PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 8 October 2008

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 2907 Duty to Correct the Record ...... 2907 Cairns, Charity Bike Ride ...... 2907 PETITIONS ...... 2907 TABLED PAPER ...... 2908 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 2908 Great Barrier Reef ...... 2908 Tabled paper: 2007 Water Quality Report: Great Barrier Reef catchments and inshore ecosystems, June 2008...... 2908 Junk Food Advertising ...... 2908 Tabled paper: Media release by AMA Queensland, Cancer Council Queensland, Diabetes Queensland and Heart Foundation, dated 29 September 2008, titled ‘Health organisations join forces to support ban on junk food advertisements during children’s television’...... 2909 Digital Mammography Equipment ...... 2909 Queensland Icons ...... 2910 Hamilton, Ms C ...... 2910 Wyaralong Dam ...... 2911 Tabled paper: Document by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, dated 8 October 2008, titled ‘Coordinator-General’s Report, Wyaralong Dam’...... 2911 Interest Rates ...... 2911 Health Services, Regional Queensland ...... 2912 Mount Isa, Lead Levels ...... 2913 Bushfire Season ...... 2913 Summer Storm Season ...... 2914 Information and Communication Technology Sector ...... 2914 Stadiums Queensland, Water Consumption ...... 2915 P-12 Curriculum Framework ...... 2915 TransLink Transport Authority ...... 2916 Road Infrastructure ...... 2916 Office for Women ...... 2917 Tourism, Environmental Sustainability ...... 2917 Papua New Guinea, Biosecurity ...... 2917

M F REYNOLDS N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 8 October 2008

NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 2918 Reserve Bank, Interest Rates ...... 2918 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2918 Hospital Bed Numbers ...... 2918 Hospital Bed Numbers ...... 2918 Tabled paper: Document by Queensland Health titled ‘Explanatory notes, Queensland Statewide Health Services Plan 2007-2012’...... 2918 Great Barrier Reef ...... 2919 DISTINGUISHED VISITOR ...... 2920 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2920 Hospital Bed Numbers ...... 2920 Tabled paper: Document by Prof. Gerry Fitzgerald, dated September 2008, titled ‘Overview of Hospital Beds in Queensland and Australia, A briefing note prepared for the Emergency Health Services Queensland’. ..2920 Queensland Economy ...... 2921 Townsville Hospital, Bed Numbers ...... 2921 Elective Surgery, Waiting Times ...... 2922 Petrie-Redcliffe Rail Link ...... 2922 Computers for Teachers ...... 2923 Marley Brown Oval ...... 2924 Department of Public Works ...... 2925 Emergency Services Personnel, Assaults ...... 2925 South-East Queensland Water Grid ...... 2926 Tabled paper: Extract from The Page Review Bi-Annual Journal Volume 2 Number 1 2006 enclosing an article by Andrew Cripps titled ‘A Return to Certainty? Economic rationalism, the bush and the Nationals’...... 2926 Local Government Reform, Rates Increases ...... 2927 CoastConnect ...... 2927 Taxation ...... 2928 Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland ...... 2929 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 2929 Country Racing ...... 2929 Breast Cancer Awareness Month ...... 2929 Southern Freight Rail Corridor Study ...... 2930 Gold Coast, Dental Services ...... 2930 CoastConnect ...... 2931 Yeppoon Hospital ...... 2931 Gladstone Electorate ...... 2932 Climate Change ...... 2932 Townsville, Tourism Industry ...... 2932 Redcliffe, Unemployment Rate ...... 2933 Regent Theatre ...... 2933 Child Protection Week ...... 2934 English Family ...... 2934 Happy Valley Units ...... 2934 Law Reform ...... 2935 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 2935 Second Reading ...... 2935 INVESTIGATION INTO ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY COMMITTEE ...... 2944 Report; Notice of Motion ...... 2944 Tabled paper: Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee, Report titled ‘Investigation into the Decriminalisation and Regulation of Altruistic Surrogacy in Queensland’, October 2008...... 2944 Tabled paper: Submissions received by the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee (two folders)...... 2944 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 2945 Second Reading ...... 2945 Consideration in Detail ...... 2946 Clauses 1 to 27, as read, agreed to...... 2946 Clause 28, as read, agreed to...... 2947 Clauses 29 to 40, as read, agreed to...... 2947 Clause 41, as read, agreed to...... 2948 Clauses 42 to 65, as read, agreed to...... 2948 Clause 66, as read, agreed to...... 2948 Clauses 67 to 93, as read, agreed to...... 2948 Clause 94, as read, agreed to...... 2949 Clause 95 (Insertion of new ss 70JA and 70JB)—...... 2949 Non-government amendment (Mr Wellington) negatived...... 2950 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Langbroek’s amendments to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)...... 2950 Division: Question put—That Mr Langbroek’s amendment be agreed to...... 2952 Non-government amendment (Mr Langbroek) negatived...... 2952 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 8 October 2008

Division: Question put—That Mr Langbroek’s amendments 2 and 3 be agreed to...... 2955 Non-government amendments (Mr Langbroek) negatived...... 2955 Clause 95, as read, agreed to...... 2956 Clauses 96 to 98, as read, agreed to...... 2956 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 2956 Third Reading ...... 2956 Long Title ...... 2956 CORRECTIVE SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2956 Second Reading ...... 2956 MOTION ...... 2969 Reserve Bank, Interest Rates ...... 2969 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to the government’s 3.25 per cent wage offer to employees of the state of Queensland...... 2977 Division: Question put—That Mr Fraser’s amendment be agreed to...... 2978 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2978 Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 2978 Motion agreed to...... 2978 CRIMINAL CODE AND OTHER ACTS (GRAFFITI CLEAN-UP) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2979 Second Reading ...... 2979 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 2986 Resolved in the negative...... 2986 MOTION ...... 2986 Order of Business ...... 2986 LIQUID FUEL SUPPLY (ETHANOL) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2987 Second Reading ...... 2987 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3000 Toowoomba, Water Restrictions ...... 3000 Strathpine, GP Superclinic ...... 3000 Eumundi and District Historical Association ...... 3001 Airlie Beach Triathlon ...... 3001 Blackbutt Range Road ...... 3002 Economic and Population Growth ...... 3003 Scottville ...... 3003 Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to the identification of Scottville as a town...... 3004 Mount Isa, Lead Levels ...... 3004 Riverina Rail Siding ...... 3004 Peter Doherty Awards; Caboolture Regional Environmental Education Centre ...... 3005 ATTENDANCE ...... 3006 08 Oct 2008 Legislative Assembly 2907 WEDNESDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2008

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Mr Speaker (Hon. MF Reynolds, Townsville) read prayers and took the chair. Mr Speaker acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Duty to Correct the Record Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have become concerned about apparent errors that are made in the House by members which are not corrected at the earliest opportunity. From time to time I think we would all be aware that even the most prudent and cautious member will make mistakes and errors. Sometimes this is not the fault of the member but is the responsibility of those who advise or provide information to the member. However, I remind all members that they have to take responsibility for the statements they make in this House or committees of the House, whether made personally or in documents for which they are responsible. I emphasise to all members that it is the personal duty of each member to correct the record of their debates or other proceedings when an error has been made or the member has unintentionally misled the House. Further, members should be vigilant in correcting the record as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware of the error. Cairns, Charity Bike Ride Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to provide an update on parliamentary staff member Stephen Finnimore, who departed on his Brisbane to Cairns charity bike ride last week. Stephen’s 1,737 kilometre journey is raising funds and awareness for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Queensland section. I encourage all members to make a donation. I advise honourable members that Stephen arrived safely in Bundaberg yesterday evening. Members can follow Stephen’s progress via his blog, which is on the far-north Queensland sitting of parliament in Cairns internet site. Members are encouraged to join Stephen when he rides through their electorates and to generously donate to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. This morning I can confirm for the member for Gregory that, indeed, he is not passing through the member’s electorate at this stage. Mr Johnson: At least he’s supporting it with the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely. I will be circulating the collection tin around parliament tomorrow. I remind all members to bring cash, cheques or IOUs to deposit in this tin. The RFDS is an iconic service for all Queenslanders. I urge all members to give generously and to support our officer who is undertaking this ride to Cairns.

