I have to say you are breaching standing orders repeatedly in relation to questions on notice; they are many-faceted questions instead of one question and we as a government, despite the criticism the opposition has directed at us, have been quite tolerant of the breach of standing orders in relation to questions on notice. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: No, they are meant to be in accordance with the standing orders, and most of the questions asked are not. The Leader of the Liberal Party simply wanted the government to spell out how every individual minister travelled. What is in the public interest? The public interest is how many flights were taken by the ministry. The problem with that is that if the government separates each of those, there are some ministers here who do not live in areas serviced by Virgin Blue. Mr McGrady: Mount Isa. Mr BEATTIE: Such as Mount Isa and Rockhampton. It is unfair because if I simply say, 'All right, Robert Schwarten has not used Virgin Blue to fly to Rockhampton or whatever', that is unfair because Virgin Blue does not fly to Rockhampton. That is unfair. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The government has indicated consistent use. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: It does not fly to Bundaberg, does it? What was in the public interest? The public interest was— An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: No, let's be fair about this. The public interest question was how many times the ministry used Virgin Blue. We gave you the answer. An opposition member: No, you didn't. Mr BEATTIE: You got the answer about how many ministerial trips were with Virgin Blue and other commercial services. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker! The question was mine and I actually asked how many trips each minister had undertaken on a commercial airline to and from Brisbane and Cairns, Mackay or Townsville. Mount Isa and Rockhampton are not even mentioned in my question. Mr BEATTIE: That is today's question—then we will get tomorrow's question. We know how you operate! The reality is that what we have done— Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. Did we give you the number of times they have travelled? Did we? The answer is yes. Do not come on with this nonsense. All you wanted to do was pick on individual ministers. That is all that you wanted to do. You got your answer. Do not throw away the standing orders.

International Regional Heads of Education Forum Ms MOLLOY: Will the Minister for Education inform members of the purpose of the state government hosting the International Regional Heads of Education Forum on the Sunshine Coast last week? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question because indeed another Queensland Smart State initiative was held on the Sunshine Coast last weekend. It was the International Regional Heads of Education Forum, which saw heads of education or their senior representatives—that is, the equivalent of directors-general—from Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand, all meeting together with representatives of Education Queensland and the Commonwealth on the Sunshine Coast. 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3629

That was a multipurpose meeting, but primarily it was to foster international networks and to provide an opportunity for those jurisdictions to share ideas and to share models of best practice in education. It probably comes as no surprise that all those jurisdictions, despite the very different cultures they come from, are all grappling with very similar issues as they strive to improve their education systems. Notably, from the point of view of Education Queensland, there was a recognition by all those nations of English as an emerging global language, especially in the area of information and communication technologies, and that obviously has a very important meaning for our relationship with those countries and their education systems and how we can work together to improve outcomes. The education systems of all those countries were also grappling with the same things that are happening here in Queensland in the provision of pathways between the various education sectors, the need to keep a futures focus in curriculum and teaching, and recognition that investment in the future must be through education. There is no doubt that Queensland was recognised by those people who attended the forum as a leader across Australia in many areas. It was an opportunity to showcase two areas, namely, New Basics, the curriculum being trialled in 59 schools across Queensland which was of significant interest to many of these education heads; and a very innovative online network called the Learning Place, which other jurisdictions were interested in not only replicating but also using because the information technology is possible. There is no doubt that Queensland leads Australia in this area. Education Queensland initiated this initiative with the inaugural forum last year and this was its second one. Malaysia attended for the first time this year and was so impressed with the opportunity that it has agreed to host the forum next year. I congratulate Education Queensland for this initiative and I say to the opposition that while it may not understand Smart State and while it may be grappling to come to terms with what Smart State really means, our Asian neighbours know exactly what it means. Our Asian neighbours understand that Queensland is leading Australia in education, they are interested in what we are doing and our reputation is making its way through all those jurisdictions. I suggest that the Opposition Leader take a bit more note.

Bashing of Grandmother, Mount Isa Mr SEENEY: I refer the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to the bashing of a Mount Isa grandmother by a group of people following a traffic accident two months ago in Mount Isa's main street which has unfortunately left that victim on a life support system. Can the minister confirm that no person has yet been charged as a result of this horrific incident, and, as the local member for Mount Isa and the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, has he been asking any questions about the delay in progress in the investigation into this matter? Mr McGRADY: I will not thank the member for the question, but I will respond to it. There was an incident in Mount Isa some time ago in which a 68-year-old lady was driving her vehicle on the way to work in the early hours of the morning when a number of people who had been in a hotel in Mount Isa spilled out onto the road. As I understand it the lady accidentally hit one of the persons, and that person died. The police have been investigating the incident and I understand that some 27 people have been interviewed by the police. To suggest that I as the local member have not seen fit to ask questions is an insult to me. Obviously I have been kept closely informed of the developments or lack of developments. Mr Seeney: Tell us about it. Mr McGRADY: I will tell the member nothing. Mr Speaker, we are talking first of all about a person who died and secondly about an elderly lady who is currently in hospital and there is some concern for her wellbeing. I repeat that I have been in close and constant contact with the police service asking questions and being kept informed. The police, as I mentioned, have interviewed some 27 people. No charges have yet been laid. I received a further briefing as late as yesterday on this issue. In answer to the member's question, yes, I have asked a number of questions, I have received a number of answers and no arrest has been made, but if he wants me to, I will again ask questions about the matter this week at my regular weekly meeting with the Acting Commissioner of Police. 3630 Questions Without Notice 18 Sep 2002

R&D Start Scheme Mr REEVES: My question is directed to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. Five months ago I remember hearing that the federal government had stopped its R&D Start scheme. Has there been any effect on R&D in Queensland as a result of this? Mr LUCAS: I thank the member for the question. He is extremely interested in technological issues and often raises them with me. He certainly has a very smart electorate in a smart part of Queensland, the Smart State. It is vital that the R&D Start scheme is restarted. The Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday about what he saw as the Smart State and so on. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do something about making us a smart nation, he would be getting on to his federal colleagues and telling them that the R&D Start scheme means R&D start, not R&D stop, which is what the federal government did to that scheme some five months ago. When will it be restarted? If the federal government wants to be taken seriously, it needs to do a little more about R&D expenditure, particularly in Queensland. The Queensland government spends $230 million a year on R&D—more per capita than any other state and more in real terms than Victoria. The federal government spends just $111 million. Those opposite should spend a bit of time telling people about that. They should tell their mates in Canberra that this Smart State needs more money spent on it, instead of belly- aching and making negative comments. Last year's Ernst and Young report into our biotechnology industry showed that 815 new jobs were created since 1999, showed a 317 per cent increase in R&D expenditure and showed a 248 per cent increase in funds raised—and that is before the Smart State Research Facility Fund. There are companies out there that are hurting because of the federal government's 'R&D Stop' scheme. A Wacol based nanotechnology company, the Very Small Particle Company, has pulled out of negotiations with US and Japanese companies potentially worth millions of dollars because it is not able to access those funds. My colleagues in State Development and at the Queensland Manufacturing Institute have told me that 20 Queensland firms are similarly penalised by the R&D Start freeze. I have written to Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, who I do acknowledge has some commitment to biotechnology in Queensland—I wish other people in Toowoomba had the same commitment—but he has not yet done anything and he has not replied to me. Peter McGauran, the Science Minister, said that the government may start it next year. Christmas may come as well, but it will be a very cold Christmas for people who cannot get funding for R&D exploitation to create jobs in this state for the future. 'Mr Eight Per Cent' was telling us a bit yesterday about his view of the Smart State. Let us look at what some other people have said. Professor Mark von Itzstein, director of the Centre for Biomolecular Science and Drug Discovery said on 24 July— If I had a dollar for every time I heard from our international delegates 'I wish we had politicians and governments like yours back home' I would be a very wealthy man. What about Bob Bishop, CEO of Silicon Graphics, one of the largest computing firms in the world? He is quoted in the Australian of 3 September as saying— Queensland is the supercomputer state of Australia. The other states have fallen behind. Queensland has figured it out. They have the state on target. What about the New Scientist, another very important and world-class publication? It states— Beattie is recognised as the man who kick-started Australia's present biotech push. And there is more. The headline of an article I have with me reads 'Beautiful one day, smart the next'.

Overseas-Trained Doctors Mr WELLINGTON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. In light of the current practice of filling vacancies for Queensland doctors with doctors from overseas and interstate, what inquiries are made into the background and practices of these doctors to ensure that they meet the same stringent ethical, moral and academic standards required of our own doctors? Mrs EDMOND: Queensland currently does rely on a significant number of doctors, nurses and allied staff trained overseas. That is one of the reasons I have been calling for the federal government to recognise the need and to give agreement to a new medical school on the Gold 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3631

Coast. Most of the doctors that come here from overseas train in very similar systems to that we have in Queensland and have no difficulty meeting the credentialling we require. The medical board is responsible for going through the process of recognising their credentials. I think Queensland is the only state in which the state government actually subsidises a course to help those doctors with overseas qualifications who are living here to meet Australian Medical Council examination requirements if they have the skills in medicine but lack language skills, et cetera, and to brush up on any techniques they are short of. Overall, I think it is important to note that there is a very good quality control process in Queensland and in Australia for recognising the qualifications of doctors from overseas. We do rely on these doctors. Many of them are very highly skilled. The Doctors in the Bush process, which I introduced a few years ago, has given continuity to small country regions around Australia—places that never had continuity before. There are some very highly skilled doctors in Charleville, Julia Creek, Richmond and so on. We have highly skilled GPs who are working as medical superintendents and GPs in those areas. A lot of them are South African. They have excellent skills. We have fast-tracked recognition of their basic medicine skills if they meet all of the general requirements, if they have the equivalent of training provided by the fellowship of the college of GPs. That is a process that is working well. The federal government has agreed with that process. We have also sped up the process, in consultation with the learned colleges, for specialists coming in from overseas to have their credentials recognised where they have equivalent skills. All in all, the Queensland government works with the learned colleges, the Medical Board and interstate agencies to determine that doctors who are working in Queensland have high skills. That does not take away from the fact that I am concerned that, at the same time as we are relying on many hundreds of overseas-trained doctors to fill our vacancies around the state, we are excluding young Queenslanders and Australians from accessing medical training so that they can take their place. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Southport, I welcome to the public gallery students, parents and teachers from Gleneagle State School in the electorate of Beaudesert.

Departments of Housing and Public Works, Awards Mr LAWLOR: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing. I refer to the abundance of awards the departments of Housing and Public Works have won in recent weeks for their Smart State initiatives. Can the minister explain how his departments are putting the Smart State philosophy into action? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the smart member from the smarter part of the Gold Coast for the smart question. Yesterday we saw the debacle of the not-so-smart opposition, whose collective IQ matches its popularity rating— Mr Johnson: It is not very nice of you to say that, Minister. Mr SCHWARTEN: It was not very smart of the opposition to say what it said yesterday. Anticipating that somebody in this House would be smart enough to ask a smart question like this, I thought I would bring into the chamber this award. I have here a National Green Smart Award from the Housing Industry Association that the smart Department of Public Works was able to secure, along with the smart Department of Housing, for the smart house that we have in the smart city of Rockhampton. I will hold up the award so that members opposite can finally understand that Queensland is the Smart State. I know that they find that difficult to believe, because they are not very smart themselves— Mr Wells: They are smarting under your attack. Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, they are. They spend too much time looking in a mirror. We are the Smart State when it comes to building. Not only are we recognised nationally as the Smart State; we are also recognised internationally. The Department of Public Works has recently picked up a number of international awards for projects such as the Bentley Park school in Cairns. The Calamvale school is another example of where we have picked up those international awards. It is a fact of life that Queensland leads the way in research in smart housing—there is no doubt about that whatsoever—and it is great to see the Housing Department, the Public Works Department, Q-Build and Project Services receiving this award because it shows that the effort we 3632 Questions Without Notice 18 Sep 2002 put into being smart in terms of building is worth it. In Rockhampton we have created a smart research house in cooperation with the University of Central Queensland—another smart university in our state. I believe that this represents the way forward for the building industry—to show people how they can design and build their homes in the context of the environment in which they live, reducing the use of environmentally scarce resources such as electricity. If you design your house smartly it saves you money down the track. I am delighted to be part of a government that takes the Smart State seriously. I am delighted to be part of two departments that have been honoured for their smartness in building design in this way.

Building Industry Reform Mr HOPPER: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing. I refer to the introduction of a bill to state parliament aimed at banning 'shonky' builders who perform defective work or who repeatedly fail financially. I also refer to a list of banned builders published in yesterday's Courier-Mail which was supplied by an arm of his department, the Building Services Authority. Caboolture landscaper Gregory Raedel, whose name is on this list, was forced into liquidation primarily because of the non-payment of $77,000 by Jezer Constructions, of which the member for Capalaba was a former director and who was involved in the company at the time of the non-payment. I ask: is it not true that some of these builders targeted on the list have been forced into liquidation because his laws fail to make accountable developers who do not pay ? Mr SCHWARTEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to answer a very unsmart but predictable question from the opposition. Whenever this government tries to get tough on the building industry those opposite— Ms Bligh: They go to water. Mr SCHWARTEN: They go to water, they find a diversion and they get people like Foggo to write their questions and try to discredit the whole place. Here we see it again. Here we have the same type of gutter-type question that the honourable member is unfortunately used to asking. I have stood in this place time and again and stated something that the opposition will never accept, and that is that I will not guarantee under any circumstances that subcontractors will be paid 100 per cent. To do so is a lie. It is an absolute lie to suggest that one could guarantee that. No-one anywhere in the world has ever been able to guarantee that—nobody! Yet, we still have the same prattle coming from that group of people over there. When those opposite were in government they spent millions and millions of dollars on the Scurr inquiry to find the very result that we now have. Thanks to my predecessor, Minister Spence, we have a list like that. I make no apology for five-year bans for people who cannot meet the demands of the building industry. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: That proves what I said earlier today: shoe size, IQ, popularity rating—all the same. The reality is that we are going to continue down the path of ensuring that people in the building industry who want to stay in the building industry are smart builders. We have a Smart State— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I know the honourable member does not like that. He holds up that list. I know he does not like the fact that we ban people for five years. He thinks those people should still be in the industry. He surreptitiously tries to undermine the government's position of banning for life people who are shonks. Let me say— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Rabble! They don't like it. They are standing up again for shonky builders. Whenever this government acts against shonky builders, what do we get? We get defence of shonky builders. Those opposite are not standing up for the consumers who are trying to get their houses built. They are not standing up for the honest builders in this state. The opposition is a laughing-stock in the building industry in Queensland—an absolute laughing-stock. Ms Spence: You supported this legislation. 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3633

Mr SCHWARTEN: They are undermining it, Minister Spence, as they always do. We are going to get tough on these people and we make no apology for that.

Logan Jobs and Business Expo Ms STONE: I direct my question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth. I refer the minister to the Logan Jobs and Business Expo which we visited this morning and which will continue throughout the day at the Logan Entertainment Centre. I ask: what role does an event like this play in addressing the urgent issues of unemployment? Mr FOLEY: It plays an important role. I thank the member for Springwood and the member for Woodridge for accompanying me this morning to the Logan Jobs and Business Expo. It was an excellent example of that community working together with government to do something positive about the harsh reality of unemployment. This morning, together with the mayor, Councillor John Freeman, I had the pleasure of opening that expo. It is great to see local employers, local education authorities and local training authorities working together. The whole focus of this has been brought about because of a grant of some $150,000 from the government through the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. It was organised by a group called the Women Re-entry to Work Association. It allowed the association to employ 13 women who wanted to get back into the work force. Those women involved in putting the expo together are now armed with more up-to-date skills and recent experience to help them in their search for employment. Over the past 16 weeks they have used that project to learn about computing, administration, event management, sponsorship and marketing. I congratulate those women. If they had to take a year off—or more than a few years off—for various reasons, which may include looking after their families, it makes a lot of sense to help them get back into the work force. That is the characteristic of a Smart State. It is a dumb state which would deny employment programs. That is the very thing that the coalition did. The coalition did not even have a Minister for Employment. This is all about using the power and the force of government to make a difference. Reflect on this: in the area of Logan, 2,500 people have been assisted in some way or other through the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative since it was introduced by the Beattie government. Of those, there were some 657 extra apprentices and 223 extra trainees in crucial skills shortage industries. We also had 438 extra trainees and 11 extra apprentices in state and local government agencies and so on. All we get from the opposition is a criticism of these programs allegedly, according to the Leader of the Opposition, because they are about painting rocks white. Well, let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that I did not see any rocks being painted white this morning. What I saw was a group of committed people working together with state government, local government and business people to produce real job outcomes. They understand, just as the government understands, that in a Smart State it is the business of government and the community to work together to tackle the harsh reality of unemployment. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Lockyer, may I welcome to the public gallery the school captains and principals of Caboolture State High School, Bribie Island High School and St Columban's College in the electorate of Pumicestone.

Queensland Health, Quality of Life Mr FLYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. The issue of certain statements attributed to her in the Courier-Mail of the 14th of this month concerning the quality of life in injury and illness was mentioned on this side of the House yesterday, but I do not think it really hit the mark. Reference was made to her previous comment that soothing a patient's brow is as important as treatment in the intensive care unit. Quite right, Minister; it is called holistic care, but she cannot provide the staff. What really concerned me was her assertion that the cost of treatment should be a factor. Is she saying to a patient, 'It is going to cost $1 million to treat you. We can't afford it. We think you should consider the alternatives—even death.' Is this her own opinion or is it an indication of the government's future policy? Her department is the Department of Health, not death. Mrs EDMOND: The assertions made by the member are totally incorrect. I have never said that those decisions were made on a dollar value; in fact, what I said was that they were not. I 3634 Questions Without Notice 18 Sep 2002 said that we do not put a dollar value on it. What we look at is outcomes. What I also said was that people need to be aware of what are the outcomes and the prospects of their being cured, being treated, and that their quality of life et cetera should all be taken into account. What I specifically said was that dollars are not a measure for when we decide a treatment is enough. I also said that these are difficult decisions that are made by the clinician in discussion with family members. I have never, ever said that machines should be turned off and I have never, ever said that a dollar figure should be put on it. What I have said is that people need to look at the outcomes—what is the prospect of that treatment—and know about them when they are making their decisions. I believe that it is a right for all human beings to know the outcomes and to make those decisions about their own health, or their loved one's health, in the knowledge of those outcomes. I think that if the member read the articles concerned, he would find that I have never said that. I know that it is a bit like playing Chinese whispers. I see reports by media people on reports on reports on reports of hearsay, et cetera—none of which is at all accurate. I note that the other members opposite simply could not read the entire article; they read the headlines and listened to the misinformation. I reiterate that I do not believe that decisions about a person's care and health care should be made by politicians. I believe that they need to be made by the person, in consultation with their clinicians. That is for them to decide and they should have all of the information to make those decisions. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Bulimba, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Goombungee State School in the electorate of Darling Downs.

Port of Brisbane Motorway Mr PURCELL: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to the port of Brisbane motorway project, and I ask: can the minister please advise the House of the progress to date of this important project to Queensland? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. I thank him particularly for the interest that he and the member for Lytton, the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, have taken in this project, which is important to both of their electorates. In fact, I am advised that the other day the member for Bulimba was down at the project talking to a few of the workers. Mr Purcell: All getting paid, all getting looked after. They are doing a top job. Mr BREDHAUER: I take that interjection from the member for Bulimba. I can assure the member for Bulimba that the interest that he is taking is appreciated by everybody—from the workers who are down there doing the job right up to the boardrooms of Leightons, where they appreciate the positive contribution that he has made. Mr Lucas: Minister, you delivered on the project. Mr BREDHAUER: That is true. I want to say that one of the important things that has come out of this is that, in relation to this project, our state government has pursued an innovative approach to contracting. We have had an alliance with companies, including Port Motorway Limited, Leighton Contractors, PPK Infrastructure and Environment, and Coffey Geosciences. The Minister for State Development would know that we have structured this as a PPP—a private- public partnership. It is a new strategy that we have adopted. We could say that it is part of our Smart State agenda that we are looking at these innovative ways. We now have a project that is likely to be completed in December of this year—practical completion in December of this year. That will mean that it will come in six months ahead of contract schedule. But also I am delighted to advise the House that the project looks like it will come in $6 million under the project budget. Because of the unique alliance arrangement that we have—and the contract allowed for each of them to take 50 per cent of any savings on the contract price—all of the partners, including Leightons, have agreed that the $6 million will stay in the project and that we will, in fact, construct the overpass over Lindum Road. Mr Lucas: A major issue. 18 Sep 2002 Questions Without Notice 3635

Mr BREDHAUER: It is a major issue. Previously, it would have been done in the second stage of the motorway project some years away. So we have had a great outcome for everybody, including the local community. I would also like to say that when the Premier talked about our Smart State strategy yesterday, he talked about how all encompassing it was and how it was about delivering jobs. About three weeks ago, I announced that the New Zealand based Warehouse Group would spend $23.6 million on 16 hectares to put up to 50,000 square metres under a single roof at the port of Brisbane. One of the reasons they cited as a fundamental part of their decision was the construction of the new motorway. This is about smart decisions that are delivering smart jobs and, in this case, it is smart infrastructure that is helping that process.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; Education Queensland Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Premier to a tax inquiry to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu by Education Queensland on 17 July 2001. The recommended action advised by Deloittes was for the Education Department—or Education Queensland—to apply for a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office. I table this document. I understand Deloittes charges government departments around $200 an hour for advice, yet the Australian Taxation Office has issued a letter claiming that it will provide free tax advice, which is legally binding. I also table that document. I ask the Premier: when did Deloittes gain preferred supplier status for supplying tax advice to government departments? Why do government departments pay for tax advice when they can get it for free from the ATO? How much money did individual departments spend on Deloittes in the 2001-02 financial year? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I also thank him for the courtesy that he demonstrated last Friday when I visited Warwick, which is in his electorate. We visited and undertook a number of activities while we were in Warwick and he demonstrated the usual generosity and hospitality that one would expect from a local member. I want to put on record my appreciation. Ms Bligh: Did he throw grapes at you? Mr BEATTIE: No, he did not throw grapes this time. I will come to the issue. Obviously, I do not know the particular circumstance that the member referred to in relation to Education. The minister is quite happy to write to the member about those circumstances. But let us talk about the issue of advice. It is a very changing and complex world. We seek advice from a number of sources. Generally, when it comes to legal advice, we seek Crown Law's advice. When it comes to issues relating to the tax office, of course, I believe that it is appropriate that the government would obviously deal with the Australian Tax Office directly. But there may well be occasions when we seek expert advice. It is not an unreasonable thing. As the member knows, sometimes there are disagreements between various government departments and there is not always uniform acceptance of what the tax office may say. There is a whole process for people who object to rulings from the tax office. It may be that, in certain circumstances, the government will seek advice from a number of sources. I put to the member that that is a very prudent thing to do, depending on the circumstances. As I said to the honourable member, I do not know the particular circumstances to which he referred, but the minister has indicated, and I have put on record her indication, that she will write to him about these circumstances. But I do not want to be misunderstood on this. I do think that in this ever-changing, complex world, the government needs to look at a range of sources for advice to obviously get the best outcomes for taxpayers. Yes, there will be a charge. From time to time, we do that with consultants. We try to keep consultant bills down. But from time to time we will seek advice from consultants to get the best outcome long term for taxpayers. There may be a short-term expenditure to, in the long term, save millions. As a philosophy, I do not have any difficulty with that. The same goes for Crown Law. As the Attorney-General would tell the member, Crown Law is obviously the first starting point and is the area which is to give government the overwhelming majority of its advice. But the Attorney-General may well determine on certain matters that he wants to seek advice elsewhere. If that is a determination that he makes, he should do so. But as I say, our primary source of advice will be Crown Law. As a government we are committed to Crown Law and I want to make that very clear. So on this matter, I will get the Education Minister to write to the member and if there are any other matters, I urge him to correspond with her. 3636 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 18 Sep 2002

Commonwealth-State-Territory Disability Agreement Mrs REILLY: I direct a question to the Minister for Disability Services. Last week, the Commonwealth Minister for Family and Community Services, Amanda Vanstone, accused the Beattie government of playing politics rather than committing to a new Commonwealth-state- territory disability agreement. I know that that is a barefaced and shameful lie, but can the minister please inform the House of the true state of negotiations on the next agreement? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Mudgeeraba for her question. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the great work that she is doing in the disability area, particularly on our funding reform project. It is not very smart of Amanda Vanstone to think that she can fool people in the disability sector that her offer to the states of $125 million new growth money for the whole of Australia for the next five years is acceptable by criticising the states. It will not work. This offer means $2.9 million to Queensland this year, which means that we will be able to help an additional 35 people with high-support needs. Considering that we have 7,000 people on our register of need in this state, I am sure that no member would want me, as the minister, to sign this agreement without fighting for more funds from the Commonwealth. Indeed, that is what I am doing. Twice in the last month all of the state disability ministers have written to Amanda Vanstone offering to meet her in Canberra at a time of her choosing. I table these two letters for the benefit of all members. We have yet to hear a response from Amanda Vanstone. It is important, though, that we get through these issues. But no-one in the disability sector wants me to settle for the paltry amount that the Commonwealth has recently put on the table. I table a news campaign article from the disability sector. They say that the sector has a clear position about what is expected, that governments should deliver in the third CSDA. They go on to say that, despite the overwhelming evidence regarding unmet need for services, increase in population for disabilities and inadequate indexation, the third CSDA is offering no meaningful solutions. This is signed by the Autism Council of Australia, People with Disabilities, Endeavour, the Cerebral Palsy League, Time to Care, Unmet Needs campaigns, and the list goes on. The sector clearly does not want state ministers to sign this agreement without fighting for more money from Canberra. But who does want me to sign? The Leader of the Opposition! In the Sunshine Coast Daily on Sunday he said that Judy Spence was failing to save people with disabilities by stopping valuable federal funding. He said that I should sign the offer. He is the only person in Queensland who wants me to sign this pathetic offer from the Commonwealth. Why does the leader not talk to the sector and understand what it is saying? We have until the end of October to sign off on the Commonwealth's offer of money. We will fight until the end of October to get the best deal for Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has now expired.

PRIVILEGE Member for Capalaba, Court Proceedings Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (11.31 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. The member for Darling Downs mentioned a landscaping company which has had a contractual dispute with a company that I used to work for. I inform the House that this matter is currently before the court system. As I have great respect for our judicial system I have refrained from commenting on this case even with the privileges granted to members of this House. I urge the member opposite to show the same respect for our legal system. Secondly, monies have been put into the court by the company that I used to work for and have been there for over two years. Ms Raedel has no legal representation and is acting on her own behalf at the moment. The only thing I can urge her to do is to provide the information required by the court so that this matter can be resolved.

COMMUNITY SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES LIQUOR LICENCES BILL Second Reading (Cognate Debate) Resumed from 17 September (see p. 3600). 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) (11.32 a.m.), in reply: I would like to thank all members of the House—I have not counted them, 18 Sep 2002 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 3637 but there were certainly over 30 speakers—for their contributions on these two very important bills. They all contributed in an excellent fashion to this debate. Their words are a clear demonstration of this parliament's resolve to back indigenous Queenslanders with strong laws that will confront the scourge of alcohol abuse and violence in remote communities. I thank the members of the opposition for their support of this bill. The people of Queensland should be proud that, when it comes to the absolute necessity to do something to protect women and children in indigenous communities, their elected representatives are willing to put aside partisan politics and work together. I commend the opposition for the stance it has taken on this issue. I acknowledge also the support of the Independents who rose to speak passionately about these bills. I am sure all members would agree that we heard some very fine speeches throughout the debate. I will not attempt to sum up the speeches of all members who spoke, but they have traversed a wide range of issues. However, I wish to highlight some key points made in the debate and respond to questions raised about issues on which members sought clarification, provided these questions relate to the bills before us. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and member for Gregory spelt out the opposition's firm support for the bills. He also raised some questions which I will address later. What was most heartening about the member's speech was that it clearly demonstrated that the government and opposition are in total agreement about the best approach to address the problems before us, that is, the urgent need for action along with the absolute necessity for a partnership between the government and indigenous communities to tackle alcohol abuse and violence. Everyone acknowledges that governments cannot fix this problem on their own and communities cannot fix the problems on their own. There is no other way forward but to work in partnership. As I said in introducing the bills, partnership is a principle on which these bills are founded. It is a great thing that we have this bipartisan agreement on the approach in these bills, because the process of change that will start with these bills will take many years. While the new measures in this legislation to break the cycle of alcohol abuse are immediate interventions, the biggest challenge to rebuild indigenous communities will take a number of years. The ongoing commitment of both sides of politics will be essential if we are to succeed in this challenge. There will need to be continuity in the commitment and motivation of the state government to these issues, whichever side is in power. We will need to be unwavering in our efforts to hold up our side of the partnership with indigenous Queenslanders. It took many years of misguided government policies to relegate indigenous communities to their current state of disempowerment and despair. It will take many years of sustained effort to rebuild these communities to take their rightful place in enjoying the quality of life of our great state. Judging by the level of passion and commitment shown in this debate by members of both sides of the House, I am confident that the necessary resolve is there to remain strong and committed in seeing these changes through. I am confident that within this House we have the collective will and determination to go the full distance. Once again, I commend all members for their support of these bills. In his speech the member for Gregory also acknowledged the work of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence, as did the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to reinforce these comments. While the recent focus has been on Justice Fitzgerald's Cape York Justice Study, the women's task force which I appointed in late 1998 was instrumental in getting us to the point we are at today. We all should acknowledge the courage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women of the task force who came forward to highlight the effects of alcohol and violence in their communities and who urged the wider community to act. A number of other speakers emphasised the importance of tackling the issue of sly grog. In my second reading speech I highlighted that this was one of the key objectives of the new restricted area provisions contained in these bills. It is clear that many members have had concerns expressed to them about this problem just as it has been a recurring theme in our consultations with indigenous communities in recent years. The member for Gregory asked for clarification as to how far the legislation can go as regards the seizure and forfeiture of property. The member for Nicklin also sought assurances from the government that it will be vigorously investigating, punishing and prosecuting sly groggers. I can assure members that we are absolutely serious about doing everything within our power to stop sly grogging. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, the new restricted area limits will make it much easier for police to prosecute people bringing large quantities of alcohol into the communities. These bills also boost police powers to ensure that the new offences and existing ones can be effectively enforced. In short, the seizure and forfeiture powers are far reaching. Importantly, the bills enable the forfeiture of a vehicle, including a boat or aircraft, to the state where this is necessary to prevent a 3638 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 18 Sep 2002 repetition of the offence. For example, a person who continually runs grog into the community can lose their vehicle and, yes, this will apply to anyone running grog into a community whether they come from Cairns, Townsville or any other non-indigenous town in north Queensland. There have been some concerns raised about the extension of police powers in the bill, including those raised by the Council for Civil Liberties. I must state that the powers contain all of the necessary safeguards and appeal rights. They are quite reasonable. There has certainly been some media reporting about injustices arising from the laws in the Northern Territory that provide for mandatory forfeiture of vehicles that bring alcohol into dry communities. These bills do not provide for mandatory forfeiture. The discretion lies with the chief executive and can be reviewed by the courts. We have taken a balanced and reasoned approach. We have made sure that the government will have the powers it needs to back up indigenous communities in the war against sly grog. The member for Kallangur made a significant contribution to the debate by explaining what Justice Fitzgerald called the intolerable burden placed on councils in managing alcohol canteens. The member gave the example of the elected councillors of Pormpuraaw, who were invited by a brewery to attend the AFL grand final in Melbourne. The provisions in the bill to transfer alcohol licences from councils have attracted criticisms from councils. The comments of the member for Kallangur demonstrate why this is necessary before communities can make any real progress in tackling their alcohol problems. The member for Kallangur also gave an excellent account of the problems with the current council system and legislation applying in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Improving community governance is a key issue and one also raised by Justice Fitzgerald. In Meeting challenges, making choices the government announced a green paper to review the system of community governance and the community services legislation. These issues will be canvassed in this review. In the consultations we conducted under the Cape York Justice Study, community governance ranked on a par with alcohol as an issue of concern for members on the communities. In his speech the member for Kallangur cautioned that the same burdens and pressures that have dogged members of councils will make the job difficult for members of the community liquor licence boards and community justice groups. It is an astute observation and one that we will all be mindful of. The challenge for community justice groups in particular to take the lead against alcohol in the communities will be enormous. These courageous people will need the government's complete support if they are to be successful. We will also be intensifying the training and capacity building for community justice groups. This will be a major priority for the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. The bills also provide a measure of legislative protection for justice groups and liquor licence board members through a statutory indemnity and through new offences of attempting to obstruct or influence members. The member for Mackay spoke about the issue of treatment of indigenous people with alcohol addictions and reported on developments in Canada, the United States and New Zealand. He rightly pointed out that these bills are concerned with putting in place the tools for communities to control the supply of alcohol rather than dealing with their treatment or rehabilitation. Those issues must necessarily be complementary strategies to legislation such as this. It is clear that if communities are successful in restricting the supply of alcohol there will be an increase in the need for programs and facilities to treat individuals with serious alcohol addictions. While Meeting challenges, making choices announced new initiatives in this area, it will require additional focus as the alcohol control strategy in these bills is rolled out. As the member for Mackay pointed out, new and innovative approaches are likely to be needed in indigenous communities, possibly combining western and indigenous treatment models as trialled in other countries. We are already partnering community organisations, such as Apunipima Cape York Health Council, to ensure that rehabilitation and treatment is part of the alcohol strategies for communities and is dealt with in community alcohol management plans. The member for Maroochydore, the opposition health spokesperson, also raised the importance of culturally appropriate rehabilitation services. She sought accountability on the part of the government for the implementation of the initiatives in the rehabilitation area announced in Meeting challenges, making choices. I can assure the opposition that DATSIP is taking a firm lead in coordinating the implementation of all of the strategies underpinning Meeting challenges, making choices. Queensland Health has been identified as a joint lead agency with DATSIP for the rehabilitation and treatment initiatives and has been required to develop an implementation 18 Sep 2002 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 3639 plan around these issues. The progress of these plans is being regularly monitored by the CEO steering committee of Cape York Partnerships. The principal concern raised in the speeches of opposition members was the need for regular reporting on the implementation and success of the government's strategy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought quarterly reporting with reference to specific performance indicators. I am glad that the opposition raised this issue, because it is an important one. I wish to take the opportunity to inform the House about how we will be monitoring and evaluating the success of this legislation and the Meeting challenges, making choices strategy as a whole. The government is firmly committed to a rigorous and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation process. As part of the package of initiatives supporting Meeting challenges, making choices the government has allocated $250,000 over three years for the development of an evaluation framework for the strategy. While the Meeting challenges, making choices strategy is being led by the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, the evaluation of the strategy will be conducted independently by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. To support the development of the framework, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet will pull together a reference group of people with expertise from government agencies, from indigenous communities and from the academic sphere. The evaluation strategy will result in a comprehensive report to cabinet on the impact of the Meeting challenges, making choices strategy, including the new legislation, at the end of the three-year evaluation period. In addition to this evaluation framework, a comprehensive performance measurement framework has been developed collaboratively with the Office of Economic and Statistical Research, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and DATSIP. Through this framework, the government has taken immediate steps to improve the collection of data and other information which enables us to monitor the success of our strategies in indigenous communities. The Office of Economic and Statistical Research has been working with a number of agencies to develop a range of outcome measures for indigenous communities. These measures include school attendance, alcohol and drug usage, causes of hospitalisation, injury rates, health data, reported offences, court data, imprisonment rates and employment data. In addition, the government will be asking communities to nominate other indicators relevant to community wellbeing and quality of life. The Office of Economic and Statistical Research will be providing quarterly reports on these outcome measures to the chief executive officers committee on Cape York Partnerships. That committee is overseeing the implementation of Meeting challenges, making choices. The data will also form the basis of a report twice a year to the cabinet committee monitoring the Meeting challenges, making choices strategy. The government will be happy to meet the opposition's request and make publicly available on a quarterly basis data about the progress of the government's strategy against the performance indicators developed by the Office of Economic and Statistical Research. I will, however, make mention of one matter of caution in this exercise. To monitor the progress of particular initiatives it will be necessary to collect data at the community level. While this data is necessary for program evaluation and the development of policy responses, there may be some sensitivity about making public data identifying particular communities. This may be so in relation to sensitive data around sexual offending and family violence. We will need to be mindful of the correct protocols and the sensitivities of communities in the use of such data. We do not want to see a situation where communities are stigmatised on the basis of published data. Members may recall the outrage of the Palm Island community a few years ago when a British newspaper labelled it the most violent place on earth outside a war zone. I do not raise this point to be evasive or to set up an excuse for withholding data. The government is fully committed to the monitoring and evaluation of this strategy. I would like, though, to make it clear that we are dealing with sensitive issues and that there may be some limitations regarding the data that can be made publicly available. On the issue of data, I wish to highlight a new initiative that the government is taking to improve its data about alcohol related offences. The focus of the government's strategy in the bills is for immediate intervention regarding alcohol abuse. To assess the impact of these bills, collecting information on alcohol offences is imperative. The Queensland Police Service has already acted to improve its data regarding alcohol related offences by ensuring that for all reported offences it is identified whether the offence was alcohol related or not. This was previously an optional matter for police entering data on a reported offence. Police will now use the same definition of 'alcohol related' as Queensland Health uses. To further assist in evaluating the alcohol strategy, the Queensland Police Service has also started recording numbers of 3640 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 18 Sep 2002 alcohol related incidents in indigenous communities. These will be useful performance measures for assessing the impacts of the bills. The initiatives I have outlined demonstrate that the government is serious about ongoing monitoring and comprehensive evaluation of the successes of the new legislation and the entire Meeting challenges, making choices strategy. We are serious about evaluation because we are serious about the strategy. The opposition has also expressed interest in seeing the Cape York Partnerships Unit work plan. The Cape York Partnerships Unit will not be fully operational until the beginning of October. While there is a high level plan which was developed as part of Meeting challenges, making choices, it represents only the government's commitment to the partnerships process and not the community side. The arrangements for the community side of the new unit are still being finalised. Once the structure is in place, the real work of the Cape York Partnerships Unit will be negotiated in partnership between the community side and the government side of the unit. The schedule for the unit's work will be publicly available at that time. Until these partnership negotiations take place, it would be presumptuous of the government to be too prescriptive about particular priorities and time lines for the work of the unit. I can say, however, that there is a clear consensus between the government and the communities and that the priority for the unit is to facilitate alcohol management plans. Preparation for this work is already well advanced and will commence in priority communities during the next month. Let me stress that the concept for this unit is for government to develop a new way of doing business with indigenous communities. It will be an approach based on true partnership. Some of our old Public Service practices and processes will not be useful in this context. It may take some time to get this right, but I believe that the outcomes of this partnership approach will be much better and much more sustainable than our current level of success in indigenous communities. A further issue raised by the opposition concerned the resources for the implementation and enforcement of the bills. The implementation of the bills will be based on community-driven alcohol management plans. The opposition has raised concerns about the number of liquor licensing officers that are available to assist us in the process. However, the Liquor Licensing Division is not the only agency assisting with the development of the alcohol management plans. In Cape York the new Cape York Partnerships Unit will be leading this implementation process as part of a whole-of-government approach in partnership with the Cape York Partnerships Unit community side and the Apunipima Cape York Health Council. The state budget this year saw an allocation of an extra $1 million for the establishment of the partnerships unit to do this work. Outside the cape, officers of the Liquor Licensing Division will be primarily responsible for assisting five communities to develop plans, and this will be done in conjunction with officers from my department. I am advised that the Liquor Licensing Division has, in addition to its six indigenous liquor licensing officers, a number of other senior officers across the state who may be called upon if necessary to assist with plan development. The current approach to alcohol management plans will be broadened to ensure a holistic response to the problem. The member for Maroochydore raised some specific questions about the Liquor Licensing Division's targets in relation to the alcohol management plans. I have been advised that in 2000- 01 the Liquor Licensing Division provided assistance in developing alcohol management plans for seven communities. The plans are driven in the community areas by alcohol reference groups and during this period five reference groups were formed. Also in that year, plans were assisted in nine communities and reference groups established in 15 communities. The member for Gregory raised a particular concern about the level of expertise of supervisors in the Liquor Licensing Division. Officers of the Liquor Licensing Division and the Queensland Police Service will undertake extensive training prior to operations in indigenous communities not only on their new enforcement powers and intelligence gathering but also on culturally sensitive issues. Many officers already have experience in pursuing sly-grogging offences in and around community areas. Operations will also include community police officers who will have an intimate knowledge of local issues. Liquor licensing officers will be primarily involved in investigating sly-grogging offences and the carriage of excessive quantities of liquor in restricted areas. More sensitive offences such as public drunkenness and drinking in dry places will continue to be the responsibility of community police and local Queensland police officers who, in most cases, will know the offender and their personal circumstances. Many members raised the issue of drug and substance abuse as issues that have been omitted from the bills' coverage and which still need to be addressed. I agree that these issues will need to be addressed as part of any comprehensive response to the problems of indigenous 18 Sep 2002 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 3641 communities. However, I do not think they are necessarily issues that could have or should have been dealt with in these bills. We already have strong drug laws in this state. It is not further legislation that is required to confront drug abuse in indigenous communities. Rather, as in mainstream communities, a number of strategies are required to deal with this problem ranging from education and awareness to rehabilitation strategies to law enforcement. I can assure all of those concerned members that just as we will support communities in the fight against alcohol we will also support them in the fight against drug abuse and other forms of substance abuse. It is likely that alcohol management plans developed by communities will need to deal with drug and substance abuse issues. In fact, the roll-out of the legislation in Cape York by the Cape York Partnerships Unit will take place in the context of a broader substance abuse strategy comprising a holistic approach to all the priority issues for communities, including alcohol, drugs, substance abuse, gambling and justice. I acknowledge, too, that we need to look at other forms of substance abuse such as petrol sniffing and paint sniffing. These problems have always been difficult to deal with because they are not against the law. Recently, however, the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy has been working with indigenous communities to develop new by-laws for law and order. As part of this exercise, the department has drafted a new by-law to deal with sniffing paint, petrol and other substances. This will overcome the gap in state law in these communities. Several councils have already adopted these new model by-laws. This is another example of the government's commitment to working in partnership with communities to address these problems. During the debate many members raised whether government would supplement the community for income lost from alcohol sales. The bills provide for the councils to continue to receive the profits of alcohol sales. I presume therefore the question is based on the assumption that the profits will fall once the community liquor licence board takes over from the council. That is our intention, and we hope that that will be the case. I believe that, if these laws are working successfully, in the next few years we should rightly see a drop in the profits of the council. However, that might be contingent on other factors. If councils can stop sly grogging then it is likely that alcohol sales from canteens might, in the short term, increase. It will take some time to analyse what is happening with the profits of the canteens before we can make an assessment about whether the community is suffering from a loss of income from the canteens. However, I point out to all members that not all indigenous communities in this state—indeed, less than half—have canteens and rely on the profits from those canteens. The other half of the communities are working quite well with the resources provided to them by government. For me the most disappointing aspect of this whole initiative has been the recent opposition to the bills from some councils and from the ACC, the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. In his speech, the Deputy Opposition Leader was critical of my relationship with the ACC and implied that I had failed to engage the ACC in a partnership on this issue. The member is right. We do not have a partnership with the ACC on this issue as yet, but I have to say that it is not for want of trying or goodwill on my part. I am acutely aware of the need to engage all the relevant stakeholders and interest groups within communities, especially councils. Even before the Meeting challenges, making choices strategy was finalised, in March I addressed a full ACC council meeting about these proposals. Shortly after the strategy was announced I again met with the ACC along with ATSIC to discuss the strategy. While we had some differences, the ACC and ATSIC supported the government's strategy at the time. The ACC has evidently changed its mind about the strategy, and that is a shame. But I have not given up hope that it will join us in a partnership to address the problems of alcohol abuse and violence. I will be continuing to seek the ACC's participation in the implementation of this strategy. For example, the ACC has been recently invited to participate in the development of the Cape York Partnerships Unit, which will be the prime mover of much of this implementation process. Unfortunately, the ACC has chosen not to avail itself of this opportunity to date, which is regrettable. But I will continue to seek to engage the ACC on this important strategy. I have at all times endeavoured to answer the written and oral requests of the ACC, and I have letters to table that address its concerns. I will move on to discuss briefly what appear to be the ACC's two principal concerns with the bill: firstly, that we are taking the alcohol licences off the councils; and, secondly, that we are creating community justice groups under this legislation. I am disappointed that the ACC has not been able to see past its own vested interests to support measures that have been called for by members of indigenous communities for a number of years. I cannot comprehend why the ACC 3642 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 18 Sep 2002 continues to argue for councils to keep control of supplying alcohol to residents when this alcohol is clearly responsible for killing people and destroying the quality of life in their communities. The ACC says that councils can manage alcohol licences responsibly, but this claim does not hold up against the evidence of continuing high levels of alcohol abuse in remote communities. The ACC says that taking the alcohol licences off councils is contrary to community self- management, but it seems to ignore the fact that we are giving the licences to community based boards. We are giving them to community members who will have a charter to run the licences in a way that prevents harm to community members, and I ask the ACC to explain to me why that is not self-management. The second concern of the ACC appears to be that we should not be giving community justice groups legislative powers over alcohol because this conflicts with the council's status as the law-making body in the community. I make it clear that councils have always had the power to make by-laws to deal with alcohol, but they have rarely used them. I am aware of only two instances in the past decade where councils have used that power. By and large councils have done nothing to use their law-making powers to confront alcohol issues. I should point out that councils will continue to have powers to make laws about alcohol provided they are not inconsistent with the new laws initiated by the community justice group. Their track record in this area, however, does not give me any confidence that they will necessarily take this action. In contrast, community justice groups have shown a willingness to take up the challenges confronting alcohol and violence issues in their communities, and the government is prepared to back these groups in the future. For many years these fine elders and community leaders have been asking for legislative powers to do their work, and today we will be responding to those calls by passing this legislation. In conclusion, in the very short time available to me, I thank all those public servants from my own department and from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Police and the Department of Health, and most importantly from the Liquor Licensing Division, who have worked so hard on this legislation. Literally hundreds of public servants have worked incredibly hard for the past 12 months formulating this strategy and putting together this legislation. If there is one officer I would single out, it is Michael Limerick from DATSIP, who is here in this chamber. Michael has been working solidly on this bill for 12 months, and I am very proud of the work that he in particular has done. He has been joined by a lot of very willing, very concerned and very hardworking people. Finally, I thank all my ministerial colleagues. Without their support, and the Premier's support in particular, we would not have got this legislation to the parliament today. Motion agreed to.