PETITIONS

The Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—

Majors Creek State School Mrs Menkens, from 69 petitioners, requesting the House to support the Majors Creek State School Parents & Citizens Association in their efforts to keep the school open.

Burdekin Community Action Group Against Crime Mrs Menkens, from 2,835 petitioners, requesting the House to support the Burdekin Community Action Group Against Crime in their efforts towards creating a safer community by strengthening police presence; ensuring the enforcement of stronger laws and harsher punishment by the Courts to deter reoffenders; and providing assistance for strengthening our capacity to prevent crime in our community.

Kingaroy Hospital Mrs Pratt, from 155 petitioners, requesting the House to supply the promised dialysis machine to the Kingaroy Hospital.

CoastConnect Miss Simpson, 4 petitions, 2,841 petitioners in total, requesting the House to oppose the CoastConnect transit lanes and the proposed removal of on-street car parking along Aerodrome Road and Alexandra Parade and to support better public transport solutions without this impact. Petitions received. 2908 Ministerial Statements 08 Oct 2008

TABLED PAPER

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel)— • Response from the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Mickel) to a paper petition (1092-08) presented by Mr Moorhead from 52 petitioners regarding bicycles fitted with internal combustion engines

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Great Barrier Reef Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.36 am): Our Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world. It fringes our north-east Australian coast for approximately 2,000 kilometres, covers 348,000 square kilometres and has more than 3,200 coral reefs with a stunning array of marine habitats and species. It is a stunning international tourist icon worth hundreds of millions of dollars to our economy. Of course, it is also a pristine World Heritage area. Today I table the first in what will become a regular series of report cards on the health of the reef. I seek leave to table that document. Leave granted. Tabled paper: 2007 Water Quality Report: Great Barrier Reef catchments and inshore ecosystems, June 2008. Ms BLIGH: This detailed scientific work has been a long time in the making and, sadly, the diagnosis is not good. Over the last 150 years the catchments of the Great Barrier Reef have been extensively developed for agriculture, grazing, tourism, mining and urban development. This has led to a significant increase in the quantity of sediments, nutrients and pesticides being pumped into the reef. Regional bodies, industry groups and state and Commonwealth agencies have been working with farmers and other stakeholders to promote and implement better land management practices. However, the 2007 water quality report for the Great Barrier Reef clearly shows the situation is still not good enough. End of river monitoring in priority catchments shows an estimated 6.6 million tonnes of sediment discharged in the reef lagoon, which is four times higher than estimated pre- European settlement levels; 16,600 tonnes of nitrogen, which is five times higher than estimated pre- European settlement levels; and 4,180 tonnes of phosphorous, which is four times higher than estimated pre-European settlement levels. Achieving good water quality in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon is vital if we are to protect the reef from the threat of climate change. The reality is the reef will die if we do not act. In 2003 we launched a 10-year reef water quality action plan, which was signed by both Peter Beattie and John Howard. Work done to date as part of the plan includes financial incentives to help farmers improve land management practices and target diffuse pollution from broadscale land use. However, since 2003 many external factors have deteriorated, including the effects of climate change, coral bleaching and ocean acidification. This has increased the urgency for more work to be done. The testing was done in 2007 and since receiving the report in late June this year it has been the subject of discussions between both the state and federal governments. I have discussed this matter with the Prime Minister and on Monday of this week I met with the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett. We have agreed to update the plan and give it more grunt. Recently cabinet has approved a revised inter-governmental agreement with the Commonwealth as a precursor to a significant revision of the reef plan. On Monday afternoon when meeting with the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, we agreed that the first step will be a joint Commonwealth-state reef water quality summit to be held at Parliament House at the end of this month. The summit will bring together the best minds from the environmental and scientific fields to study the latest data and discuss what urgent action we need to take to prevent further damage to or—a worse scenario—the complete demise of the reef. This work will help determine funding priorities and action areas for both of our governments. I look forward to joint Commonwealth-state efforts to seriously address this critical issue. Junk Food Advertising Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 am): When I launched my government’s 2020 vision for Queensland, our Q2 plan, we set the target of making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people. Part of this target includes reducing the number of obese Queenslanders by one-third over the next 12 years. This is a very ambitious target, but too many Queenslanders are dying prematurely from preventable diseases each year and we have the second highest rate of death from heart disease and stroke in the nation. 08 Oct 2008 Ministerial Statements 2909

Today over 60 per cent of men and 41 per cent of women are either overweight or obese. We need to take action, and that is what my government is doing. Members will recall that in August I released a discussion paper looking at the banning or regulation of junk food advertising on children’s television to help reduce the alarming rate of growth in overweight and obese children in Queensland. I reported to the House last month that we had received more than 500 submissions in the first two weeks. I am pleased to announce that that number has grown to almost 1,300. This again demonstrates the significant public interest in this issue and reinforces the imperative to act. When making such ambitious targets for the state I recognise that we as a government cannot do all of it alone. To achieve great change we need to work with the community and with industry, and I want to put on record my appreciation for the support that this proposal to ban junk food on children’s television is receiving. Recently, in a Queensland first, four leading Queensland health organisations have formed a new alliance to support this ban on junk food advertising during children’s television hours. The AMA, the Cancer Council of Queensland, Diabetes Australia and the Heart Foundation have established a new alliance. They have joined forces ‘to ensure that the state government’s proposal becomes a reality’. The alliance in their press release makes it clear that they believe ‘children are being exploited by mass exposure to junk food advertising and this is having a negative impact on influencing children’s food choices’. I seek leave to table the press release from the four organisations that I referred to. Tabled paper: Media release by AMA Queensland, Cancer Council Queensland, Diabetes Queensland and Heart Foundation, dated 29 September 2008, titled ‘Health organisations join forces to support ban on junk food advertisements during children’s television’. I advise members that submissions on this issue close at the end of this month and I encourage Queenslanders to have their say on what I think is a very important issue.

Digital Mammography Equipment

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.43 am): October is the international Breast Cancer Awareness Month—an important reminder to Australian women of the importance of regular breast screens and a reminder to all of us that there are still too many women and their families affected by this disease and our fight against it has to continue. Early detection remains the best defence against breast cancer. In March I stood in this House and announced a $12.25 million investment in digitalising BreastScreen Queensland to deliver women—particularly those in regional and remote Queensland—a better, faster and more efficient service. When we talk about making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people, we need to put an emphasis wherever we can on prevention, and prevention of life- threatening breast cancer is best achieved through early detection. I am very pleased to report to the House today that this rollout is on track. Ipswich and Townsville clinics are now fully digital. Bundaberg will be online by the end of this month, and Toowoomba, Mackay and South Brisbane are all on schedule to be digital by December. The rollout will be completed by mid- 2009 when Rockhampton, Nambour, north Brisbane, Gold Coast and Cairns clinics go digital. But this digital revolution also hits the road today. In March I promised that we would have digitally equipped mobile units to take this service to regional and remote women. Later today I will officially launch the first of six new digital mobile breast screening units. These units have been specifically manufactured and contain the newest breast screening technology. The first unit will be based in Townsville and it will begin services on 20 October. It will be providing services in north Queensland towns like Ayr, Mount Isa, Magnetic Island and Collinsville. The second unit will hit the road next month, servicing regional areas in south-east Queensland including Redbank, Goodna, the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast hinterlands. Next year four more units will begin servicing central and central-western Queensland, the Darling Downs, West Moreton and south-western Queensland, and the Cairns, Torres Strait and Cape York regions. The benefit of digitally equipped mobile units is the ability of radiographers to immediately review the images and check the quality of the image before the woman leaves the unit. There will be many members here today who know that women come into those existing breast screening programs in regional and rural Queensland and then have to come back again many weeks later because the image had to be sent to Townsville or sent to Brisbane. It means that women can get peace of mind straight away. But importantly it also means that it can prevent the occasional situation where women need to come back for repeat breast screening because the first image did not work for technical reasons. It is particularly important I think for women who have travelled long distances for an appointment at a mobile unit. I should acknowledge that the women of rural and regional Queensland continue to ensure that they have regular breast screening checks at a rate higher than their urban sisters. I urge women in the cities and major regional towns of Queensland to take a leaf out of the book of the women from remote Queensland. 2910 Ministerial Statements 08 Oct 2008

Queensland Icons Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.47 am): Mr Speaker, as the member for Townsville, you may well believe that Magnetic Island is a Queensland icon, and the opposition leader may well share the same opinion of the Granite Belt’s winemaker Angelo Puglisi. No doubt the member for Rockhampton would believe the same for the beef capital’s main street bulls. Mr Johnson: How’s that bull going? Ms BLIGH: I think he was intact the last time we saw him. I have no doubt that the members for Toowoomba North and Toowoomba South would share the same view of Toowoomba’s Carnival of Flowers. Indeed, the member for Mansfield believes that the Mount Gravatt Showgrounds—given their ownership was the subject of the last case ever to go before the Privy Council—are a Queensland icon. So what are Queensland’s top 150 icons? An honourable member: Peter Beattie. Ms BLIGH: I will let him know that. As part of Queensland’s 150th celebrations, the government is seeking the support of all 89 members of the House to find the state’s top 150 icons. Our Q150 icons program encourages Queenslanders to recognise and celebrate the people, places and stories that define Queensland’s distinctive character. Next year we will celebrate our 150th anniversary of statehood and what better way to do it than to officially recognise our state icons. Maybe it is Eddie Mabo or the Story Bridge or the Queensland mud crab, the Gabba, the Fourex man, Qantas or the Big Pineapple. Then again maybe it is all of them. This initiative will doubtlessly provoke thought and debate, as it appears to be already this morning. I hope that it acts as a catalyst to spark interest in Queensland’s history and in our cultural diversity. An honourable member: Tim’ll nominate Santo. Ms BLIGH: No doubt we will see some political icons among the list. I have written to all 89 members asking each and every one of them to nominate up to 10 icons in any of the 10 identified categories. Nominated icons may either represent their electorate or the region their electorate is in or be of statewide significance. This is a chance for members and their constituents to demonstrate their pride in the respective areas and regions of our state. The Q150 icons program is supported by OZ Minerals, which is Australia’s third largest diversified mining company. It is the world’s second largest producer of zinc, is a substantial producer of copper, lead, gold and silver and is growing in nickel. It operates Century Zinc in the far north-west. Nominations from MPs will contribute to a short list of 300 icons which will be presented to all Queenslanders in March 2009 for a public vote. The closing date for nominations will be 30 January 2009. The icons nominated will be short-listed to 300 by an all-party committee of MPs to be chaired by my parliamentary secretary, Phil Reeves. Other MPs to be represented on the committee are the member for Mount Isa, the member for Inala, the member for Ashgrove, the member for Gregory, the member for Cunningham, the member for Nicklin and the member for Yeerongpilly. I thank those members for agreeing to be a part of this process. All Queenslanders will be encouraged to vote for their favourite icon from this list of 300. The vote will be done from 1 March to 1 May via an online e-poll. The 10 icons categories align with the Q150 themes—our people, our places, our stories. The categories are state shapers, influencing artists, sports legends, locations, natural attractions, structures and engineering feats, defining moments, inventions and innovations, events and festivals, and ‘typically Queensland’. I encourage all members to get behind this program which I think will cause some interesting debates and thought-provoking discussions in your local areas. I look forward to seeing many icons being put forward.

Hamilton, Ms C Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.51 am): It would be remiss of me today not to briefly mention a young Queensland woman, Chrislyn Hamilton. Chrislyn was born in Mount Isa and grew up in Redcliffe. As many Queenslanders would know by now, Chrislyn has also made the final eight for the latest series of Australian Idol. She had a scare on Monday and was in the bottom three but belted out the ABBA classic Mamma Mia and now remains in the hunt for the top prize. I make special mention of Chrislyn because members of my cabinet, members of the Redcliffe community and the member for Redcliffe will remember Chrislyn from our community cabinet meeting in Redcliffe in April. Chrislyn and her schoolmates in the Redcliffe State School band entertained luncheon guests with a wonderful performance. Those present will remember that she is an extraordinary young woman with a very extraordinary voice. I thank her again for entertaining guests at the Redcliffe community cabinet. Chrislyn highlights yet again the wonderful young talent in this great state. I am sure all members would join me in wishing her well in her quest to become our next Australian Idol. 08 Oct 2008 Ministerial Statements 2911

Wyaralong Dam Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (9.52 am): I would like to inform the House of a significant step towards building Wyaralong Dam, a Bligh government project that will help secure our water supply for the future, inject capital into the Queensland economy and create even more jobs for our growing state. The proposed $333 million Wyaralong Dam near Beaudesert has been subject to rigorous assessment, and yesterday Queensland’s Coordinator-General, Colin Jensen, recommended it proceed subject to the conditions outlined in his evaluation report. I table that for the benefit of the House. Tabled paper: Document by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, dated 8 October 2008, titled ‘Coordinator-General’s Report, Wyaralong Dam’. The Coordinator-General’s evaluation report on the project will now be sent to the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett. Depending on Australian government approval of the project, Queensland Water Infrastructure could begin construction on the dam in early 2009 and be finished by the end of 2011 or potentially earlier. Wyaralong Dam will be located on Teviot Brook within the Logan River catchment about 14 kilometres north-west of Beaudesert. Wyaralong Dam is a key part of the Bligh government’s $9 billion water grid. It will be able to hold approximately 103,000 million litres of water. Working in conjunction with the nearby Cedar Grove Weir, Wyaralong Dam will supply up to 21 megalitres of much needed water a year—enough for 333,000 people meeting Target 170. In addition to water, Wyaralong Dam will provide jobs, jobs and more jobs in the heart of one of Australia’s fastest growing regions. The dam will create over 300 construction jobs and opportunities for around 400 businesses, providing a massive boost to the Boonah, Beaudesert and south-east Queensland economies. In fact, QWI estimates more than 40 per cent of all goods and services will be drawn from local sources. The Coordinator-General has recommended QWI adopt the state government’s 10 per cent training policy to provide extra opportunities for apprentices. The benefits to Queensland do not stop there. The construction of Wyaralong Dam will deliver a minimum of $4 million for tourism and the development of recreational facilities, a $2 million upgrade to the Boonah waste water treatment plant and significant local road improvements. These road enhancements include the replacement of 11.9 kilometres of the Beaudesert-Boonah Road with a new 10.6 kilometre realignment further south, a new 5.5 kilometre access road to the dam which may serve as a future road to recreational areas, plus the relocation or raising of parts of Old Beaudesert Road and Knehr Road. The report will be available on the Department of Infrastructure and Planning web site later this morning, along with the EIS and supplementary report. The Coordinator-General is to be congratulated for imposing dozens of stringent conditions on the project to mitigate any impacts. The conditions cover the Moreton Bay Ramsar wetland, traffic, erosion and sediment, water quality and flow, aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna, amenity, cultural heritage, land use, safety and social issues. All greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction are to be offset, and QWI will be required to enhance an environmental corridor to allow north-south movement of fauna. These requirements are not just about protecting the surrounding environment but wherever possible truly improving it. Take, for example, the clearing of vegetation. On average, for each hectare cleared no fewer than two hectares will be needed to be secured to replace it. The conditions around higher value vegetation are even tougher, with a requirement to replace at least three times any amount cleared. On 25 August 2005, the Leader of the Opposition told this House this dam would not be built until 2026 or later. That is his sort of yardstick. Well, it is on track for the end of 2011 or earlier. At least he got one thing right. To quote from that same speech: ‘We cannot get away from the need for new dams’— that is ‘dams’ plural. The Bligh government is getting on with the job of getting them built. Interest Rates Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (9.56 am): Since April I have advocated a case for the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates in the face of falling activity, especially in the housing sector. The Reserve Bank began the cuts last month and, in the face of unprecedented global financial turmoil, has stepped up. As I said yesterday, there was a new urgency to ‘the case for the Reserve Bank to move, move decisively and swiftly’. I welcome their decisive leadership. What households have needed for some time and what our economy has needed is a cut to interest rates. That meant we first had to slay the inflation dragon and not overcook the economy with spiralling wage outcomes chasing the tail of spiralling CPI results. That would only have served to lock in high inflation, lock in spiralling price rises on the necessities of life, and lock in high interest rates. Underneath the Reserve Bank’s headline one per cent cut yesterday is another message. That message is loud and clear—inflation is no longer public enemy No. 1. The game has changed and changed dramatically. 2912 Ministerial Statements 08 Oct 2008