Committee 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) in charge of the bills.

Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr JOHNSON (12.04 p.m.): I do not intend to take too much time of the House this afternoon, but I want clarification of a few issues from the minister. Clause 8 inserts proposed section 32AA headed 'Special accounting provision for particular payments', and subsection (1) reads— An Aboriginal council must keep separate accounting records for payments made to it under the Indigenous Communities Liquor Licenses Act 2002, section 9. I have one issue to raise in relation to that proposed section, and I will say at the outset that some queries have also been raised with me by the ACC and other indigenous people. Although there will now be a different type of accounting and a different set of records kept, I ask the minister what sort of scrutiny she will have of the accounts as the system progresses. 18 Sep 2002 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 3643

Will the minister have inspection services going around aiding these indigenous communities with their management procedures in the interim stages? That is what I am concerned about. The minister knows as well as I do—and everybody here agrees—that we have to get this legislation absolutely right, and it will not be easy for some of these management practices to be implemented straightaway. That will be a difficult task, and the minister will get the total support of the opposition in that task, but will assistance and outside help be given to make certain that this system starts off on the right foot? Ms SPENCE: The councils are already assisted significantly by our DATSIP officers in their financial bookkeeping. Indeed, we have officers dedicated solely to that purpose at present. I expect that those existing officers will help these councils make the transition in this accounting requirement. At the end of the day their figures and accounts are publicly available and they are audited by the Auditor-General as well as undergoing internal audits throughout the year. I am confident this transition can be achieved through existing resources. If that is not the case, then I would expect the department to report to me and we will then see if we can provide further resources. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr JOHNSON (12.08 p.m.): Clause 10 inserts proposed section 45C(1), which reads— A community justice group for a community area may be established under a regulation. My query to the minister is: what will be the components of the community justice groups? I know what the membership selection criteria will be, but how will that process be followed? Does the minister have specified numbers for each of these community justice groups or will each community have different allocations of numbers? The important factor here is that under proposed section 45D the community justice groups will have to regulate the possession and consumption of alcohol in the area declared under proposed part 3B, division 2, as inserted by clause 1. The explanatory notes state that the community justice groups will have to make recommendations to the community liquor licence board and that groups may make recommendations about the days and hours of operation of the canteen and the availability of takeaway alcohol. There is quite a bit in this very important clause, but the real issue here is eligibility. We know applicants will have to face a fairly stringent test. How will the nomination of persons to the community justice groups be effected and what will the terms be for the period a member holds office? Will there be a set period for these people to hold office? Ms SPENCE: The member raises a very significant question. These are vital issues in terms of the workability of the legislation we are debating today and whether these community justice groups can undertake the task the parliament is giving them today. As the member rightly points out, the detail of the workings of community justice groups is not contained in this legislation, but it will be in future regulations. The government is still working through these details with the communities. We have had two sessions at which we have pulled together all of the community justice groups to workshop these very issues to try to get some consensus about whether we can have a one-size-fits-all look about the community justice groups in terms of composition, members, eligibility criteria, nomination of persons as members and so on. They are issues we are still debating. I think it is the desire of most communities to have separate regulations about these issues. We might indeed see that community justice groups look different from one community to another. In some communities they are telling us that they need to reflect clan groupings. In other communities that is not so necessary. In some communities the groups will primarily comprise elders. In some communities they want younger people on the community justice groups as well. I expect that we will see a flexible model that will allow communities to develop their own community justice groups. I would welcome the member's participation in this discussion in the next couple of months. If he has any ideas about what the community justice groups should look like then I would be pleased to hear them. Mr JOHNSON: I thank the minister for that response. I believe it to be very positive. As I have assured the minister in the past, she will get nothing but total commitment from the 3644 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 18 Sep 2002 opposition on this, because we are as dedicated to making this work as the government is. It has to work for the common good of these people, and we certainly give that total commitment. The minister spoke about flexibility. It is good to hear her use that word. No doubt the minister will look at different issues as this process progresses. I ask: will the people currently in these positions be qualified to be part of the community justice groups? No doubt they will be subjected to the scrutiny test. The people who operate in communities now will be subjected to the same scrutiny as new people who seek to come on board. I am not trying to trap the minister or be smart at all. Some communities are run better than others. The minister knows that as well as I do. There are good managers in some of these communities and there are poor managers in others. I am trying to make certain that the framework set by this legislation will ensure that the best people will be the recipients of the positions in question. If somebody has a flaw in their make-up, it is important to eliminate that person to make sure the right people are put in place. Ms SPENCE: I can understand the member's concern about the composition of the community justice groups. I share the desire of the member to make sure that the very best people in communities are members of the community justice groups. Under this legislation we will have the power to prohibit people with criminal records from participating in a community justice group. The regulation will determine what kinds of offences will disqualify a person from being involved in a community justice group. I think the member can see from that that, while the legislation is quite broad about the terms and membership of the community justice groups, the hard work is yet to be done in terms of membership of community justice groups. It is probably the most important work that is yet to be done, because getting the right people on these groups making these important decisions I think will be the challenge for us in the months ahead. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr JOHNSON (12.14 p.m.): Clause 11 relates to the control of possession and consumption of alcohol in community areas. I believe this is an integral part of the legislation. It will be a new thing for a lot of the communities in question. Some of these communities are dry communities now. I refer to section 45O, 'Objections and supporting submissions'. Paragraph (2) states— A proposed declaration of a private place as a dry place may be objected to or supported by— (a) a person or group of persons with the authority to control access to the place or a neighbouring place under Aboriginal tradition; or (b) the occupier of, or a person or group who use, the place or a neighbouring place. Could the minister explain who will lock up that area in question? Are those dry areas flexible? There may be a major event planned whereby the community will hold an event, maybe down on the riverbank or in some other area of the community. Can that dry area change from time to time at the discretion of that management group? Ms SPENCE: Yes, a community can deem a place to be a dry place for a particular event, if they were holding an event and wanted to make a particular part of the community dry. With 14 days notice they can declare a dry place. They can also suspend a dry place declaration. So they can remove that declaration. I also make the point that dry places will not be fenced off places. They might be the park. They might be streets in the community. They might be river banks. Any public area can be declared a dry place with the consent of the community. The member will also notice that we are giving the power in this legislation for individuals to declare their own homes dry places. It certainly has been put to the government that we should have been tougher in this regard and allowed the community justice groups to dedicate individual residences dry places. Indeed, that is a position that has been argued by Noel Pearson and other interested people in relation to this legislation. We have decided against making that very tough move in this legislation because community justice groups can go to court and advise the magistrate about these matters if there is a domestic violence issue. If it is the feeling of the community justice group that a certain house should be declared a dry place because there has been domestic violence, then when the justice group advises the magistrate about sentencing options it can give that advice to the magistrate in that process. The magistrate would have the power to declare a residence a dry place. So rather than give the community justice groups the power to make a house a dry place against the occupants' wishes, this allows the community justice group to go to the court, make that recommendation to the magistrate and allow the magistrate to make that kind of 18 Sep 2002 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 3645 recommendation. We believe that it would be too difficult and put too much responsibility in the hands of the community justice groups to be certifying individual residences as dry places if the resident did not necessarily want that to occur. This bill does give individuals the right to declare their own homes dry places in the community. We are talking about some very important issues here. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr JOHNSON (12.20 p.m.): Clause 21 concerns the amendment of the functions of island councils. Subclause (2A) reads— Without limiting the functions and powers of an Island council, a council may make by-laws— (a) not inconsistent with part 3B, for the purpose of regulating and controlling the possession or consumption of alcohol in its council area; or (b) conferring functions on the community justice group for its council area. If the community justice group makes a regulation in relation to a dry area or an area for the consumption of alcohol—I hope I have not misunderstood this, but it means that the island council can override that ruling. Is that what this means? Ms SPENCE: No, it will not be possible for the council to override the community justice group's decision to declare an area a dry place—not in the Torres Strait or Aboriginal councils. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clause 23— Mr JOHNSON (12.21 p.m.): Clause 23 refers to special accounting provisions for particular payments. The clause reads— (1) An Island council must keep separate accounting records for payments made to it under the Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Act 2002, section 9. (2) The council must ensure the amounts paid to it are used only for— (a) funding programs or services for the benefit of residents of its council area; or (b) if an implementation regulation under the Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Act 2002— and it goes on. What will be the reporting methods in relation to these special accounting provisions for particular payments? Will these councils be reporting in the same way as the community justice groups? I am not going to speak any more on this particular piece of legislation, but there is one issue that causes some concern. A lot of people are aware of the good things contained in this legislation. No doubt the minister has identified them in her reply, as have other speakers. The good things that will come out of this include the catch-up in other areas, such as health aspects. A better health system will be put in place because there is better control of alcohol. There will be better education facilities because people will have more purpose. There will be a general purpose in these communities where people want to achieve and have an outcome to their lives. Some of these communities will take control of their situations and there will be a different program in place. However, some of the indigenous people have said to me that they are concerned about the profits of the canteens. The money goes back into the communities. As far as I am concerned, the profits are going to be greater because there is going to be catch-up in other areas. However, if there are shortfalls and the profits are not there, will there be some sort of make-up in the interim from government to assist the communities through the embryo stage to make certain that there is no loss of revenue to the communities? What will be the reporting methods back to the central office? Ms SPENCE: The clause 23 to which the honourable member is referring is a mirror clause of the one that we discussed earlier in the Aboriginal bill. It is mirrored for the Torres Strait community services legislation. The accounts are internally audited and are publicly available. They are annually audited by the Auditor-General. The way they spend the alcohol profits will be publicly scrutinised for members of the community to see. In terms of the other issue, namely whether the government will compensate the communities if the canteen profits decline, I am hoping that the canteen profits do decline. I think one of the measures by which we judge the success of this legislation will be if we see a reduction 3646 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 18 Sep 2002 in canteen profits. On the other hand, if we are successful in reducing the sly grogging coming into the community, maybe community members will turn to the canteen and we will see an increase in canteen profits. I think it is too soon for us to judge what is going to happen to canteen profits in the future. The other restrictions that people might make in relation to alcohol closing days or the type of alcohol sold will obviously have some effect on canteen profits. At this stage, the government is not looking at compensating communities if their canteen profits reduce. Only half of the communities have canteens; the other half do not have canteens and they are operating quite well on government subsidy. It is important when we discuss this issue to say that the government is willing to put more resources into the communities to assist them in ways that will enhance their development. We will certainly not just look at compensating councils for the reduction in canteen profits. We will look at putting more resources into the communities in other socially beneficial areas. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Ms SPENCE (12.28 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 1. Clause 31— At page 73, line 14, 'div 2'— omit, insert— 'div 3'. 2. Clause 31— At page 73, line 15, '84'— omit, insert— '84A'. 3. Clause 31— At page 73, line 17, 'Division 2'— omit, insert— 'Division 3'. 4. Clause 31— At page 73, line 19, '84A'— omit, insert— '84B'. I table explanatory notes to those amendments. Amendments agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 40, as read, agreed to. Schedule— Ms SPENCE (12.29 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 5. Schedule— At page 83, lines 1 to 5— omit. Amendment agree to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9— Mr JOHNSON (12.29 p.m.): A lot of this is a rerun of the previous legislation, but clause 9 refers to payments to be made to indigenous councils. It reads— (1) A board must, within 28 days after the end of each quarter of a financial year, pay to the indigenous council for the board's community area an amount representing 75% of the board's net profits for the quarter. (2) The board must, within 14 days after the board receives the auditor-general's report under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977— 18 Sep 2002 Community Services Legn Amt Bill; Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 3647 and it goes on. I believe that this is probably one of the best management practices that we could see. For obvious reasons, it is going to make people more accountable. At the same time, it goes back again to the purpose of making absolutely certain that the right people are in control of these boards. The exercise to put the right people on the boards is well and truly canvassed. They are subjected to a fairly severe screening test. I have heard people say here from time to time that it is a step towards getting it right. I hope that it is going to be the step that will make it right. I know that different aspects of the legislation have been covered. We have not canvassed them in the committee stage, but if members have read the legislation—and most of us have—they would know that indigenous police, liquor inspectors and ordinary Queensland Police Service people will oversee this legislation to make sure that it is right. I said in my contribution during the second reading debate at the sitting of the parliament in Townsville, and I reiterate it today, that the opposition supports these bills as necessary first steps in the process of tackling alcohol abuse in indigenous communities in the Cape York region. The important factor is in relation to quarterly reporting and the release of the Cape York Partnership Unit's work. I again reassure the minister that the opposition will give bipartisan support to rid these communities of the blight of alcohol abuse. I look forward to continuing to work with the minister in bringing about these changes. I again appeal to the Aboriginal Coordinating Council to work closely with the minister, the government and me, as the opposition representative, to bring about the changes that we desire for the betterment of the Aboriginal communities in question. With that desire, I believe that this legislation will have purpose and will deliver the outcome that we all want to see. We will see young indigenous people having a lifestyle different from what they have been accustomed to in the past. To use the Premier's own words of lost generations, I think that everybody in this chamber is absolutely sick and tired of lost generations. This is about catch-up generations. I believe that these two pieces of legislation are certainly going to have purpose. They are certainly on the mark for bringing about that change. I say to the minister here today that she has shown guts, she has shown grit and she has shown determination in making absolutely certain that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet to get the outcomes that we want. I reiterate today that the minister has my total support—she has the total support of this opposition—in making these outcomes become reality. I know that there are some concerns with the ACC, but I believe that together we can take the ACC with us to give that direction, to give that leadership, to give that outcome that everybody so desires. I will not speak any further to this legislation. Clause 9 refers to the payments to be made to these indigenous councils. I think that the minister has canvassed this issue pretty well in her summary. I think that we must make certain, from the director-general down, that the people whom the minister is putting in place to administer this legislation—whether they be located in Cairns, Townsville or in Brisbane—are the proper people who will get the outcomes that we desire in the Cape York communities, the western communities, or the communities in the electorates such as Fitzroy and Callide that those respective members touched on. The opposition supports this legislation totally. I hope that all communities, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, can work together to make certain that we can eliminate that sly grogging element. That is probably the scourge of these communities. I hope that the full weight of the law is going to be brought down on anybody who wants to violate this law against bringing that sly grog into those communities, as it is going to be detrimental to those people's lifestyles and the purpose of what we are trying to implement with this legislation. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mickel): Before I call the minister, could I ask the committee to welcome to the public gallery the students, teachers and parents from the Burleigh Heads State School in the electorate of Burleigh. Ms SPENCE: I thank the shadow minister for those comments. Just to answer his concerns about the board appointees, like the appointees to the justice groups the regulations will set the eligibility criteria for board appointees. That is mentioned in clause 10. We will be conducting criminal history checks on board appointees, which I believe is mentioned in clause 12. The type of criminal history that we would be looking at will be decided in the regulations. Obviously, if any criminal history makes one ineligible to join a board, then it might be difficult to get some good people on those boards. But we have to be very careful about the type of criminal history that we deem to be acceptable for a board appointment. Indeed, it is our government's policy not to put people with criminal histories on our government appointed boards, particularly if 3648 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 those histories have resulted in a prison sentence. So we would be looking at some sort of criteria like that in the regulation. At the end of the day, the minister responsible will be appointing the three-person board. They will be assisted by an ex-officio public servant. We should be rightly concerned about the capacity of board members in their early days to do the job that we have given them to do. It is going to be a very important process to find those three good people—the three right people in each community—who have the capacity to manage the canteen and fulfil all the responsibilities that are set out in this legislation. Finally, I would like to thank, yet again, the opposition and all the Independent members of this parliament. I think that every single member of the parliament has indicated their support for this legislation. We have come a long way in this state in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy. As Queensland parliamentarians, we all have a much better understanding of the needs of indigenous communities than once was the case. We all share a desire to improve the lives of our indigenous Queenslanders. We understand that, without being paternalistic, the government has a responsibility to assist, support and give capacity to these communities to reach self-management and self-determination. I think that these two bills that we are passing today certainly will assist them in their process. We all share the concerns about the intolerable levels of violence and substance abuse in indigenous communities. We have signalled our desire to do something strong to change and turn around those communities. I thank all members for their support for this legislation. I think that today marks a turning point in how governments will be working in partnership with indigenous communities to solve some of the difficult social issues that beset these communities. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 50, as read, agreed to. Clause 51— Ms SPENCE (12.38 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1 and also table the explanatory notes— 1. Clause 51— At page 27, line 5, 'if'— omit, insert— 'unless'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 51, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 52 to 96, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bills reported, with amendments.

Third Reading Bills, on motion of Ms Spence, by leave, read a third time.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT REGULATION (No. 3) 2002 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (12.41 p.m.): I move— That the Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 (Subordinate Legislation 2002 No. 199) tabled in the parliament on 20 August 2002 be disallowed. This regulation seeks to amend the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 1995 and the Transport Operations (Road Use-Management Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999. This regulation is a monument to the dishonesty of this Beattie government. It represents in black and white the treachery of Labor. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The minister can laugh all he likes. We went through the budget estimates, but the minister did not have the guts to stand up and say he would do this. These regulations seek to give effect to the new fees and charges that the Beattie government is foisting upon the people of Queensland. There is a $37 replacement registration certificate for boats, $16.95 to transfer boat registrations, $10 to replace registration labels on cars and boats, $15 for the road 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3649 rule test—that must be one against children for a start—and $40 for late payment of vehicle registration. Time and again, if people are one or two days late in these terms, they will cop a $40 fine. It never ceases to amaze me that by stealth we have these changes. Let me make it quite clear so that even some of the media in Queensland can understand: many of the charges in this regulation are new charges. This does not represent, as some journalists claim, the government sailing close to breaking an election promise. This is positive proof that the Beattie government lied to the people of Queensland and holds the electorate in contempt. That is exactly and precisely right because tit is holding the electorate in contempt. The minister never came out in the budget estimates and told us about this one. We waited for a week until after the budget estimates and we heard what the charges will be. Mr Bredhauer: You were not even here to debate the budget estimates. Mr JOHNSON: Yes, I was. Mr Bredhauer: You weren't even here to debate budget estimates. Mr JOHNSON: I was. You know why I wasn't here. Mr Bredhauer: You couldn't even be bothered to show up. Mr JOHNSON: Where was I then? Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I would sit back and be quiet if I were you. You are nothing but a parasite; you know that. The bogus claim by this government that it is committed to open and accountable government has always been nothing but a stunt, but this low act is so laden with hypocrisy that we could shovel it. We could shovel it with a front end loader, too, because there is plenty of it. May I remind the frauds opposite that the admission that these charges were going to be imposed on taxpayers came a week after the parliamentary estimates debates. How open and accountable is that? How open is that, minister? The minister cannot even answer that. I will answer it for the minister. It is an absolutely gutless direction. Let me now move on to what the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee found after I moved this disallowance motion, bearing in mind that the committee's role is one of reviewing the subordinate legislation process with a view to finding if it is lawful and consistent with the fundamental legislative principles and compliant with the Statutory Instruments Act 1992. Given the constraints of an all-party committee, it is fair to say that the committee has bagged the minister and the department. I remind the minister that this committee is made up of members of both sides of the House. There is no doubt that— Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr JOHNSON: Yes, I know it is. I didn't say it wasn't, did I? There is no doubt that this subordinate legislation breaches the Statutory Instruments Act because it imposes a cost on the community. These costs have been imposed without community consultation. Let us look at some of the findings of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. It concludes in paragraph 5.11 that— ... the amendment regulation does not only amend existing charges but it also introduces new fees. Let me repeat that for the journalists who have some doubt about this: it is in direct contradiction to the government's election promise. Under paragraph 5.16 the committee concludes— ... the committee tends towards the view that a regulatory impact statement should have been prepared. Well, I tend towards the view that it is bleeding obvious that an RIS should have been prepared. I also tend towards the view that the whole stunt should have been presented to the estimates committee of the parliament. The opposition has expressed concern at the way these charges were introduced without consultation. Members on the other side rubbished the opposition when it first raised these concerns. Even the Premier came into this House and talked up the justification for these charges. The Premier did not admit that these are new fees and charges that break an election promise of his government. The Premier did not explain why these new fees and charges were hidden from the estimates process. The answer is arrogance, total arrogance. The Minister for Transport and Main Roads has tried to run as an excuse for this arrogant abuse of the regulatory process that it was all the fault of the Business Regulation Reform Unit. Let us just examine this excuse for a minute. Why was the Business Regulation Reform Unit approached in the first place? This is easy. The reason they went to BRRU was to get approval not to do a regulatory impact statement. The question is—why was Queensland Transport trying to get out of doing a regulatory impact 3650 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 statement? That is pretty easy to answer as well—because it knew the community would object. In the best traditions of this arrogant and financially deficient government, it decided to prostitute the regulatory system. What is also fascinating in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report is that it confirms what the National Party has been saying for ages. The BRRU advised Transport that an RIS was not needed if the regulation only provides for a fee or charge consistent with announced government policy. BRRU believes, just like the National Party, that introducing new fees and charges in direct conflict with a government election promise is now announced government policy. I will do a Peter Beattie here and repeat that. The BRRU believes just like the National Party that introducing new fees and charges in direct conflict with a government election promise is now announced government policy. What a sad state of affairs! The official policy of the government is to break its election promise and try to hide it from the people of Queensland. I await with some anticipation the contribution of some of the hypocrites opposite as they rush to justify breaking yet another election promise. I hasten to add that this is just one example of the treachery of this government in relation to fees and charges. We would mention land taxes, DPI charges and plenty of others. Once he was found out trying to deceive the media by these charges, the minister had to come clean and try to explain his treachery. I hope all Labor members were listening carefully to the reasons given by the Premier and later aped by the minister. These new fees and charges are to recoup the cost of providing the services. Who was saying that? Some dry-as-a-bone economist from the far right? Who is this economic rationalist? Was it Margaret Thatcher? Perhaps it was that other champion of dry economics Paul Keating? The answer is that it was that well-known economic rationalist Peter Beattie, the champion of user pays economics. He said, 'Why should the community pay because someone fails their written test? Why should the community pay because someone loses their registration label?' Would any member opposite like to answer the questions posed by the Premier? I will. The community should pay, because it always has. These charges have always been included in the overall registration and driver licence charges. More importantly, this type of thinking is very dangerous and a direct challenge to many of the institutions that are fundamental to Queensland and our way of life. Having lain back and copped this treachery, members opposite will presumably have difficulty with it being extended to other government services. Why should the community pay for the police to investigate break and enters? Why should our hospitals pay for those who let themselves get sick? Why should the community pay for kids who want to get an education? We had a free education system and free hospitals in this state until the mob opposite came to power. It certainly changed a lot of that. The thinking behind these changes means that there is no philosophical difficulty in privatising the police force, the hospitals and our schools. That noise we can hear is Ned Hanlon turning in his grave. What a bunch of hypocrites! Let me also reinforce the injustice of these charges by looking at who they will penalise. Mr Beattie was keen to point to the private school kids abusing the written test by taking the test without studying. But I ask those opposite: who else had difficulty passing the written test? Those with learning difficulties have difficulty with these tests, but they will now be penalised by this penny-pinching Labor government. Who are these fiends replacing— Mr Bredhauer: You should have read it at least once before you came in. Mr JOHNSON: If the member had the flu like I have, he would have difficulty, too. Who are the fiends who are replacing their windscreen labels? Mostly, they are the victims of broken windscreens who have been in an accident or copped a stone on one of our deplorable roads. How dare they rush in and get a label so that they can comply with their legal obligations, only to be hit in the hip pocket again. One of the classics from the bunch of bandits opposite is the $40 fee for the late payment of vehicle registration. There might be some people who do not pay sufficient attention to their obligation, but in general we know who cannot pay their registration on time. It is the battlers—the battlers who have been abandoned by Labor. The member for Bulimba used to stick up for the battlers. I thought the chardonnay socialist from Logan would be sticking up for the battlers, but he, too, apparently is an economic rationalist. I never thought I would see the member for Rockhampton ratting on the workers by kicking them when they are down. We will see what happens later. My other concern— Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. Mr JOHNSON: The member was not even sitting in his seat. 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3651

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am now. I find those remarks personally offensive and I demand that they be withdrawn. I have never ratted on anybody in my life, let alone workers. That is a very offensive remark. That is akin to calling me a scab. Mr JOHNSON: Don't get angry. Don't get aggressive. Mr SCHWARTEN: You withdraw it. Mr JOHNSON: What are you getting angry for? Mr SCHWARTEN: Because it is a low accusation. That is why. Mr JOHNSON: I withdraw. I know where the member for Rockhampton is coming from. What I am saying is that I never thought I would see the member for Rockhampton ratting on workers by kicking them when they are down. We will see what happens later. Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member should withdraw without qualification. Mr JOHNSON: No-one is asking the member for Murrumba. I have withdrawn. Mr SCHWARTEN: Madam Acting Speaker, I am asking. Don't you ever accuse me of ratting on workers. Mr JOHNSON: I have withdrawn. What I am saying— Mr SCHWARTEN: The member repeated it and I asked him to withdraw it again. Mr JOHNSON: I withdrew. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips): Order! The honourable member is asked to withdraw. Mr JOHNSON: I have unequivocally withdrawn. What I am saying is that the member for Rockhampton mostly sticks up for the workers. Is he going to support this government? Its members are the ones ratting on the workers through the increase in fees introduced by the minister. I know the member for Rockhampton sticks up for the workers. That is where I have been coming from. My other concern is that this subordinate legislation is the thin end of the wedge. Transport was one of the pilot departments for the ASAP program being driven by Treasury, and these charges are just the first of many. This whole stunt is pretty transparent. Early in its second term it is getting all of the bad news out of the way, standing up to the unions and using the unrest to argue for higher taxes and sack as many staff as it can get away with. It is introducing new taxes and charges. It is fessing up about the dud projects like the bogus tilt train, and clearing the decks of all the bad news, all the while just waiting for the GST money to start hitting the tin. While government members sit back and rat on the battlers, the National Party will stand up for them—the real workers. We have stood up for them before and we will stand up for them again. The evidence is there. Ms Molloy interjected. Mr JOHNSON: I can hear the member for Noosa crowing, but where was she when the Labor government tried to shut down railway lines in western Queensland? Where was she when it tried to close railway workshops? The member for Townsville and other members in the region will certainly find out that it is the National Party that stands up for the workers. Time expired. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (12.56 p.m.): I second the disallowance motion moved by my colleague the member for Gregory. What we are seeing here today is a downright deceitful and blatant attempt to introduce new fees, taxes and charges, contrary to all of the deceitful promises that the government and Premier have made. Even more dishonest is the deceitful way it has been brought into this parliament. We hear a lot about accountable government. What do we see? We had the budget process, with the budget papers and the estimates process. That was the place for the government to be able to show what increased and new taxes and charges it was going to bring in. But, no, the government kept it hidden. The only reason it came to light was that someone on talkback radio brought it up. Then we saw the panic set in, with the minister having to come into the parliament and make all sorts of announcements. That just goes to show the level of deceit this government is prepared to stoop to. 3652 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002