The Governor’s statement is laced with warnings about falling demand and rapidly falling inflation. CPI figures report as a lag. They tell the story of what just happened, not what is happening and not what is about to happen. So, on 22 October, a CPI figure probably around the five per cent mark will be recorded. The Reserve Bank’s bold one per cent cut yesterday tells us that the figure will tumble from here. The tables have been turned in Australia, and we need to respond with the courage and clear-headed decisiveness that testing times demand and our community deserves—that is, the courage and leadership that seeks to secure the longer term welfare of our society and the economy that serves it. At times of economic upheaval in years gone by, we have seen the best of the broader labour movement step up to the plate to provide the leadership that secured the long-term prosperity of Australian working families. The sort of tripartite leadership that delivered Medicare, the social wage and compulsory superannuation is needed today. As I said yesterday, there will be an effect on Queensland—on economic growth, on our export outlook, on employment and on government revenues. We need to secure wage outcomes that do not run against the tide of the global financial meltdown. The CPI is relevant, but it needs to be benchmarked to the three years henceforth that will be covered by EBs currently up for negotiation, not what has just occurred. The dangers of falling for the reverse argument have never been starker. Our government does not propose a CPI benchmark. To do so would do away with the ability of collective bargaining to deliver real wage gains to Queensland working families. If we locked into the CPI as the benchmark over the last 10 years, then wages in the Queensland public sector would be 11 per cent lower today. Our opening offer, without any negotiation, is 3.25 per cent. We obviously expect to sign deals that are higher than that, but we cannot risk outcomes that compromise broader economic welfare. We cannot risk outcomes which put at risk further interest rate reductions. Yesterday’s interest rate cut was worth around $150 to the average Queensland mortgage holder. Inflation is expected to be back well within the two to three per cent target band of the Reserve Bank during the period to be covered by the next round of enterprise bargaining agreements. That means our wages policy will deliver sound wage outcomes—real wage growth for public sector workers—and it will deliver that against a backdrop of financial uncertainty and insecurity. The working families of Queensland in the public and private sectors require our leadership in these times of global financial turmoil. We cannot risk our long-run prosperity by failing them at this crucial junction. The government looks forward to working with the leadership of Queensland’s unions to secure an outcome in the best interests of their members and all working families across Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Minister for Health, it is with a great deal of pleasure today that I welcome to the public gallery students from the Department of Education, Training and the Arts’ Migrant Work Experience Program. It is good to see how many have come to the parliament this morning. I hope you all enjoy your visit to the Legislative Assembly and seeing your parliament in action. Welcome to the parliament. Health Services, Regional Queensland Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.00 am): Providing sustainable, resilient health services for regional Queenslanders is a key priority of the Bligh government. Regional centres throughout Queensland are being transformed by strong economic growth and rapidly increasing populations. Places like Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay are undoubtedly benefiting from Queensland’s strong economic climate, but they also face a number of significant challenges. One of the biggest challenges they face is to attract and retain health workforces to meet the needs of their growing and ageing populations. The Bligh government is committed to helping these communities tackle these challenges head-on. That is why I am pleased to announce today the establishment of a ministerial task force on enhancing medical staffing, education and training in regional areas. This ministerial task force will build on the excellent work of my first task force on education and training that resulted in $145 million in new funding to support medical graduates and increase training places in hospitals throughout Queensland. The task force will initially provide the government with advice on ways to enhance medical staffing and provide sustainable medical services in Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay hospitals. These hospitals play a key role in the provision of regional specialist services including 24- hour emergency services in addition to those provided by our major tertiary hospitals in the south-east and in Townsville. Under the Bligh government’s $10 billion Health Action Plan, we have embarked on a major program of new and expanded public hospitals that will deliver more and more beds right throughout Queensland. Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay hospitals have all benefited or will all benefit as a result of this capital expansion program gaining new and improved facilities. This means that we also need to build a bigger, more resilient clinical workforce as the services offered at these hospitals grow. Attracting doctors, in particular, surgical specialists, nurses and allied health 08 Oct 2008 Ministerial Statements 2913 professionals, to work in Queensland is a challenge given the worldwide shortage in these professions. That is why it is so important to have a dedicated task force that will establish mechanisms to recruit and retain the health professionals needed to staff our regional public hospitals on a sustainable basis. One of the ways of ensuring a sustainable regional health workforce is to increase participation of private medical specialists in the public health system. I am keen to explore increased involvement from private sector specialists to reinvigorate and improve clinical staff levels at regional hospitals. As more medical graduates come on stream in the coming years, there will also need to be an expansion in specialist training positions. The Bligh government will ensure that regional Queensland hospitals are well positioned to train this new generation of future specialists. The recommendations from my ministerial task force, while initially concentrating on five major regional hospitals, will also be applied to other sites so that all of regional Queensland will ultimately benefit from its work. The establishment of this new task force is further evidence of the Bligh government’s commitment to looking over the horizon and dealing with the challenges of the future today. Mount Isa, Lead Levels Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.03 am): Yesterday I updated the House in relation to the progress of the 45 children in Mount Isa who had initially received test results of elevated lead levels in their blood. Despite some commentators claiming that I had backed down on providing these figures, I did no such thing. In response to queries by other journalists, I said that initial legal advice stated that these figures should not be released but that I was seeking further advice because I appreciated the public interest in this matter. When further advice was provided, I immediately released the data. That, in anyone’s language, does not represent a backdown. In addition to the data provided yesterday, further recent figures from September this year indicate that a further 41 children have been tested since June 2008. These are outside of the original testing group. Thirty-six of the 41 returned less than 10 micrograms per decilitre, while five returned greater than 10, with one of these children returning a result greater than 15 ug per decilitre. Given this information, it is imperative, as the member for Mount Isa strongly argues and advocates, that we continue to advocate and encourage the testing of children and adopt measures that are outlined in the Living with Lead Alliance. Residents of Mount Isa can access all manner of information and, with the appointment of a project officer by the Living with Lead Alliance, this will also help to keep the Mount Isa community informed and educated. Bushfire Season Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.04 am): This week’s wildfires on the Sunshine Coast serve as a timely reminder of the dangers of bushfires and the devastating impact they can have on communities. Over the past two days, our permanent, auxiliary and rural firefighters have demonstrated their professionalism and commitment to protecting the lives and property of Queenslanders. The Noosa bushfire which began on Monday is now over. One crew remains at the scene as a precautionary measure, and thankfully no lives or homes were lost. One rural firefighter was treated at the scene yesterday for smoke inhalation with oxygen but recovered swiftly. The fire burnt out 2,250 hectares of national park and council land. There were approximately 229 Queensland Fire and Rescue Service personnel involved in fighting and managing the fire. At the height of the fire, 31 QFRS vehicles were being utilised. Three water-bombing helicopters were in action, along with another helicopter which was used for aerial observation. The Regional Operations Coordination Centre in Maryborough and the State Operations Coordination Centre in Brisbane were also activated during the event to assist with planning and resourcing. Our Fire and Rescue Service predicts that this year could be the worst fire season in 15 years. A fire-potential map produced in September by the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre shows almost half of Queensland’s land mass as having an above-normal fire potential. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service’s preparations for this year’s fire season include the engagement of three water-bombing helicopters supported by a network of 32 aircraft operators across Queensland; the development of regional wildfire plans, dedicated incident control centres and conducting of at least one major and two minor exercises to test procedures and command structures; and the distribution of 928 additional drums of A-class foam to 24 strategic rural fire brigade locations around the state as well as 1,550 sets of personal protective equipment and 17,000 improved breathing masks. The QFRS has also issued around 13,000 permits to burn and coordinated more than 2,000 hazard reduction burns to reduce fuel loads. Bushfire prepared community workshops have and are still being held in at-risk communities, and householders and individuals are being encouraged to take basic steps to protect themselves, their properties and their families. More information on how to protect your home and family can be obtained by calling your local fire station or visiting the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and the Rural Fire Service web sites. 2914 Ministerial Statements 08 Oct 2008

Summer Storm Season

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (10.07 am): Good governments plan for the future. They look behind the horizon and act now to meet future challenges. Long before this week’s hot spell, Energex was well underway with a $450-plus million six-month plan to prepare south-east Queenslanders for the summer storm season. Why? Because it is not just if summer storms will strike this season but when. When they do, Energex and Ergon will be ready for action. That is because good governments plan for the future. Let us compare this to those on the other side and their planning record. When they were last in control of the electricity network, they plunged the state into darkness for four whole days. Energex and Ergon have been hard at work preparing for the coming storm season since the end of last summer. A record number of field staff and more response vehicles than ever before are ready to respond to whatever nature throws at the electricity network. Energex has just completed a five-month aerial inspection of south-east Queensland’s electricity network. It has given field crews a bird’s-eye view of the network to identify vegetation around powerlines and the state of those powerlines. A record number of Energex and Ergon workers are now on roster ready to be called out at a moment’s notice. On this day one year ago, Energex crews worked throughout the early evening and into the night restoring power to homes and businesses hit by a series of severe thunderstorms. More than 10,000 lightning strikes in a matter of two or three hours were recorded on that night. Energex workers were out there safely repairing powerlines and restoring power to homes and businesses as quickly as they could. That is no mean feat when we take into account that it is a network that includes more than 35,000 kilometres of powerlines. I ask honourable members to spare a thought this summer storm season for the Energex and Ergon workers who will be out there in difficult circumstances repairing powerlines and restoring power. It is not a nine to five job. It can be hazardous. For that, we owe them our great thanks. Good governments act now and plan to secure our future. That is what the Bligh government is all about.

Information and Communication Technology Sector

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (10.09 am): A feature of tomorrow’s Queensland will be a strong and diverse economy, powered by bright ideas and innovation. The information and communication technology sector will be a major contributor to that economy. Already the ICT industry in Queensland employs more than 77,000 people and generates total revenue in excess of $23 billion, with export revenue of $1.3 billion. The Queensland government alone spends around $1 billion annually on ICT. That is why I recently travelled to the United States of America and Canada to meet with executives from some of the world’s top ICT companies and studied the latest trends and technological developments. This included companies like Google, Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, Unisys, Hewlett Packard and Dell—all of which continue to develop technology that is responsive to modern societies’ need to be green, mobile and connected. Already in Queensland we are undergoing a major restructure of our government IT solutions. The consolidation of data, which includes a new data centre at Springfield, is one such example which is consistent with the direction being taken by all those companies with whom I met. The Bligh government’s Q2 agenda sets out our vision for the future and contrasts us with those opposite who want to roll themselves into irrelevancy with the hope of escaping electoral accountability. Q2 is well understood by these huge international IT giants, and was spoken of in Washington, Austin Texas, Toronto, Seattle and San Francisco, so much so that all presentations were tailored to how these companies would help the Queensland government deliver our Q2 objectives. Companies like Cisco know that our green agenda requires the increasing use of teleconferencing technology, which it has developed to an impressive standard. Whether it is HP’s smart housing technology or its e-government initiatives, Microsoft’s surface, Google’s continued innovation around search and service technology, Dell’s whole-of-life PC contracts or Unisys’s security technology—to mention just a small sample of what we were shown—or indeed whether it is comparing ourselves to Ontario’s e-government direction, our government is well placed to deliver a stronger, greener, smarter, healthier and fairer Queensland to meet the high expectations we have created with Q2. Unlike those who sit opposite entertaining themselves by looking in the rear-view mirror and, as Mal Brough said, lack direction and are all over the shop, we have a clear direction and the IT innovation I saw firsthand over the past fortnight is one of the tools we will use to deliver it. 08 Oct 2008 Ministerial Statements 2915

Stadiums Queensland, Water Consumption Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (10.13 am): The Bligh government is committed to implementing smart, green initiatives which ensure sustainable use of our precious resources. Water is of course one of our most precious resources. All Queenslanders have put in an outstanding effort to improve our water consumption. I am pleased to announce that Queensland’s major sporting and entertainment facilities have also achieved major reductions. In fact, they have cut their combined water consumption by more than 50 per cent in the past three years. Across the seven venues owned and operated by Stadiums Queensland, an estimated 200 megalitres of water—the equivalent of 80 Olympic swimming pools—is now being saved each year. This water-saving effort has been achieved through a combination of innovative changes, including retrofitting water-saving devices on taps and showers and dual-flush toilets. Last year this government invested almost $2 million in improving water storage capacity and reducing water consumption at major sporting and entertainment venues. By installing rainwater tanks at many of the state’s top venues we have increased their total water storage capacity to 4.86 million litres—10 times the original capacity. In some cases creative solutions and smart partnerships have been called for in order to find space for the huge tanks. For example, last year a one million litre tank for the Gabba was installed underneath the playground on the neighbouring East Brisbane State School. Our newest sporting facility, the $160 million Skilled Park on the Gold Coast, has also incorporated the latest environmentally friendly measures including three 320,000 litre storage tanks which harvest rainwater from the stadium roof to irrigate the field. Skilled Park is also using improved turf species which are more resistant to drought, allowing them to water deeper and less frequently. Our major facilities play an important role within our communities in promoting healthy and active lifestyles so it is only fitting that they lead by example when it comes to reducing water consumption and looking after our environment. The 50 per cent reduction in water consumption by our major venues will have a lasting environmental value and again demonstrates this government’s commitment to environmental sustainability. We will continue to incorporate innovative water-saving measures into new and existing facilities so we can continue to meet our targets for a smarter, greener Queensland.

P-12 Curriculum Framework Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.15 am): Our government is committed to improving the learning and achievement of all students and delivering world-class education and training. I have a strong belief in the power and responsibility of our education system to change lives. Queenslanders are better educated and more skilled than they have ever been, but we know we can do more. Tomorrow’s Queensland needs a workforce that is ready to meet the challenges of 2020 and beyond. The most successful nations in the future will be powered by the talents, skills and innovation of their people. It is the role of our schools to equip young Queenslanders with the capabilities they will need for their own wellbeing and to contribute to a cohesive society, a strong economy and a healthy environment. Educated, informed citizens who can apply their skills and knowledge in innovative ways will help Queensland to meet future social, economic and environmental challenges. The curriculum of our state schools is a key to this. Today I am pleased to announce the release of a new P-12 curriculum framework for state schools; an overarching framework that captures all curriculum requirements from prep to year 12. This framework will be the key reference for schools in setting goals, planning, teaching and monitoring progress. In short, it shows them how to implement the detailed elements of the curriculum across every year level. It replaces the years 1 to 10 curriculum framework for Education Queensland schools originally distributed to schools in 2001. The new framework has been developed because of the significant changes in education since 2001, including: the implementation of the prep year; the move from outcomes based education to the Queensland Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting—QCAR—Framework, providing essential learnings and standards in years 1 to 9; the changed position of year 10 as the foundation year of the senior phase of learning; and the introduction of the Queensland Certificate of Education, and reporting to parents using a common five-point scale. The framework sets out clear system level requirements, expectations and principles of teaching and learning. It challenges our state schools to generate excellence and equity in student learning outcomes, and acknowledges the teacher’s critical role in delivering the best possible learning outcomes for all students. 2916 Ministerial Statements 08 Oct 2008