This government is so arrogant with its massive numbers that it is not prepared to put this in the budget—the proper place for it. The government had this in place ready to go, but it hid it in the cupboard and waited for the budget to go through so there would be no criticism during the budget and estimates processes. Suddenly the government was caught out when a talkback caller on the radio announced these new charges, and the government had to come clean. We are moving for this to be disallowed, because it is a blatant breaking of an election promise—that of no new fees and charges. We see a government that is not only deceitful but a government that is also incompetent when it comes to running its budget. The issue this government is facing is that because of the downgrade to the budget, because of the massive operating deficits it has delivered for two years in a row, department after department has to find ways of raking in the extra millions that have been wantonly wasted. Just look at the 180 staff the Premier has in his Community Engagement Division. How much is that costing? Mrs Reilly interjected. Mr HORAN: Members opposite are interjecting. The constituents of members with coastal seats will all be hit by these new taxes, such as the $37 charge for a replacement registration certificate for boats. They should tell the boaties in their electorates about that and also the $16.95 charge to transfer boat registrations, the $10 charge for a replacement label for cars and boats, the $15 charge for the road rules test, and the $40 charge for the late payment of vehicle registration. All of these charges affect people. All of these charges have been built into existing charges. The existing charges for registration and so on catered for the overall cost of operation of the Department of Transport. But this is a straight-out money grab. They have all been given their riding instructions and been told to find ways to bring in more money, because of the parlous state of the Queensland budget. This is just another example of that. It is part of a pattern that has been developing under the arrogance and deceit of this government. The Premier said that there were no new fees and charges. That is a broken election promise. He has repeatedly promised that there would be no new fees and charges. But today is proving that that was a straight-out deceit. The Premier must have meant that there will be no new fees and charges that the government is going to tell us about, only the ones that it is going to sneak into place. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Before calling the Leader of the Opposition, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Tiaro State School and Maryborough Central State School, both of which are in the electorate of Maryborough. Mr HORAN: Before the lunch break I was talking about the pattern evolving in the introduction of these new taxes and charges. I said that this particular new tax, new charge, new fee was introduced in the sneakiest possible way—that is, after the budget had been delivered and after the budget estimates and only because it had been brought to light through talkback radio. However, at least we have got this one before the House. We can see the pattern that has been developing. The Beattie government's tick clearance service fee increased by 30 per cent from 1 July without state parliament even having the opportunity to review those increases. In that particular case the minister sought to use an obscure clause in the Financial and Administration Audit Act 1977—that is, section 36A(2), which provides for the accountable officer to fix fees and charges payable for goods and services supplied by the department. There was a deliberate attempt at deception by that minister to use that obscure clause to introduce massive increases in charges for tick inspection, tick clearance and so forth which are normally in place to prevent disease outbreaks. That is part of the pattern that we are seeing today. This minister was virtually dragged kicking and screaming into the parliament to explain that, yes, he was going to bring in new charges and that, yes, he had hidden them from the budget and the budget process. As a result, it was brought in as a regulation and accordingly this parliament has had the chance to openly debate this regulation. Mr Bredhauer: That has got nothing to do with it. It was not hidden at all. Mr HORAN: I am saying that we are debating it now. I am pointing out the difference. However, the minister opposite was forced to bring it to the parliament once it was announced on radio and it therefore has come into the House. In the other case involving Primary Industries, it went out of its way to hide it and deceptively slipped it in. The Primary Industries Minister likes to pretend that he is the farmers' friend but then behind their backs quietly slips in a 300 per cent increase without even having the courage to put it before the parliament. The real issue here is that not only has this regulation come into the House—and the minister says that at least it is being done in an open way—but also there is great concern as to 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3653 how it came about. These regulations were not subject to a regulatory impact statement. They have been criticised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Transport argued that it was advised by the Business Regulation Review Unit in the Department of State Development that an RIS would not be necessary because the changes were consistent with announced government policy. What sort of government policy? The policy to increase taxes or bring in new taxes and charges? Obviously there was a need to have the RIS done to see what the impact was. The committee also expressed concern that the regulation not only amends existing fees but, in its own words, 'introduces new fees'. Therefore, the committee concluded that it may have been in the public interest for an RIS to have been prepared. However, that would have exposed the Beattie government once again for breaking an election promise, so it decided to take the short cut and circumvent the regulatory impact statement that is supposed to be used in these circumstances. The government argued that the new fees are justified on the basis that they are fee for service to deter unnecessary expense and that the recompense for these services has always been included in the overall fee structure. If such a philosophy was extended to other services provided by the government, then there would be a whole raft of new fees and charges. It has always been the case that the cost of operating the department and such services has been built into the fees charged for registration and so forth for cars and boats. We believe that this whole process has represented a broken promise. It has imposed new fees and charges. It has totally ignored the estimates committee process. It has ignored the Statutory Instruments Act. It has prevented public consultation and it penalises the disadvantaged. It signals a government that is in significant financial strife, but this is only the thin end of the wedge. The budget process is very comprehensive. It is a chance for the government to be up-front and say, 'These are the new increases or charges that we have to put in place for the forthcoming financial year.' It gets scrutinised by the parliament, the media and financial commentators. The National Party believes that that is the time and place when these changes should be brought forward. The government should have the courage and the fortitude to be questioned during the estimates process, but this is a government in trouble. This is what this is all about. There have been massive budget deficits two years in a row and this government is forecasting 7.8 per cent returns to deliver $1.2 million from QIC, but it knows that it will not get it. Even if it only gets half of it, it will be $600 million short. That is the real problem this government is facing. It is getting every single department to look at how it can cut costs and increase taxes and charges. That is what we are seeing today—a straight out broken promise from a government in financial trouble. Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (2.37 p.m.): I have to say that it is a pleasure to be part of this debate. I want to address the House on the issue of the registration reinstatement fee. We have heard a great deal of comment regarding these fee increases. However, little of the opposition's rhetoric actually examines the road safety benefits that support their introduction, in particular the introduction of the registration reinstatement fee. One does not have to be Einstein to understand that when driving an unregistered vehicle you are driving a vehicle that carries no compulsory third-party insurance. Drivers of unregistered and uninsured vehicles are not considering the serious implications of their actions upon others on the road. Last year it cost the Nominal Defendant Fund $6 million for accidents involving unregistered and uninsured vehicles. The issue of registration payments received after the due date has been a problem faced by all organisations that engage in some form of periodic billing. As is the case with periodic billing, a certain proportion of people fail to pay by the due date for a variety of personal reasons. I think that I have been guilty of that in the past myself. Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Ms LIDDY CLARK: I take that interjection. In other government and semigovernment bodies such as local government, taxation, power and telecommunications, a variety of strategies have been applied to encourage people to pay on time. These strategies have included the introduction of discount periods, late fees and interest charges. Organisations concerned report that such measures have proven successful in better managing the costs associated with this problem. Again, it has helped me in a number of cases. In the case of registration payments received after the due date, Queensland Transport has monitored the situation closely over the last decade and has previously introduced initiatives such as the six-month registration option to provide greater payment flexibility. While the six-month payment option has afforded some improvement, 22 per cent of all payments are still received 3654 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 after the due date. Positive action is required to change payment behaviour and therefore ensure funds are not directed away from road safety initiatives. The registration reinstatement fees—$40 for vehicles and $10 for recreational vessels and trailers—have been set at levels that will provide a strong incentive to pay on or before the due date. In addition, Queensland Transport will continue to provide vehicle owners with a payment notice well in advance of the due date to ensure that people have adequate time to pay their registration—they just should not lose them when they come in! It is expected that these measures will result in a measurable shift in payment behaviour, with a significant improvement in people paying their registrations on or before the due date. When this occurs, it will deliver significant road safety benefits to the community. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (2.40 p.m.) Before I start my speech I will mention the level of debate brought into this place by the opposition. There seems to have been a hell of a lot of adjectives used and not too much substance, so I imagine the minister has not been taking too many notes so far and perhaps will not take too many throughout the remainder of the debate. I will address the House on a number of cost recovery initiatives which, because of the nature of the present cost structure, are carried by the wider community. The Treasurer announced in his State Budget address that the government was committed to ensuring that taxpayers receive value for money from delivery of all government services. To support this platform a review of agency fees and charges has been undertaken in a number of government departments. The prime purpose of the review is to increase the efficiency with which government funds are used and to gain the best possible result for the taxpayers of the state, therefore aligning agency services with government priorities. As part of the review process, Queensland Transport sought to review its current fees and charges for a number of services in order to better align them with appropriate benchmarks or to act as an incentive for good policy outcomes. A review of cost and charges for recreational ship transfers, replacement drivers licences, Card 18 Plus and registration and label replacement has been undertaken. I will address these in turn. Currently no fee exists for the administration charge of transferring a recreational ship registration. A fee does exist for transfer of motor vehicle registration and trailer registration. The proposed fee of $16.95 for transferring a recreational ship registration is the same as the price currently charged for a vehicle transfer. In the situation where a person purchases a tinnie on a trailer and subsequently lodges transfer documents with the department, fees apply to the trailer transfer but the boat transfer attracts no charge. Both involve a very similar effort and result, yet there is no process of cost recovery on the tinnie transfer. The fee increase does not impact on most of the community as there are only 20,000 to 30,000 transfers per annum, and for those who are impacted on the fee is relatively small. The introduction of the fee is in line with other jurisdictions where such services are provided. The replacement of a driver licence when lost, damaged or stolen is something everyone will go through at least once in their life. However, what is not considered is the road safety impact that licence replacements may have on the community. With increased reliance on the driver licence as a significant identity document within the community, there is an expectation that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that any replacement driver licence is issued to the right person. As a result, the issue of the replacement licence represents a significant face-to-face transaction for the department. Where insufficient documents are produced, counter staff may see a person more than once to complete the transaction. When a taxpayer loses his or her wallet with all other critical personal identification, including credit cards, staff often access prior licence applications to validate identity. While unfortunate for the person involved, these situations are common and time-consuming, and they usually take the customer service assistant away from road safety initiatives. The changes to the fee from $14.60 to $22 are based on cost recovery, which ensures that the cost of replacement is borne by the individual using the service and not by road safety outcomes. The 18-plus card is used primarily as identification by persons without drivers licences, particularly for entrance to licensed premises. An 18-plus card is a form of perpetual identification as no expiry date is recorded. The major reason for the introduction of this type of identity document was to provide a validated standard whereby liquor licensing inspectors, police and licensed premises staff could verify the age of a person in certain situations. The introduction of the 18-plus card is one example of a number of prevention control mechanisms to curb underage 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3655 drinking in this state. The issue of an 18-plus card does not impact on most of the community—approximately 26,000 are issued per annum—and for those who choose to purchase a card the new fee of $20 will not impose a significant cost. With reliance on the 18-plus card as a primary identity document for access to licensed premises there is an expectation that appropriate evidence to identify safeguards are in place to ensure that cards are issued to legitimate applicants. As a result, the issue of an 18-plus card represents a significant face-to-face transaction for the department. The fee increase from $8.60 to $20 is in line with cost recovery principles. Most users would purchase only one card in a lifetime. Motorists would normally apply for a replacement registration label when a windscreen is replaced due to the destruction of the existing label. The introduction of a $10 fee is based on cost recovery, which ensures that the cost of replacement is borne by the individual using the service and not lost to road safety initiatives. For motorists who replace their numberplates and receive a new registration label as part of the process, no charge will be imposed. The issue of a replacement registration label does not impact on significant numbers within the community—approximately 90,000—and for those who apply for replacement registration the fee will not impose an appreciable cost. To support public convenience, telephone access will continue to be available for ordering replacement registration labels. Payment by credit card will be available also for these customers. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.45 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the disallowance motion. I believe many people will be justifiably aggrieved by these increases. Registration costs have risen significantly because of rises in compulsory third party in particular, but other components of the registration fee have also increased. People paying their registration complain about those increases, but they believe the increased payment will cover their vehicle registration obligations. Therefore, when they go to the Department of Transport for some of these other services that have had new fees applied it will create a tense situation for many staff working at the counter when they have to explain to the general public why they have to pay for something that for many years in the past they have received free of charge. Consumers expect to receive those services free of charge because they are covered in their registration fee. As has been previously stated, no regulatory impact statement—RIS—was included in the process of increasing these fees, and therefore the community had no opportunity to comment on the appropriateness or acceptability of these increased charges. A number of increases in fees have been introduced, and in instances where those increases reflect something similar to the consumer price index, regulatory impact statements have been deemed to be not required. However, quite a number of new charges are incorporated in this regulation and it is against those that my main objection stands. The issue of a fee for the transfer of registration of recreational vessels will come as a shock to many boat owners. They pay their trailer registration and their boat licence fees, and many will say to you—rightly or wrongly; it is certainly the public perception—that they do not get too much for their dollar, and therefore to impose an additional charge on top of the fees they already pay will certainly draw criticism. If there had been a regulatory impact statement and public consultation on the fee for replacement labels for recreational ships, it would have been easy to ascertain how many boat owners believe that the labels drop off because the glue is inappropriate for the environment in which they run their vessels. I cannot speak about vessel registration stickers because I do not own a boat, but I can recall times when a lot of vehicle registration stickers have been issued with adhesive that has not been as successful as in other instances, and quite a number of vehicle registration stickers have fallen off. If there had been a public consultation as part of the regulatory impact statement process the government would have had a better handle on how effective the adhesive on boat registration stickers is, because generally speaking the stickers are used in salty conditions that are fairly harsh. The minister or the minister's departmental staff at the Department of Transport offices will certainly hear about the success or otherwise of the glue from irate owners who come in to obtain replacement registration labels and are told they have to pay for it. Comment was made, I think in a ministerial statement, about some of these new fees. I stand to be corrected, but in relation to things such as the road rules test I believe the minister said that a fee would be applied for several reasons. One was so that the people taking the test 3656 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 would take it seriously and another was so that the whole process would mean something to them. My experience is that kids do take the test pretty seriously, especially young people who have been hanging out for a licence for a couple of years. I do not know whether boys are worse than girls, but some people want a licence from the time they are about 10. They cannot wait to be 16 and a half so they can take the test to get their learners permit. I do not think the $15 fee will add to the seriousness with which people taking the road rules test approach that whole process. They take it seriously because they want their learners permit, come hell or high water. I think the fee will only penalise two groups of people. The first group are parents, because in the majority of cases parents of 16-year-olds are still paying for their living expenses. The second group that will be penalised, perhaps in a more abstruse way, are those who have to sit the test two or three times. These people can be very competent drivers but not very good with paperwork. I know young people and older people who, when faced with a test, just about implode. They are quite knowledgeable on the issues, but the stress of taking a test is a little more than they can cope with. So we are disadvantaging those who have to take these tests several times—not because of laziness and not because of ineptitude but because paperwork is a challenge. I believe that the minister said the booking fee for the practical driving test would be applied to address the situation of people not bothering to turn up for their test. Again, I would be interested in the statistics on that. An RIS would have given those statistics. Most people going for their driving test are hanging out to get their licences. They cannot wait for the day they can actually get down there and have the test. In Gladstone there is a wait time. When people book their test they have a period of time to wait. Most people will turn up because they know that if they default they will have to wait again before they can get another appointment. I understand the theory behind the minister bringing in these fees, but my experience and comments from my constituents highlight that the reality is quite different. I have here Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation No. 3. I cannot find mention of the 18-plus card. I would be interested to hear the minister clarify that issue about the 18-plus card. I do not know where that falls. Ten dollars for a replacement registration label may not be a lot of money. Recently there was an incident in my electorate. New road was laid and a significant amount of light gravel was left on the road. There were something like 137 claims to Main Roads for windscreens smashed on this section of the road. The first few were paid, but when the number of claims became significant the claims were not further processed and not paid. There will be 130 people coming in saying, 'I need a new sticker because there was gravel on the road on the way down to Boyne and a car came past and smashed my windscreen.' And the minister's officers are going to have to say, 'That will be 10 bucks.' People will not be very happy, because they already hold Main Roads responsible. There does not seem to be any flexibility in the regulation to say that if a windscreen was broken through an accident—not negligence—the fee could be waived. The same applies to the amendment to the transport act in relation to vehicle inspection booking fees. Again, I believe that these fees will target the most at risk and the most vulnerable in our community. Most vehicles that have to be inspected—that is, domestic vehicles—are older cars. The MTA is targeting older vehicles—bombs on the road. Who generally owns those older vehicles? It is people who are in a low socioeconomic area or who have a number of children—a number of people—they have to buy vehicles for because they live some distance from public transport and have to get to work. These are the ones who will be targeted for transportation inspections. They will be pulled up and required to take their vehicles in. I do not support the driving of unsafe vehicles, but the magazine of the MTA, which does a lot of good work, contained a series of photographs of defective vehicles—bombs that should be off the road. One of them was for crimp marks on some part of the vehicle. It was difficult to decipher. It looked like it could have been the wheel well. There was nothing in the defect that I could see related to roadworthiness, yet the MTA classified it as a bomb. Those who will have to go into Transport offices, who are least able to afford it, will be required to pay $20 to book the vehicle in, $29 for a minor defect reinspection or $59 for a major defect reinspection. I think this is affecting the people in the community who can least afford those sorts of additional costs. That money could be used to fix the problem with the car. These people will not have disposable income to pay these additional fees. I acknowledge that the minister has to generate the income for his department that is necessary— Time expired. 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3657

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Before calling the member for Thuringowa, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Scots PGC Junior School in the electorate of Southern Downs. Ms PHILLIPS (Thuringowa—ALP) (2.56 p.m.): I would like to specifically address the House on the issue of vehicle inspection fees that are included in the Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation. There are significant costs currently carried by the wider community in the delivery of this service. The Treasurer outlined in his budget speech for 2001-02 that, in order to support value-for-money principles for taxpayers, agencies would implement a strategic planning process to ensure that priorities align with policies. As part of that review process, Queensland Transport sought to review its current fees and charges for a number of services in order to align them better with appropriate benchmarks and to act as an incentive for good policy outcomes. This is not in any way a contradiction in government policy. I will discuss the particular aspect of vehicle inspections. The behaviour of certain elements of the transport industry in relation to vehicle inspectors has created additional costs for the taxpayer that are both wasteful and unnecessary. This initiative provides for the introduction of a non- refundable vehicle inspection booking fee of $20 and the application of fees for vehicle inspections in instances where the vehicle has failed the original inspection. An investigation of current arrangements has identified that certain operators engage in behaviour that results in unnecessary additional costs for taxpayers. Instances have been identified of operators making multiple bookings at various sites for the same vehicle on the same day. While this provides the operator with flexibility of site and time for the inspection, it results in significant waste of taxpayers' dollars. This practice has led to 3,247 bookings not being kept in the 12-month period from April 2000. These no-shows resulted in more than 1,600 hours of lost time for Transport inspectors. These inspectors could have been engaged in other road safety or enforcement activities. In addition, it reduces the department's flexibility to offer inspection times when required and therefore results in unnecessary inspection delays for other operators who act appropriately. One example of the impact of failing to keep a booking is where a vehicle operator books an inspection slot at a remote site with an inspector who travels some distance to inspect a limited number of vehicles within that area. The vehicle operator then fails to present the vehicle, with no advance warning to the inspector. There is no penalty for the operator, and therefore no incentive to keep the appointment. This is having a serious impact on some of our regional operators who do the right thing. At present there is no charge for reinspections required where defects have been identified at an initial inspection. By offering reinspections to allow for clearance of defects at no cost there is little incentive for operators to ensure the safety of their vehicle before it is presented for inspection. This results in an increased road safety risk and inefficient use of scarce transport inspection resources. In 2000-01, reinspections formed 14 per cent of programmed inspections. This produced cost burdens to the community, in that this cost is currently borne entirely by the taxpayer, and also to industry through reduced availability and flexibility of inspection slots. The charging of an inspection fee for vehicles that have failed the initial inspection will ensure that the cost of these additional inspections is at least partially met by the operator. This will also act as an incentive for operators to ensure that their vehicles are adequately maintained rather than relying on Queensland Transport inspections to alert them to defects, as in some instances appears to be the case. Charging for vehicle reinspections is consistent with other states where such services are still provided by government. Operators who ensure that the vehicles are in appropriate condition prior to the initial inspection will notice no impact from this new fee. To facilitate these changes, Queensland Transport is introducing a streamlined telephone and Internet options bookings and payments system. This new system will provide a more efficient process for those using the inspection service. Both of these charges are aimed at ensuring that Queensland Transport's transport inspectors are actively engaged in road safety outcomes for all Queenslanders and they are to be commended. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (3.02 p.m.): I would like to support this disallowance motion in regard to the Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002. This regulation introduces a new range of charges for services for Queensland Transport. Certainly, the government made an election promise of no new fees and charges. As we know, the Premier is very much to the forefront in saying that he keeps by his electoral commitments, he delivers on 3658 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 his electoral commitments and he will not break them. This is a stealth tax. He is most definitely breaking an election commitment. Let there be no hypocrisy by the Premier, his government or the Minister for Transport that this is not breaking election promises. The Premier and the Minister for Transport had absolutely no mandate to bring in these new charges—should one say 'these new taxes'? When is a tax not a tax? When it is a new charge! These new charges include $37 for replacement registration certificates for boats. That is going to affect a lot of pensioners in my area who have little tinnies that they fish from but which need to be registered. We have $16.95 to transfer boat registrations—another hit on the same people. We have a $10 charge for the replacement of registration labels for cars and boats. This is a lot of absolute nonsense. We have $15 for a road rules test and $40 for late payment of vehicle registration. These are all an impost on the ordinary person—on the man and woman in the street and on the people who are already in struggle street and are trying to meet the various government taxes and charges that are already levied on them. They need to know in detail what extra charges will be put on them by this Labor government. The charges were certainly not forecast in the budget documentation in the estimates process. These regulations were not subject to a regulatory impact statement. If one looks at Alert Digest No. 24, one will find that this action has been criticised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I know the minister argued that the government was advised by the Business Regulation Review Unit in the Department of State Development that an RIS would not be necessary because the charges 'were consistent with announced government policy'. I am not quite sure where that came from. I would like to know where it was detailed in announced government policy that all these new taxes would be levied on the people of Queensland. The committee expressed concern under 5.11 that the regulation does not only amend existing fees but 'introduces new fees'. This is a committee of the parliament. It is a bipartisan committee, usually with representation from all parties and the independents. The committee concluded 'it may have been in the public interest for a RIS to have been prepared'. Obviously, what the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee says is only taken into consideration when it suits the government of the day and, when it does not, the government ignores it. So much for the committees of this parliament! The government has argued that the new fees are justified on the basis that they are a 'fee for service' and are to deter unnecessary expense. State governments are governments which provide services. That is basically the role of the state government. The federal government is still the place to which income tax and other taxes go. As the minister would be well aware, the federal government distributes those revenues to the states. Yes, we do raise our own taxes in a number of forms, but they are minuscule when compared with what comes from the federal government. The state governments provide services, be they health, education, transport or welfare. A 'fee for service' is an interesting concept, because what other fees for service are we about to see introduced in this state? It is a well known fact that this government is running very short of money. It is endeavouring to pare back everything including, may I add, the budget of this parliament which affects the members here, the committees here, the staffing of those committees and everybody else—the running of democracy for this state. I suggest the government should have pared back a little earlier. I asked the Premier a question on notice about how many times he and his ministers had travelled on Virgin. The actual answer was none, but he would not put that. We had obfuscation in his answer. We heard him up here this morning talking a load of twaddle and nonsense. The answer is none, except when he recently went to Townsville. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I refer to the standing orders regarding the relevance of what the member is speaking about compared with the disallowance motion. Mrs SHELDON: Possibly we should also have a standing order about relevance of interjections and frivolous points of order. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I take what the member said about my point of order as being offensive and I ask that she withdraw it. Mrs SHELDON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer you to the fact that no mention was made of any particular member of parliament by me. 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3659

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! There is no point of order. Let us get back to the debate. Mrs SHELDON: The recompense for these services has always been included in the overall fee structure. If such a philosophy were extended to other services provided by government, all fees and charges would be increased. Perhaps this is flagging the fact that that is exactly what this government is about—tax by stealth. I believe that this process undoubtedly represents a broken promise. It imposes new fees and charges on people. It ignores the estimates committee process and is another thumbing of the nose to the processes of this parliament. It ignores the Statutory Instruments Act. It prevents public consultation and it most certainly penalises the disadvantaged. I can assure the minister that I will be telling people in my electorate about this. My electorate is on the sea, and recreational fishing provides a major form of recreation for a lot of the retired people and pensioners in Caloundra. That is their major form of recreation. I might say that they feed themselves with the fish they catch. It is going to cost these people a lot more to run their boats. As I said, I think this is a desperate act by a desperate government that knows it is running short of money and has to get it in any way it can. The Premier says, 'Read my lips: we will have no new taxes.' I say, 'Mr Premier, read my lips: this is a whole range of new taxes.' Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (3.09 p.m.): It is my great pleasure to speak to the disallowance motion that has been moved by Mr Johnson—that the Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 tabled in the parliament on 20 August 2002 be disallowed. I wish to address the issue of learner drivers and their knowledge of the road rules. Prior to receiving a learners licence, an applicant must undertake a test of their knowledge of road law and road safety. In Queensland, this is the only time an applicant intending to obtain a drivers licence is required to provide formal evidence of their knowledge of the road rules. Historically, there has been a largely fixed correlation between the number of written tests undertaken by applicants for a learner drivers licence and the number of learner drivers licences actually issued. However, recently, this correlation has been changing significantly. While the number of learner licences issued has remained relatively constant since 1998 and 1999, the recorded failure rate of the knowledge test has been steadily increasing. The rising number of unsuccessful tests represents a considerable cost burden to the government and the travelling public. In the 2000-01 financial year, Queensland Transport recorded 286,000 tests being undertaken, of which 168,000 were failed. Previously, that test could be taken at no charge to the applicant. Customers registered their details and were able to undertake as many tests as required until they passed and then pay only $14.60 for the issue of a learners licence. This has led to an overrepresentation of this business as a proportion of the services being delivered through Queensland Transport customer service centres. Advice from Queensland Transport staff in the customer service network suggests that many applicants are learning the tests in preference to learning the road rules. This creates a risk to the general driving public in that learner drivers are able to drive without having a true knowledge or understanding of the road rules. The increasing number of knowledge tests being delivered by Queensland Transport staff has directed them away from other services delivered through customer service centres. Given that students are the members of the public who are most likely to be seeking a learners licence, the timing of the test delivery can create unpredictable peak periods—in the late afternoon when casual or part-time staff are unavailable. This creates unnecessary delays for other customers through longer queue lines and increased waiting times. It is this situation that Queensland Transport is seeking to address. On 19 August, a fee of $15 was introduced for the road rules test. This fee will allow Queensland Transport to recover costs for what is, for most people, a once-in-a-lifetime transaction. It will also provide people with a strong incentive to learn the road rules before they undertake the test. This is expected to have a positive road safety effect among what is a high-risk group. Queensland is not the first state to introduce a fee for this type of test. This situation has been monitored both in Queensland and interstate. It is considered that a fee of this type will help to address the abnormal increase in the number of tests being undertaken. Queensland Transport has not sought to profit from this fee and its introduction is only to allow the shift of the cost burden away from the general public and towards those who have caused this abnormal increase in activity. In undertaking a similar test in New South Wales, an applicant is charged $31. In South Australia, the charge is $21. In keeping with the government's policy of ensuring that this state's charges remain competitive with the other states and territories whilst meeting the government's service delivery needs of the people of Queensland, this fee has been introduced at only the 3660 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 cost-recovery level of $15. This government is committed to ensuring good road safety outcomes for Queensland. That is why I urge the House to vote against the disallowance motion. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (3.14 p.m.): I rise to support the disallowance motion that has been moved by the member for Gregory in relation to the regulation that introduces a raft of new fees and charges on motorists and boat operators. I urge every member of this parliament to support the motion that has been moved by the member for Gregory. In this regulation, the opposition objects in particular to the abuse of the whole statutory instrument process. One of the fundamentals of this process, which has been deliberately ignored by this government, is the need to seek community input into the subordinate legislation that is going to impose a cost on the community. Of course, in this case the government chose not to tell the public. That is hardly surprising, given that the government came to office on an election promise of no new fees and charges. This is a promise that has obviously been broken. It is because that promise has been broken that this disallowance motion is before the House this afternoon. It is obvious that that promise has been broken by this legislation just as other legislation has broken promises in relation to other government stunts, such as the DPI charges for tick treatment and the broken promise on stamp duty and the like. The significant thing about this stunt is that in this case the government, and the minister in particular, has been caught out by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The committee, in report No. 24—which I would recommend to all members of this House as essential reading before they vote on this disallowance motion this afternoon—points out the abuse of government processes. It has found that those regulations represent new fees and charges. That committee has also concluded that those charges should have been the object of public consultation through the regulatory impact statement process. Without any argument, those fees and charges certainly have an impact on a number of people in the community, in particular young people and their parents who must now pay $15 to take a road rules test and pay a booking fee of $20 for a practical driving test. They will certainly be impacted by these increases in fees and charges. People who, for various reasons, elect to purchase a licence for less than five years—for whatever reason they elect to do that, whether it is financial or otherwise—are disadvantaged compared to those who purchase a five-year licence. People who require a replacement licence—once again, for whatever reason people may require a replacement licence—will face the cost of a replacement licence being increased from $14.06 to $22. While that may be justified for people who repeatedly misplace their licence, a person who changes their name must obtain a replacement licence and has 14 days from the name change to do so. Some of the arguments that have been put forward by members opposite about people who repeatedly lose their licences almost suggest that people deliberately set out to seek to get a new licence, as though it is a fun thing to do. Of course, in reality, these people are impacted on by these changes in the fees and charges. Other people who will be impacted are those who renew their vehicle registration after the expiry date. There are flat fees imposed by the regulation for the late renewal of registrations. Given that the cost of registering a vehicle itself varies greatly depending on the type and size of the vehicle, a flat fee disproportionately disadvantages owners of smaller vehicles. People who have their vehicles inspected after a defect is identified must now pay a reinspection fee. In its report No 24, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee made the point quite clearly that the regulation should have been subject to a process to determine the extent of those impacts on the community on the basis that it imposes an economic cost on a large proportion of that community. In that case, few members in this House would disagree that community input would have been desirable. Unfortunately, this regulation has been introduced and is now the subject of a disallowance motion before the House. I have no doubt that, given the harsh realities of this place, the regulation will stand in its current form. However, it should be a warning to other ministers that regulations such as this must go through the proper processes. Irrespective of the fact that the government in this place always has the numbers and irrespective of which government is in power, a government will support a minister, exercises such as debating this disallowance should serve as a note of caution to all ministers that, while they have the power to introduce these regulations, it is a power that must be used cautiously and there are proper processes that must be observed. Part of that process is the role played by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in ensuring that, whichever minister introduces or makes statutory changes under regulations, they 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3661 are subject to the scrutiny of this parliament. The disallowance motion this afternoon is part of that scrutiny. In the committee's report the Business Regulatory Reform Unit of the Department of State Development told Transport not to worry about a regulatory impact statement because those regulations were consistent with announced government policy. It appeared that they believed the policy of the Beattie government was to sneak through fees and charges in direct contravention to what it told Queensland taxpayers. Once again, that goes to the core of the credibility of the government as a whole. I would not be so bold as to suggest that this one regulation will have a major impact on a government's credibility, but this type of dishonesty will have a cumulative effect and eventually erode the credibility of the government in the eyes of the community. Once again, it is important that these regulations are debated when introduced. It is important that the processes which are part and parcel of this parliament and which allow scrutiny of these regulations are used to ensure that, as much as we are able, the full effects of the regulations that ministers introduce are exposed for the community to see and to make a judgment upon. I urge the parliament this afternoon to support the disallowance motion moved by the member for Gregory simply because for no other reason it contravenes the government's formal position. It represents another broken promise from the Beattie Labor government. For no other reason, it certainly should be rejected by this parliament. If members want other reasons apart from that, they can do no better than to read the report of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and to examine this regulation in the light of what this parliament should consider to be proper regulatory processes and proper administrative processes that should be adopted by ministers in a Queensland government who have the power to make regulations such as this. I do not think that the points put forward by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee can be refuted or ignored by any member who seeks to vote on this disallowance motion this afternoon. I commend the disallowance motion to the House and urge every member in the parliament to support the member for Gregory to ensure that regulations such as this do not go unchallenged. Regulations such as this should not be allowed to pass through this parliament, and governments of whatever persuasion should not be allowed to break the promises that they have made to the Queensland community in an unchallenged way. That is what this disallowance motion is about this afternoon. I commend it to the House. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (3.25 p.m.): I oppose the disallowance motion moved by the member for Gregory. In the budget statement for the 2002-03 state budget, the Treasurer restated the policy in Queensland of ensuring that it remains competitive with the fees and charges set by other states and territories. While the government seeks to meet the infrastructure and service delivery needs of the people of Queensland, it also aims to ensure that it minimises the tax burden for its citizens. This policy is illustrated through the price of the Queensland drivers licence, by far the lowest of all Australian states. To take a lead from the member for Gregory, the five-year Queensland licence fee is $58.75. A similar product in New South Wales is $122; South Australia, $126; and in Western Australia, $102. The Queensland licence is some $50 cheaper than that in Western Australia and $70 cheaper than in New South Wales. Queensland currently also offers the public the choice of holding a drivers licence for periods of either one, two, three, four or five years. To date, these have been offered on a pro rata pricing basis such as $11.75 per year. Where this degree of choice is available in South Australia and Tasmania, the cost is considerably higher. Once again, Queensland is the low tax state. In September 2001, Queensland had just over 2.4 million holders of drivers licences of various durations up to five years. Of these, over 1.8 million, or approximately 75 per cent, hold a licence of five years duration. There is no legislative or regulated reason for people to choose licences of less than five years. It is a simple matter of preference. For drivers with medical conditions or over a certain age, a medical certificate can be provided on a periodic basis for the licence to be maintained. The requirement to produce medical evidence does not require the issuing of a licence for less than five years. Where licence holders for some reason do not require their licence for the full five years, the unexpired licence component is refundable. Customer requests for the purchase of licences issued over a period shorter than five years are becoming increasingly popular. Approximately 25 per cent of all licences are for shorter periods of one or two years duration. This trend has resulted in increased licensing renewal 3662 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 transactions being processed through the customer service network. Every time a member of the public renews their drivers licence, it costs Queensland Transport approximately $14 to complete this transaction. This is the cost of the transaction regardless of the duration of the licence. This means that a licence of one year's duration is currently being sold at below issue cost. In effect, holders of a one-year licence are being subsidised by other licence holders, and this money is being taken away from other road safety initiatives. Why should it be? That is why we need a balance. What about the member for Caloundra, whose decision in regard to the Sunshine Coast Motorway affected every transport department's budget thereafter? The member was concerned just about her electorate and not any other in Queensland. To correct this pricing imbalance which currently exists for drivers licences, Queensland Transport is proposing to adopt a new pricing model for drivers licences consisting of an administration fee of $14 to cover the cost of issuing the physical licence plus an annual licence fee of $8.95 for each year of licence duration. The current five-year licence fee of $58.75, which 75 per cent of the population has, remains unchanged as a result of this change. I always thought it was a bit strange when renewing a licence that it was always on one's birthday. In reality, it is not a bad idea because it is one date that people do tend to remember each year. I just checked mine to make sure it was not due. The proposed fee structure will therefore add no further cost burden to the majority of Queensland licence holders who choose to hold a five-year licence as the cost of a five-year licence remains unchanged. It will still provide people with the choice of a shorter period but will also ensure that funds are not diverted away from road safety initiatives. Previous speakers, particularly the member for Gregory, said that the government is not assisting those who find it difficult to pay, for example, registration fees. I remind the opposition, particularly the member for Gregory, that it was this government, under this minister's direction, that introduced the half-yearly payment option for registration. Mr Johnson: Don't think so. Mr REEVES: It was introduced by us in 1999. The memory of the member for Gregory probably matched his speech this afternoon. It was this government that introduced that initiative in 1999 under this minister's direction. That has been of enormous benefit to those who cannot afford a large outlay for registration—usually at the worst time of the year. At another time the minister might like to let the parliament know how many people have taken up that offer. It is of enormous benefit for people in my electorate. There has been a lot of talk about drivers licences and registration fees. A lot of people on the south side are now considering whether they even need a car since the advent of the world famous South East Busway. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr REEVES: I faced a bit of a dilemma this week. I have had to drive in this week in case I have to dart home to pick up my wife. I have been trying to convince my wife, Megan, that since the baby will be born at the Mater Hospital we should use the busway as there is a station at the Mater Hospital. I have been trying to convince her. We need to encourage the Brisbane City Council to look at offering a place for basinets in buses. As the No. 1 ticket holder on the South East Busway, I urge the Brisbane City Council to design a seat that can accommodate a basinet safely. As I said initially, I oppose the disallowance motion moved by the member for Gregory. These slight increases in fees have restored a bit of balance to the system. Those using the services should pay for them, as they are the ones benefiting. Why should others who do not use the services have to pay for them? That principle is in contrast to the decision of the member for Caloundra to take the toll off the Sunshine Motorway. I oppose the motion. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.32 p.m.): I rise to support the member for Gregory's disallowance motion. There was ample opportunity for the government during the budget process to indicate that it intended to increase these fees. It was only a matter of a few weeks after the budget debate that these charges were announced. Importantly, no RIS was done. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee brought down a damning report on this regulation. Governments should follow proper processes and not introduce measures of their own volition. Queenslanders are required to adhere to the letter of the law. Why should the government not do the same? It is evident that the minister has decided not to do that. He is going to flout the system and bring in significant additional costs. 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3663