There is also a comprehensive set of accompanying guidelines to help schools meet the expectations laid out in the framework. It is a dynamic document which will undergo regular updates as further national and state policies and priorities are introduced. This framework supports us as we head Toward Q2, helping to improve the education levels of our children so they can meet the challenges of tomorrow’s Queensland. This is clear evidence that the Bligh government is looking to the future. We are not a do nothing, believe nothing outfit like the directionless rabble opposite. We are laying the foundation for tomorrow’s Queensland by continuing to build a modern, responsive education and training system with quality facilities, a new curriculum, more diverse pathways to career success and partnerships with industry through our $1 billion Skills Plan. We are looking to the future—the future of tomorrow’s Queensland. TransLink Transport Authority Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.18 am): Today I can announce that Peter Strachan has been appointed as the new CEO of the TransLink Transport Authority. Mr Strachan is a senior executive with a track record of achievement in transport and operational roles in the UK and Australia. He has an enviable resume and reputation and will bring almost 30 years of experience in the transport industry to the south-east Queensland role. Mr Strachan is currently responsible for overseeing the west coast main line, which is the busiest mixed traffic railway in Europe, from London to the Scottish border. Mr Strachan also has responsibility for the urban areas of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. I congratulate Mr Strachan on his appointment and I look forward to working closely with him when he starts his term in the new year. This appointment comes at the end of a very busy first quarter of operation for the new TransLink Transport Authority. I launched the authority on 1 July and I tasked it with progressing this government’s vision for a world-class public transport network and asked it to provide a blueprint for getting us there. Today I can announce that the authority has completed this strategic review of the network and the drafting of the 10-year plan. This draft plan seeks to align urban and transport planning at all levels of government and will now be sent to our stakeholders for feedback. This plan is a living document. We are building on our existing TransLink network plan. What we are doing is planning for the future. One of our aims is to provide high-frequency routes and I would like to see a greater focus on prepaid ticketing like the go card. We have seen a staggering 40 per cent of patronage growth across the public transport network in the last four years, and it has been a massive task to keep pace with that demand. What this plan does is allow us to look over the horizon while working with local authorities to ensure that we can make the best use of our public transport resources. Road Infrastructure Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.20 am): Just like couples who borrow money to buy a house for their future family, the Queensland government borrows money to build the infrastructure needed by future generations. This includes borrowing to build and maintain the roads that we need to keep our economy strong and to cater for future growth. This is just one of the ways that the Bligh government is planning for the future—through our Toward Q2 vision and building tomorrow’s Queensland today. Queensland’s road infrastructure needs are increasing at a significant rate. Our population is growing, with about 1,800 people moving here each week. To meet these needs, the Bligh government has released the largest road building program in history—the five- year $16.2 billion Roads Implementation Program. Some of the works outlined in this program have been funded through borrowings. According to those opposite, borrowing funds is bad and the Liberal National Party uses every chance it can to demonise the use of borrowings for significant infrastructure projects. It is wrong, and here are a few examples to prove it. Without borrowings, the Gateway upgrade project would not be currently under construction. Would the opposition prefer to have the region’s economy grind to a halt when the bridge reaches capacity? Without borrowings, we would not have been able to bring forward funds for the accelerated road rehabilitation programs in southern and central Queensland. That means that 36 timber bridges, many on important economic routes in the South Burnett, would not have been replaced until 2020 or beyond. We have also saved taxpayers significant amounts of money due to cost efficiencies gained by bringing projects forward as well as fast-tracking road improvements and increasing safety and accessibility for motorists. By using borrowings to accelerate projects, the road network’s life will be extended and truckies can transport their goods quicker and cheaper. In contrast, we have an opposition that says that it will ‘fix the roads’ but will not back it up with any ideas or any detail. Given its antiborrowing stance, it will be interesting to see how it intends achieving this objective. We are demonstrating responsible economic management, but all those opposite have is no substance and no idea. 08 Oct 2008 Ministerial Statements 2917

Office for Women

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (10.22 am): The Bligh government is mapping out the future for Queensland women as the state moves toward Q2. Last week I announced a full review of the Office for Women which will provide a blueprint for the future of women’s policy in Queensland. This review is about reaching our Toward Q2 goal of a fairer Queensland. This review will set the direction of women’s policy and map how the Office for Women can best help Queensland meet the Premier’s ambitious 2020 targets. Issues such as pay equity, financial literacy and getting a fair deal for women in the workplace have always been a strong focus of the Bligh government. This review will look at new, innovative ways to address disadvantage and provide a long- term plan to ensure that we keep looking over the horizon to deal with issues affecting Queensland women. We will also be looking at ways the Office for Women can help make Queensland stronger, greener, smarter and healthier. Expanding the capability and opportunity for all women to enjoy good health, to be safe and to participate in society will help shape tomorrow’s Queensland. What we will see through this review is Toward Q2 in action—the Bligh government working in partnership with the community to deliver what Queenslanders need now and into the future. I announced the review at the ministerial council meeting on the status of women which I chaired in Brisbane last week. State, territory and federal ministers from Australia and New Zealand representing the interests of women met to discuss the challenges facing women today and how we as governments can best address them. On the agenda were important topics including pay equity for women, how women can get a fairer deal in the workplace and of course the Productivity Commission’s recent recommendation for a national paid maternity leave scheme. It is vital that these issues are on the national agenda. We can only achieve the goal of a fairer Queensland by working in partnership with other states and the Commonwealth along with the community. It is clear that the Bligh government is putting plans into action that will shape the future of Queensland women.

Tourism, Environmental Sustainability

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry) (10.25 am): The Bligh government is securing Queensland’s future today. When it comes to embracing green and carbon smart practices, the Queensland government and tourism businesses are leading the way. The Bligh government’s Queensland Tourism Strategy for securing the future of the state’s tourism industry places significant focus on environmental sustainability, and I am proud to say that the industry is well on its way to embracing the adaptation to climate change. In fact, Queensland is home to Australia’s first 100 per cent solar powered and carbon neutral tourism operator. The state and national tourism industry already has a range of green accreditation ratings through Ecotourism Australia and Green Globe. Ecotourism Australia has an international ecotourism standard and more than 200 Queensland products are already certified. Green Globe is internationally recognised and the only program in the world to base accreditation in line with the United Nations Rio Earth Summit. It is supported by the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre and is headquartered in Brisbane. There are 14 Green Globe certified operators in Queensland now and many more to come. While there are some financial concerns about going green, the reality for most tourism operators is that it actually assists in reducing overheads and operating costs through energy and water consumption, waste production and resource conservation and it provides them with global recognition and increases business opportunities with environmentally aware consumers. I can proudly say that Queensland tourism operators are embracing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. Tourism Queensland has developed a sustainability and climate change resource on its web site to assist operators. The web site features initiatives like communications tools, emissions management practices and practical responses to climate change questions. This new resource was supported by a series of statewide workshops. These workshops were held by the EPA, Tourism Queensland and regional tourism organisations to look at what climate change means for specific regions and industry sectors. While the opposition has few policies and is against having any plans, Anna Bligh’s tomorrow’s Queensland is building a smarter, stronger and a green tourism industry of the future.