Only those people operating vehicles, particularly in country Queensland, understand the costs of running them. I assure the minister that it is not all that easy to obtain a reinspection for a vehicle with defects. Sometimes a booking has to be made weeks or months before. Vehicles usually have to be returned for inspection on a certain date to comply with registration renewal requirements. I know of people with trucks and equipment who have not been able to have inspections done due to the unavailability of inspection officers. In Ingham, Tully and other areas the inspection officers have to travel down from Innisfail. Their workloads are overwhelming. The $59 charge for reinspections is very significant. Some of the vehicles on our roads are farm vehicles that are used only perhaps a dozen times a year. Consequently, those vehicles are mechanically sound. They might have an oil leak or other minor faults, but vehicle safety is not compromised. But, of course, the inspectors insist on upholding the letter of the law. That is a bit different from the minister, who can bring in regulations at will and charge people excessive amounts for reinspections. Yet the people have to adhere to the law. Sometimes it is very inconvenient for people to do that. I would like the minister to take on board the fact that the issue is not simply the cost; it is also about the availability of inspectors. Sometimes when inspectors have been on holidays or have left, commerce has been impacted severely. I am referring not just to canefarmers but also to people with road building plant, backhoes and so on. Sometimes they cannot always attend for an inspection, which has to coincide with registration renewals. Mr Reeves: Did you declare your interest like the member for Warrego? Mr ROWELL: I do not have a backhoe so I am not going to declare an interest on that basis, although I might have some other equipment. I am simply saying that there is a problem. The $37 fee for replacement of boat registration certificates is significant. There are many boaties in my electorate. I am sure the minister would be aware that boating is very popular. Of the varying range of boats, many are used as pleasure craft. Others are involved in tourist-type operations. This charge might be appropriate for people making a living from boats, but it is not appropriate for those using their boats for doing a bit of fishing in, say, a river. These fees for replacement registration certificates are unreasonable. The transfer fee is another issue. People selling boats face a $16.95 fee imposition. That is not a large imposition but it is another input. As to the fee for replacement of registration labels for cars and boats, because of our climate the adhesive stickers do not always last. I heard a member saying that windscreens can often be broken on dirt roads. That is a fairly common occurrence. However, there is no doubt that that situation is improving. When people have to replace registration labels this will be a further cost burden imposed on them. The $15 charge for resitting the road rules test is an enigma. I have written to the minister about people who have had licensing difficulties. In 1991, one person with an HR classification was not aware that he needed to upgrade. The information provided at the police station at the time was not correct. Ultimately, he had to upgrade to a UD licence, which meant that he had to sit for a written road rules test and pay $15. Fortunately, he might have slipped through in the interim. Once this regulation comes in, in similar cases people will have to pay an additional $15 even when not at fault. Because he had vehicles used to haul out cane that were up to nine tonnes gross vehicle mass weight, he had to obtain a UD licence. He was misinformed by the station at Ingham at that time and he then faced uncertainty as to whether he would get a licence in time for the cane season. Another constituent in my electorate went to the police station at 3.17 in the afternoon to renew his drivers licence, but it stopped accepting money at 3.15 in the afternoon and he was not able to get his drivers licence. Where police stations accept payment for registration, a person who goes to pay their registration on the due date may have to pay the additional $40 for the reregistration of their vehicle because they could not pay it by the due date because the police station would not accept their payment after a certain time. It is not always that easy in country Queensland to get things done in the available time. There might be difficulties in travelling some distance during the working week to ensure that they reach the police station at a certain time so that they can pay their registration. As I said, some police stations do not even adhere to the nine-to-five working day in relation to their ability to take money for registration payments. This $40 being imposed on people for late payment is quite significant. There will be those who, for whatever reason, err. The member for Clayfield said that people should ensure that they pay their registration on time. I have had situations where people are unable to pay their registration on time, and this just imposes an additional burden on them. Because of the nature of seasonal conditions, sometimes in country Queensland there is no work. People are living on 3664 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 the dole and, as a consequence, if there is, say, a calamity in the family or extenuating circumstances very often they have to defer the payment of registration of a vehicle. These changes do make it just that little bit tougher for those people. Also in my electorate people have to apply to sit a driving test. Sometimes it is not all that easy to get the examiners there, because they have to come from Townsville. I cannot understand why they have to travel such a distance. It would take them three hours to travel each day to get to, say, the Ingham district and they only do about six hours of examination or less. As a result, they are very limited with the number of people they can examine. Some of those people who have to be examined are very young and do not always get the opportunity to have their examination at a time that is desirable to them. Time expired. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (3.42 p.m.): I support the cost recovery measures that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads has introduced and oppose the disallowance motion moved by the member for Gregory. While nobody likes paying more for any goods or services, these fee increases to registration renewals and licence fees and other related areas are sensible and moderate. For instance, the $15 road rules test is a fair and reasonable charge. The fees compare favourably and, in some cases, are lower than in other states. As other members have said today, it is difficult for many people. They are struggling from day to day with nothing in the bank and worrying about how to pay their bills. Overall, the public knows that to improve services and facilities in the face of ever-increasing demands the money has to come from somewhere. The mean-spirited Howard federal government has conned us all with the GST. It has conned us all in terms of how much more responsibility it is shoving to the states. It is passing the buck. That is costing us as a state government a lot more every year, and there is no better example of this than what we heard in the House this morning—that is, the measly amount of money it is offering us in the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement. All we are going to get out of that next year is a little over $2 million. All members in this House know how many people need support in their own homes and people with some form of disability who need care. That is a measly offer. More and more responsibility is being passed to the states. I am not sure if the public realises, but it costs around $5.2 billion for education in Queensland, $4 billion for health, $2 billion for public order and safety and $3.2 billion for transport and communications. The grants and subsidies from the Commonwealth make up only 47 per cent of our state revenue. We have to find the rest. Research shows that people will swallow increased fees and charges if they know that the money is going to provide essential services. Funds raised through the measures the minister has introduced will prevent funds from being taken out of areas like much-needed road safety funds. So these are very important measures. Any fair-minded member of the public can see that consequence—that is, if fees are increased in these areas on a cost recovery basis to provide additional revenue into those programs, the overall budget for areas like Transport and Main Roads enables the much-needed road safety and other campaigns to continue. The minister is sensitive to the needs of people on low incomes. His measure to introduce the half-yearly payment arrangements on registrations has been received favourably in my area and has been used widely over the past couple of years. The books have to balance. We all know that. We all demand more services and facilities. As a consequence, we have to be fair and creative about how we increase our revenue from year to year. The opposition bleats about waiting lists in public hospitals. It bleats about the need for canefarmers to have subsidies. They are all important measures; I am not denying that. It bleats about the need for compensation to landowners, and we are going to hear about that later tonight. But where does it think the money comes from? It does not come up with any sensible options. It just comes in here and bleats about the needs— Opposition members interjected. Ms STRUTHERS: Members opposite are totally hypocritical. They have no vision about how we are going to meet these extra demands being put on the system. They are not fit for government. Members of a government have to be reasonable and sensible about how they meet service demands and infrastructure demands. Those opposite are constantly bleating about what is needed but not coming up with arrangements to fund them. I oppose the disallowance motion and ask that other members of parliament do the same. 18 Sep 2002 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 3665

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (3.47 p.m.): I am pleased to speak to the disallowance motion. The estimates process is quite clear as to what has to happen in this parliament, and quite clearly the government is very short of money. I believe that what led to the introduction of these new charges is that the government found that its deficit was so big that it had to try to find extra money. I do not know how much money these measures will raise, but it is estimated to be about $10 million. The minister may tell us what it will be, but it will certainly be a significant amount of money. The problem is that the government is in severe financial trouble. There has been a $1.66 billion deficit for the last two years, so it is quite a substantial amount. Next year we expect at least another $280 million deficit on the books, but from what we have heard recently we believe that it will be much more than that. I have here a Powerball ticket which is potentially worth $30 million. I bet that I will not get one red cent or one bent razoo out of that, but I just use it to emphasise that the Premier would have to win that $30 million Powerball 55 times in a row to square off for the last two years of budget deficits. That is how big it is. Not only that, he would have to win it at least another nine times for the proposed deficit next year. That gives the House some indication of just where the finances of this state government are heading. It is getting worse— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): The member is not proposing that the Treasurer goes punting on Powerball. Mr HOBBS: He might as well, because he has been punting with our money for a while now. I look forward to seeing what happens with this ticket, and I am sure that the Treasurer of Queensland would definitely want to try to win a bit of it. But this is basically an arrogant government, and trying to introduce these new charges straight after the budget and the estimates process is the absolute height of arrogance. What will happen next? Where else will the government try to draw money from if it is not taking it from registration certificates, road rules tests and late payments for vehicle registrations? An opposition member interjected. Mr HOBBS: Yes, $15 for road rules tests plus a $20 booking fee, in addition to the estimated $35 fee for the test itself. What about the fuel tax? What will happen with that? I bet London to a brick that that money will be robbed in some manner or form down the track—wait and see! The finances in this state are so bad that the government has to stoop to the level of bringing in this type of increase in fees after it has brought the budget down and after the estimates. It is quite astounding that the government would lower itself by allowing that to occur. I also want to talk a little bit today about what the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee said about this regulation, and many members have already raised these issues today. Young persons or their parents must now pay $15 to take the road rules test and pay a booking fee of $20 for the practical driving test in addition to the $35.15 fee for the test itself. Persons who for various reasons—possibly financial—elect to purchase a licence for less than five years are disadvantaged compared with those who purchase a five-year licence. For persons who require replacement licences, the cost has increased from $14.60 to $22. This may be justified for persons who repeatedly misplace their licence, but persons who change their name must obtain a replacement licence and they have 14 days from the name change to do so. Time expired. Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (3.51 p.m.): Obviously I oppose the disallowance motion that has been put before the House and I want to respond to a couple of the issues that have been raised primarily by opposition members. Government members have done a good job in talking about the reasons why the regulation is before the House today and why some of the fees and charges are being increased by the government. First, I want to deal with the issue of why the fees were not included in the budget and why they were separate from the budget process. As a former minister, the member for Gregory knows how the budget process works. Our government has been undertaking an initiative called Aligning Strategies and Priorities. That strategy is about making sure that our government's priorities are being pursued in resource terms by all government departments so that the government is delivering on the agenda it made a commitment to deliver on prior to the last election. One opposition member—I do not specifically recall if it was the member for Gregory, but I think it might have been—suggested that Queensland Transport was some sort of a pilot or guinea pig for the ASAP process. That is simply not true. All government departments have been 3666 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2002 18 Sep 2002 going through the process of ensuring that the government is targeting those areas that are government priorities with the resources it has available. The ASAP process was separate from the budget process, and that is why it was not included in the budget. It is a pretty simple concept to understand, although I know a number of opposition members and Independents are struggling with it. As a result, the ASAP process was not included in the budget documents and it was not available to be debated during the estimates process. That is quite true, but as I said when I made the point previously, during the estimates process the member for Gregory got answers to every single question he asked. Although he has attacked me subsequently, he actually thanked me at the end of the estimates process for doing such a good job in responding to all his questions. Notwithstanding that, he tabled a minority report from the estimates committee's report, and then subsequently he could not be bothered to show up here in parliament the day it was debated and left it to colleagues on his side of the parliament to do his bidding for him. In respect of the regulatory impact statement, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee acknowledges that the advice to my department from the Business Regulation Reform Unit in the Department of State Development was that it was not necessary to undertake a regulatory impact statement, and the government took that advice. In respect of the suggestion that the government has in some way hidden the increases by the process, I do not know how tabling subordinate legislation in this parliament and allowing for a debate of this nature, which has taken up two hours of the parliament's time today, could possibly be described as anything but open and accountable. In the final analysis, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, even taking into account some of the concerns it raised, referred the matters to parliament where they are about to be resolved. In respect of why I had not publicly announced the increases in fees and charges, I took a decision that I would not announce the increases until such time as the department had had an opportunity to inform its customer service centre staff. Governments of all persuasions change policy from time to time on transport and on fees and charges and other issues. The people who bear the brunt of those changes are the people out in the customer service centres. They are the ones who have to take the angry phone calls. I get a few phone calls in my ministerial office, members of parliament get a few phone calls from their constituents and the Premier's office probably gets a few phone calls about these sorts of changes, too—and let's face it, we are paid to have that kind of interface—but people out in the customer service centres are the ones who bear the brunt of those calls. First they get inquiries from people who want to know what the changes are and what the new fees and charges are and those kinds of things, and from time to time they get angry calls from people who object to decisions the government has made. The customer service centre staff do a great job, but it is not their responsibility that a government has made a decision. I took a decision that it was better for the department to actually inform and advise its customer service centre staff first before the government made a public announcement about the changes so they could at least be prepared for the reaction that might come. If I am to be criticised for that, then I am prepared to wear that criticism. If members opposite think that is the wrong thing to do, then I am prepared to wear that criticism from them. As I have said on a number of occasions, these changes will not affect people who replace their drivers licence every five years, who do not lose or misplace their licence or registration sticker and who pay their motor vehicle registration on time, and that is the vast majority of Queenslanders. Specific issues have been raised about recovery of the cost of providing services. I know that members opposite say the government should just absorb those costs. In the past members on the other side of the House—including one who contributed to the debate today—have suggested that it was not the taxpayers of Queensland who should pay for government services, but the government! That interesting economic view has been espoused by the member for Caloundra. The member for Mansfield made the point that Queenslanders around the state are paying for the decision the member for Caloundra and the member for Gregory made to abolish the tolls on the Sunshine Motorway. Irrespective of what members think about that issue, the reality is that they loaded the debt from the Sunshine Motorway onto the Department of Main Roads, and that department now has less money for roadworks for Queenslanders throughout the state as a result of that decision. The notion of user pays for government services has been well established. There are many examples of the Liberal and National parties when in government in coalition—and when they were in government not in coalition—having pursued user pays principles for government 18 Sep 2002 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3667 services. I do not think it is fair that some people should have to subsidise services that are provided to others. The government is conscious that there are people out there who have difficulty in meeting the financial impost of things like renewing their motor vehicle registration, and that is why it introduced things like the six-monthly motor vehicle registration system. Hardship provisions are also available to people suffering serious financial hardship, and the government is trying to contain the level of its service charges to meet the cost of recovery. That is why the government has gone down this path, and that is fundamentally the reason why I oppose the disallowance motion before the House. Question—That Mr Johnson's motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 21—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg NOES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell Resolved in the negative.

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Resumed from 22 August (see p. 3196).

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 (4.08 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 1 to 11— 1. Clause 3— At page 5, after line 17— insert— ‘ “road accident patient” means a person who— (a) is 15 years or older; and (b) attends a hospital for examination or treatment of injuries because of an incident on a road, in Queensland or elsewhere, involving a vehicle or a horse.’. 2. Clause 3— At page 6, line 1, ‘by a police officer’— omit. 3. Clause 3— At page 6, after line 7— insert— ‘(5A) Section 80(9B)— insert— ‘Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’.’. 4. Clause 3— At page 6, lines 13 to 26— omit, insert— ‘(10) Subsection (10A) applies if a doctor or nurse is attending a person at a hospital, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is a road accident patient. ‘(10A) The doctor or nurse, whether or not a police officer has required a specimen of the person’s blood be taken, must— (a) take a specimen of the person’s blood for a laboratory test; or (b) ensure a qualified assistant takes a specimen of the person’s blood for a laboratory test.’. 5. Clause 3— At page 6, before line 27— insert— ‘Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.’. 3668 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 18 Sep 2002

6. Clause 3— At page 7, after line 4— insert— ‘(ab) reasonably believes that more than 12 hours have passed since the incident on the road happened; or (ac) can not take the specimen because of the person’s behaviour; or’. 7. Clause 3— At page 7, lines 10 and 11— omit, insert— ‘(10E) Also, the doctor or nurse need not comply with subsection (10A) if—’. 8. Clause 3— At page 7, lines 14 to 16— omit, insert— ‘instrument in relation to the incident on the road; and’. 9. Clause 3— At page 7, line 20— omit, insert— ‘(10F) Subsection (10C) does not create an offence.’. 10. Clause 3— At page 7, lines 24 to 26— omit, insert— ‘(8) Section 80(16), from ‘blood has been’ to ‘shall’— omit, insert— ‘blood or urine has been obtained under this section, a police officer must’. 11. Clause 3— At page 8, lines 9 to 15— omit, insert— ‘(13) Section 80(22)(e), from ‘the doctor’ to ‘specimen of blood’— omit, insert— ‘a specimen of a person’s blood is taken under this section for a laboratory test and a doctor or nurse certifies in writing to a police officer’. A couple of months ago the opposition introduced into parliament a private member's bill on this very subject. These amendments seek to have the relevant provisions of the act cover anyone over 15 attending hospital as a result of a road accident. The government's bill misses all people with the exception of the driver. These amendments seek to have the legislation apply to all people over 15 so that the authorities can get it absolutely right. The amendments also seek to extend the time in which a sample can be taken to 12 hours. We believe this to be a paramount function of this legislation. I call on the minister to support these amendments, because I believe that they make this legislation more concrete. I know that the legislation has bipartisan support. Our private member's bill sought to parallel New South Wales legislation. The minister has said that the New South Wales minister will change that legislation, but I believe that our amendments represent an important function of this piece of legislation. I trust that the minister can see merit in what we are endeavouring to do here today. Mr BREDHAUER: I appreciate the sincerity with which the member for Gregory has moved these amendments. I will make a general comment about the 11 amendments. The member for Gregory is essentially trying to change the bill before the chamber to reflect what was previously his private member's bill. We have already had the debate about his private member's bill and the parliament has made its decision in respect of that bill. So it probably will not come as any surprise to the member for Gregory that the government will not be supporting these amendments. I have said consistently from the outset that we will be undertaking these initiatives in two phases. The bill before the parliament today is the first phase. There are a number of complex issues that need to be considered. As an example, one of the amendments which relates to the age limit is inconsistent with other legislation in Queensland in which the age limit is 14. The member has suggested that it should be 15. There are issues of consistency with other acts. There are issues about other stakeholders who are involved in this process, particularly medical professionals and allied health professionals, who could become implicated in undertaking this process. Another good example is one the member has raised and specifically addressed, and 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3669 that relates to whether the period of time that can be allowed for evidentiary purposes should be extended. I think there is some merit in considering that, but we need to look at issues such as whether a person can take action between when the accident occurs and when they are blood-tested. That could affect the blood alcohol reading. If we allow 12 hours, as has been suggested, rather than the current two hours, something might be able to be done to affect the blood alcohol reading. I say to the member for Gregory that we will not be supporting his amendments here today, but that is not the end of the matter from the government's point of view. We anticipate that there will be a second round of changes to the legislation. I give the honourable member a commitment that the issues he has raised in his private member's bill and in today's amendments will be considered by the government in the context of drafting the next round of amendments, which obviously will come back here to the House, where we will have an opportunity to debate them again. If the honourable member still has outstanding concerns he can seek to make changes at that time as well. Mr JOHNSON: I will not canvass the issue any further, but I am encouraged and I thank the minister for his response. The opposition will not be dividing on this. As the minister rightly said, we did endeavour to get this amendment through in the private member's bill that I introduced into the House. I thank the minister for his forthrightness on this matter because I believe that there certainly will be some changes down the line. If the minister is of that opinion, I certainly look forward to giving him a bipartisan approach to make absolutely certain that this is going to be beneficial to all and sundry. Amendments negatived. 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 Bredhauer, by leave, read a third time.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 30 July (see p. 2295). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.16 p.m.): The Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill proposes amendments to a number of portfolio areas within the Primary Industries portfolio and related acts. As all honourable members would be aware, this is a miscellaneous amendment bill and has been used on a number of occasions as a vehicle to facilitate amendments of a non-controversial nature. Generally speaking, there are many issues being canvassed in this legislation. I refer particularly to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. This is a very important piece of legislation and one that has aroused a lot of interest in the wider electorate. The legislation also proposes consequential amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act with regard to animal welfare and provides for enforcement of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. When we speak about the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill, we are talking about a whole host of issues which are relevant to primary industries. As I have said previously in this House, primary industries is a very important portfolio area for the ongoing viability of this state because many people rely on primary industries for a living, and primary industries is not an exception when it comes to providing jobs, whether they be in the metropolitan area, the coastal areas or wherever. This legislation will provide clarity of interpretation and ensure the effective operation of the Animal Care and Protection Act. There has been a lot of controversy since the introduction of this act because many people have been somewhat critical of it. I have to say—and I said it previously in this parliament in relation to this act—that I believe it is a very important piece of legislation. It has been canvassed very well and sold very well by various members of the Department of Primary Industries in the field. I received a briefing from the DPI officers in Longreach as to precisely what this is all about. 3670 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

The important fact to remind honourable members—and I think that they should be letting their constituency know about this—is that any animal, even the family pet, comes under the guidelines set down in this legislation. Animals are entitled to be looked after as well as people are looked after. They are an important part of our everyday lives and they are very important assets to our industry. The important thing to remember is that the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 is going to make it absolutely certain that we are on the right track in terms of caring for livestock. The amendment to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act will enable the more effective seizure of animals whose welfare is at risk. We see that occur in drought conditions time and time again. This also occurs when there is not a drought situation. People will give their child a pony for Christmas. They have only a couple of acres in which to run that pony. The novelty wears off and the next thing that pony is starving on a two, three or five acre allotment and not being cared for. Mr Terry Sullivan: It happens around Brisbane, too. Mr JOHNSON: Exactly. Mr Terry Sullivan: The animals, they are not looked after. Mr JOHNSON: I take that interjection from the honourable member for Stafford. It is a very good interjection. I have seen horses in paddocks at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock in the morning still wearing the rug that was put on them the day before. If those horses still have their rugs on, most times they have not been fed. This is a really worrying situation. That is why I applaud the government for this legislation, because it gives the police the power to show leadership. At the end of the day, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Time and time again during droughts I have seen good stock managers and bad managers. The good managers will always look after their stock, because it is their livelihood. Then there are those who think, 'We will hang on for another week or another month,' and in the meantime, if they have cows with calves on them, the calves are sucking the guts out of the cows. The same thing happens with ewes and lambs. Before those people know where they are, they have dying cows and dying ewes and they are in a quandary. I believe that this legislation is going to go a long way towards addressing that issue. The same goes for pets in people's backyards in town. Time and time again I have seen dogs tied up and never let off the leash. They bark day in, day out. Most times the situation is because, as the member for Stafford said a while ago, the dogs are either starving or somebody has lost interest in caring for them because they are not the pet that they used to be. This is an unfortunate situation. I believe that this legislation is going to be more effective in the seizure of animals whose welfare is at risk. The police will have the power to act as inspectors under the animal care legislation. That will make the situation even better and, I believe, take a lot of pressure off officers in the Department of Primary Industries. After all, although the Department of Primary Industries looks after the welfare of animals, a lot of times the law has to be implemented by the police. That is exactly what this legislation does. I say to the minister that it should be pointed out to the general public that the police are going to be the enforcers of this part of the act. I believe that, through this amendment, we will see animals cared for in a better environment than what we have witnessed in the past. That goes for the family pet as well as for the livestock on grazing properties and farms throughout the length and breadth of this state. This legislation also makes an amendment to the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1973, clarifying the funding arrangement between the chicken meat processors and the chicken meat producers. This act was amended last year to implement a new funding mechanism for the Chicken Meat Industry Committee based on an annual contract registration fee. The committee provides a forum for negotiations between chicken meat processors and producers. Again, I believe that it will provide a better outcome for the industry. The important fact is that the fee is being shared by the producers and the processors on a fifty-fifty basis. Whilst I think this is a fair outcome, the amendment has been made at the request of the chicken meat industry. That shows that the industry is showing leadership in this state. The primary purpose of this amendment is to get a better outcome. As I have just said, the industry approached the government with this amendment. Therefore, it has the support of both the producer and the processors. The prime purpose of the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1994 is to ensure that the legislation has compliance with national competition policy principles. Again, this is a very important issue. At the moment, there is a lot of controversy in the fishing industry. There is a lot 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3671 of debate in relation to GBRMPA and the guidelines that are going to be implemented as to where people can and cannot fish. The primary reason for this amendment is for the act to comply with NCP principles within the Department of Primary Industries. The department commissioned an independent review of the provisions of the Fisheries Act in 2000. The one thing that I want to say is that the objective of ecological sustainable development has to be pursued in the management of fishery resources. As I have just said, that is the issue in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and other fishing areas throughout the length and breadth of this state. While I am talking about fishing, recently my colleagues the honourable member for Hinchinbrook—who is certainly very conversant with the fishing industry—the honourable member for Callide and the honourable member for Darling Downs and I visited the peninsula region in north Queensland. We met with a lot of fishermen up there who were concerned about their entitlements and how the industry could be turned around. I know that the minister is responsible for the activities of commercial fishermen. But there has to be an area designated for recreational fishermen. I say to the minister today that it is important that he recognises the needs of those commercial fishermen—that they are able to operate in a commercial environment and be able to retain a productive margin. At the end of the day, the poachers or the cowboys out there are violating the agreements and we certainly have to make certain that our fish habitats are in a stable condition. I suppose the situation is no different from grazing—areas are shut down and fishermen operate in other areas. Whether we call it cell grazing or whether we call it resting a paddock from livestock and they are moved somewhere else, it is an important function. I believe that the industry and the government have to embrace the ideals of this process so that they can achieve an outcome that is advantageous to that industry. In addition, this legislation amends the Food Production (Safety) Act. The most significant amendments are transitional arrangements. These transitional arrangements have been canvassed by this House. I would like to touch on the transition of food safety arrangements from the Meat Industry Act 1993 to the proposed new food safety schemes to be implemented by Safe Food Production Queensland under regulation, which will be made later this year under the act. As it now stands, the act does not allow existing food safety accreditation or licence holders to have their existing annual food safety licence or accreditations rolled over into the proposed food safety schemes without having to apply for and pay for reaccreditation. This is an important function that will let these operators roll over their licences and provide for their existing annual accreditation licences to be recognised under food safety schemes. Again, I think this is fair and something that will let these operators apply for reaccreditation, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs to which they otherwise would have been subjected. These are the things that governments must look to put in place when implementing new pieces of legislation. I applaud the minister for this because, after all, the stranglehold of red tape kills off industry, be it primary industry or any other. It is the government's responsibility to make absolutely certain that we eliminate as much red tape as possible. That is exactly and precisely what we endeavour to do here. In the case of the Queensland Abattoir Corporation, which is expected to be wound up in the next six months, the existing winding up provisions in the Meat Industry Act 1993 are to be amended so that net assets or debts of the corporation will be transferred to the state. This is another area within Queensland that the Department of Primary Industries must look at very closely. We have seen the CMG operation at Lakes Creek in Rockhampton close down. The industry in Queensland is becoming very competitive. Unions have to come to the party, too. I am not union bashing; I am pro-union. I believe that unions have a very important role to play. My point is that the meat industry is very complex. The industry is now in the competition place, because even the domestic consumer within our own state wants the best type of beef and the best meat cuts, whether it be lamb, pork, mutton, beef or whatever. We must be able to provide that quality product. That quality product can only be supplied through quality accredited meat processing abattoirs. At the end of the day, abattoirs such as AMH at Dinmore and Beef City are world class and that is why they are getting world class prices for the product they produce. The dollars have been spent but, again, the processors in this state are becoming very competitive and are very aware that their product must be quality, too. They are going to extremes to make certain they produce a quality product, one that satisfies the marketplace and meets the accreditation within the marketplace, whether it be for the live export trade, the domestic market or the chilled export beef market. Importantly, everybody is having a go—from the person who produces it, to the person who carries it, to the person who processes it, to the people who export it. Queensland is at the forefront of international benchmarks or best practice for the processing of meat. We must make absolutely certain that we maintain that. 3672 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

While I am referring to the beef industry let me say that there is certainly a lot of potential for live export through the port of Townsville. Certainly, more cattle are being transported through the port of Townsville at the moment. With the rail system out of places like Mount Isa and with the road networks, it is so important that that port access in Townsville be finalised, because it will be more advantageous to the export earnings of this state. I know that the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister for State Development are well aware of the magnitude and importance of that port access road. The opposition would certainly like to be party to representations to the federal government for funding for this, because it is long overdue. It will enhance the industry and give it the injection it needs to further enhance productivity not only for producers in the industry but also for processors. When I say 'processors', I mean the people who work within the industry itself. One issue that the minister must be more aware of is stock inspection. We must put more emphasis on stock inspection in this state. The legislation refers to police enforcement powers and police responsibilities in terms of stock being stolen. I appeal to the minister to look again at the permit system in this state. While the permit system has been freed up over the past 10 or 12 years, it has been subject to the illegal operations of people who want to take stock by ill means. We need measures such as the old permit system wherein stock inspectors or police write out permits or where a duplication is sent from the property of consignment to the local stock inspectors to tighten up the procedure. This will save police a lot of legwork and at the same time save a lot of producers from losing livestock over a period of time. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (4.38 p.m.): The National Party opposition will be supporting the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. The bill proposes amendments to a number of Primary Industries portfolio acts and related acts. On a couple of occasions now the minister has used this type of miscellaneous amendment bill to facilitate various amendments. At the outset, I believe that the amendments are generally minor and procedural to allow for the effective operation of the acts referred to. The most significant amendments include amending the Animal Care Protection Act 2001 to clarify a drafting error and make it clear that an inspector may require a person to provide information where there has been a contravention against the act or where an animal welfare direction has been given. The Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1993 is being amended to clarify that a contract registration fee is to be apportioned on a fifty-fifty basis between the chicken meat processor and the producer. The Fisheries Act 1994 is amended to clearly express the objectives of ecologically sustainable development, ESD, and to include a comprehensive definition. The Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 is amended to insert the necessary provisions that facilitate the transition from the existing food safety arrangements under the Dairy Industry Act 1993 and the Meat Industry Act 1993 to a new food safety scheme to be implemented by proposed regulations made under the Food Safety Act. It is also being amended to delay the repeal of the Dairy Industry Act 1993 and the Meat Industry Act 1993 so that these regimes can remain operational until the new food safety schemes under the act are in place. Amendments are proposed to the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 to allow a review of export marketing arrangements for Queensland's wheat crop when the Commonwealth government has completed its next review under the national competition policy, which is expected to focus on national single-desk arrangements for the wheat industry in 2004-05. The amendment to section 165 of the Animal Care and Protection Act is intended to clarify a minor drafting error, as I mentioned. In this instance, an inspector may require a person to be given information either when there has been a contravention against the act or when an animal welfare direction has been given and it has or has not been complied with. This amendment appears to be straightforward. It will provide inspectors with all of the information required in assessing a contravention against an act and whether an animal welfare direction has been sufficiently complied with. I think this bill is clear. The opposition does not have any difficulties with it. When there is a requirement to collect information it is important that an inspector is able to do so, but within reason. As the previous speaker for the opposition mentioned, a lot of animals are bought with the best of intentions, but unfortunately some people do not have the proper resources and can lose interest in the animal. This applies to dogs, cats, horses or whatever. There is a need for a process of intervention where people are not looking after their animals. It is important that these powers are available. As I understand it, the Chicken Meat Industry Committee, the CMIC, and the Queensland Chicken Growers Association have been consulted with respect to the proposed amendments to the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act. This act was amended only last year to implement the 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3673 funding mechanisms for the Chicken Meat Industry Committee based on an annual contract registration fee. Although this funding arrangement is already in existence on a non-statutory basis, among the three processors and the grower representative board, the Queensland Chicken Meat Growers Association, concerns had been raised by the committee, which was of the belief that it would be preferable to have this arrangement detailed in legislation to make sure that there would be no doubt as to the financial contributions of processors and producers/growers. Therefore, the insertion of new section 22A will legislate that the annual contract registration fee will be apportioned on a fifty-fifty basis between the processor and the producers. The National Party supports the industry's concern to have these funding arrangements covered in legislation. That is quite elementary. It is the formalisation of a process that has been agreed to. There is a desire to ensure that it is in legislation so that if something arises in the future both parties are well aware of their contractual obligations. As I said, the opposition is supportive of that. Several amendments in the bill relate to the Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Dairy Industry Act 1993. Parts 4 and 8 of the legislation deal with the dissolution of the authorities and specifically provide that when this occurs with the QAC and QDA all of the liabilities, with the exception of those relating to parts 3 and 4 of the Dairy Industry Act, become liabilities of the state. That is quite important. Particularly with the QDA, over time money has been available and it has been gradually wound back. As I understand it, there have been no further contributions from industry. But in the event that there are some liabilities in the future the state would be looking at that. These amendments are presently not addressed in either act and will give a person with a legitimate claim for liabilities against either authorities the right to pursue their claims by or against the state of Queensland or, in the instances of dairy food safety matters, by or against Safe Food Production Queensland. On the Atherton Tableland there is still some concern about quotas. They have been to court. They are now trying to sort that out. I believe that will give them the right to continue on with court action. If it is deemed by the courts that they are entitled to something in terms of the transition of quotas, they will be able to pursue that matter and will not be denied the opportunity of a rightful outcome, if the courts deem it necessary. The remainder of the amendments relating to these authorities are provided for in part 6 of the bill dealing with the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. As the minister has already suggested, these amendments generally allow for the transitional arrangements to take place to pave the way for the transition from the existing food safety arrangements under the Dairy Industry Act and the Meat Industry Act to the proposed food safety schemes to be implemented by Safe Food Production Queensland. One of these amendments includes providing for possible extensions of the operation of each act in order to circumvent the need for any future legislative amendments in the event that the introduction of the food safety schemes for meat and dairy experience further delays. In his second reading speech, the minister said that he would expect this to occur by 1 January 2003. In his reply, it would be helpful if he could clarify whether this transition is still expected to take place by the time indicated. It has taken some time to get this bill into the parliament. The other significant amendment to this part of the bill dealing with the Food Production (Safety) Act is the continuation of the licences and accreditations issued to people under each act prior to the commencement of the new transition provisions as they relate to the requirements of the food safety scheme for meat and dairy produce. As a result, people in these respective industries will be able to have their existing annual accreditations and licences recognised under the food safety schemes until they expire or Safe Food grants licence holders an accreditation under the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. The National Party supports the continuation of these accreditations and licences under the new legislation when it comes into force. This is a sensible amendment and is cost effective for people involved in either of the industries in terms of avoiding reaccreditation costs. I do not think the food safety accreditation process goes far enough. Growers are being made to ensure that good, sound food is produced. In the milk and meat industries there can be detrimental outcomes if certain practices are not adhered to. There is the risk of sickness. The stringent conditions imposed in those sections of the act are warranted. They have been warranted for some time, because we have legislation that was incorporated into food safety that was part of previous legislation and which probably has not varied very much. In terms of the horticultural industries, I do not think a blemished banana or an overripe pear will make a person sick. However, chemicals have to be used responsibly. There are requirements in terms of MRLs. We have to adhere to certain requirements. 3674 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

There are regulations through the NRA as to what chemicals can be used, and those things are already in place. To a large extent, the legislation in relation to the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000 is an overkill for many of those industries. The accreditation process with interstate certification assurance is being ramped up and the cost of inspection fees to growers is quite substantial. I would not go any more than a few days without some group writing to me about it, and as I travel around the state there are an enormous number of complaints. I have written to the minister about certain aspects of it. There are issues in terms of biosecurity, but in the event that there are outbreaks of papaya fruit fly or black sigatoka the government also has a responsibility to provide funding to ensure that we can deal with such issues. That has happened in the past and Queensland has been particularly successful with a number of initiatives dealing with the incursion of pests. North Watch is a good process which is working quite well with intrusions. It would appear that most pests and diseases will probably come from the north, and having a process there which is vigilant about what is required is extremely important. The actual costs that have been imposed on the growing industry are far beyond reasonable. However, I do not think we have followed the chain far enough, because it is not just growers involved in getting food to market in a reasonable condition. We also have to look at the transport industry and the marketing groups to ensure that they are doing the right thing by the consumers and the growers who supply those products to the marketplace. If there is no adherence to the correct procedures there, growers can have all the best intentions to ensure that they present produce which is market ready when it passes through the farm gate but the same procedures may not be adhered to in the marketplace. At the Brisbane and Sydney markets I see pallets of product that should be in refrigeration left out in the sun. Trucks arrive at market at a certain time and just off-load the produce because no arrangements were made. That is one of the problems that the system has at the present time. It is unreasonable that the growing side of the industry does everything that it should do and is controlled by very strict legislation but those same procedures are not followed through in the marketplace and even in the supermarkets. Very often in supermarkets we see tomatoes dropped on the ground and somebody picks them up and puts them back on the shelf. That would not be accepted or allowed in any packing shed in Australia or Queensland. As I said, this legislation has gone overboard but has not followed the process thoroughly enough to cover the whole process. That needs to be looked at in the future. Another important issue is transparency in the marketplace. Growers are talking to me about the difficulties they are experiencing with supermarkets and some of the activities they are engaged in. There has to be a point somewhere in the marketing system where a decision is made that ownership is either in the hands of the producer or those who take the product. That certainly needs to be addressed in the future. The National Party is also supportive of the amendments that will permit any existing appeals to the tribunal—that is, in relation to the milk industry—or court that remain outstanding to be concluded in accordance with the provisions of the repealed acts, and I mentioned a particular situation on the tablelands. Similarly, the bill also provides that existing proceedings or proceedings which could have been started by or against the former authority because of an event that occurred prior to the commencement may be continued or started by or against Safe Food. Of course, the government has responsibility for that now. While still commenting on the amendments that are relevant to the Meat Industry Act and its winding up prior to the end of the year as the minister has suggested, I would also like to know whether the QAC will be solely responsible for cleaning up the site, or can the minister confirm that the government may have to supplement the land remediation process. If so, what costs may be incurred, because what happens with those sites is a very important process? The government simply cannot shed its responsibility because of the sale of particular areas that may occur in the future or have occurred to date. The main intention of the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1994 is to clearly express the objectives of ecologically sustainable development that include a comprehensive definition. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, this amendment has come about as a result of a review of the act by the DPI in accordance with the state government's obligation under the legislation review component of the national competition policy. The review was conducted by the Fisheries Regulation Review Committee, which recommended that the act should be more focused on the management of fisheries resources in an ecologically sustainable manner. In the bill, ESD is defined and allocated principles to guide decision-making processes. Section 3A will provide the chief executive with the appropriate power to perform the functions under the act and 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3675 provide for the following: the management and protection of fish habitats; the management of commercial, recreational and indigenous fishing; the prevention, control and eradication of disease in fish; and the management of aquaculture. All of these components are very important to the fishing industry. Each aspect has a section that relates to a particular process within the industry. The National Party acknowledges that the national strategy on ESD has been in place since the meeting of COAG in 1993 and that these same principles that have been inserted into the act are no different from what was proposed then. Basically, there is no change. They are simply being reinforced because of what we are experiencing today. The industry is a very vital industry to Queensland and Australia. It provides seafood for the tourist industry. It certainly is important for opportunities. It is important in terms of aquaculture and what it could mean to the state in the future. There are a whole range of issues in terms of catching fish in the wild so that we can then take them into ponded aquaculture areas, whether they be crustaceans, barramundi or for breeding the likes of coral trout and so on. We can ensure that we can manage that situation with aquaculture. It is very important to manage our fishery resources, but I want to firmly place on record that these broad principles must be applied in a practical and fair manner based on the appropriate science as well as economic and social considerations. We have to take a measured view of it. We have to be pragmatic about it. Recently, the minister and his government penalised a Sunshine Coast seafood value-adding industry worth 25 jobs and $2 million. This decision to close down a trial pilchard fishery was against the advice of the government's own scientific advisers, who had concluded that the proposed harvesting could safely proceed without risk to the pilchard stocks and other species. An independent marine ecologist, Dr Rick Fletcher, who is acknowledged by the minister himself, also found that the proposed pilchard fishery was environmentally sustainable. The San Antone Fishing Co. planned to harvest and value add 350 tonnes of pilchards from a resource that the government estimated at 25,000 tonnes. There had been some difficulties previously because the company had used the purse seine net, which caused problems for dolphins, but the lift net that it planned to use was environmentally safe and posed no threat to other fish species or dolphins. That is what we have to do. We should not just throw the baby out with the bath water because this type of fishing has had a problem in the past. The process was certainly not effective and it was detrimental to the dolphin population, but if somebody comes up with a mechanism to avoid catching dolphins, we should back it. We went through this process when the regulation was brought into parliament and the opposition moved a disallowance motion against it. It is a matter of some concern that because of the need for fish throughout Queensland and Australia we have an import replacement policy, yet we are denying people who have the fortitude to do so from putting together a process which may have contained errors in the past but which now contains mechanisms to improve the catching of these pilchards. If it could be proved that that process is sustainable, and if those people were prepared to go to the trouble of going overseas to buy a plant worth about $250,000 and if they have a market for gourmet fish, then that process should have been considered very soundly. The consideration could have been done in a manner that allowed the process to be continued for a short period of time to prove that the resource is there, that the process will not damage it, and that any concerns about the dolphins could be allayed. But, no, the National Party opposition was not successful with that disallowance motion. That was a disgraceful exercise in which a secret decision was made in the minister's office at a cost to Sunshine Coast jobs and a valuable new industry that is now likely to be relocated down south. I have spoken to Garry Pinzone, and he is telling me he will be taking the process down to Victoria and using a purse seine net down there. He will be transferring what he had here in Queensland down to Victoria. He believes he can get a licence down there to use a purse seine net. Mr Cummins: The Sunshine coast fishermen will be happy to see him go. Mr ROWELL: That is all right. You do not care about jobs up there. You are very, very fortunate that you are in that position. He is going to move the whole process down there and he believes he will not have any difficulty in getting a licence. The purse seine nets are used around South Australia and certainly in Victoria, so we will be denied the jobs and the opportunity to supply the gourmet market from the Sunshine Coast. 3676 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