Papua New Guinea, Biosecurity

Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.27 am): Papua New Guinea is just 160 kilometres from the tip of Cape York. Our nearest neighbour seems even closer because the islands of the Torres Strait provide stepping stones to Queensland. In that part of the world, the dinghy or a tinnie is so commonly used that it is known as the ‘Torres Strait ute’. That means the potential for pests and diseases to make their way from PNG to Queensland and threaten our $12 billion primary industries sector is ever present. The likes of screw worm fly, exotic fruit flies, citrus greening and sugarcane ratoon stunting disease could devastate our crops and livestock. So it is extremely important that we work with PNG to strengthen its biosecurity capacity. 2918 Questions Without Notice 08 Oct 2008

With that in mind, I am travelling to Papua New Guinea this Sunday for a series of meetings. I will be joined by the Acting Director-General, Bruce Turner, and Queensland’s Chief Biosecurity Officer, Dr Ron Glanville. Biosecurity will be at the forefront of our discussions with the PNG Minister for Agriculture and Livestock and the Minister for Fisheries and Marine Resources. We will explore how Queensland can work with PNG to strengthen its biosecurity capacity and complement Queensland’s biosecurity program. One initiative being considered is bringing PNG nationals to Queensland to work with my department to gain experience in biosecurity and policy development. My department has world-class biosecurity skills and science capability, and a real opportunity exists for these skills to be exported. We will also be meeting with project managers from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research to identify opportunities for future partnerships aimed at strengthening the biosecurity capacity of Papua New Guinea. The trip also includes a trade mission, which is a joint initiative of the Queensland government and Austrade. I will be joined by Queensland agribusinesses that want to expand their existing business bases or start doing business in PNG. Strengthening our relationship with PNG, particularly in biosecurity, is Q2 in action. We have a commitment to protecting our lifestyle and our environment and creating a diverse and strong economy.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Reserve Bank, Interest Rates Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.29 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House calls on the federal government to show leadership to ensure banks pass on the full Reserve Bank interest rate reductions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Hospital Bed Numbers Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister explain to the parliament what a virtual bed and a virtual ward are? Mr ROBERTSON: We report bed numbers based on a common definition throughout the country. That has been in place for time immemorial. In relation to the specific question that the member has asked, I await for his follow-up. Hospital Bed Numbers Mr SPRINGBORG: Obviously, the minister does not know. My second question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Beattie-Bligh government’s plan for health services until 2012—another plan— A government member: We have them. Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, but the government does not do anything with them. As part of the plan the minister says— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to other members across the parliament that the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet and I would like to hear the question without any interruption. Mr SPRINGBORG: As part of the plan the minister says he is committed to building on the Labor government’s plan, which states ‘a broad range of services traditionally provided in hospitals are now provided in the community under terms including virtual beds in virtual wards’. Last week the minister provided a token eight extra beds to Townsville Hospital and they are already full, with an average of 14 patients left waiting for hospital beds each morning. In actual fact, this morning the hospital is on code yellow with no elective surgery this week. Will the minister explain how his policy to have virtual hospital beds instead of real hospital beds is helping the people of Townsville in this time of crisis? Tabled paper: Document by Queensland Health titled ‘Explanatory notes, Queensland Statewide Health Services Plan 2007- 2012’. Mr ROBERTSON: First of all, allow me to correct one thing: Townsville Hospital is not on code yellow and elective surgery this week has not been cancelled. So those two points are wrong. The third point demonstrates the member’s absolute ignorance of health services in this country. When we talk about virtual beds, we talk about services that are provided out in the community. We talk about services such as ‘hospital in the home’. We talk about services such as— Mr Springborg: You can’t keep your hospital in the hospital. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have asked the question. 08 Oct 2008 Questions Without Notice 2919

Mr ROBERTSON: Once again, the member demonstrates his absolute ignorance in terms of health policy. If I recall correctly, the last time the member was in office with Queensland’s ‘best-ever’ health minister, when Queensland’s ‘best-ever’ health minister was asked to describe what constitutes a hospital bed he said that hospital bed numbers are not a true reflection of capacity because they do not take into account services such as hospital in the home. I appreciate that the member was only a junior minister for six months in Queensland’s worst-ever government; nevertheless, the services the Leader of the Opposition is talking about were services that his government provided. It is commonly acknowledged in every state in Australia and in every country in the world that you provide acute care beds in the traditional hospital environment but also you provide services out in the community. Why? Because it is acknowledged that rehabilitation in a home environment often provides much better outcomes for patients than if they are kept in hospital. That is the absolute dishonesty of what the member is talking about. Add to that the dishonesty of this ongoing nonsense debate about what constitutes a hospital bed. We are being attacked for the fact that we are using private hospital beds to treat public patients. I ask members to remember the mock outrage from the members opposite. I ask members to remember how this was just a ‘sign of a failing system’. I just happened to notice the access block crisis LNP discussion paper that was released by the member for Caloundra just this week. What is their plan to deal with access block? Let us just see. It states— Better coordination of the scheduling of elective patients and surgical patients. That is a good idea. Further— A ‘whole-of-hospital’ crisis management plan could safely mitigate demand risks and impacts to hospital services, including extending surgery theatre times— That is not a bad idea, either. Further— as well as directing over capacity surgical cases to other hospitals and/or health facilities (public and/or private). So on one day the opposition criticises us for using spare capacity in the private sector and convinces those upstairs that this is some outrageous assault on the public health system and the next day it puts out its own discussion paper that says, ‘Gee, let’s use capacity in the private sector.’ The member has been caught out yet again. This is absolute hypocrisy.

Great Barrier Reef Mr O’BRIEN: My question is to the Premier. This morning the Premier tabled a report highlighting concerns about water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. Can the Premier outline the broader consequences of climate change on this tourism icon? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I would urge all members to take note of the report that I tabled in the parliament, but I draw it particularly to the attention of those members in this parliament on both sides who represent electorates that are in proximity to the Great Barrier Reef. Without a doubt, climate change is one of the great challenges of our generation. Recent turmoil in the markets has put the economy under the spotlight in the short term, but there is no doubt that the longer term costs to our economy of not addressing climate change will be even more dramatic. Professor Ross Garnaut in his recent report predicts that unmitigated climate change would cause real wages to be around 12 per cent lower than they otherwise would be. That reflects, I think, a very dire forecast in relation to productivity growth. Economic growth would slow without a doubt and inflation would rise. This morning I highlighted genuine concerns about water quality raised in the water quality report for the Great Barrier Reef which I tabled. Climate change poses just as big a threat with the risk of reduced biodiversity with warming waters. It has been estimated that even with a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2050 we would still risk a two-degree increase in water temperature, which would be enough to see significant loss of the Great Barrier Reef. The tourism impacts of this would be disastrous. Not only would it be a great environmental tragedy for Australia and the world but also the tourism impacts would be disastrous. That is why my government is so determined to act on climate change. It is why we have been systematically putting funds into new funds such as the Smart Energy Savings Fund and making investments in renewable energy. It is why we have been investing in new home services to help Queenslanders and doing things like putting solar panels on every Queensland state school roof. It is also why our submission to the federal government’s green paper supports, for example, the inclusion of fugitive emissions that escape from mining activity in the emissions trading scheme. That is why last week I announced the establishment in the portfolio of the minister for energy the new Office of Clean Energy to sharpen our focus in this area. 2920 Questions Without Notice 08 Oct 2008