I hear what the member for the area where the factory was is saying. He does not want this sort of a process. Well, if that is the attitude we have in Queensland, there will be a lot of industries— Mr Cummins: Ninety-two per cent of objections. Mr ROWELL: There were 262 objections, and I went to FOI and was unable to get those objections unless I paid something like $1,250. Mr Hopper: Kick him out! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! You will be the first to go. Mr ROWELL: I was saying that I did not have the capacity to pay $1,250 to go to FOI and find out what the nature of that objection was. If the government wants to conduct business in the state that way, so be it. This example illustrates the importance of applying ESD and its principles sensibly when the government considers future decisions on Queensland fisheries resources. The other key amendments I will touch on are the proposed amendments to section 65 which will outline the process that must be followed to apply a temporary or permanent transfer of an authority. These proposed amendments will allow for an administrative decision for temporary transfers to be approved unless they are specifically excluded by and subject to any condition imposed under the regulation of a management plan. The benefit of these amendments will be that they will allow for the simplest and most effective way of administering temporary transfers and ensure that there is documentary evidence of transactions, which is important for the parties and from the enforcement perspective as well. The National Party supports these amendments. The final part of the bill that I will comment on is the amendment to the Grain Industry Act. As I understand it, these amendments will allow a review of the export marketing arrangements for Queensland's wheat crop when the Commonwealth government has completed its review under the national competition policy, which is expected to focus on the national single-desk arrangements for wheat in 2004-05. I would be pleased if the single desk for sugar could be maintained. That is extremely important, and I know the minister agrees with that, whether it be for the domestic single desk or for the export single desk. At the given time when this review clause is activated the arrangement of a public review process and a public benefit test before parliament would be imperative to any future decision that may be made regarding the single-desk selling arrangements for wheat, which is an important commodity for the economy of Queensland. The National Party opposition acknowledges that the amendments proposed in this PILA bill are largely procedural and of a minor nature. It is important, though, to emphasise again the need for ESD to be applied in a fair and practical way based on appropriate scientific, economic and social considerations, and it expects this government to make any decision on that basis. Generally, there is no great problem with this bill as far as the National Party is concerned. From time to time there is a necessity to make amendments to primary industries bills, and the National Party is supportive of the legislation before the House. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.06 p.m.): I rise this afternoon to speak on the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002, which proposes amendments to a number of primary industry portfolio acts and a related act, these being the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, the Fisheries Act 1994, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, the Primary Industry Bodies Reform Act 1999, the Stock Act 1915 and the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936. The opportunity is being taken to make a few minor amendments to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, and these amendments will provide for clarity and interpretation and ensure the effective operation of the act. In particular, clause 4 will amend section 155 to make it clear that the requirement for an inspector to give an information notice to the owner of a forfeited animal does not apply to the situation where the seized thing is not an animal and where it would be impracticable or unreasonable to expect the inspector to account for the thing, given its condition, nature and value. Also, clause 5 will amend section 165 to make it clear that an inspector may require a person to give information either when there has been a contravention against the Animal Care and Protection Act or where an animal welfare direction has been given—that is, information about whether the direction has been complied with. I am sure everyone here would agree that these 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3677 are sensible requirements that will meet community expectations about the roles and responsibilities of inspectors. It was interesting to hear the Deputy Opposition Leader talking about the problems we have in our society with people not caring for animals properly, such as parents buying pets for their children and then either allowing the animals to roam or not ensuring that they are properly treated. This bill will give all inspectors and police the opportunity to get in and make sure people are looking after their animals and the power to seize those animals they need to and make sure they are either disposed of or given to another home where they will receive better care. One of the problems in my electorate is that of roaming dogs, and that brings me back to the situation where parents have bought animals for their children and then let the animals go. The wild dog problem that some of our DNR and council officers are dealing with in Maleny is quite a difficult one. As the member for Nicklin would know, it has got to the stage where these wild dogs—which were previously domestic dogs—are killing large numbers of livestock, and that could present a possible risk to the lives of children and other people at a later stage. The community is working together in Maleny and people are doing a fantastic job. Six little groups are concentrating on their particular areas and looking at the options of baiting, shooting or capturing the dogs. It has been really good to see the support the community has given. The local IGA is putting dog sighting forms out and hopefully the community will get on top of the issue, but once again it comes back to educating people about what to do with pets and making sure they really, truly want them before they go to the expense of buying them and then not looking after them. As I said, the amendments contained in this bill will make it easier for inspectors to get on with their job, which is a very good thing. The amendments to the Animal Care and Protection Act will provide clarity in interpretation and ensure the effective operation of the act. This bill also provides for consequential amendment of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 with regard to animal welfare to provide for enforcement of the Animal Care and Protection Act. The amendment will enable more effective seizure of animals whose welfare is at risk. I think everyone would agree that this is a good thing. Several other acts are amended by this bill. The amendment to the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1973 has become necessary to clarify the funding arrangements between the chicken meat processors and the chicken meat producers. It ensures that the contract registration fee is apportioned on a fifty-fifty basis between these two parties. This is current practice and it is widely accepted as a suitable arrangement. I understand that this amendment has the support of both processors and producers. While this is current practice and everyone agrees that a fifty-fifty apportionment is great, it is important to have it enshrined in legislation so that it does not get to a stage where either party can be exploited. We have seen in other industries the exploitation of growers that can occur, particularly when they are held to ransom and do not have a choice about the prices they get and the fees they have to pay. They put up with it to the point that it becomes unprofitable for them to grow their produce or keep their stock. This is a small amendment which will provide more surety to producers and put them in a better bargaining position in other respects. I am very supportive of that. The primary purpose of the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1994 is to ensure compliance with national competition policy principles. To ensure it did so, the DPI commissioned an independent review of the act in 2000. Ecologically sustainable development in the management of Queensland's fisheries resource emerged as the most vital primary purpose. Recently there has been a lot of discussion and debate in this House on this point. It is one which I am sure all fishers would agree on. This amendment will mean that Queensland fisheries are managed in a suitable manner which is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Other amendments are technical in nature and seek to improve the administration of the act. These include clarifying the grounds on which an authority may be suspended or cancelled, removing a redundant term, allowing greater flexibility for transfer of an authority and specifying time limits and other matters about fisheries statistical returns. Ms Keech: They are very important amendments. Ms MALE: They are. There are also provisions regarding the requirements for production of authorities and for persons administering the estates of aquaculture licence holders. It is pleasing to note that there has been a comprehensive community consultation process including the 3678 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002 development of a discussion paper, the formation of an independent review committee, direct stakeholder consultation and public meetings. Mr English: This government is getting a good reputation for community consultation. Ms MALE: It is. Primary Industries and all of our departments are very good at community consultation. This is another good example of how community consultation works. This could account for the support that has been shown for the amendments. The member for Kawana said to me earlier that the fishers in his area think these are very good changes that needed to be made. We look forward to seeing them come to fruition. I will touch briefly on the other acts to be amended. One is the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. The main amendment to this act is to allow existing accreditations under existing meat and dairy legislation to roll over for their remaining term into the proposed new meat and dairy food safety schemes. Further amendments extend the expiry date for the existing meat and dairy acts to ensure they will not be terminated until the new food safety schemes are in place. This is currently expected to be around 1 January 2003. The good thing about this is that accredited participants will be saving money. They will not have to pay the registration fees again just to have it change a few months later. The amendments to the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 will allow the Minister for Primary Industries to arrange a public review of options for export marketing of Queensland wheat currently subject to national export single desk selling powers under the Commonwealth's Wheat Marketing Act 1989 when a report required by the Commonwealth act is presented. There was consultation with Agforce, Grainco, Queensland Produce, Seed and Grain Merchants Association and other primary producers. Such a review provision, supported by all these industries, shows once again that we are consulting with primary industries. We are making sure that everyone gets the opportunity to have their say, that their concerns are taken into account and that we are actually working towards more sustainable primary industries. The amendments to the Dairy Industry Act 1993 and the Meat Industry Act 1993 provide that either the state or Safe Food Production Queensland become responsible for legal actions in progress or undertaken against the Queensland Dairy Authority and the Queensland Abattoir Corporation, which are both in the process of winding up. These provisions are being inserted following legal advice and in the absence of any current provisions. Minor and consequential amendments are being made to the other acts, including the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936, the Primary Industries Bodies Reform Act 1999 and the Stock Act 1915. These are very necessary amendments. The minister and his department have worked through this process so that the acts work as they should. I take this opportunity to thank the minister for the work he has put in. I thank him for providing briefings to his caucus legislation committee, of which I am a member. The Rural Queensland Council also gave a briefing. The minister's staff made sure that we were well informed and that we had a chance to work through all of the options and discuss anything we had concerns about. The work put in by the Primary Industries Department shows through. These amendments need to be made. They have the support of all of the stakeholders in the various industries. They will certainly make sure that the amended acts run much more smoothly. It has been pleasing to see that the opposition and other members will be supporting the amendments contained in this omnibus bill. That shows once again that the Primary Industries Minister consults widely within the community. He is well respected throughout the primary industries community— Mr English: The farmers' friend. Ms MALE: The farmers' friend. He makes sure everyone has the chance to have their say. I thank Mike Tandy from the minister's office. Whenever I called him to clarify various issues for this speech he was readily available and had all of the answers to hand. I also thank the departmental officers for providing the briefings. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (5.18 p.m.): I am pleased to rise in support of the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. Although the bill does cover a number of acts within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industries, I will concentrate on two areas in my contribution to the debate. The first relates to the dairy industry. Although the amendments to the dairy act are consequential amendments on the major amendments to the dairy industry of June 2000—they are just the flow-on effects of the deregulation we were forced 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3679 into in June 2000—they are timely, and they give me an opportunity to talk a little about the dairy industry as it pertains to the electorate of Kurwongbah. Can honourable members believe that it is only two years since we went through the heartache and the agony in relation to deregulation of the dairy industry? I know the soul searching that Minister Palaszczuk went through because it was not something that we did proactively; it was something that was forced upon us because of the position taken by farmers in Victoria. One of the sad things at the time was that farmers in Queensland did not stay united. I know that was very hurtful to the farmers in Dayboro, because they felt that if all farmers in Queensland stayed united, without having the splinter group of the AMPA, they could have had more of a chance of surviving. I can report to the House that in the two years since dairy deregulation there has been an effect in Dayboro. I will not try to convince anyone that it has been sunshine and roses. It has been very hard for the farmers in Dayboro. In June 2000 we had 39 dairy farms in the Dayboro area. Since the readjustment package was introduced—and honourable members must bear in mind that Queensland had to take the steps it did so that our farmers could participate in the readjustment funds and the readjustment package offered by the Commonwealth government—12 dairy farmers have, unfortunately, had to shut up shop. Not all have left their farms; some have sold their herds and have gone into other primary industry pursuits. I understand another farm is closing on Saturday in Dayboro. That will leave us with 26 dairy farms. So, we have lost one-third of our farms. I think Pat Rowley predicted that we would lose about one-third of our farms. A couple of our remaining dairy farmers have increased the size of their farms. The dairy farms in Dayboro—similar to the situation that occurs in the seat of Nicklin—are very much pasture based. The farmers need the pastures for the feed. The Dayboro area is Brisbane's best kept secret. It is about a 40- or 45-minute drive to the city. Young professional people who are very keen to have a rural lifestyle but still work in the city find Dayboro very attractive. That puts a real estate premium on the price of those pastures in Dayboro. The dilemma faced by the farmers is that they need more pastures to get bigger and thus compete, but the pastures are quite costly—in fact, they can be cost-prohibitive. I am in regular contact with our farmers in Dayboro. A few of them say to me that they are just seeing how they will go. It has been two years and they still have their heads above water. It may well be that the crunch time will come fairly soon. Others have looked at diversifying. I know one family which has been in the area for a long time is now growing organic vegetables as well as continuing with their dairying operations. They are doing very well with their vegetables and have established a market in Sydney for their crop. It is never easy. The drought and the scarcity of water are now impacting even more greatly than did deregulation or low world prices. I am mindful of the fact that Pat Rowley, who is a resident in the Kurwongbah electorate and a very well respected person, as well as an advocate for the dairy industry, submitted his president's report to the QDO state council on 19 and 20 August. In that report he highlights the fact that the drought and the constant, monotonous battle to feed cattle and keep milking herds and all other animals alive is the big issue facing the members today. He says, 'Drought is unfortunately a constant risk for all of us in primary industry.' He notes that it is probably the most difficult drought that the industry has had to handle in 44 years. He also notes that in the face of the crippling drought and low prices the national restructure has become a sixth order issue for farmers. Probably not a truer word has been spoken! The community in Dayboro did not sit back and say, 'Oh well, it is all doom and gloom.' They became very proactive. The community members got together a group and decided that the best prospect of employment and vitality for the Dayboro region was tourism. They got together the Dayboro Tourism group and received RAP funding. Erica and all the team at Moreton Coast and Country and the area consultative committee have been most supportive. I do not think our area could ask for more commitment or a better group of people to support us in gaining the RAP funding in support of local business. Tourism is starting to take off. There is a lot more work to be done, but they have the energy and the vitality to keep going. I wish them all the best, and I will be there shoulder to shoulder with them all the way. The other area I wanted to talk about concerns fishing and the Fisheries Act. In some ways it has probably been downplayed a lot, but it is very heartening to hear the shadow minister and the National Party wholeheartedly supporting the introduction of ecologically sustainable development—ESD—into the objectives of the Fisheries Act. It is a term that has been around for 3680 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

10 years or so and it sounds fashionable. But this is a very powerful statement that is being made in our Fisheries Act. I wanted to highlight that point to honourable members here this afternoon. At present there are three stated objectives in the Fisheries Act, and these are: firstly, ensuring that fisheries resources are used in an ecologically sustainable way; secondly, achieving the optimum community, economic and other benefits obtainable from fisheries resources; and, thirdly, ensuring access to fisheries resources is fair. Whilst there are principles and objectives in relation to ecologically sustainable development, it is not actually stated in one objective. This amendment will do that. Even though our fisheries have been managed under the guiding principles of ESD as developed and signed off on a national basis in 1992, I think it is important to now put it in the legislative framework. It is defined in section 25. However, it is not a stated objective. Now putting it there as a stated objective heartens and gives more strength to our fisheries management. I do not know whether it was in the minister's wisdom or otherwise, but he appointed me chair of the Fishing Industry Development Council after the 2001 state election. I quite readily admitted as I attended my first meeting that what I know about fishing and fisheries could be written on the back of a stamp and still have room for a letter home to Mum. We have just had our third meeting for this year. I think we have had five or six meetings since I was appointed chair. One of the things I have quickly grasped and appreciated is that the management of our fisheries is probably the most complex task that one could assign to any group of people. I can say that the balancing act—the fact that we are dealing with a natural resource, the fact that we have to ensure that we pass on to our children and future generations a natural resource that was handed to us—is probably not a job that I would want to do. I have seen the team at the Queensland Fisheries Service. They probably have a thankless task. I do not think that anyone gives them the pat on the back that they deserve, so I take this opportunity in this debate—and I know members will join with me—in thanking Peter Neville, Col Bishop and Jim Gillespie. Their workaday is on that tightrope and on striking that balance the whole time. They probably receive anger from all the stakeholders in fishing. One of the things that has struck me since being appointed as chair of the Fishing Industry Development Council has been that everyone has an opinion about fishing and fisheries. Sometimes I attend functions and find that I am unwillingly the centre of attention—only because of the fishing aspect and nothing else— Mr Strong: You've always been the centre of attention. Mrs LAVARCH: Is the member for Burnett saying that I make too much noise? Another aspect of the amendment to the Fisheries Act that I want to point out—and another very powerful and significant statement being made and one that will enhance the management of our fisheries in Queensland—is the incorporation of the precautionary principle. That precautionary principle means that if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation or possible environmental degradation because of the threat. That provides a clear understanding of the principles of ESD that will ensure that all future management decisions made under the act will be subject to the rigorous application of the principles. A key principle of ESD to be adopted is the precautionary principle. In relation to debates about water we often hear from the members opposite, 'Where is the scientific evidence?' I know that in the five years or so I have been in this place I have heard that said in relation to the management of fisheries—'Where is the scientific evidence?' A principle of ESD, and to be incorporated in the act, is the precautionary principle. I think that that is one of the greatest things that we can do for future generations. Instead of saying, 'Wait for the science,' and seeing the fishery collapse and probably never to be resurrected to the state that it was, the minute that there is a serious threat, we apply the precautionary principle and reduce the effort in that fishery. During the June meeting of the FIDC we had a presentation from Glen Hurrey from AFFA, which is the Commonwealth fisheries management body. Glen had come back from an international conference on fisheries management. He reported that in many countries now there has been an acceptance that their fisheries have collapsed and that in-shore fishing is for recreational use only and that commercial fishing is only from fish farming or aquaculture. I think that it would be the saddest thing for us to just say, 'Okay, we will just fish out our fisheries. We do not apply the precautionary principle. For our commercial fishing industry, we just have aquaculture.' 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3681

One of the underestimated benefits of having a vibrant fishing industry in Queensland is its contribution to tourism. Today, we heard from the member from Whitsunday in relation to the charter boat industry in the Whitsundays. I do not think that we appreciate how many jobs and how much flow-on effect there is into our economy from the fishing industry all along our coast. When it comes to our health, we apply the precautionary principle without any problem. The minute we are feeling unwell, we take an aspirin or go and see the doctor. When it comes to the management of our natural resources, the precautionary principle is a harder thing for people to understand, accept or embrace wholeheartedly. I hope that having it now stated in an act heralds a new thinking and a new acceptance that, where there is a serious threat to our natural resources, we automatically abate that threat by adopting the precautionary principle. In the little time left to me, I want to advise members that the Fishing Industry Development Council is the highest strategic advisory body to the Minister for Primary Industries in relation to the management of fisheries. With the ESD and the precautionary principle being incorporated into the act, the objectives are there. Then we have through the fisheries management and through the MACs—the other advisory committees—some of the nitty-gritty of fishery management, such as the size of fish, the catch and the bag limits. In the middle there is a gap in relation to strategic policy development. That is what I see—and I hope the minister agrees with me—as the crucial role of the FIDC, the gap between the objectives and the minutiae or the nitty- gritty of the management of the fisheries. In the past 18 months, we have moved to prioritise what strategic policy fits into that gap. I hope that the minister is heartened to hear that we are well on the way to working to having a fisheries resource allocation policy. The working group has been applying themselves diligently to that. I would like to tell the minister that by the December meeting it may be adopted, but it may be a little bit longer. That is a significant contribution that the FIDC is making. I know that the minister will join with me when I remark on the commitment of the people around that table. These are all high-level key stakeholders from all sections of the fishing industry who give willingly of their time and who do not bring their own self-interest to that table. In a representative way, they contribute to the debate. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and note their commitment and their contribution. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.38 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002, which proposes amendments to a number of primary industry portfolio acts and other related acts. I note that it is quite common for this type of miscellaneous amendment bill to be used on a number of occasions to facilitate amendments to acts of parliament that are not controversial in nature. I note that this bill covers amendments to nine acts and, on advice from the minister and his department staff, the amendments are not controversial in nature. I certainly have had a briefing from the minister's departmental staff—and I thank him for that—and I have questioned the staff on the nature and circumstances of the amendments. I certainly have been assured by the staff, and I acknowledge their assistance during the advice process. This process of combining miscellaneous amendments to a range of acts of parliament under the responsibility of the same minister is a positive example of parliament speeding up the process of legislative reform without going through the lengthy process of introducing separate bills for separate acts of parliament, which would no doubt delay unnecessarily the process of reform to state government legislation. I believe it is imperative that we always remain vigilant to exploring new ways of improving the parliamentary process of reform to existing legislation. So often we are criticised for filibustering or simply dragging the chain during debate on legislation, yet through using this model we are debating here tonight we can certainly see a way to move forward in speeding up the parliamentary process. During the debate I specifically wish to refer to the minister's proposed amendments to the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. I understand the act as it now stands does not allow existing food safety accreditation or licence holders to have their existing annual food safety licences or accreditation rolled over into the proposed food safety scheme without having to apply for and pay for reaccreditation. The passage of this bill into law will certainly be good news for the individual business operators, thus avoiding unnecessary reaccreditation costs and associated expenses. I believe we also need to focus not just on minimising unnecessary costs and levies to our business community but on exploring more ways of reducing the current levies and costs that our industry must endure. I note that during her contribution the member for Kurwongbah touched on the deregulation of the dairy industry. I also would like to share with members how one local dairy farming family 3682 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002 has taken on the challenge; that is, they have formed the Eumundi-Noosa Milk Company and are now supplying direct to the Sunshine Coast community Eumundi-Noosa milk. Mr Cummins: Hear, hear! Best milk on the coast. Mr WELLINGTON: Thank you. About three weeks ago I joined hundreds of locals from the Sunshine Coast. We met at the local farm on the Kenilworth-Eumundi Road and it was great to see the local owners putting on a sausage sizzle. It was their way of simply saying thank you to the hundreds and thousands of milk consumers on the Sunshine Coast who regularly buy the Eumundi-Noosa milk, the Eumundi-Noosa cream and all the other various products that they produce. Frankly, they have had a challenge over the last 12 months in taking on Pauls and the other major milk processors. Yet they are out there with the fighting spirit and taking on the big processors and surviving. No doubt it has been difficult. Without the recent rain we had in June we would have been very worried about the future, but they are having a go, and that is the spirit that we in Australia and Queensland are very proud of. I thank the minister for the way in which he has brought together this range of bills. It is a model that we need to focus on in speeding up the parliamentary process. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (5.43 p.m.): The Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 amends a range of legislation within the Primary Industries portfolio, and that portfolio is very important to the people of my region. Coming from such a large regional seat with some 33 communities, primary industries is very important to us indeed. While the majority of amendments are very minor, it is important that the legislation be fully effective. The guiding principle of omnibus-type legislation of this kind is that the content should avoid dealing with substantive policy matters, which should be presented as individual amendments for the attention of parliament. Let me address some of the acts which this bill proposes to amend. The first act is the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The opportunity is being taken to make a few minor amendments to the act. These will provide for clarity and interpretation and ensure the effective operation of the act. There is a need for a consequential amendment in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 which currently makes it unworkable for police officers to seize animals to prevent imminent risk of injury, death, et cetera. This will be achieved by substituting for an incorrect word 'and', the word 'or'. The amendment will enable more effective seizure of animals whose welfare is at risk by police acting as inspectors under the animal care legislation. In our remote, regional and rural areas police often do have to act as inspectors because we do not see the RSPCA in Muttaburra every day. I take this opportunity to commend them and all the other emergency services personnel for the good work they do every day to keep us all safe. These amendments seek to ensure that the act operates as initially intended. There is no new policy direction in these amendments. The second act is the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. The main amendment is to allow existing accreditations or licences under existing meat and dairy legislation to roll over for the remaining term into the proposed new meat and dairy food safety schemes. Further amendments extend the expiry date for the existing meat and dairy acts to ensure that they will not be terminated until the new food safety schemes are in place. This is currently expected to be in around January 2003. Both amendments are administrative in nature and no adverse community reaction is expected. The third is the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991. The amendment will allow the Minister for Primary Industries to arrange a public review of options for export marketing of Queensland wheat currently subject to national export single desk selling powers under the Commonwealth's Wheat Marketing Act 1989 when a report required by the Commonwealth act is presented. Such a review provision is strongly supported by Queensland's grain industry bodies. The fourth group is the Dairy Industry Act 1993 and the Meat Industry Act 1993. The amendments provide that either the state or Safe Food Production Queensland in the matter of dairy food safety matters becomes responsible for legal actions in progress or undertaken against the Queensland Dairy Authority and the Queensland Abattoir Corporation, both of which are in the process of winding up. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.47 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill I pass on my thanks to the minister and his staff for the detailed briefing they made available on this bill. There are a number of very positive initiatives contained in the bill. I know that members of the chicken meat industry welcome the clarification and certainty that the even split of the registration and annual fees contribution gives them irrespective of changes in personnel in the future. 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3683

The member for Kurwongbah mentioned the importance of including the precautionary principle in the ecologically sustainable development of the fishing industry. I do believe that it is positive, but I have one concern. This was a concern that I held back when the precautionary principle was to be incorporated into some environmental legislation a number of years ago; that is, not that the lack of scientific certainty is an issue of inherent concern in itself but the fact that that lack of scientific certainty can be used in a mischievous sense by certain people in the community, whether they are in the fishing community or the land-based environmental-type community. I do query whether the minister has provided for some sort of mechanism to ensure that the full inclusion of the precautionary principle will not be misused against the industry as it does have the potential to be misused as well as used properly. I welcome, too, the formalisation of the transfer of the authorities included in this bill. A couple of examples were given by the minister's staff about the previous process when a full transfer had to occur with the original owner of the authority taking in good faith the fact that the transferee would send back the licence to them when the agreement had expired. This new method of establishing transfers of authority on a short-term basis will certainly give some certainty to those people who find themselves in that position. I believe also that there should be a formalisation of the authority of the authority holder, at the demise of the authority holder, being transferred to the representative for a period that allows adjustment to the person's death and also for that person's estate to be settled. For people in family businesses where the deceased is the holder of the authority it would give family members a great deal of peace of mind to know they have a period in which to organise and finalise the estate of the person they loved greatly. I understand that in relation to statistical returns a head of power will be provided to devolve the requirements for statistical returns to regulated management plans. I know returns are important, but I ask the minister whether he will ensure, firstly, that those returns are practical; secondly, that the statistics required of the operators will be used for a particular purpose and not just stored for eternity; and, thirdly, that they are being required for a reason. There are people in the fishing industry who question the need for some of the statistical returns. The people who have spoken to me are not cowboys and they do not want to do the wrong thing. They just wonder whether all of the paperwork required of them is used for anything. I think that applies across-the-board in terms of government requirements for information. Operators in the agricultural, horticultural or fishing industries are overloaded with paper and are wondering what the returns are used for. There are primary industries issues I wish to raise that relate to the appropriate management of our primary production areas. As the minister knows, councils, governments and landowners are required in various measure to control noxious weeds on their properties. The Calliope council, which is the majority holder of agricultural and primary production land in any electorate, is requesting—and I believe with justification—the state government to return to the free provision of herbicides for landowners. For many years, landowners were required to control—and still are—noxious weeds, as ought to be the case. However, they were given some assistance in that obligation through the state government making available through councils herbicides suitable for eradicating declared weeds. That decision has now been reversed and it will now fall completely on the landowner to provide herbicides for weed eradication. The Calliope council will be asking the state government to reconsider that decision not to supply free herbicides, because it believes that removing the free weed control poisons has the potential to demonstrate to landowners a lack of commitment by the state government to eradicating noxious weeds. Already landowners see that what is required of them differs from what is required of the state government on state controlled land. The state government is nowhere near as vigilant or does not require the same level of obligation of itself on state controlled land as it and local councils require of private landowners. The availability of free herbicides to landowners to eradicate weeds on land for which they are responsible is an indication of good faith on the part of the state government. I ask the minister to reconsider the decision he has made. In the scheme of things we are not talking about a huge amount of money. This program does a great deal to engender confidence and support among landowners. The other matter that I wished to raise with the minister that has become a problem in the area of primary production land management is the conflict between, again, the obligations from state governments and local councils—and the federal government to a degree—on landowners and the conflict between those obligations and the constraints placed on freehold landowners regarding the Vegetation Management Act. Landowners are required to eradicate noxious weeds 3684 Property Rights 18 Sep 2002 and maintain firebreaks around properties. Both of these procedures have been hampered recently on a number of occasions, as indicated to me by landowners or councils, because the obligation to manage those issues—noxious weeds and firebreaks—is in conflict with the constraints that the Vegetation Management Act places on them as far as the removal or destruction of certain types of vegetation is concerned. I will cite one example with some caution because the example in itself is sound. The circumstances surrounding this case may not be as sound and therefore I will not use any names. A landowner had a noxious weed outbreak in an area of 'of concern' vegetation and he wanted to put a stick rake through the vegetation to allow better access to the noxious weeds in order to eradicate them. He was not allowed to get any machinery into that area unless he paid $300 and applied for a permit to have that machine in that area of 'of concern' vegetation. He burred up about that, naturally, and said, 'I am not going to pay $300 to apply for a permit under the vegetation management plan to do something that I am required to do under other state legislation.' In the absence of that permit to have the machinery on the property he has to perform the noxious weed control by hand. Although that is not an impossible task in this instance, there would be some instances where it could well be a very difficult task without a machine. So there is a conflict in that the Primary Industries and Natural Resources Departments require that noxious weeds be controlled. The Vegetation Management Act requires that areas of declared vegetation, whether it is 'of concern' or a higher category, cannot be disturbed without a permit and, in many instances, cannot be disturbed at all. We see landowners in conflict through being in breach of one part of state government legislation in order to comply with another part of legislation. It is not only private landowners who are caught in that nexus, it is also councils when they purchase property for public purposes. For instance, the Calliope council has purchased a significant tract of land. It cannot put in necessary firebreaks and access points on that property because of constraints placed on it by the Vegetation Management Act. Yet by not doing that it is breaching other aspects of state legislation. This is a serious issue and one that will continue to grow as the implementation of the Vegetation Management Act continues and more and more landowners get to understand the impost on them of the Vegetation Management Act. The declaration, removal and management of noxious weeds and the management of extensive rural properties are important. The vast majority of landowners are responsible and want to do the right thing, but they are caught in this no-man's-land where to comply with one they have to pay to comply with another, both of which are advantageous to them economically and as far as their farm management is concerned. There are many positive aspects to this bill. I ask the minister to have regard to those other issues I have raised. I commend the bill. Debate, on motion of Mr Mulherin, adjourned.

PROPERTY RIGHTS Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.58 p.m.): I move— That this parliament acknowledges and recognises the legitimate property rights of all Queensland private land- holders and calls on the Beattie government to provide compensation for the money it already receives in the form of national competition policy payments if those property rights are diminished or reduced by state government regulation. We sometimes hear the claim from some observers of the political process that the policy platforms of the major political parties have over the years become more and more closely aligned. It is a claim that is obviously not accurate in many areas. But if there is one single example of just how distinct the philosophy of the National Party is from that of the Labor Party it is the issue of private property rights. The National Party has a fundamental commitment to the right of ownership of private property, security of tenure and security of land use. It is a commitment that is central to the principle of any capitalist economy. The Labor Party, still steeped in socialist principles despite the efforts of many in that party to deny it, has no such commitment to private property rights. The Labor Party has no regard for the principle of private ownership of land and has no regard for the principle of secure land tenure. In the four and a half years since the election of the Beattie government, private land-holders and especially rural land-holders have suffered an onslaught of regulation and red tape which has stripped away the property rights historically attached to property titles and water licences. State government legislation like the Vegetation Management Act and the Water Act have ravaged the productive potential and value of thousands of private 18 Sep 2002 Property Rights 3685 properties across Queensland. These laws have had no regard for land title and no regard for the value which has been attached to those titles over so many decades. Freehold land, historically regarded as the most secure form of private tenure, is now treated the same as leasehold land under the Vegetation Management Act. Land-holders who bought properties with the express purpose of developing to their productive potential— Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. That is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): There is no point of order. Mr HORAN: Land-holders who bought properties with the express purpose of developing to their productive potential and, in many cases, for a premium price because of the title of the land, have been caught by the profound and fundamental reduction in the rights attached to that title. If under the Vegetation Management Act a land-holder is prevented from undertaking certain vegetation controls, that land-holder has no right to appeal and no right to compensation for the loss of the productive potential resulting from the government imposed restriction. Water licences, which successive governments have required the holders of those licences to spend thousands and, in some cases, millions of dollars developing to their productive potential, have now been converted to 10-year water allocations. Again, the long-term security of those licences has been stripped away. If at the end of the 10-year term the government deems it necessary, for whatever reason, to reduce an allocation or alter the conditions of use attached to that allocation, the holder of the water allocation has been provided no right to compensation. Such is the Labor Party's disregard for property rights, the Beattie government has even stripped away the right of appeal that has always been available to licence holders. The Beattie government has broadly claimed that these various pieces of environmental and natural resources legislation are necessary to improve the sustainability of our primary industries and to protect our environment and our state's natural resources. That is an objective that everyone supports. That is an objective that the National Party is committed to. We believe that every land- holder has a duty of care to manage their land in a responsible way. But the absolute folly of the Beattie government's approach is that the blunt legislative tools it has introduced to achieve this objective are self-defeating. Because they strip away the property rights of private land-holders and because they strip away the productive potential and the value of properties all over Queensland, they also strip away the security of the investment climate in our primary industries and all those secondary industries and support services that depend on them. If land-holders do not have the security to invest and do not have the ability to make a profit and if the banks and the financiers do not have the security to invest in the land-holder's business, then the land-holder cannot invest in introducing the very practices that will improve the sustainability of their operation or repair any environmental damage that has occurred. Primary industries are notoriously variable in their economic performance largely because of their dependence on the vagaries of climatic conditions and world markets. So when the state Labor government is actively adding to the already risky investment climate that is a fact of life in rural industry, it is a recipe for disaster, and that is exactly what the Beattie government has concocted—a recipe for disaster: a social disaster, an economic disaster and potentially an environmental disaster as land-holders are further and further restricted in their ability to manage their properties responsibly. While the state government does have a responsibility to maintain a regulatory and policy framework that represents the interests of the community, it also has a responsibility to ensure that the cost of that framework is shared across the community. Environmental groups and farm organisations like Agforce and the Queensland Farmers Federation have been united in the view that individual land-holders should not have to shoulder the cost of laws like the Vegetation Management Act and have called on the government to provide compensation where environmental controls have been imposed on land-holders over and above their normal duty of care. Even the Premier has acknowledged that compensation should be paid. In fact, he publicly promised two rallies of land-holders at Winton and Roma that he would provide compensation before introducing tree-clearing restrictions. But once again, like so many other occasions with this Beattie government, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. There has been no substance to support the spin doctoring, because the Premier broke his promise to the land-holders of Queensland and introduced his tree-clearing laws anyway without providing compensation. The Premier introduced his government's Water Act, laws driven in large part by agreed COAG reforms inspired by national competition policy principles, again without compensation. The 3686 Property Rights 18 Sep 2002 continuing excuse has been that he does not have the money. That is because he does not have the money the federal government should pay for the so-called reforms his own state government has introduced. But the Premier is not telling the truth. He is being deceitful once again, because he does have the money and he has always had the money. His government is a signatory to the NCP agreement and he has been receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in NCP payments every year. In 1998-99 the Beattie government received $40.2 million in NCP payments. In 1999-2000 it received $81.5 million in NCP payments. In 2000-01 it received $86.4 million in NCP payments. In 2001-02 the Beattie government will receive $134 million in NCP payments. This year it expects to receive $138.1 million and next year it expects to receive $142.4 million in NCP payments. One of the purposes of those federal payments was for the states to assist those community and industry sectors that were forced to introduce reforms to actually do so. But how much do you think the Beattie government has directed in each of the years it has been receiving NCP payments to adjustments and restructuring assistance? Not one red cent! It has not used one red cent of those millions of dollars to assist land-holders or in fact any industry or community sector to offset the cost of introducing the government's reforms. Every single cent of those millions of dollars has gone straight into Treasury's consolidated fund. The Premier claimed on the weekend that his NCP money went to local government, but he is wrong again. He has deceived again. Only some of that money—$150 million over six years—has gone to local government, and then only because the former National Party-led state government arranged the deal to assist local authorities introduce NCP reforms. The Premier did not have any choice, and if he did he probably would steal that money back, too. For all we know, the rest of the Beattie government's NCP receipts have been used to fund the Premier's pet projects in the three Labor electorates in Brisbane's CBD—projects like the $29 million footbridge that was supposed to cost $13 million, projects like the $280 million Lang Park redevelopment, projects like the $220 million arts precinct or the $75 million Roma Street Parkland. For all we know, that NCP money is being used to pay for the Premier's annual $70 million self-promotion bill. For all we know, the Beattie government is using that NCP money to fund its $64 million free grants program for big companies and big multinationals like Time Warner. Over the weekend the Deputy Prime Minister and National Party Leader, John Anderson, warned the Labor governments of New South Wales and Queensland that it was time they recognised the legitimate property rights of farmers and their communities. He said that it was time the states recognised and met their responsibilities in the interests of fairness, justice, equity, maximising economic performance and getting to their stated goals of production sustainability. He warned that if they did not, the federal government may recast the NCP system to force them into doing so. The Deputy Prime Minister is dead right. It is time to stop the Labor rot. It is time to stop the Beattie government's blatant and unconscionable rorting of NCP payments. It is time the Beattie government accepted its responsibilities. It is time the Beattie government recognised the legitimate property rights of all Queensland private land-holders. It is time the Beattie government provided compensation from the national competition policy payments it receives if those property rights are diminished or reduced by state government regulation. I urge all members to support this motion. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.08 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition that this parliament acknowledge and recognise the legitimate property rights of all Queensland private land-holders and calls on the Beattie government to provide compensation from the money it already receives in the form of national competition payments if those property rights are diminished or reduced by state government regulation. When I say that it gives me pleasure to second this motion, I am sad to have to second the motion because if this government had done the right thing by the charter set down by the national competition policy structure we would not be debating this motion tonight. The Beattie government's performance on water reform and vegetation management in this state has been nothing but appalling, to say the least. We have seen major rallies around this state over the last couple of years. Why? Because of the aggravating policies of this Beattie Labor government! This government has introduced water reform and tree clearing guidelines by stealth, and it has not provided any compensation to those land-holders who had to wear those reforms. Mr Livingstone interjected. 18 Sep 2002 Property Rights 3687

Mr JOHNSON: These are reforms of stealth, and if I were the member for Ipswich West I would not be interjecting at all here because he knows full well the hypocrites that the members of this government are. The Beattie government has ripped apart the very fabric that rural industries are built on, and it has not passed on one red cent of national competition policy funds to compensate primary producers when it erodes their property rights. These payments by the federal government to state governments are aimed at compensating those affected by national competition reforms. They are not aimed at propping up the consolidated revenue coffers of a greedy state government to enable it to spend $30 million on a footbridge or $70 million on a public relations campaign to promote the Premier. Let's talk about recognising the property rights that our primary producers have worked hard to get and maintain. The issue of property rights is about creating certainty and confidence not only for primary producers but for the whole community, which relies heavily on the success of our primary production. The very livelihood of primary producers has been eroded by this state government's intervention. It set out to starve not only the primary producers of their right to farm but also the community that those farmers support. Farm and pastoral property build-ups since this initiative have been eroded by Labor strangulation and red tape. It really is a fraudulent policy. The economic success of many regional cities and towns is dependent on our primary producers not only retaining their property rights but also being compensated fairly if those rights are taken away or diminished by government intervention. As I said, primary producers are not able to develop their properties because of this government's negative policy. The Beattie government has run roughshod over primary producers when it comes to delivering property rights, but it has no problem stripping away assets and resources from our primary producers without any regard for compensation. Property rights are not about money, they are not about greed and they are not about destroying the environment; they are about primary producers having confidence and security that their livelihoods will not be eroded by government intervention or regulation—or should I say strangulation? In my own electorate of Gregory, in the Emerald irrigation area, cotton growers and, in recent years, the horticultural industry in particular have been the backbone of the local economy, creating employment on farms as well as in service industries in the local area, including fruit pickers, cotton chippers and all those seasonal workers who add to the trade. But a cloud of uncertainty now hovers over all of that. Since this government has come to power it has continued to erode the property rights of these farmers. Many irrigators have spent millions of dollars developing their land and they have seen their irrigation rights eroded, especially those water harvesters on the Comet, Nogoa and Mackenzie Rivers, where they have been cut back from 19 to 15 days—the minister knows that—on which they can start their pumps. Some of these irrigators have seen their pumping allocations cut back by more than 50 per cent. I endorse fully the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, last Sunday when he warned this government that if it does not acknowledge property rights and put in place a formula for compensation, the federal government will impose strict conditions on passing on NCP payments to the state. When will this Labor government realise the worth of the blood, sweat and tears of our farmers and graziers? It is our primary producers who have suffered under the Beattie government's tree clearing and water reform policy by stealth. It has forced these regulations on our primary producers without any compensation for the loss of income and jobs to our rural communities. Will the government pay the bank loans which were struck in good faith and then torn apart by irresponsible Labor policy? Time expired. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (6.16 p.m.): I move the following amendment— Omit all words after 'Parliament' and insert the following: 'acknowledges that the issue of property rights for rural land-holders will be discussed at the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments and, further, notes that the Federal Government does not provide compensation from increased revenue derived from national competition policy reform to assist land-holders affected by commonwealth legislation such as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.'. The motion proposed by the Opposition Leader exposes not just its own breathtaking hypocrisy but also the duplicity of the National Party, including its federal leader, John Anderson. It shows not only how out of step the National Party is with its own rural constituency, but that, if implemented, the Anderson proposal would be a recipe for financial disaster for Queensland. 3688 Property Rights 18 Sep 2002

No one denies that property rights are an important issue. However, the Opposition Leader's motion fails to recognise two important points: first, that property rights are already recognised by the Beattie government under various state legislation, including the Water Act 2000, as well as the land act and land title legislation; second, that the issue of property rights is not the sole responsibility of the states but an issue of national importance that must be addressed nationally by the Commonwealth in collaboration with the states. The National Party through this motion perpetuates the nonsense that the states alone are responsible for providing compensation to land-holders for the loss of so-called property rights diminished or reduced by legislation designed to ensure ecological sustainability. That is out of step with the views of rural organisations like the National Farmers Federation and Agforce, which say that the issue should be addressed at the national level by the Commonwealth in cooperation with the states. And that is what is happening. The question of property rights and compensation is already being addressed at the national level by the Commonwealth and the states through the COAG process. We have not been sitting on our hands, as John Anderson has implied. For example, Queensland has joined with all other jurisdictions at COAG to examine ways of enhancing water markets and ensuring that the improved water security we are providing can be traded and dealt with in the same way as land. The work on this key property rights issue, which is being overseen by the CEOs of state and Commonwealth agencies with responsibility for water resources, will be considered at the next COAG meeting in November. All states have recently reaffirmed their commitment to this process. The Opposition Leader says that national competition payments to Queensland should be used to pay compensation to farmers for loss of property rights. During 1997-98 when the National Party was last in government, Queensland received $39.3 million in NCP payments from the Commonwealth. Where did all that money go? I bet not one cent went to compensating land- holders for loss of property rights! It would have gone into consolidated revenue to provide services right across the state, as happens now. Let's have a closer look at the hypocrisy and duplicity of Mr Anderson on this issue. Mr Anderson and the National Party say that the states should be solely responsible for compensating land-holders for loss of property rights. If so, why then did Mr Anderson promise to make available $40 million in Commonwealth funding to land-holders in his own electorate as compensation for a reduction in water allocations in the Gwydir? Mr Anderson and the Queensland Nationals say the state should have sole responsibility for compensating land-holders for loss of property rights as a result of state government legislation. If the Deputy Prime Minister is so concerned about the erosion of land-holders' rights, why has he not ensured that land- holders are compensated for property rights affected by Commonwealth legislation? A good example of that is the Commonwealth's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which is at the heart of the amendment I have moved. The EPBC act lists bluegrass communities—which exist throughout central Queensland—as a threatened species, which means land-holders cannot clear their land where bluegrass species exist on their properties. Where are the compensation payments from the Commonwealth to offset the loss of property rights imposed by this federal legislation which stops those farmers from clearing their land? The answer to all these questions is that Mr Anderson is simply playing politics. He is running a line that he thinks will win support in the bush, but he has no intention of delivering on his commitments. It is designed to deflect attention away from the impact of his own government's legislation. Unlike the Commonwealth, the Beattie government is actually delivering increased resource security for land-holders. The reality is that while we have had water laws in all states since the turn of the century, none has given the security that the Beattie government is providing. For example, one might ask which side of politics introduced the 1989 Water Resources Act which specifically ruled out compensation for a loss of water entitlements. It was the Queensland National Party! Section 50(3) of that act specifically allowed for amendment, variation or even cancellation of water licences without a right to compensation. The National Party minister of the day, Mr Don Neal—who I think was member for Balonne out in the south-west—noted during debate on the bill that the government realised the need for government to control the use of water for the benefit of the community and that this was a longstanding principle of Australian water law. In fact, compensation had never been provided for in legislation until the Beattie government's Water Act 2000. 18 Sep 2002 Property Rights 3689

I urge all members of the House to support this amendment to call on the federal government to practise what it preaches. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (6.18 p.m.): I second the amendment. As part of this debate it is important to reflect a little on the history of Queensland's water laws and some of the recent changes. As the minister has said, land-holder property rights are already recognised under state legislation, including the Water Act 2000. Before the Beattie government's Water Act 2000, the laws and administrative practices relating to the management of water resources had not significantly changed since the late 1800s. In recent years, community concern about the condition of the nation's water resources has led to the demand for changes in the way water is managed. In 1994 the Commonwealth and state governments agreed to a national water resource policy to ensure the sustainability of our water and the industries that depend upon it but, importantly, it does deal with two competing interests—the broader public interest in ensuring that water remains under state control and the private interest of giving water users security. By being singularly focused on the interests of farmers, members opposite are ignoring history, the COAG agreement and the interests of the public at large. COAG has also recognised the environment as a user of water and urges regular reviews of water allocations. No-one in Queensland except the state, on behalf of the people, has a right to water. This has been the law since 1910. Throughout Australia in the early 1900s common law rights to water were systematically replaced with statutory entitlements through laws vesting control of water in the state. This has had to happen because of the increasing exploitation of and demands on the resource. While the rationale was to allow for orderly and peaceable use, it set the precedent for the paramountcy of public interest in water allocation and management decisions. Since 1910, licences to take water granted under Queensland law have been for set periods, usually for between two and 10 years, with no statutory right of renewal. The Water Resources Act 1989, passed when the National Party was in government, provided that licences could be cancelled, amended or changed at any time with no rights to compensation. The nature of the right was historically focused on the ability of the user to access water rather than on strict ownership. Farmers have never owned the water. Rather, the state controls the water on behalf of all Queenslanders and grants people licences to use the water. In recent years controls have been extended over farm dams and overland flow in recognition of increasing competition and pressures on our water resources. Generally, the need for these changes to the law has been acknowledged by all stakeholders as necessary to protect both existing entitlements and the environment. These changes and associated changes to common law rights occurred without compensation. The COAG water resources policy was agreed by all states and the Commonwealth government in 1994 to ensure the sustainability of water resources. I remind the opposition that the COAG agreement requires the states to implement comprehensive systems of water allocations or entitlements backed by separation of water property rights from land title and clear specification in terms of ownership, volume, reliability, transferability and, if appropriate, quality. However, this is only part of COAG's requirements, a fact conveniently ignored by some lobby groups and the opposition. There is nothing in the policy about compensation. On any test, entitlements under the Water Resources Act 1989 could not be characterised as a property right using common law principles. They could be cancelled or amended at any time, could not be traded, could be undermined by grant of other licences and came with no estimates of reliability. However, the new trading regime established under the Water Act 2000 provides water entitlement holders with greater security of ownership and certainty over future access to the resource and its availability and also results in improved planning confidence. Further, the Beattie government's Water Act provides for an owner of a water allocation to be paid reasonable compensation by the state in the case of a change in the value of the allocation if the change is made within 10 years of the approval of a water resource plan. I urge honourable members to support the amendment. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.23 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Toowoomba South, that this parliament acknowledges and recognises the legitimate property rights of all Queensland private land-holders and calls on the Beattie government to provide compensation from the money it already receives in the form of national competition policy payments if those property rights are diminished or reduced by state government regulation. 3690 Property Rights 18 Sep 2002

It is incredibly disappointing to see the response from the government tonight. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition encapsulates two basic principles. The first is to acknowledge and recognise the legitimate property rights of Queensland private land-holders. What is the Beattie Labor government going to do tonight? It is going to refuse to do that. It is going to refuse to acknowledge and recognise the legitimate property rights of all Queensland private land-holders. It has come into this House and moved an absurd amendment that is in itself a measure of the contempt it has for the land-holding community of Queensland and of the contempt with which it treats this whole issue. The issue of defining and protecting property rights is the single most important issue facing land-holders in Queensland today. Yet this Labor government comes into this parliament tonight and refuses to even acknowledge and recognise that there are such things as legitimate property rights for Queensland private land-holders. If proof were needed of this government's attitude towards Queensland land-holders and their private property rights, this amendment would be it. The second principle encapsulated in the motion moved by the member for Toowoomba South is one of natural justice. It is one of fairness. It is a principle that says that if an individual is disadvantaged by the removal of property rights that need to be removed for the good of the community then the community should compensate that individual for his or her loss. That is natural justice. It is basic fairness. It stems from the recognition that an individual has the right to own private property. Both of those concepts have been trampled on by the Beattie Labor government tonight by its contemptuous treatment of the motion. There is no doubt that natural resource management has changed in recent years. There is no doubt that it needed to change. Those changes have reflected changes in the wider community. The need for adjustment in the face of those changes was well and truly recognised in the COAG agreements. It has been well and truly recognised by everybody who has an interest in natural resource management in Queensland. Provision was made for adjustment packages to be put in place to ensure that individuals were not trampled on, to ensure that there were mechanisms to make it possible for the community to compensate individuals for their particular losses. It has been up to the state government to ensure that that happens. It already gets the money. That is the great injustice: it already gets the money. Anyone who reads the original COAG agreement and the associated documents—there are plenty of them—will see what the intent was. The state government already gets the money from the federal government. That money flows from the benefits that came to the whole community from the national competition policy agenda. It was always intended that that money would be used to compensate individuals and private land-holders who were impacted upon by the changes that were necessary in a lot of areas. This state government, more than any other, has refused to acknowledge its responsibility to pass that money on to the people who were impacted upon. This is the only state government in Australia that has refused to recognise its responsibility to compensate private land-holders. The minister shakes his head, but can he tell me which other state government did not have a compensation principle within their vegetation management legislation? Every other state government took the responsibility upon themselves. This is the only state government that has taken the money that rightfully belongs to Queensland private property owners, put it into consolidated revenue and then spent it on a whole range of pet projects. This is the only government that has refused to recognise that concept of basic fairness and justice that private property owners in Queensland are entitled to. Time expired. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (6.28 p.m.): I rise tonight to support the minister's amendment and introduce, I hope, some balance to the debate by focusing on the responsibilities of landowners as well as their rights. One of the criticisms often made of our society, particularly by members opposite, is that there is too much emphasis on people's rights and not enough emphasis on the responsibilities people have to society and to the community. We hear that all too often, particularly in relation to young people. We hear the criticism, 'All we hear about is the rights of young people. If they had a responsibility to society we would have a different kind of society and different rates of crime.' These are the sorts of arguments that we hear time and time again. We hear from the Prime Minister about reciprocity, which again implies that it is a requirement for people to give as well as to take from society. It seems that all that rhetoric just does not apply when it comes to landowners. Too often, I am afraid, it is a case of all rights and no responsibilities when it comes to land. 18 Sep 2002 Property Rights 3691

When I moved to far-north Queensland from Brisbane some 20 years ago I quite clearly remember being quite shocked about the attitude I found there on the part of landowners. There is a fundamental difference between the National Party and the Labor Party on these issues. Too often what I found on the part of landowners and National Party members was the belief that if you owned your land you had a right to do anything you wanted to it. That seems to have been the inalienable right that people believed they had. No matter what the consequences, it was your land and you would do with it as you chose. That was the kind of philosophy that I encountered when I first moved to far-north Queensland. Sadly, too often it is still there. Yes, there have been some changes, but that philosophy is quite often still the case. It is still the case that landowners will clear riverine vegetation no matter that, as a consequence, taxpayers through the river trust have to fix up any erosion that that clearing causes. Once again, we just do not see the actual relationship between the practice on the land and the consequences—the environmental degradation—that somebody, always the taxpayer, has to fix up. It seems to me that the attitude of landowners is, 'I will farm the way I want,' whether it is sustainable or not. That attitude is not acceptable today. People in cities have accepted constraints on their behaviour. They have accepted that regulations are required if they are going to be good neighbours. So why does not that apply to people on the land? What is this about? Is the National Party really saying that landowners should have their property rights but no responsibility or duty of care to protect their land? Is the National Party saying that farmers should have the right to continue to mismanage their land and leave the taxpayers to foot the bill? Those who argue that landowners should have the freedom to do as they please forget that it is orderly regulation by government which guarantees their freedom to manage their properties. It is state regulation which guarantees the correctness of title, legal access to the front gate and protection from fraud or intimidation by commercial interests. Government activity is critical to the protection of freedoms and rights that owners cherish. Legislation protects property rights. It is particularly easy to understand that in urban areas where, in the absence of regulatory town planning, every landowner is potentially threatened by ugly development of a property next door, or pollution from an incompatible industrial development. The landowner in the bush actually benefits when their neighbour is refused a land clearing permit. If granted, the clearing permit could set in train the processes which might, over time, lead to the destruction of the value of both adjoining properties. Salinity is a good example. I have heard an argument from the member for Callide that is often put forward: that because it is the community that benefits when we restrict use on the land it should be the community that should pay. I have heard that many times. The reality is that I do not benefit when we prevent salinity on someone's land out west. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Me either! Dr LESLEY CLARK: No, we are not benefiting in the cities. The landowners themselves are the ones who benefit when restrictions ensure that salinity does not destroy the sustainability of that land. The people in those areas themselves are benefiting from the kinds of restrictions that we are putting in place. They do not seem to appreciate that the restriction on land clearing is the only way that those properties are going to be sustainable and that the owners will have a future. The restriction on the amount of water that comes out of rivers is necessary for future generations or there will be no land to farm and no viable future for those particular communities. It is time— Time expired. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (6.35 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for legitimate property rights for Queenslanders. There is a moral obligation on Queensland to pay national competition payments and to pay rural entities compensation for complying with environmental issues and not use money on capital city projects. That is what is happening in Queensland at the present time. Tree clearing on freehold land is absolutely essential. If we are going to comply with the requirements to maintain certain species, the people who would have to stop clearing should be compensated. The Vegetation Management Act contained good principles but, at the end of the day, the compensation that was so necessary for the people who owned freehold land was not forthcoming. That was a catastrophic situation for people who bought land in order to produce crops but are now informed that they are not entitled to use that land. In many cases, that land has become useless to them. They have to pay rates on it, they have a debt on it in many instances and they are not able to use the land. 3692 Property Rights 18 Sep 2002

Anyone who has tried to clear land has the officers of the Department of Natural Resources aggressively approaching them. I can assure the minister that that is correct and I can quote instances if he wishes. I am well aware of the situation. People unknowingly have cleared small areas of land and the dobbers have dobbed them in. Those people were only trying to utilise land that was so important to them. They are denied the opportunity of using that land. Let us go to the Burdekin Dam situation because I believe it is particularly interesting. Let us look at the SunWater situation. It was not too long ago that farmers were paying $28 a megalitre. At the present time the users of that water are facing different conditions. Sugar growers are finding it particularly difficult. When corporatisation occurred we found that an additional charge of $8 a megalitre was imposed on the producers. Those people are now paying something like $36 a megalitre. They believed that if they paid this money they would have a fair hearing with regard to the additional $8 a megalitre. It has been dragging on. The QCC is in the process of looking at it. It is being assessed, but it has not been resolved. The farmers are being forced into a situation where, whether they like it or not, the only way they can get around the situation is to pay the extra $8 per megalitre. That is totally unreasonable and totally unfair. They have to pay the additional $8, otherwise they would be restricted in their capacity to obtain water. We also have the State Coastal Management Plan where primary industries are being vilified. Urban people have been putting forward many environmentally unfriendly projects. This situation has been going on for some time. It is very detrimental as far as primary industries are concerned to have to deal with the coastal management plan. Severe restrictions have been imposed on farmers as to what they can do in certain areas. In the Integrated Planning Act we are also seeing restrictions on rural activities. Farmers have to comply with the necessity of going to councils to be told when they can undertake certain activities. If they are going to expand the additional usage they have on the area, they have to make application to the council as far as the IP Act is concerned. This is extremely detrimental. The $98 million in national competition payments to the dairy industry when the industry was deregulated was paid into the government's pocket. The government did absolutely nothing as far as the dairy industry was concerned. It is an absolute disgrace. There is a reduction in confidence in rural Queensland at the present time in regard to the process that is being applied. The government is squeezing primary industries in every way that it possibly can. Farmers are getting to the point where it is no longer viable to operate their farms. Time expired. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (6.40 p.m.): I support the minister's amendment to the motion. I can inform honourable members of an experience elsewhere where governments have dipped their toes in the property rights debate and in the process almost destroyed the very rights they were seeking to preserve. Opposition members should listen hard to what I am about to say because their ignorance of the real facts about property rights and compensation would, if ever Queensland had the misfortune to have the National Party voted back into office, literally bankrupt the state. The state of Oregon in north western USA has long been regarded as having the most vigorous land use planning system of any state in the USA. The 19 Oregon principles— An opposition member interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I cannot hear the member. Mr LAWLOR: They have been widely adopted by— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn the member for Callide under standing order 123A. I was on my feet. I could not hear the member. I warn the member under standing order 123A. You can go for a walk after that. I was on my feet and you were interjecting still. Mr LAWLOR: The member has no brains and he is happy without them. The 19 Oregon principles have been widely adopted by jurisdictions around the world as a rational and beneficial statement of land use planning objectives and principles. In November 2000, a small lobby group of Oregon's conservative land-holders—probably the equivalent of the National Party, I suppose—sponsored a citizens initiated referendum which would have the effect of compensating land-holders from any loss in value of their land whenever the state or council passed legislation restricting property rights. It is estimated that the law, if implemented, could cost state and local governments annually $US5.4 billion in compensation. That is more than Oregon's annual state budget. On that basis, in 15 years the state would have paid as much in compensation as the total value of all property in the state. 18 Sep 2002 Property Rights 3693

This is the same poorly thought out scheme that is being pedalled by the opposition. Even if compensation figures were lower, other services supplied by the state or local government—health, education, police, parks and gardens and so on—would suffer or be eliminated by compensation claims or else taxes would have to be put up astronomically across- the-board. A minority of land-holders would, in effect, be capturing the state's taxing powers to funnel a flow of taxes straight into their pockets. Everyone else would suffer. They would be subsidising major landowners. Environmental protection laws would be rendered useless. For example, it would become impossible for local governments to pass a planning scheme to stop the building of flats in a heritage precinct, to prevent the filling of flood plains and many other things. The claims for injurious affection would just flood the government. I could give hundreds of other examples of what we could not do if ever we blindly went down the path that the opposition would take us. The experience of the Oregon law shows that it probably would even apply to regulations enacted decades previously, the effects of which had already been built into the market value of a person's property. The Oregon law has been caught up in the courts since then and is yet to come into effect. However, we do know that the first claims under it have already been filed. One was by a truck driver who previously had been prevented by local ordinances from mining stone out of an old goldmine and he is claiming $US50 million. How is this relevant to Queensland conditions? Could these scenarios happen in Queensland? Of course they could! Quite easily, because in Queensland the public sector on a routine basis administers planning schemes and regulations guided largely by objective public interest criteria. Fortunately, for the most part we have a sensible and mature electorate who would not fall into the sort of snake oil solutions that the opposition is peddling. Although the statutory framework for Oregon and Queensland are different, the arguments that the warring parties in Oregon are using are the same as those being used in Australia by so- called property rights advocates represented, of course, by the National Party. The Oregon law was initiated by a small number of larger land-holders who had an interest in realising a capital gain on their properties. The individual person who initiated the measure had been aggrieved because his property of two acres with a creek running through the middle had been zoned to prevent building on the flood plain or within a certain distance of the stream. The language of ethics and social responsibility tends to go missing in debates about property rights, as if the controversies were simply a battle between economic production and the environment. In fact, ownership of property is dependent on acceptance by non-owners of that ownership and it requires acceptance of social responsibilities. This applies as much to urban land-holders as to rural land-holders. We have to remember that this motion, moved by the Leader of the Opposition, targets all Queensland private landowners. Let us learn from the mistakes of others. The real problem that we all face is not so much that property rights are under threat but that the opposition members are incredibly slow learners. Property rights would be under threat with a coalition government. We would all be bankrupt through paying compensation. The motion moved by the National Party is fraught with danger for Queensland and it should be rejected. Time expired. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.44 p.m.): What a disgraceful contribution! The member did not even read the motion. There is a very simple philosophy that describes property rights: if the community requires a natural resource for community purposes, the community should pay. Property rights have been eroded in Queensland under consecutive Labor governments. It may have begun as ignorance or a deep-seated hate for land-holders by the Goss government. Clearly, people in the cities would not have accepted a similar lack of consideration that was dealt out to the rural land-holders and an electoral backlash would have occurred. It is pleasing to see that the debate is at least moving forward with the recognition by governments, particularly the federal government, that property rights has become a serious issue and must be addressed. However, I am disappointed that the Beattie Labor government is not entirely genuine on this issue, as we have heard tonight. For instance, this state government would not contemplate not compensating a Brisbane landowner if a portion—whether that be five per cent or 10 per cent—of the land-holder's yard was required for a road reserve or for conservation purposes. However, it seems of little concern to this government if a land-holder in a rural area has a similar five per cent or 10 per cent reduction in their productive land or the water that they owned or had been entitled to. Mr Robertson: That is a disingenuous argument! 3694 Property Rights 18 Sep 2002

Mr HOBBS: It is exactly the same thing. Mr Robertson: It is not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! The minister will cease interjecting. Mr HOBBS: There is increasing environmental regulation in Australia. We all understand that. Things have moved on. We are looking at different issues. The circle is getting smaller and smaller in relation to managing and addressing issues of importance. Investment and security is being lost because of these laws that are coming in and not enough consideration is being given to the issues that are important to people who own the land and use the resources that are on that land. Farmers know that they have to improve our farm management techniques. That is being done. Farmers are being responsible. By the same token, we have to make sure that there is not an imbalance, and that is what has happened. I refer particularly to the water management plans that have been undertaken and also the vegetation management plans that have been undertaken. In many instances, those changes have, in fact, had some serious consequences on some people. They have actually made some properties totally not viable. Those plans have certainly had an impact on a broad range of land- holders. So there is a serious issue there that needs to be resolved. Also, property rights need to be defined across Australia. The issue that we are talking about today is the fact that the NCP payments have been made. The government's amendment to this motion refers to compensation from increased revenue derived from national competition policy that should come from the federal government. The reality is that the money is now flowing to the states. So far, the government has received nearly half a billion dollars. It will be $662 million by next year. So a huge amount of money is coming in. Of course, it is coming in and it is supposed to be paid as part of the compensation for NCP principles. Mr Robertson: Why didn't you do that? Mr HOBBS: We did not take away property rights. Mr Robertson: $39.3 million. Mr HOBBS: But we did not take away property rights. When we were in government, all we did was we set up the process, but we did not take away property rights the way in which the government has done. That is the difference. The University of New England undertook an assessment in the north-west of New South Wales of the impact of one piece of legislation on rural properties. They found that it reduced that area's value by 20 per cent. The state government's amendment to this motion is an absolute disgrace. In Queensland, the government has already received all of this money. There certainly needs to be some sort of recognition of that. The member for Burnett talked about the Water Act 1989 and the basis for compensation. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. For a start, we are now in a new century. The NCP payments are now part of the state's arrangement. Improved knowledge and technical data are available. There are also better and more modern management techniques. The member for Barron River said that we should not talk about property rights; we should talk about responsibility. But there has to be a balance. In fact, land-holders take all the responsibility but get no property rights. That is the way it is now. The member said that she does not get a benefit out of fixing salinity. Of course she does! She gets the shoes she wears, the clothes she wears, the food she eats and the economy that she lives in. There is certainly a benefit if we have a healthy economy. Time expired. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (6.50 p.m.): I rise to speak about the confusion surrounding the Commonwealth's position on this debate, confusion reflected in the views of those National Party members opposite. I remind honourable members that this month Commonwealth National Party ministers Truss and Anderson have made public statements on the issue of property rights for farmers and compensation being paid by the states out of national competition policy payments. While it is still unclear what the formal Commonwealth position is, it appears they are seeking to exert pressure on the states to honour commitments the federal Nationals have made to rural lobby groups to reinvent themselves as a political force west of the Great Divide. From public statements, it appears the Commonwealth will ask the Productivity Commission to assess the effects on property values, investment patterns and environmental outcomes of current vegetation and biodiversity requirements under Commonwealth and state laws. It is prepared to 18 Sep 2002 Property Rights 3695 make a financial contribution to assist industry and communities to adjust to the regional impacts of water reform. It may re-examine arrangements for NCP payments to include recognition of property rights of farmers. The strong implication is that the Commonwealth may withhold NCP payments from states which do not recognise certain as yet undefined property rights and do not pay as yet unquantified compensation or adjustment assistance to affected individuals and communities if those property rights are infringed. The proposals regarding the Productivity Commission referral and the withholding of NCP payments were reiterated by John Anderson in a speech to the National Party's federal council on 15 September. Mr Anderson also claimed that the states spent most of their NCP payments in cities. Let us get a few facts on the table. NCP payments are not made so that states provide compensation to meet industry adjustment costs. NCP payments are the means by which the Commonwealth distributes gains from reforms throughout the community. The payments recognise that, although the states are responsible for the costs of implementing significant elements of NCP, much of the direct financial return accrues to the Commonwealth via increased taxation revenue flowing from NCP-induced greater economic activity. The payments are made in accordance with a COAG agreement reached in 1995. This agreement makes no mention of compensation. There are no conditions attached to NCP payments made to states and they are not directly linked to specific expenditures. About one-fifth of the payments are passed on to local governments. Queensland is the only state that does this. The rest goes to consolidated revenue to build hospitals, roads and police stations in the electorates of all members. Which member opposite will put up his hand not to have some piece of infrastructure built in his electorate but paid as cash to individuals instead? To make the annual NCP payments conditional on the payment of compensation to land- holders for lost property rights would require either a renegotiation of the COAG NCP agreement, requiring the endorsement of all state and territory jurisdictions, or unilateral action by the Commonwealth to make decisions in contravention of the agreement. The suggestion that the Commonwealth will unilaterally change agreements signed by all states and the Commonwealth in 1995 adds more uncertainty to the debates. It seems to be more and more typical of the arrogance of the Howard government. Further, the continuing statements by Commonwealth ministers over compensation are doing little to help resolve difficult and important issues like the health of our rivers and the need for us to provide certainty for water users. No-one from the Commonwealth has defined property rights that should be compensated for. The issue of property rights in water has been referred to COAG which has initiated a process for consideration having the support of all jurisdictions. This is being addressed by a group of chief executives from the water departments of states and territories and will present recommendations to the COAG meeting in November. Given COAG's active engagement, any referral to the Productivity Commission is unnecessarily provocative. Defining 'property rights' for one resource—for example, water—may create dangerous precedents for governments. The opposition motion is one that must be rejected for obvious reasons, and I urge all members to support the amendment. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58—Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 21—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 58—Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 21—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.03 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. 3696 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from p. 3684. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (8.30 p.m.): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. This bill will amend a suite of acts under the Primary Industries portfolio. In particular, the bill will amend the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 and the section of the act relating to the future marketing arrangements for export wheat sales. Wheat production in Queensland is highly unpredictable and varies from year to year. Like other cereal, grain and field crops, it depends on rainfall and is susceptible to pest and disease. In a good year, Queensland's production can be as high as 2.1 million tonnes or, in a bad year, as low as a half a million tonnes. State domestic consumption of wheat is in the vicinity of 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes a year. In effect, in a bad year total production in Queensland is directed solely to the domestic market and in a good year 80 per cent would be exported to foreign markets. In the hinterland area of western Mackay, in the vicinity of Capella, Mount McLaren and Clermont, there are good growing areas for grain, in particular wheat, but it is very hit-and-miss depending on the climatic conditions. In a good year in that area they would grow between 200,000 to 250,000 tonnes of high-quality, high-protein wheat which is predominantly exported from the Grainco facilities at the Mackay port. A small quantity from this region may be redirected to the Goodman Fielder flour mill at Rockhampton, which produces about 30,000 tonnes of flour for its bakeries throughout central Queensland. This area as well as other wheat growing regions of Queensland has been impacted severely by drought, and production levels up and down the length and breadth of Queensland are expected to decrease by 30 per cent on last year's production levels. The marketing arrangements for export sales of wheat produced in Australia are vested in an industry owned marketing body, AWB International Limited, under single-desk provisions. Mr Palaszczuk: Up and down the length and breadth of Queensland. Mr MULHERIN: That is what Mr Casey used to say. This arrangement is covered in legislation by the federal government's Wheat Marketing Act 1989. Recently, the federal government conducted a review of this legislation under national competition policy and agreed to continue the current arrangements of single-desk selling. However, the federal government has indicated it will hand crank another review of this legislation in 2004-05. The emphasis of this review will focus on single-desk marketing arrangements vested in AWB Proprietary International Pty Ltd. If the review recommends the removal or weakening of the single-desk selling arrangements under federal legislation, this bill will provide a mechanism for the Minister for Primary Industries to conduct a public review and public benefit test of the export marketing arrangements for Queensland wheat. The results of this review would come before this House and be debated. But how long can the single-desk selling arrangements last? In recent months some significant progress has been made towards agricultural trade liberalisation. In particular, talks between Australia and the US have provided some hope that market access to the US would improve significantly if the US proposals are adopted by the World Trade Organisation. However, one of the impediments from the US point of view to world trade liberalisation is single-desk marketing arrangements. The US will not agree to trade liberalisation unless these arrangements are removed. The US sees these arrangements as export monopolies. The US proposal states— The United States proposes elimination of export monopolies, thus allowing any producer, distributor or processor to export agricultural products. The federal government has welcomed the US proposal for the next World Trade Organisation round, yet we have not heard a 'fluffer' about the proposal for the single-desk selling arrangements. The federal government must outline its approach on this matter as the Queensland government has committed itself to single-desk selling arrangements for sugar exports and this amendment will provide, if the industry wants it, for a state based single-desk selling arrangement for wheat exports, if the federal government removes this provision following the 2004-05 review. This review will occur before the next round of WTO discussions. I congratulate the minister on providing this assurance to the industry and I commend the bill to the House. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (8.35 p.m.): This evening it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. It is important to acknowledge that 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3697 there are no 'fluffers' in this debate. All honourable members are directly involved in giving our quality input into the debate on this bill tonight. I commend both sides of the House on their input. This bill amends a number of acts of parliament. I would like to speak to three that impact on my electorate of Redlands. The first is the Animal Care and Protection Act. This affects people up and down the length and breadth of Queensland. Anyone who is concerned for the welfare of animals will be pleased with this amendment. The amendment is slight in nature. However, it does have the effect of allowing police the power to investigate offences where there are concerns about the welfare of animals. Mr Neil Roberts: So far as the act allows. Mr ENGLISH: That is exactly right. Another bill that is amended by this act is the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1973. Currently, when contract negotiations occur between chicken meat processors and chicken meat producers, the registration fee is split fifty-fifty between the processors and producers or growers. This is only by a gentlemen's agreement. This bill seeks to enshrine in legislation the proportion of the fifty-fifty fee split. I commend the minister on his consultation with the industry. This is currently in operation in the industry and this just enshrines it in legislation. In relation to the chicken meat industry, I wish to make one observation about some concerns I have. When people build a house, they go to their builder and get a standard HIA building contract. If they sit down and discuss the provisions of the contract with the builder, are not happy with some of them and seek to amend them, the builder will say, 'Take it or leave it.' Within that HIA contract most of the provisions are biased towards protecting the builder, not the consumer. The builder just says, 'Take it or leave it. I am not amending this contract. It is a standard contract. Find a builder who is prepared to amend it.' Most of the power in this bargaining relationship lies with the builder. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is some relevance in this, is there? Mr ENGLISH: It is an analogy. The direct relevance to the chicken meat industry is that when negotiating contracts between the processors and growers the processors have all of the power. When we negotiate a contract we need equal bargaining power. This does not occur in the chicken meat industry. Therefore, growers are in the same position as consumers—that is, it is very much a take it or leave it approach. Processors are quite happy to kick growers out left, right and centre. It is a take it or leave it approach. They say, 'We're going to offer you X amount per chook. These are the conditions you're going to have to abide by if you want to sign up with our production company. Take it or leave it.' Mrs Croft: There are lots of chicken farms in your electorate. Mr ENGLISH: There are a significant number of chicken farms in the electorate of Redlands—Inghams and Golden Cockerel, which bases its processing plant in my electorate. Mrs Reilly: My father used to be a chicken farmer for Golden Cockerel. Mr ENGLISH: He should have stayed in the industry and certainly in the electorate. This power imbalance in the negotiating position is something that concerns me and many growers in my area. A number of growers have been placed under significant pressure by processors with this take it or leave it approach, and this is something that the industry should address. This bill also amends in a minor way the Fisheries Act 1994—that is, it inserts the definition of 'ecologically sustainable development'. Whilst that might not seem like a significant amendment, I believe that it is the core issue in the entire fishing industry. If we overfarm fish stocks there will not be an industry there for the future. Fishing, by its very nature, must be an ecologically sustainable industry. Scientists within DPI do a great job at trying to measure and assess the level of fish stocks. The scientists led by Professor Joe Baker do a fantastic job in all aspects of DPI research. However, it should be acknowledged that there is a great degree of variability when trying to measure fish stocks and this can lead to significant errors. Because of that we should base any assessments we make on the more conservative side, because it is easier to loosen restrictions than tighten them after the fact when a particular species is in crisis. The issue of ecologically sustainable development is a core issue in the fishing industry. While talking about the fishing industry, I want to briefly comment on a proposal by Sun Aqua to develop fish farms in Moreton Bay. I have placed on record a number of concerns I have about this proposal. I encourage the government to look closely at the environmental impact statement which is in the process of being developed at the moment. There are a range of concerns about nutrient levels and flow rates. Does the bay have the ability to keep this area 3698 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002 clean? Is there sufficient tidal flow through there? I believe that these are quite valid concerns which need to be looked at before this proposal is given the green light. If there are any significant environmental concerns, this project should be condemned if those environmental concerns cannot be managed satisfactorily. I compliment Simon Baltais and Debra Henry from the Queensland Conservation Council on the information they have provided me in relation to this development. I also generally compliment the Queensland Conservation Council on the amount of information it has provided and the detail of that information. I would, however, criticise the Queensland Conservation Council when it wasted, in my opinion, a significant amount of money by sending plastic rubber dolphins splashed in blood to all members of parliament. I believe that that was a significant waste of money on behalf of the Queensland Conservation Council and, in my opinion, was in quite bad taste. I have appreciated receiving the documents and information it has sent me on a number of occasions. However, sending plastic dolphins to members of parliament was a waste of money and in bad taste. Without any further ado, I compliment the minister and his staff for preparing this quite detailed amendment bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (8.44 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to say a few words on the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. I have to say at the outset that the bill is almost a licorice all-sort in terms of what it tries to achieve. As somebody who understands primary industries—in a reasonable manner, if anybody ever can—it is one of those industries that needs to be looked at in an administrative way frequently and legislation needs to be put in place to bring the industry up to speed and to meet the changing market situations that primary industries have to compete with all over the world and indeed even in our own country. The bill makes minor amendments to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. It also amends the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 with regard to animal welfare to provide enforcement for the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 which will make the amendment more effective for the seizure of animals whose welfare is at risk by police acting as inspectors under the animal care legislation. I understand the sentiments behind this amendment, but commonsense needs to prevail. There would not be one person in this House who does not understand that we are in the throes of one of the worst droughts on record. It would not be very hard for an individual or police officer, when driving through our western regions—or, for that matter, not very far from Parliament House—to see animals that look like they are not being fed or having enough food to sustain them. As a person who runs cattle, there comes a time when it may seem that, after a judgement made when driving past, cattle look a little poor. From a short distance away it may appear that the cattle are in poor condition and need intervention. The last thing we need is our graziers or people running cattle being harassed by overly zealous police officers or animal protection officers in order to make their lives even more difficult. Farmers are having enough trouble surviving on the land now without extra pressure from outside bodies. I make the minister aware of the fact that there needs to be commonsense in relation to these matters. The previous speaker in the debate spoke about the amendment to the chicken meat industry act which clarifies funding between chicken meat producers and processors. The bill also looks at the Food Production Safety Act. As we move into the 21st century, the protection of humans against the transmission of diseases within food production is a very worrying situation and has to be addressed properly in legislation. The amendment to the Fisheries Act is also a very important one. The ecologically sustainable production of fish is certainly an important aspect. The aquaculture industry is probably one of the fastest growing industries in Queensland right now which needs good legislation to progress and prosper. It is important for our fisheries and seafood industries to ensure that aquaculture is a sustainable industry and keeps growing. It certainly will take a lot of the strain off the fish stocks in native habitats and reduce the catch potential from trawlers. It will also ensure that as consumers we are able to get good quality fish and seafood when required. Indeed, as most members would be aware, there is huge potential for the aquaculture export market in Queensland. I would totally support anything that we could do to move that industry forward. The member for Mackay spoke about the grain industry, and that is certainly a very important aspect of Queensland's economy. As he mentioned, the industry goes up and down; some years it is very profitable and then it might take four or five years to get another decent crop. My heart really goes out to some of those graziers and farmers. Most of them are in a dual industry, and when they have a drought they have no grain crop and no cattle—and no income and little support. It is pretty tough out there sometimes, and the marketing of the grain is certainly a very important aspect. 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3699

There are a couple of other amendments to the act but they are of no great consequence. As I said earlier it is very important for primary industry legislation to keep pace with what is happening in the rest of the world and throughout our state. I ask the question: why would you be a farmer nowadays? I look around the state and see the situation in the Burdekin where there are extra water costs and where they are having trouble growing enough cane to meet the costs of production. I mentioned to the minister this morning that the crops in a place called Carmila in my own electorate are devastated by drought. The farmers there are trying to plant almost into bulldust and they are hoping to get some rain. If that happens they may or may not get a crop next year. In the Bundaberg area the farmers have had some rain but there is no water for next year's crop, and the chances of getting any are pretty slim. As I said earlier, that really makes one wonder why anyone would be a farmer. Extra costs are being imposed on primary industry right around Australia but I speak for Queensland, and just lately the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities has introduced extra tick fees and fees in relation to the fruit and vegetable industry. As we stand here tonight farmers, graziers and people producing small crops are being devastated by feral animals such as flying foxes. My colleague from north Queensland has related to the House many times the fact that many people who grow berry fruit or summer crops, particularly in the fruit industry, are absolutely devastated by huge groups of flying foxes that come in and virtually in a couple of nights totally destroy a person's income for the year. We are also hearing about kangaroos and emus that are moving out of the national parks and devastating the land all around. They are taking away all the vegetation and destroying any chance of the graziers nearby ever running their cattle through this dry period. Most times, as a consequence of that, the graziers have to completely destock. In listening to the debate through the day I have heard members speaking about the situation of wild dogs and dingoes that are breeding up without too many natural predators and damaging the cattle industry and the sheep industry in particular, and where they are destroying a lot of the drop for this year, particularly with the drought. Given, the growth in the pig numbers throughout the state I wonder what would happen if we ever got an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Queensland. I believe ways and means of restricting an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease are currently being looked at, and in north Queensland in particular, where the chances of getting foot-and-mouth disease are probably 10 times greater than in south-east Queensland, the chances of stopping an outbreak would be almost impossible, given the prevalence of feral animals, particularly the pigs. That would be a multi-billion-dollar slug that the total Queensland economy and probably the whole of the Australian economy would have to take. Much has been said about the Vegetation Management Act, and I can relate quite clearly the effect of that on people in my area. Most people do not realise that when you clear land, particularly in central and north Queensland, if you do not reclear it within five to seven years it will reach the stage where, under the Vegetation Management Act, you cannot clear it again as it is deemed to be native vegetation. That is having a huge impact on land-holders throughout north Queensland. I will repeat that: if do you not reclear land after five to seven years, the land is deemed to be native vegetation and cannot be recleared. You pay rates on it, you have to fence it off because the feral animals can get in and you cannot get them out again, and it becomes a nightmare. The land becomes unusable and a liability, and not just because you have to pay rates on it. Lantana is supposedly native vegetation with some value and if it gets into an area you cannot clear it and eventually it overtakes all the vegetation that is there and the land becomes unusable. Queensland also has pests like sickle pod and rat-tail grass. Rat-tail grass will probably be one of those pests that will devastate huge areas of grazing land in Queensland. It is totally useless. You cannot even break it. Put it in your hands and try and break it! Maybe we can use it for something else, but it is certainly no good for grazing. There are no solutions to eradicating other pests like rubber vine, and it seems that the farmers are on the front line all the time trying to compete with a lot of these issues that nobody else seems to think too much about. People are going around complaining about farmers in terms of vegetation, and yet huge tracts of land are being taken over or made useless by pests such as rat-tail grass, rubber vine, et cetera, and nobody seems to care one hoot about it. 3700 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

In winding up I will say that even though there is a lot of doom and gloom around, there is some good news in terms of the ethanol industry in Queensland. I spoke briefly about that last night, and from the point of view of the sugar industry it is the one thing on the horizon that may be the saviour of the industry, and God knows it needs every little bit of hope it can get. The new process that has been put forward as a way in which the industry can compete head-to-head with the oil industry is a process called Ze-chem, which is a process that has been developed in the United States of America, and $400,000 has been allocated by the federal government to enable the Sugar Research Institute in Mackay to further research the viability of the process in the sugar industry. Parallel work is being done in America to adapt the process to the grain industry. The people I speak to seem very confident that the process will be a winner, and the next step then will be to build a pilot plant to prove the whole process. If we ever get to a stage where there is a mandate for our fuel to contain, say, 10 per cent ethanol, and we are able to produce enough ethanol to satisfy that demand, that will have a huge impact on the oil industry and those who control it. Already we are seeing an advertising or smear campaign by the oil industry to make the consumers—the motorists, et cetera—a little doubtful about the merits of the ethanol industry. Frankly, it is a biased and untruthful campaign. Most of us have heard of the moonshine industry which produced alcohol in America during the prohibition. Ethanol is exactly the same product, and the large amount of ethanol that was consumed in those days—while perhaps not being in the best interests of the health of Americans—certainly had no major deleterious effect on human beings. I cannot see how putting it in fuel will be of detriment to the motors of cars or to the humans who drive them. It is all good news and hopefully all of that will come together. I implore the minister and his associates to get behind the process. If it looks like it needs some more dollars and the Queensland government can support it, I would be very pleased to give bipartisan support. Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (9.00 p.m.): The Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill is an omnibus bill dealing with, amongst other things, amendments to the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000, the Meat Industry Act 1993, the Dairy Industry Act 1993, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 and other acts. This evening I will address my remarks to the food processing industry, because I do not believe that industry gets enough of an airing in this place given its importance, particularly in terms of regional economic employment. Food processing is Australia's largest manufacturing industry. In 1997-98 it employed 167,774 people and had a turnover of $46.6 billion. It constituted 18.8 per cent of total manufacturing sector industry value added. Between 1991-92 and 1997-98, the processed food industry's rate of growth of 36 per cent was greater than for manufacturing as a whole, which was 27 per cent. Australia produces a wide range of processed food. In 1997-98 food meat processing was the largest contributor to both turnover, with 21 per cent, and employment, with 30 per cent. The categories which have experienced the fastest growth in recent years are flour milling and fruit and vegetable processing. At first glance these figures look very impressive, but they must be measured against what is happening in the rest of the world. Between 1985 and 1996 world trade in agriculture and food more than doubled, reaching $US464 billion. By contrast, Australia's processed food exports have grown much more slowly than unprocessed exports. Official statistics compiled by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade show that Australia's processed food exports increased from $9 billion in 1994 to $9.5 billion in 1998, representing growth of just 5.1 per cent over the period, whereas unprocessed food exports increased by almost 40 per cent, from $5 billion to $7 billion. Australia's comparatively poor export performance in processed food is also evident from the statistics on global trade from the International Trade Centre. Between 1994 and 1998 world exports of processed food grew by 7.9 per cent. They grew fastest in the Unites States, where they grew by 21 per cent. In Germany they grew by 9.9 per cent and in France they grew by 9.2 per cent. Australia's exports by this measure grew by only 1.8 per cent. This saw Australia's global market share decrease from three per cent to 2.8 per cent. An international strategic analysis team found that Australia did best in beverages and processed dairy product. Between 1994 and 1998 exports of beverages, mainly wine, increased by 85 per cent and Australia's share in world beverage exports increased from 1.3 per cent to two per cent. Dairy exports increased by 30 per cent, and Australia's share of world dairy exports increased from 4.2 per cent to five per cent. Australia did worse in sugar and confectionery and horticulture. Between 1994 and 1998 exports of sugar and confectionery decreased by 23 per 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3701 cent, and Australia's share of world trade in these products decreased from 6.4 per cent to 4.9 per cent. Horticultural exports decreased by 22 per cent, and Australia's share of world horticultural trade decreased from 0.8 per cent to 0.6 per cent. Australia has a major asset in the willingness of international consumers to expect quality, natural and safe food, and this bill reaffirms this. Australian foods and beverages are not more aggressively exploiting this positive predisposition of international consumers. What the study found when it broke up the value chain was that with respect to raw materials Australian products generally had little if any price advantage except in dairying, some meats and some grains. In manufacturing, few firms have a competitive advantage because much of the intellectual property is owned in Europe and North America. Capacity utilisation is quite low. In packaging, Australian firms were found to be uncompetitive. That is, our costs are in the order of 10 per cent higher than those of our competitors. In branding, few firms achieve any competitive edge through brand-building strategies. In fact, because of our fragmented domestic market it is difficult for firms to achieve a competitive edge. In marketing, only a few firms are able to achieve a competitive advantage. We have no great competitive advantage in financing and in research and development, a possible source of competitive advantage for those firms that invest innovation in the processing of products and marketing. The better firms are achieving a competitive advantage, but they are few in number. It is this last point which should alarm all members when they hear the speech of the Leader of the Opposition denigrating the Smart State vision. Without Smart State and a government committed to it, our firms will continue to languish until we become, if we are not careful, the Tasmania of the Pacific when it comes to our export performance. It amazes me that a leader of a party that professes to look after country people can shun and turn his back on the need for innovation. The alarm bells should be ringing when we look at our lack of competitiveness in so many of the vital areas. What is needed is smart thinking and smart technology in processing operations so that Queensland firms particularly can compete in the international market. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr MICKEL: Listen to old 'Rigor Mortis' over there. Poor old 'Rigor Mortis' would not know a smart technology if he bumped into it. Mr Rowell: You don't know what you're talking about. Mr MICKEL: And the member does? He is the greatest dud ever! When he was Primary Industries Minister he ran industries into the ground. This is the only bloke who could make cattle duffing a loss-making industry! I now want to especially pay tribute to the role being played by the Department of State Development and the Department of Trade working in conjunction with Supermarkets of Asia on the enterprise to involve Queensland firms in Singapore, particularly in the suburb of Bhukit Timar, with the Fair Price Company. This has given Queensland companies the chance to be exposed to international markets, particularly in Singapore. Some firms have done particularly well, and we need to congratulate them and recognise them on their efforts. One of those firms has been Golden Circle, which has taken up the challenge. That firm has been a large Queensland icon, but in more recent times it has turned its attention quite correctly to exports. Capillano Honey is another successful firm in the minister's electorate. By far the most successful of the firms in the Singapore exercise is the Australian Garlic Bread Company, which has experienced a significant increase in market share as a result of the Singapore markets. Recently, along with the member for Caloundra, I had the opportunity to see in action the Department of State Development, which is trying a similar exercise with the Wellcome supermarket chain in Hong Kong. It is trying to enlist a number of Queensland firms, and I should mention them today. The Sunsol Snack Foods Company is based at Everton Park in Brisbane. It has received a number of orders which will expose its product to 252 stores in Hong Kong. A Gold Coast company called Health Revolution won the Department of State Development's product of the year in 2000. George Weston Foods has a manufacturing base in Brisbane, and Golden Circle will be producing 16 lines for the Hong Kong market. This is the largest share of Australian presence in Hong Kong. Admittedly, the Australian processed food sector is starting in Hong Kong off a very low base, but I congratulate the officers involved for the energy with which they 3702 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002 are displaying interest in developing this market and particularly for the jobs that will be created in the processed food sector. In November there will be an attempt to raise the awareness of Queensland and Queensland products when, in conjunction with Queensland Tourism, a holiday will be offered to consumers who purchase Queensland products. The winners will be enjoying a holiday either at the Nara Resort on the Gold Coast or at a resort in Cairns. So it is a way of working in conjunction to try to lift a brand name from that depressing outlook of some years ago. Of particular importance to Queensland firms is the need to be prepared to invest in export development. This can be very costly for those firms, so the attempt by the Department of State Development to enlist them in exposing them to the Wellcome supermarket chain is a way of helping out with that product brand identification. We also need to ensure that companies get serious about developing long-term relationships in the export market. It is reported to us that Queensland firms and Australian firms are still sending junior executives to Asia to negotiate with senior management of overseas supermarkets. They need to be committed to the export market as much as they are to the domestic market. In this way, Queensland firms will be taken seriously. I want to congratulate the combined efforts of the Department of State Development, the trade division and the federal government through AusTrade who are involved in trying to help develop a market strategy for Queensland firms. I now want to go to some particular Queensland case studies. In particular, I want to draw the House's attention to an enterprise at Loganholme—a firm by the name of Kerrydale Pty Ltd, which is a supplier of goat meat and goat products and a major exporter. In 2001, Kerrydale supplied around half of Australia's goat meat sales to the United States, which is the industry's main export market. Kerrydale now kills and processes its own goat meat product. It has expanded its business by encouraging farmers to grow goats and, instead of the existing price per head payment system, the firm now offers a grid system where farmers are rewarded for supplying better quality product. Something like 70 per cent of the world's population eats goat meat. Last year—2001—the United Nations said that world demand for goat meat exceeded supply by 8 million head. Australia's annual goat kill is around 700,000 head. So there is a long way to go with that. There is an opportunity for an Australian product. I am reminded, too, of the success story in the town of Charleville where several thousand head of goats are processed, creating almost full employment in that town. The advantage is that young goats have a mild flavour, there is a religious preference in that goats are slaughtered according to Halal requirements and are in demand for Muslim peoples, giving it a distinct advantage over beef. Goat meat is well known and accepted in 80 per cent of countries around the world. Australia, and in particular Queensland, has a price advantage in that we can supply a very safe product according to the conditions. It is a maturing market and I hope the DPI is working to help develop the industry. I want to commend the work that has been done by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in helping to develop a new vapour heat treatment technology—VHT—to effectively kill the Queensland fruit fly. This has helped the Australian mango industry push for Japanese quarantine authorities to loosen their import restrictions. In the past, the Kensington Pride was the Australian mango variety available in Japan. Alone, the variety is worth more than $2 million to the Australian mango industry, but now Japanese consumers can also taste the later ripening varieties of Palmer, R2E2 and Kent. But it took the Australian mango industry, with the assistance of Queensland fruit and vegetable growers, more than three years to lift Japanese import restrictions. They needed to convince the Japanese government that the new heat treatment method kills the fruit fly thus removing the risk of introducing pests into that country. Through the research primarily conducted by DPI, they were able to achieve that. The later ripening mangoes are expected to achieve a positive response from Japanese consumers. As the head of Gold Pack Mangoes, which is a mango export company based in north Queensland, said, later ripening varieties are preferable to export because they have very long shelf life. It results in a saving of up to $5 a tray. The ability to export later ripening varieties also extends the marketing season to Japan from three months to six months. In other words, it gets around some of the negatives that have stopped Australian food processing from developing because of our shorter shelf life. So we congratulate the minister and the DPI on working with horticulture through advanced technology to develop another export opportunity. I was in Singapore a number of years ago for the launch of the Confederation of Australian Pork Exports. Pork is extensively used in Singapore by Singapore's 3.8 million people. Pig farming 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3703 was banned in Singapore due to the country's high cost of land and difficulties in managing pig waste in a high density population. The Australian pork industry over the years has made numerous representations to supply product but, when pig production was shifted to Malaysia to the island of Bulan, what happened in 1997 is that Malaysia supplied 3,000 live pigs per day to Singapore and Indonesia supplied 1,000 pigs per day. They were transported by road or sea and sold daily by auction and slaughtered in Singapore. Only a small amount of frozen pork was imported. But in 1997, Singapore's Primary Production Department banned Australian chilled pork imports. In response, the Pig Research and Development Corporation worked closely with Singapore to establish a more strategic approach to the chilled pork trade. As a result of this collaboration, Australia gained a small slice of the market and in 1999 was delivering 1.4 tonnes of chilled pork a month to Singapore, which was worth about $8,000 to the Australian pork industry. Fortuitously, in 1999, when there was an outbreak of the Nipper virus in Malaysian piggeries, this resulted in the banning of the live pork trade into Singapore, providing an opening for Australia to penetrate the market. Australian chilled pork sales have now soared. Exports to Singapore of Australian pork now total over 2,000 tonnes per month—worth around $8 million per month. This represents about one-third of Singapore's pork trade. I congratulate the Australian Pork Corporation and the federal government on getting behind the Confederation of Australian Pork Exports to develop this export industry. In Kingaroy, the firm of Shwickers is part of that innovation. One can see in this Queensland pork industry, with the takeover of KR Darling Downs and the significant Japanese investment through Nippon Meats and the Taiwanese investment, that a significant investment is now starting to take place in Queensland's pork production. When we were in Taiwan recently we learnt that Taiwan Sugar will be exiting the pork industry by the year 2005 and this, with Taiwanese investment, brings about an opportunity for Queensland to gain a foothold in that important and growing Taiwanese market. This will do two things. It will provide opportunity for Queensland primary producers, and also in rural and regional Queensland it will provide a job opportunity, particularly in the food processing sector. We need to significantly develop our supply chain in the sector. KR Darling Downs has the capability of processing up to 30,000 pigs a week. We need to ensure that the protocols are in place to help the pork processing industry grow. It will need foreign investment and world-class technology. There are leading Queensland firms such as Miandetta, Cameron, Hall, McLean and the Burnett Pork Alliance which have world's best practice techniques. We can build upon our clean, green image. I encourage the state government to do everything possible to encourage the development of this industry because of its enormous economic importance to regional Queensland. The processed food sector is an exciting industry. We need to highlight its importance in the Smart State technology. It is just a shame that the state opposition is structurally incapable of getting its head around the importance of it. This bill builds upon the exciting leading edge we as a nation enjoy internationally. It is a reputation that I know the minister is keen to preserve. I commend the bill and I commend the government for what it is doing in developing these exciting industries. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (9.19 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill addresses amendments to the Animal Care and Protection Act, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, the Fisheries Act and so on. Quite often national competition policy has been mentioned. The national competition policy has been an absolute dread to the productive sector of the state. They talk about a level playing field and quality to the consumer, but it is the producer who always wears the rough end of the stick. When deregulation hits any industry the fruits of it are enormous. Think what happened to our dairy industry. I will mention more about this later. I refer to the Fisheries Act 1994. Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of fishermen in north Queensland who showed me a detailed map of the zones that are going to be introduced right up the Queensland coast. I have no doubt that we must protect our fish stocks, but in doing so I encourage the government to communicate clearly with the very people who live off these fish resources and also the recreational fishermen. Do not get me wrong: we must protect our fish stocks, but let us not go overboard in implementing these laws. I am pleased to see that the bill states that national competition policy principles also provide that the fisheries legislation provision should not impose barriers to competition unless there is valid resource management reasons for them. 3704 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

I would now like to speak about the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000, which talks about the Dairy Industry Act 1993 and the Meat Industry Act 1993. We support the food safety schemes which are to be implemented by Safe Food Production Queensland. Over the past 15 years or so, our dairy industry has developed a world-quality food source. It is absolutely second to none. The member for Logan talked about our percentage of exports. The exports in the dairy industry have increased by 30 per cent. That industry used marketing people who knew what they were doing. They sourced good people, they paid them big money and the fruits of that have been an improved percentage in our exports. Australia produces only two per cent of the world's milk supply. I think Victoria pulls about 80 per cent of the country's milk, and we think that we produce a massive amount of milk. So I ask members to understand that it is a very competitive world out there and to get our exports up and going— Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr HOPPER: Absolutely. We do a marvellous job to export the product that we do. The member for Logan also had a shot at the other industries that are not quite as competitive. If they get their act together and do exactly what the dairy industry has done, I am sure that they will go ahead. The dairy industry produces a product that is just so excellent that the world wants to depend on it. Anyone who was raised on a dairy farm has no doubt been raised on fresh milk straight out of the cow. I am sure that that has never done anyone any harm. However, in today's competitive world, with our exports being the saviour of our dairy industry, we must ensure at all times the quality of our product. I think that is what the minister is purporting to do in his bill. When milk is picked up from the farm and it goes to the processor, it is tested immediately. Some of the tests involve a sematic cell count. For the benefit of those members who do not know what a sematic cell count relates to, I point out that it relates to a disease called mastitis, which is contracted through the passing of bacteria, mostly by humans, through the dairying process. Sometimes the disease is very hard to control. All dairy farmers in Queensland have taken on this disease in a big way. Our processors all give bonuses for quality milk. This relates to how the dairy industry was able to build up its export industry by producing such a wonderful product. The sematic cell count can be controlled by antibiotics that are injected and by also culling cows and introducing a breeding program that targets sematic cell count carriers. The breeders buy semen from a bull and, through artificial insemination, use it on their herds and produce low sematic cell count cows. That way those cows can fight the bacteria that causes mastitis. Nowadays, most farmers use artificial insemination to breed such cows and the genes are pushed right through the herds. Over the past few years, the quality of the cows has lifted by an amazing amount. There are also penalties in place for cows that have high sematic cell counts. So generally farmers treat a cow a few times and if they cannot get on top of that cow's sematic cell count, then that cow is culled. She goes to the saleyards. There are also tests for antibiotics in milk. All antibiotics in milk have a withholding period and some of them last for quite a long time. Over the past couple of years all dairy farmers have had to undergo quality assurance programs. A lot of those farmers really lashed out; they built new dairies and they have just lifted this industry amazingly. It is a quality industry. I know for a fact that the Dairy Farmers Cooperative has guests from oversees. The Dairy Farmers Cooperative can proudly say to those people, 'I challenge you to pick a dairy.' They give a list of farmers to those people, who pick a dairy. That cooperative can confidently take those people to that dairy. The farmer is happy for those people to look at their dairy. The staff and management of the Dairy Farmers Cooperative have produced good dairy farmers who have quality-assured farms. They are world class. This antibiotic program is aimed at our Queensland dairy farmers becoming the best in the world. I have no doubt that we can achieve that. It involves keeping a register of what cows are treated, with what and when. All antibiotics and chemicals are locked away. The program also keeps track of the quality of milk that is supplied by each farmer. All the milk must reach a certain low temperature before it is picked up, and that temperature is checked. Some companies run a sediment check, which is a check of dirt in the milk. If farmers get a wet time, sometimes it is quite hard to clean the udders before they are milked. The most important check is the thermoduric test, which relates to bacteria in milk. The thermoduric test is done on every collection and heavy penalties are imposed if farmers do not comply, with quality bonuses and penalties. 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3705

The member for Kurwongbah in her speech touched on the deregulation of the dairy industry. Some of the points that she made were very, very good. I know that the Darling Downs has suffered immensely from the deregulation of the dairy industry. I personally have done a lot of work with dairy farmers in my electorate, who are still struggling and finding it extremely hard to cope with the outcome of deregulation. I do a lot of work with Lee Nevison from Bush Connection. He is a solicitor who works for free and his hands are full. He has dairy farmers on his books all the time. Previously, a member stated that they had met a man who was in the same situation. Just this week, Lee Nevison had another two dairy farmers entered on his books. It is just very, very sad that a once great industry in which farmers knew the price that their product would get and which was a stable industry can be destroyed by legislation. The ones who were hurt the most were the big quota holders. Some of those people had half a million dollars wiped from their operations overnight through the stroke of a pen when those quotas were abolished. That was their superannuation fund. That was their living. That was what the husband and wife were going to retire on once they sold their farm or they were going to give their children their farm and sell their quota, and that was their package to retire on. That was wiped out overnight by the stroke of a pen—$300,000, $400,000, $500,000, some over $1 million. It was just horrific. The milk price dropped from 58c a litre to about 28c in a period of about three weeks. Everyone was warned that deregulation was coming. It did not hit those farmers until it actually happened. Out of the 400 dairy farmers in my electorate, the only ones who benefited were the ones who were stable, who had very little debt and who had no quota. They were used to selling their product on a manufactured milk price. Mr Malone: Did the price of milk go down in the supermarkets? Mr HOPPER: Good on the member for Mirani. I must say that all of these achievements have occurred during one of the worst droughts in history. Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: I hear a few interjections from the Labor members opposite. I want to talk about national competition policy. Ninety-eight million dollars was given to this Labor government from the deregulation of the dairy industry. What happened to that $98 million? It went into consolidated revenue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! I ask the member to keep his address relevant to the bill. Mr HOPPER: I think that it is very relevant. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr HOPPER: Yes, but that is all right. I turn now to the meat industry. We have to— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member quite a deal of latitude tonight. Will he please keep his address relevant. Mr HOPPER: It is very relevant. I turn now to the meat industry, our meat exports and the Food Protection (Safety) Act. Of course, we have had the recent threat of mad cow disease in Japan as well as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in other parts of the world. A previous member also spoke about the threat of disease breaking out in our feral pig population. We have to really look at this issue. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Mr RODGERS (Burdekin—ALP) (9.28 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Primary Industries Legislation Bill 2002. This bill is designed to amend a number of acts that come under the control of the Primary Industries portfolio and other related acts. Primary industries is one of the major industries in my electorate of Burdekin. People who work in primary industries and other people in the community have some smart ideas. Some of the initiatives come from farmers, some from the business community and some from other workers in the community. I have to say that some initiatives also come from schoolchildren in the community. In the recent Tournament of Minds held in Townsville, school students from the Ayr State School won the regional final in Townsville. They competed on the weekend in Brisbane and won second place. Students involved in the finals from the school were Joseph Coco, Renee Kowald, Carly Davis, Teigan Guy, Hannah Grant, Ashley Eaton and Shanyn Vettovali. They got second prize. Their category— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Could I please ask members to keep their speeches relevant to the bill before the House. Mr RODGERS: This will be relevant in a minute. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I look forward to hearing the relevance. 3706 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

Mr RODGERS: All the students, parents and teachers were supportive of the students in this program. We talk a lot about changes in primary industries and where it will lead us. The students on the team were handed a problem on genetically modified 'personality plants' which developed human traits. This shows that students from rural and regional communities have the skills necessary to make decisions through problem solving that will help them develop their future. I seek leave to table a cartoon in relation to that which relates to primary industries and a few other issues of government. Leave granted. Mr RODGERS: By introducing this bill the minister will help the effective workings of the acts in question and the legislative schemes thereunder. It is a smart initiative of the minister. As I said, the skills of students who acted in the competition show that they have an understanding of how to develop ideas and how skills are used. This bill shows what a government can do when it puts its skills to the test and comes up with these types of changes to bring acts into line and make them easy to understand. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (9.32 p.m.): I rise in support of the bill. The minister should be congratulated on this bill as it proposes amendments to the following acts: the Animal Care and Protection Act, the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act, the Fisheries Act, the Food Production (Safety) Act, the Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act, the Meat Industry Act, the Dairy Industry Act, the Veterinary Surgeons Act, the Stock Act and the Primary Industry Bodies Reform Act. The amendments are of a minor nature and are non-controversial. The amendment to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 is especially important regarding animal welfare. The amendment will enable more effective seizure of animals by police acting as inspectors under the animal care legislation. I trust this will assist with problems of dogs and other animals in my electorate. The amendment to the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1973 simply clarifies the funding arrangements where processors and producers have shared the cost of the fee. The annual contract registration fee will be legislated on a fifty-fifty basis between the producers and the processors. There will be no doubt about the funding basis in the future. The Fisheries Act 1994 will be amended to ensure compliance with the national competition policy principles. The amendment results from an independent review of the provisions of the act undertaken in 2000. I have thousands and thousands of fisherpersons in my electorate, including my husband, Neil, Robert Dance and their friends. In fact they went to a fishing school a few months ago at the Tallebudgera camp so that they could hone their fishing skills. I must say, however, that he still does not bring home many fish. I am delighted that the Fisheries Act 1994 will be amended by including section 3, which outlines the main purpose of the act and defines in detail what is ecologically sustainable development and the principles of ecologically sustainable development in the future. In future, Queensland fisheries will be managed in a manner consistent with ecologically sustainable development principles, and that is good news for all fisherpersons, especially those in the electorate of Bundamba. The bill amends the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. The amendment will enable existing accreditation or licence holders to have their licences recognised under the proposed food safety schemes for the balance of their term without being required to apply for reaccreditation. This is a sensible amendment as it avoids applications for reaccreditation and the associated costs involved. The Meat Industry Act 1993 and the Dairy Industry Act 1993 will be amended in respect of matters relating to the winding up of the Queensland Abattoir Corporation and the Queensland Dairy Authority. The Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 will be amended to insert a review clause which will allow the minister to initiate a public review of options for the future export marketing arrangements for Queensland wheat. The report will be laid before parliament for all members to review and debate in this House. This is an important bill. It is a sensible bill as the amendments will ensure more effective operation of all the acts I listed earlier. I congratulate the minister and his departmental officers who have worked hard to improve public administration practices and principles in the Primary Industries portfolio. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (9.36 p.m.): At the outset I shall make some comments in relation to the Minister for Primary Industries. He is of course held in very high regard, particularly in the country areas of Queensland and in regional areas like my own. Indeed, one could say that throughout the length and breadth of Queensland he is held in the highest of 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3707 regard. This was brought home to me not only in my own region of Darling Downs in south-west Queensland but also in the far north in Townsville, particularly with the kind words conveyed repeatedly day after day by the Country Women's Association ladies who were on duty at the Townsville parliament. It is no surprise to me that the minister is so popular. His popularity in Toowoomba for example is demonstrated by the fact that he has been given an award of an enormous offer, which the Premier himself has shared, that is, to open our famous Carnival of Flowers next Saturday. It is creating great excitement in the city, excitement that has not been seen since the Premier himself opened it a few years ago. A government member: He did a good job, too. Mr SHINE: Yes. I also shall make some remarks concerning the Department of Primary Industries in Toowoomba. This institution in Toowoomba is a very valuable asset to my electorate of Toowoomba North. Of course, it is a major employer in the area. Over and above that, it provides invaluable services to the people of the Darling Downs and further afield. One of its most famous aspects is the Climate Research Institute, which is in some doubt because of the lack of federal funding to which we have referred earlier in the year. The institute is indicative of the type of valuable scientific and other work performed by very dedicated individuals. The DPI in Toowoomba engages in many functions. It involves the community in some of those. One example of recent times is the Work Shadow a Scientist scheme. The DPI and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines are taking a leading role in encouraging high school students to look at science as a possible future career path. Under the banner of forging partnerships with the community, DPI staff and Toowoomba State High School students have worked together to make a program known as Work Shadow a Scientist a great success. This is the third year in which the scheme has operated. The high school provides a list of their gifted and talented year 11 students and their interests. These students are matched with volunteer mentor scientists in the DPI and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The students then work on their own scientific projects under the guidance of their mentors. The students are working in areas such as animal science, industrial chemistry, parasitology, climatology and land management. This year the minister, Mr Palaszczuk, will present the students with their certificates of participation at the high school's awards night to be held in October, subject to the leave of the parliament no doubt. Another example of the DPI's interaction with the Toowoomba community is the Science Week celebrations. They had a major role to play this year in Science Week with respect to events held in the city. The DPI in conjunction with the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba City Council, Toowoomba Maths and Science Centre of Excellence and various community and private organisations arranged a week-long program. The DPI organised a science friction seminar that had as its topic the value of waste water to the Locker and the downs. The DPI detector dogs, Norm and Blaze, demonstrated their skills at the Grand Central Shopping Centre at Toowoomba. There was a science debate featuring Toowoomba State High School students at the Grand Central Shopping Centre on the role of genetically modified organisms in advancing Australian agriculture. DPI biotechnologist Dr Peter Young assisted the students. The Science Week activities were successful in drawing attention to the value of science in the community and also the leading role this state has in scientific innovation. Another example is the Signature Dish competition. I was involved in that last year, having represented the minister at its opening. An evaluation of the Darling Downs Signature Dish Competition for 2002 has highlighted the enormous value of the event to the downs' food industry and its tourism. The Darling Downs Signature Dish Competition is held each year, with bistros, cafes and restaurants competing to produce the food dish that is truly representative of the Darling Downs. The evaluation of the competition shows that it has been very successful in raising the profile of regional foods and agriculture within and outside the Darling Downs. There are opportunities to include food in development strategies for the area, and there has been some progress in getting communities to focus on their local produce and value adding opportunities. Ms Keech interjected. Mr SHINE: The member for Albert referred to the delights ahead of us at the caucus retreat in November. Winners of this year's competition featured Pittsworth quail with rose petal salad, locally produced corn-fed chicken, lettuce and bean sprouts from Cabarlah, and semidried tomatoes from Stanthorpe. 3708 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

Before concluding my remarks on this legislation, I take the opportunity again to remind the House of my personal commitment to and dream of seeing the concept of decentralisation occurring in my time to a greater degree than it already has. I welcome the moves to see ethanol plants established at Dalby and elsewhere in country areas. Mr Cummins: Across the length and breadth of Queensland. Mr SHINE: I take that interjection. I commend the government for its support for the Suncorp-Metway call centre, with its 300 jobs established last year at Toowoomba. These types of industries—ethanol plants and call centres—are apparently quite common in small to moderate sized townships and cities in the United States, for example. I would argue that there is reason to consider the replication of these sorts of industries in country areas of Queensland. I am sure members opposite would be supportive of that also. In the past, I have given the House my views on the success of Agriculture New South Wales transfer of its bureaucracy from Sydney to western New South Wales in the mid-1990s. That seems to have been a most successful transition. The problems of living in the city—transport difficulties, a lack of clean air, infrastructure problems, the time it takes to get to work, to school and even to parliament, the loss of quality family time, and increased stress levels—all make the benefits of living in regional and country areas of Queensland obvious. Nevertheless, we have problems even in Toowoomba of attracting qualified medical practitioners and other professionals and businesspeople, who seem to regard anything west of Inala as being in the bush and necessitating incentives to attract them there. I commend the minister for his devotion to his portfolio and for his creation in this term of parliament of the Rural Queensland Council, consisting of 13 backbenchers. That has put this government in touch with the people of Queensland. The minister has been an expert at keeping in touch with people, but he has been able through this mechanism to make sure to an even greater extent that the government is listening to the people of country Queensland as well. In conclusion, I wish to mention the twin sister of the DPI in Toowoomba, the Department of Natural Resources, and the recent controversy with respect to the possibility of the closure of its soil lab. I wish to place on the record my concern about that and the fact that I have made representations to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. I hope that as a result of that lobbying a solution will be found and that the soil test laboratory will remain in place for the benefit and use of farmers of the Darling Downs so that the scientists and other workers employed there can continue to enjoy the benefits of living in the great provincial city of Toowoomba. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (9.45 p.m.): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. I intend to concentrate mainly on the amendments to the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act 1973. The minister is to be congratulated on bringing these amendments and those affecting a number of other acts into the House in one bill. This is a commendable means of streamlining the business of the House. Recently, I had the privilege of jointly opening the Malanda Gourmet Food Factory along with Senator Ian MacDonald. Malanda is now a part of the electorate of Tablelands, represented in this House by Rosa Lee Long. When I was first elected in 1989 the township of Malanda and indeed the whole of the Eacham shire formed part of the electorate of Mulgrave. The deregulation of the dairy industry was viewed with great concern by producers and the various communities on the Atherton Tableland. The industry on the tableland must be congratulated on the way it has met this challenge. Through diversification and seeking out new markets the industry has stabilised and set the platform for economic growth. One of the success stories whereby a threat has been turned into an opportunity is the Malanda Gourmet Food Factory. The National Heritage Trails Network program has become a vehicle for the establishment of a viable business based on tourism. The Malanda food factory occupies the premises that formerly housed the Cheese Warehouse. The proprietors have redeveloped the site and incorporated the history of dairying into the business by way of establishing a museum and through the sale of memorabilia. The food factory offers customers a wide range of foods representative of the tablelands. Meals are distinctly local, with the chef adding to a diverse and imaginative menu as each week passes. The factory is a big success and will become even more so as the tourism industry discovers its attractions. The Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Chicken Meat Industry Committee Act. These amendments build on the changes implemented by the government in its first term. The changes contained in the amendments passed by the parliament in 1989 were in response to a national competition policy review. The review concluded that there was still a role 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3709 for a statutory Chicken Meat Industry Committee to facilitate bargaining, both collective and individual, between growers and processors. This was an important step and I am pleased that the government did so. The growers had expressed concern about the bargaining power of the major processors. Therefore, the role of the committee has been retained. The committee can implement content guidelines for contracts and facilitate negotiation. However, what the committee cannot do is fix prices. This outcome has the support of both growers and processors. The amendments implemented the recommendations of the review at that time. It also provided for a dispute resolution process put in place for use by growers or processors. The bill we are considering today provides for the Chicken Meat Industry Committee's annual contract registration fee for contracts between growers and processors for growing meat chickens to be apportioned equally between growers and processors. Currently, the legislation provides for the fee to be paid by the processor. In practice, the processor currently recoups half of this fee from growers with their consent. This amendment will formalise responsibilities in legislation. It will also protect growers in that their costs will be limited to 50 per cent of the fee. There is currently no such limit. The amendment has the support of both processors, growers and the committee. No new charges are involved and no community impacts are expected. Increased growth is projected for the poultry industry. According to the latest forecast issued by the Department of Primary Industries, poultry production is estimated to increase by three per cent to $180 million per annum. This builds on the increased production by nine per cent last financial year to $175 million. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (9.49 p.m.): As a proud descendent of Irish immigrants who proudly worked the land decades—indeed, centuries—ago in and around Upper Freestone via Warwick, I rise to participate in the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. It should be realised that the purpose of the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 is to amend 10 pieces of legislation within the Primary Industries portfolio. The opportunity is being taken to make a few minor amendments to the act. These will provide for clarity in interpretation and ensure the effective operation of the act. In mentioning the Fisheries Act 1994, may it be known that the main amendment is to insert a new definition of 'ecologically sustainable development'. ESD is to be the primary objective of the act and is based on the definition and guiding principles of ESD as set out in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992 as previously endorsed by the Queensland government through the Council of Australian Governments. Other amendments are technical in nature for improved administration of the act. These include clarification of the grounds under which an authority may be suspended or cancelled, removing a redundant term and allowing greater flexibility for transfer of an authority and specification of time limits and other matters about fisheries statistical returns. There are also provisions regarding the requirements for production of authorities and for persons administering the estates of aquaculture licence holders. I believe that the decision made by the Queensland government to introduce a regulation to preserve the status quo for pilchard harvesting in Queensland waters is a correct one. Pilchards are a very important part of the food chain of many species of fish that are targeted by both commercial and recreational fishers and need to be maintained as a sustainable resource, especially as the livelihood of many local families within my electorate and on the Sunshine Coast are dependent on the present local industry. In November last year an information paper on the proposed fishery was released by the Queensland Fisheries Service for public comment. Approximately 92 per cent of the submissions were against the operation commencing and only eight per cent were for the granting of the fishery. It is obvious then that the community did not want the pilchard fishery. I am proud to represent my community by majority. I believe that the status quo must be maintained and that the minister should be applauded for listening to my community. I know that fishermen across the length and breadth of my beloved Sunshine Coast and indeed Queensland realise that fish stock sustainability is necessary for not only our children but our children's children and indeed their children. If members were ever to be asked how has the government acted to preserve aquatic life on the Sunshine Coast, let me tell them the answer. The Beattie government has acted to preserve aquatic life on the Sunshine Coast by being proactive in its protection of pilchards, which have been identified as an essential component in the marine food chain. Pilchards are an important food source for many reef and pelagic fish such as snapper, mackerel and tailor and for protected species such as dolphins. The taking of pilchards in any significant quantities may adversely disrupt these delicate predator/prey relationships. 3710 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Sep 2002

A precautionary measure was taken of introducing a regulation that removes the administrative discretion to a general fisheries permit for the commercial taking of pilchards other than for prescribed purposes. The prescribed purposes are for the use of bait by commercial fishers as part of their licensed fishing operations, for research or for display fish. The amendment also provides for authorised commercial fishing tours or fishing competitions to take pilchards using recreational apparatus for the limited use as bait by participants in the tour or competition. The Queensland Fisheries Service has refused the most recent application to harvest pilchards for commercial purposes in accordance with the regulation, and I applaud it. By preserving the status quo for pilchard harvesting in Queensland waters, the government has taken a significant step towards preserving the aquatic ecosystem. Some of the issues that are facing our rural brothers and sisters on the land are very difficult and there are not all that many easy options. The people of the land are very disappointed in National and Liberal Party members at both a state and federal level. In fact, I have heard the opposition described as about as useful as a hand cranker to a new 6020 series John Deere tractor. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (9.54 p.m.), in reply: At the outset, I want to thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate this evening. Whenever primary industries legislation is introduced into this House it certainly stirs up emotions on both sides of the House. It is always good for me as minister to be able to bring into this House what we call a PILA bill, which is an omnibus bill which amends a number of bills that need amending through the primary industries sector. I can assure the honourable member for Nicklin that his contribution certainly made me remember what this PILA bill is all about. Whilst many of the amendments are not significant, they are very important for our primary industries sector. As I have been reminded by all members in this House during this debate, this bill amends 10 pieces of legislation. I would like to go through all honourable members' contributions, but I must admit that quite a few members on both sides of the House certainly drew the longbow and introduced issues that do not really pertain to this bill. As minister, I can assure all honourable members that I listened to what they had to say. Whilst I will not comment on what they said, I certainly have taken on board their comments and I thank them all for their contributions. I turn now to some of the specifics mentioned by the honourable member for Hinchinbrook in his contribution. In the first instance, I thank him for his support of the legislation. Quite obviously, he and other members of the opposition and Independent members and members of the One Nation Party took advantage of briefings prepared for them by officers of the Department of Primary Industries and Mike Tandy from my office. I am quite sure that they appreciated those briefings and that they made them more aware of the content of the amendments than they would otherwise have been. Let me first refer to some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Hinchinbrook. The honourable member is concerned that the Food Production (Safety) Act goes overboard in applying to industries other than meat and dairy. I want to put the member's mind at rest that food safety schemes for other industries would only be made if a risk assessment proves that there is a need for one and only after there is full industry consultation. The only other industries for which other schemes are currently being considered are for fish and eggs. I believe, however, that should a risk ever be found, for example, in vegetables the government needs to be in a position to act promptly. The Food Production (Safety) Act will provide that safeguard. It is of course important that the highest standards be maintained by industries in today's competitive market. The member for Hinchinbrook also inquired as to the process of transition of meat and dairy arrangements to Safe Food Production Queensland. The process of developing new food safety schemes for meat and dairy is progressing in accordance with the requirements of the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000. The act requires a very detailed process of consultation with industry, and that is fully in accordance with the government's policies on these matters. Safe Food Production Queensland has set up food safety advisory subcommittees under the act to bring together all sectors of the two industries. The two subcommittees have worked with Safe Food Production Queensland, with Queensland Health and also the DPI to develop the actual food safety scheme proposals. It really has been a collaborative effort. There is no doubt that Queensland will have the most comprehensive new food safety arrangements for meat and dairy products anywhere in this country. Once again Queensland is leading the other states. Because 18 Sep 2002 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 3711 in a legal and technical sense food safety schemes have to be made as subordinate legislation, it is necessary for a regulatory impact statement to be developed and put out for a period of public consultation before new schemes are formally made as regulations. Ultimately the new meat and dairy food safety schemes are intended to be promulgated as regulations, and the current expected operative date is 1 January 2003. The member for Gladstone expressed some concern about the need for careful application of the precautionary principle in the fisheries amendments, and the key principle of ecologically sustainable development—ESD for short—is being adopted as the precautionary principle. This principle incorporates the approach that if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation. I am quite sure all members on both sides of the House would agree with that. It is important to note the use of the words 'serious and irreversible'. These words limit the situations where fisheries sustainability concerns may override other factors such as economic or social considerations. The member for Gladstone also raised some queries in relation to the amendments about fisheries statistical returns. In a number of instances the specific fishers required to comply with logbook return requirements cannot be identified. An example would be commercial fishers who target or take a particular species of fish; although all commercial fishers may be authorised to take that species, only a specific number of fishers would need to be notified of the requirement. It is proposed that the chief executive will be able to specify requirements about the keeping and giving of statistical returns in such circumstances under subordinate legislation. This amendment therefore only provides an appropriate head of power for requirements regarding logbooks to be introduced, and it is very much mechanical in nature. The honourable member for Mirani raised the need for a commonsense approach by police and inspectors in deciding whether to seize drought-affected animals. I assure the honourable member that under the Animal Care and Protection Act seizure is very much a last resort. The major emphasis of the act is on raising awareness and working with the owners of animals through the use of animal welfare directions. Only if these measures fail would seizure be considered. The predicament that drought causes farmers is fully understood. That issue was also raised by the honourable member for Gregory. However, I am confident that there is sufficient flexibility in the act to assist people trying to do the right thing in difficult circumstances. There were a number of other speakers on the bill. I note with interest the contributions made by the honourable member for Kurwongbah who, of course, is the chair of the Fisheries Industry Development Council. A government member: And a great chair she is too! Mr PALASZCZUK: I will accept that interjection from whomever it was. I am glad it was not the honourable member for Kurwongbah! I must say that as the chair of the FIDC, as it is affectionately called, the honourable member for Kurwongbah is doing a wonderful job. She certainly gets on extremely well with all the members of her committee and she is commended for the wonderful work she is doing there. I will also mention the honourable member for Logan. He certainly has a passion for primary industries, and he spoke a little bit away from the contents of the bill. However, his passion was certainly forthcoming in the way he portrayed the great successes of the pork industry and how important it is for us to value add and how important our Smart State process is in ensuring that we are able to be competitive in that ugly market overseas with our value added products. A number of members, including the honourable member for Kurwongbah and the honourable member for Darling Downs, who is not here, spoke about dairy deregulation. Let me say a couple of things about dairy deregulation. Honourable members on the opposite side would understand the dreadful time we went through from the 1998 election through to the 2001 election when we had to implement dairy deregulation that was forced upon us by the federal government. The thing about dairy deregulation is this: the federal government imposed a 11c per litre levy on all consumers in Australia to assist our dairy farmers overcome the problems that deregulation brought. Some $1.8 billion is to be raised over the next eight years and it is money that will be very well spent to assist our dairy farmers. However, primary industry is based on success, and when I was up in Toowoomba just recently—yesterday, as a matter of fact—I was able to launch an animal welfare code for the dairy industry. While I was there, what do you think I discovered? Our dairy farmers on the Darling Downs are looking at a 25 per cent increase in production and they are looking at increased prices for their milk. They are looking forward; they 3712 Adjournment 18 Sep 2002 are not looking back. That story is being replicated in all the different dairying areas of Queensland. In the Atherton Tableland wonderful work is being done with the support of the state government. In the Dayboro area and the Warwick area similar things are happening. In Gympie and Nambour it is all happening. I am very pleased that after all these difficult times our dairy farmers have had to go through, things are slowly beginning to look up for them. Finally, I will mention the contribution made by the honourable member for Toowoomba North. The honourable member for Toowoomba North is a very perceptive member. He mentioned quite a number of things about the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities with which I totally concur. He also announced that I will be attending the Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers. Honourable members must understand that among the cabinet members that is the most sought-after engagement. I will be honest with you, Madam Deputy Speaker; last year I was there at the opening, but the Minister for Tourism and Racing did the official opening and I sat by watching. But this year I am proud to announce that I have been officially invited to do the opening myself. I already have a wager with a radio announcer from radio station 4WK—we took the wager yesterday—that my floral outfit will outdo his floral outfit on the day of the opening of the Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers. The mayor there insists that any invited guest has to come dressed in some form of floral clothing. I will not tell honourable members what I am going to wear—it is a surprise—but I am quite sure that people attending the Carnival of Flowers will be more than suitably impressed. With those few words I thank all honourable members for their contribution. An opposition member interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I feel very sad listening to that comment by the honourable member opposite. With those few words I will resume my seat and thank honourable members for their contributions. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 37, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

ADJOURNMENT Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.11 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Access to State Forests Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.11 p.m.): Access to public forest land has always been a contentious issue. Since the restriction on logging in the Mapleton and adjoining state forest lands, many people have been working hard to try to resolve access issues involving our public forests. A forest user group committee has now been meeting for a number of months, with representatives from interest groups including horse riding, bushwalking, bird watching, four-wheel driving, trail bike riding and mountain bike riding as well as environmentalists, native title claimants, local councils and state government representatives. Committee members are attempting to find common ground on access issues involving our public forests. This task is proving to be a real challenge. I know that some task force members are almost exhausted and feel overwhelmed by the task at hand and the work still to be undertaken. I take this opportunity to thank all of the user group representatives for their commitment and persistence in attempting to find common ground on issues of access to our public forest lands. Ever since state government representatives indicated at a task force meeting that access along the Cedar Creek road linking the communities of Mapleton to Belli Park was being reviewed I have received many letters, phone calls and inquiries from members of the public concerned about the possible closure of this important link road. 18 Sep 2002 Adjournment 3713

Most of my constituents understand and appreciate that the road is a limited access four- wheel drive only road and certainly do not want to see the road upgraded, but they do want the road to remain accessible to them, even if it is only in the present limited form. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to stress to the government that, while everyone is genuinely working towards attempting to find common ground on a final submission to be put to the Minister for Environment, an early announcement from the government that the Cedar Creek road will not be closed certainly would go a long way to reassuring a community sometimes sceptical about the consultation process. I also take this opportunity to inform the Minister for Environment that the proposed Great Walks through the Blackall Range have been very well received by many constituents. Notwithstanding this support, I do need to acknowledge that some landowners who have land adjoining the proposed walking path do have some reservations and concerns with a range of issues. I do hope that these issues will be resolved, and I thank the Minister for Environment for his support of the Sunshine Coast region.

Kurbingui Youth Development Association Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (10.14 p.m.): On 6 September I was pleased to participate in the opening of a new Beanbag Net Centre at Kurbingui Youth Development Association in Zillmere. Beanbag net centres are locations that provide young people with a combination of free Internet access, tailored Internet and computer training and the development of a local community web site. They are sponsored by the Inspire Foundation, with the support of corporate giants Coca-Cola and Microsoft. The Inspire Foundation facilitates the installation of the computer systems and provides training for young people and support for the network and systems for the first 12 months. I was very pleased that Inspire chose Kurbingui to host its first Beanbag Centre in Queensland. Kurbingui has been making significant contributions to the wellbeing of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in north Brisbane. It has a great team of supporters and provides worthwhile employment, training, recreational and social activities for young people. Yeaca Dhargo, which is the employment arm of Kurbingui, has been receiving funding for community employment programs supporting young indigenous people from the Department of Employment and Training. This is a time and resource intensive activity that Yeaca Dhargo has performed exceptionally well. The Inspire Foundation is an Internet based charitable foundation that works to inspire young people. It was formed in 1996 to implement initiatives that would help young people and respond to Australia's unacceptably high levels of youth suicide. The opening ceremony at Kurbingui's Zillmere Road premises included a welcome to country by Mr Herb Bligh from the Brisbane Council of Elders and also some traditional Aboriginal dancing by dance group Gnulling Yal-U. After the formalities, guests settled in for some great food and socialising with friends and supporters of this great service. Senior representatives from the Inspire Foundation, Coca-Cola and Microsoft also joined local community representatives for the occasion. On behalf of the local community I thank Inspire, Coca-Cola and Microsoft for supporting this worthwhile community facility for young people in my electorate.

Jondaryan Woolshed Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (10.16 p.m.): I congratulate the Beattie government on bringing forth $100,000 in funding for the Jondaryan Woolshed. I honestly thank the Beattie government for what it has done in saving the woolshed. The member for Toowoomba North has been raised up as a very hardworking member for the woolshed. I think the member for Toowoomba North is a very fine man—I have always gotten on with him very well—but I have not seen any media from him about the woolshed and I have not heard him speak on the subject in parliament. If the member had got up and said what he had done then I think I would believe him, but the fact that it came from the Premier this morning casts serious doubt on exactly how much work the member has done to save of the woolshed. If he has done that work, I seriously congratulate him and I thank him. I would like to outline the work we did for the woolshed. We met with the Minister for the Arts and the woolshed board on a number of occasions. I took Roy Grundy to Brisbane on a deputation to Matt Foley. I got both levels of government together with the administrator, Mr Phil 3714 Adjournment 18 Sep 2002

Aggs. I also met with then Acting Prime Minister John Anderson, contacted Ian Macfarlane and spoke with Bruce Scott. I pleaded for funding on behalf of the woolshed. I also mention David Tottenhoffer from the Jondaryan Shire Council. The management of the woolshed was put into his hands for the recent festival. Noel Cass worked very closely with him on that. I have chased a number of major sponsors in this area and am still chasing them. I have made numerous phone calls. I appreciate the volunteers and other people who went out of their way to make the heritage festival the success that it was this year. There were over 10,000 visitors to the festival, proving that it is a paying enterprise. It is now under the management of the Jondaryan Shire Council, which is no doubt very capable and will look after it. However, funding from the feds will no doubt be forthcoming now that the Beattie government has come forward. That has opened the doors. I am sure the government will come forward and help the woolshed. I note in closing that Mr Max Hensell, who was one of the greatest volunteers the woolshed has seen, was driving home from the woolshed on his bulldog tractor when a car passed him and the tractor rolled. Unfortunately, we buried Max last week. Max loved his tractor. He decided to do it up simply for the festival. His death is a terrible loss to the electorate of Darling Downs and to the people of the Jondaryan shire. We wish Max's family all the very best.

Community Organisations, Capalaba Electorate Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (10.20 p.m.): I recently attended annual general meetings of some extremely worthwhile community organisations in my electorate and I would like to bring that to the attention of the House. BABI, which stands for Bayside Adolescent Boarding Incorporated, is a youth and family support service provider with its mission to promote an environment in which young people can grow and participate successfully in the life of their community. BABI conducts programs to provide holistic and integrated services to young people and their families. Programs such as supported accommodation, family support, youth support coordination, youth justice and employment services are designed to provide prevention and support services to those in need. I would like to extend my appreciation to the outgoing president, Bill Router, for his tireless work. I welcome the new president to the chair and trust that the good works of BABI will continue. On the very same day I also attended the annual general meeting of the Bayside Tenancy Advice and Advocacy Service Incorporated, previously known as the Housing Resource Service. This organisation's objective is to assist people with tenancy matters. It has been a strong advocate for affordable housing for low income families. I would like to thank the chair, Christine Whittington, vice president Ray Smith, as well as Linda Cunningham and Des Turnbull for their contributions. I also welcome the new committee. Finally, the Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association, Redlands Branch, held its annual general meeting on 16 September. The function and objectives of the PCYC need no introduction in this House. This year is a very special year for the Redlands PCYC, which is located in my electorate of Capalaba, being its 20th year of operation. In 1982, the Redlands Shire Council and the state member for Redlands invited the then QPCYWA to change its title to PCYC. From such humble beginnings the club has since extended to three times its original size. I would like to acknowledge the outgoing office bearers, namely Dennis Conroy, Ian Gillard and Paul Kennedy, as well as the committee for its hard work. Equally, I wish to congratulate the incoming committee, with Robert Eagle as the chair, Dennis Conroy as vice president and Russell Stockton as treasurer. I especially want to thank the Treasurer and Deputy Premier for approving my recommendation of a grant from the Gambling Benefit Fund for the PCYC to purchase a much needed passenger vehicle. The vision of PCYC says it all—'Improving the community through youth development'. The success of this organisation is vital to the wellbeing of young Queenslanders and I applaud their contribution to the community.

Nathan Dam, Construction Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (10.23 p.m.): I rise tonight to bring to the attention of this parliament once again the need to progress the construction of the Nathan dam on the Dawson River between Taroom and Theodore in the Callide electorate. This is an issue that I have spoken about in this House many times in the last five years and I will certainly continue to advocate in favour of this project until it becomes a reality. The Nathan dam has been proposed for many years but it is a project that has been on the brink of construction now for some five years. 18 Sep 2002 Adjournment 3715

The Sudaw consortium has the right to progress the project. However, there is a rapidly growing and easily understandable level of frustration in the region I represent at the ongoing uncertainty and the seemingly interminable delay in commencing the construction of the project. The frustration is very justifiable, especially in the light of the recent dry seasons and the critical shortage of water that they have caused in the area. The water supply situation is now critical—in fact, it has been critical for some time. There is a critical shortage of water, not just for irrigation and for agriculture but also for urban use and industrial use in the area. While Nathan dam was originally proposed as a source of irrigation for new areas of agriculture along the Dawson River Valley, it is now increasingly seen as the solution to the critical shortage of water for urban use and industrial development at Biloela and the Callide Valley. There are emerging opportunities for industry to develop in this area which is close to the port of Gladstone and on the proposed route of the inland railway. There are opportunities for new industry to develop and existing industry to expand to take advantage of the synergies offered by the location near Gladstone and the existing power stations. The problem, of course, is a reliable water supply. The shortage is now such that urban supplies are currently severely restricted and water for the power stations is pumped from the Awoonga Dam near Gladstone. The Biloela community, along with the Dawson River communities of Taroom, Theodore, Moura and Baralaba badly want to see the Nathan dam proceed. It will provide a supply of water to allow economic development to occur on a number of levels in the whole area and, indeed, throughout the central Queensland region. Recently, the local newspaper in Biloela, the Central Telegraph, conducted a survey of the local area to gain an indication of the extent of public support for the project. A resounding 88 per cent of local people indicated that they supported the project and wanted to see the dam proceed quickly. That is a great indication of the need to fast-track this project and provide hope for the future for the people of the whole region. I urge this parliament and the Ministers for State Development and Natural Resources to ensure that the Nathan dam project proceeds quickly. It is badly needed in the central Queensland region. It is badly needed by the communities of Biloela and the other Dawson Valley towns. It is badly needed by the people I represent.

Boral Hancock Plywood Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (10.26 p.m.): I take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding achievements of Boral Hancock Plywood in Ipswich in being certified as an accredited supplier of veneer and plywood products to Japan. The initiative for gaining Australian forest products access into Japan lies with the Brisbane-based Plywood Association of Australia. This association is a registered foreign certifying organisation and is authorised to act as agent for the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries. The Plywood Association of Australia sought and gained approval for Boral Hancock Plywood to be recognised as the first plywood operation in Australasia to meet the exacting Japanese agricultural standards. Australia is only the second country in the world to gain accreditation to supply plywood products that are certified to strict Japanese agricultural standards into Japan via a registered foreign certifying organisation. This gives Queensland a distinct trade advantage over countries who are not accredited as the time and expense incurred at the point of inspection is removed. This has been received with great interest in Japan. It promises to be a milestone in regional business development. The link with such a strong Asian economy will undoubtedly have positive employment prospects in the Ipswich area and rural Queensland where the resource is managed. Not only is this good news for the local economy, but it is a major achievement for Boral Hancock Plywood, which has had more than its share of ups and downs over the past few years. The company has been located on the same site at North Ipswich for 130 years. Prior to its purchase by Boral in 1995, the company had been run by six generations of the Hancock family. Hancock Plywood has been severely affected by various disasters—fire in 1895 and 1935 and floods in 1893 and 1974. Plywood manufacture commenced in 1935 and has continued through to the present day. Other ventures were undertaken, but today the only operation remaining is the Ipswich site where plywood is manufactured for sale to distributors throughout Australia and to international markets. Staff numbers rose to 220, but then fell to 170 as a result of the after effects of the GST. The current staffing level is 190. 3716 Adjournment 18 Sep 2002

The timber resource required to manufacture plywood is obtained from various locations throughout south-east Queensland. The company utilises two species of timber, namely hoop pine and slash pine. All timber is purchased from pine plantations and is a renewable resource. The annual expectation for export to Japan as a result of the Japanese agricultural standard certification is $5 million. This is an excellent result for this long-established company and Boral Hancock Plywood is to be congratulated on this significant achievement. Over the years there has been a lot of speculation in relation to this company at Ipswich. It was felt that it might not make it over the years. However, the company has been very— Time expired.

Gargett Rodeo Complex Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.29 p.m.): Last Saturday night I stood in the bull ring at the Gargett and District Community Development Association's new rodeo complex at Gargett and opened the inaugural Ford F series bull ride. It was an auspicious occasion. The $25,000 that was gained from the Gaming Machine Development Fund to build the new Gargett complex was certainly a step in the right direction. Rodeos at Gargett have been a part of that small community for more than 50 years. The original yards are tucked in amongst the canefields. They were obviously bush yards. The main ring was constructed of solid bush timber. It has been a favourite rodeo facility for many years and has been very popular. In March this year the Gargett and District Community Development Association decided to build a new set of yards and applied for the inaugural Ford F series bull ride. It is a magnificent occasion. The work that has been done on the site is a credit to the association. They are portable steel yards and the people completed the task with a lot of volunteer work. The Mirani Sugar Valley Lions Bullarama was the occasion for the night. The Gargett and District Community Development Association does quite a lot of work around the area. Its president is Danny Muscat, the secretary is Robin Coleman and the treasurer is Alan Webster, who are all local people and they are doing a great job. Kevin Coleman, who is a member of the association, played a pivotal role in putting the complex together. It is indeed a special event to see a small community go out and work so hard to develop a complex and actually run such a feature as they did that night. Close to 3,000 people were there on the Saturday night. What is really important about all of it is that the yards and the rodeo complex are built in such a way that other sports can be held there, such as campdrafting, which involves younger people. While I am speaking about that, most members may not know that Troy Dunn, a bull rider who is currently competing in America and who has won two championship events, with prize money totalling close to $US150,000, was the sponsor of a bull ride at the Sarina show, which attracted prize money of up to $35,000. It made the Sarina show a great success. Troy is a great advocate for the Sarina district. He has a property at Sarina.

Battle of Long Tan; Captain D. Sandford Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (10.31 p.m.): Australian and Queensland history is full of heroes. On Sunday, 18 August I attended two services, one on Russell Island and the other at Cleveland, to commemorate our Vietnam veterans generally and the battle of Long Tan specifically. On 18 August 1966, D Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment engaged elements of the 5th Viet Cong Division with support from other North Vietnamese units in the Long Tan rubber plantation. One hundred and eight Australian soldiers were attacked by over 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. During the long and brutal battle that followed, numerous Australians provided remarkable examples of courage and mateship. As a result of this battle, 18 Australians were killed and 24 were wounded. North Vietnamese casualties were estimated at 245 killed and over 500 wounded. During these services, Dennis Connell at Russell Island and John Shelley at Cleveland played the haunting Last Post to allow us time to reflect on those members of the armed services who paid the ultimate sacrifice. I would like to compliment Father Jim Brown on his prayers and, of course, the Russell Island RSL, the Cleveland RSL and the Redlands Vietnam Veterans 18 Sep 2002 Adjournment 3717

Association on their ongoing and continuing good work in supporting ex-servicemen from our armed services. In my electorate I also have an effective and efficient Dolphin Naval Cadet unit. One of the stalwarts of this unit is another hero, Captain Dennis Sandford. In 1939, at 16 years of age, Captain Sandford joined the British merchant navy. In July 1940 he was serving on the SS British Corporal, which was in a convoy in the English Channel. At about 0230 hours on 5 July, the SS British Corporal was attacked by a flotilla of German E boats. The British Corporal was hit by a torpedo on the starboard side and subsequently sank. Because the convoy at that point was still in the English Channel, Captain Sandford and some other members of the crew were rescued. After a week's torpedo leave, in August Captain Sandford joined the British vessel SS British Advocate as an apprentice deck officer. On 20 February 1941, whilst carrying a load of aviation spirit, the British Advocate was attacked and sunk in the Indian Ocean by the German pocket battleship, the Admiral Scheer. On 8 March 1941, the Admiral Scheer met the prison ship, the Ermland in the South Atlantic and transferred all POWs on to the Ermland for a voyage to German occupied territory. Captain Sandford was captured and became a prisoner of war until the end of the war. Captain Sandford, members of the merchant navy, Vietnam veterans and all current and former servicemen and women are true Australian heroes.

Australian University Games; Australian University Sport Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.34 p.m.): I have spoken previously in this House about the success of the Australian University Games. Previously, I spoke when they were being held in Townsville. I know that this year they have been held at the Gold Coast and I know now that the finals, or the championships, are to be held in South Australia starting on 29 September and going through to 4 October to be jointly hosted by the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and Flinders University. I have always seen a great potential in the university games, because I believe that those students who follow an academic career possibly need the support of a university to allow them to follow also a sporting career. Many of our young people who play football have access to clubs such as the Broncos or AFL clubs and they are supported completely in a career in sport. We have to take into account that many students, who also follow an academic career and who also have an amazing ability at sport, need something like a university to support them. I think that the success of America's sporting heroes has certainly something to do with those people's access to university sport. The Australian University Games, to be held in South Australia, will be opened by the Governor, Her Excellency Marjorie Jackson-Nelson, next Sunday. I hope that maybe when I am in Adelaide with the Public Works Committee I can skip around and have a look at the university games. Ten Queensland universities are participating in the games. These universities have participated in these games previously at Townsville and on the Gold Coast. Australian University Sport is the peak governing body of university sport in Australia. Currently, it has 43 members, which represents more than 630,000 students. The association fosters university sport as a relevant and important part of university life, it provides leadership in university sport, it provides a national policy in relation to university sports, and it facilitates opportunities for students to participate in competitive sport at a regional, national and international level. In working closely with its members and state and national sporting organisations, Australian University Sport operates regional, national and international sporting programs. As I say, it covers over 40 sports. It employs a number of staff to help run the events and it also organises international sporting tours and Australia's participation in the elite World University Games and World University Championships. Any student who is currently enrolled in a degree, diploma, certificate or higher award at an educational institution that is affiliated with the AUS is eligible to compete in the sporting program. People such as Emma George, Patrick Johnson, Anna Windsor, Natalie Harvey and Geoff Lawson are just a few of Australia's elite athletes who have competed in university sport using it as a platform for future sporting success. It is unfortunate that we do not fund and support the university sporting program. As I say, I think that it is something that we as politicians have to look at, because I believe that it plays a very, very important part in supporting our young people. 3718 Adjournment 18 Sep 2002

Springwood Electorate Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.38 p.m.): Last weekend was a very busy time for the Springwood community. Friday night was the AGM of the Logan Chamber of Commerce. I know that many community groups struggle to get members along to meetings. While many do the hard work and achieve a lot for the community attending meetings, it is sometimes not the most interesting thing to do. Logan Chamber of Commerce used a successful strategy for its AGM, one which I would like to share with members. As last Friday was Black Friday—Friday the 13th—the chamber decided to hold a horror theme party. The meeting took place in the chamber of horrors at Zaks, Springwood. The venue was transformed with the most frightening decor. It was more frightening than any ghost ride I have ever been on. Very often we congratulate the committee members for their hard work and often forget to thank the partners of these members who support their loved ones in community organisations. Tonight I want to congratulate Sonia Burton and Julie Nelson for their great imagination and commitment to ensuring the chamber of horrors was spectacular. Sonia also created a fantastic witch's hat that she gifted to me. I thank her for doing this as it certainly helped me get into the swing of the night and participate with the many other guests who spent a lot of time creating costumes. The creativity of the costumes reflected why Logan has so many successful businesses. The outgoing committee has done a fantastic job of informing members and obtaining sponsorship for the chamber. I am positive the new committee will ensure this keeps happening and I look forward to working with them in promoting Logan business. On Saturday, Springwood Seals netball players, coaches and families enjoyed a barbecue lunch and a great time at the Zest Swimming Centre at Springwood. What made it even more special was that they were able to enjoy the day under the shade of their own portable shade cover which they were able to purchase through a gaming grant. The players, coaches and family members are all very proud of their club, and the name Springwood Seals proudly stands out on the cover. It looked spectacular at the centre and I am sure it will look spectacular at netball carnivals. It gave me great pleasure to present trophies to some very special girls who represent their club and sport with confidence and pride. I congratulate Debbie Blake, Debbie Sipple and Bev Wood on doing a great job with this club. Saturday afternoon, Usher Park, Daisy Hill came alive with a huge number of players and families from the Slacks Creek Soccer Club all enjoying rides, refreshments and of course a barbecue for the presentation day. I was indeed honoured to present trophies to players in conjunction with players of the Brisbane Strikers. Seeing the number of people gathered on the soccer fields and in the club made me realise the large number of children and young adults involved in the sport. Slacks Creek Soccer Club is certainly keeping the youth of Springwood healthy and active. The organisation of 600-plus members must be enormous and very time consuming. I congratulate the committee members, Robert Ford and Lorraine Boardman, on their success. On Sunday, St Edwards netball team had their presentation barbecue at Loganlea. The players had lots of fun. This is another club that has a large number of members, and that was once again reinforced to me when I saw the number of people in the park enjoying the day. Thanks must go to the committee members Ron Visser, Kate Cox, Barbara Lennox, and Deb Kenney for their work in organising, training and coaching these wonderful youths who certainly have a great future in whatever they choose. On Sunday, the Springwood Bowls Club came alive with the Barbara Stone's Parliamentary Bowls Day. I must thank Faye Titmarsh and Mark Greenup who organised a great day of bowls for the club. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.