Without a doubt, climate change is one of the challenges of our times. Yet we have a Leader of the Opposition who described us on this side of the House as global warming McCarthyists. He said that warming is caused by volcanos, not human activity. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition’s new volcano policy. It will be a good fit: hot air and ready to erupt at any time. The real question for us is: can Queensland really risk a climate change sceptic to position us in the national debate on ETS and to protect our unique and natural environments like the Great Barrier Reef? Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I officially acknowledge and welcome to the gallery today the Hon. Linda Bihire, Minister for Infrastructure in the government of Rwanda. I extend a very pleasant and cordial welcome to the minister. I hope that you enjoy your visit to the Queensland parliament and the deliberations of the Legislative Assembly. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Hospital Bed Numbers Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. I table a leaked September 2008 briefing note titled ‘Overview of hospital beds in Queensland and Australia’ which states that there has been an overall reduction of 27.26 per cent in public hospital beds in Queensland in the last decade. Tabled paper: Document by Prof. Gerry Fitzgerald, dated September 2008, titled ‘Overview of Hospital Beds in Queensland and Australia, A briefing note prepared for the Emergency Health Services Queensland’. This independent report proves once and for all that the minister has misled the people of Queensland. Can the minister explain why he has failed in his basic duty to provide enough hospital beds for our growing population? Mr ROBERTSON: This is not a briefing note. Ms Bligh: No. 1. Mr ROBERTSON: No. 1: it is not a briefing report. This is a report by an academic and prepared for the emergency health services Queensland study. It is not a— Mr Johnson: It doesn’t count, does it? Mr ROBERTSON: I am not the one who misled the parliament or misled the people of Queensland by calling it a briefing note. If you want to call that a briefing note, my friend, you are sadly mistaken. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the minister goes on, I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and their members that an important question has been asked. I would ask members to let the minister answer the question without interjection at this stage. Mr ROBERTSON: Are you so incapable of telling the truth that you cannot explain to the parliament what that document really is? Are you so devoid of ideas that you have to exaggerate even that? The truth and the member for Caloundra remain complete strangers. The simple fact is that time and time again, report after report—whether they be Queensland Health reports, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports or federal government reports—shows that we have got on with the job of increasing the number of acute care beds in this state. Unlike those opposite who we found out last time we sat— Mr SPEAKER: Minister, can you refer to ‘honourable members’ or any particular ‘honourable member’. Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, it was the collective ‘you’. Mr SPEAKER: I am asking you to follow parliamentary procedure. Mr ROBERTSON: In the last sitting week we found out that in the two short years that we had the worst government in Queensland’s history, the number of acute care beds in our 27 busiest acute hospitals—where all of the work is done—were cut by more than 120. The members opposite cut bed numbers by more than 120. That was their record. Any suggestion that we are repeating that record is rejected absolutely, because to treat record numbers of patients we have got on with the job of 08 Oct 2008 Questions Without Notice 2921 increasing the number of acute care beds in the busiest hospitals in this state. Any day of the week I will put our record up against the opposition’s when it was in government. On any indicator that they want to pick, whether it be the closure of maternity wards, the closure of acute care beds, the employment of clinical staff or whatever, we will beat them hands down every time.

Queensland Economy Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Premier. Given the global economic crisis, can the Premier advise the House on the importance of policy certainty to Queensland’s future in these troubled times? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed these are difficult and uncertain financial times and we are now sailing in both perilous and uncharted waters. Over the last two days, when possible, the Deputy Premier and I have been attending a very important infrastructure summit held here in Brisbane, jointly sponsored by the state and federal governments and undertaken by the Australian Darvos Connection. The message from the business community, and particularly the construction sector at the moment, could not be clearer. What they want out of government is clarity of planning and intention. They want certainty of long-term plans. They want confidence that governments will drive these plans and see them through. I am pleased to say that the efforts of the Queensland government were widely acknowledged at this summit, which was attended by people from around Australia, as among the best in the country in this regard. Sir Rod Eddington attended the summit and I had a good opportunity to talk to him about Queensland’s infrastructure projects. That is why policy matters and it is why plans matter. In this context it is useful to remind ourselves that, according to his memoirs former Premier Bjelke-Petersen had a motto on his desk that read: ‘To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.’ Of course, Bjelke-Petersen had it there as an ironic reminder to himself to highlight the approach not to take and no-one could ever accuse him of being a small target. Mr Johnson: How many people are there registered in your house? Mr SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, that is about your fifth interjection. Give it a break for a while. Ms BLIGH: Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has no capacity for irony and he has adopted this approach literally. He takes a deliberate small-target strategy to avoid any criticism. After more than eight months as leader, he still has no policies. If members were to go to the Liberal National Party web site, they would see the following message: ‘To see the policy directions being set out for the future of Queensland, please visit www.Springborg.com’. But when one goes to that web site, they will find ‘Lawrence’s views’. He has thought bubbles, not policies that face up to the challenges. Feedback from the boardrooms of Brisbane tells us that he is full of thought bubbles that he is not prepared to share with Queenslanders. There is ideologically driven privatisation that he will not talk about outside the boardrooms; random cuts to public services; a different view on tree clearing, depending on whether you talk to a Liberal or a Nat; a critical view of borrowing to build infrastructure. Time expired.

Townsville Hospital, Bed Numbers Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Minister for Health. Until parliament began this morning Townsville Hospital was reportedly in code yellow. This week elective surgery has been cancelled. The overflowing emergency department still has an average of 14 people waiting for beds every morning. It seems that the eight beds that were announced a few weeks ago have done nothing to alleviate the access block crisis at Townsville. Minister, how many real hospital beds does Townsville need to get out of its health crisis? Mr ROBERTSON: The answer is simple: more than you promised at the last election. If you had been elected, Townsville would still be waiting for one extra bed. Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 247, which clearly indicates that a member should direct his comments through the chair and speak in the third person about members opposite. Mr SPEAKER: I thank the leader— Mr ROBERTSON: I stand chastened. Through you, Mr Speaker, if the coalition Liberal National Party were in power, Townsville would be still waiting for one extra bed because their election commitment was to put 100 extra beds in from late 2008. Despite what the member said, the emergency department is not overflowing. Code yellow is a reflection of the fact that it is getting busy and signals to staff that they should prepare for an increasingly busy emergency department. That is good planning. The nonsense debate goes on. 2922 Questions Without Notice 08 Oct 2008

I reflect for a moment on the insightful question about virtual beds that the Leader of the Opposition asked this morning. Does the Leader of the Opposition remember this report? It is the one he quoted from extensively just a few weeks ago. Page 31 has an interesting table titled ‘PUBLIC HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS—percentage and number of hospital-in-the-home, states and territories, 2006-’07’. Mr Springborg: I asked you to explain it and you couldn’t. Mr ROBERTSON: What a joke! If we look at it, what we actually see is that, despite the fact that Queensland has invested heavily in acute care beds—as we should to bring us back to the Australian average per population of acute care beds—one of the areas that we probably need to invest more in is those kinds of services in the community. Let us look at the proportion of beds that are provided in hospital-in-the-home kinds of situations, the definition of which is— Some public hospitals provide some of a patient’s care in the patient’s own home. Patients may choose this option if it is clinically appropriate and if there is adequate support at home. Treatments for a wide range of conditions can be provided. Examples include medication management, education, home-based rehabilitation and personal care. In Victoria, the ratio of hospital-in-the-home beds to their total bed numbers is 3.1 per cent. In Queensland it is 0.14 per cent, which is a significant reduction compared to Victoria. If we are actually to have a sensible health debate in this state then one of the things that we have to talk more about is providing services out in the community where people live. As Queensland’s best health minister once told us about 10 years ago, you cannot just talk about acute care beds. Time expired. Elective Surgery, Waiting Times Ms DARLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister please advise the House what the Queensland government is doing to reduce elective surgery waiting times around the state? Mr ROBERTSON: According to the latest independent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, Queensland already has the shortest elective surgery median waiting times in the country. The average waiting time for elective surgery was 25 days compared to the national average of 32 days, so we are lower than all states and territories. The June quarter 2008 was a record quarter for elective surgery admissions. The total number of elective surgery patients treated by Queensland public hospitals during this period was 33,732—a 25.3 per cent increase on the previous quarter and an 18.7 per cent increase compared to the June quarter last year. Over the past 12 months the Bligh government has developed a range of initiatives aimed at reducing the waiting time for elective surgery around the state. One such initiative which has been criticised by the Liberal National Party, despite its new-found support for work in the private sector, is Surgery Connect. It has been developed to optimise treatment opportunities for long-wait patients. Between September 2007, when Surgery Connect commenced, and 30 June 2008 a total of 5,868 patients were referred to the program and 4,619 had received their surgery. As at October 2008, an additional 2,602 patients were referred and an additional 1,266 patients were treated. With the success of this program in 2007-08, we have now committed a further $8.5 million recurrently for the continuation of the Surgery Connect program, a program the Liberal National Party opposed. We are working with the Commonwealth to make further inroads into elective surgery waiting lists. As part of a three-stage strategy by the Rudd government, Queensland was allocated $27.6 million in the first stage to immediately reduce the number of long-wait patients. This funding was allocated to both Surgery Connect and specific district hospitals. Stage 2 of this funding was $29.4 million for capital works and infrastructure to support elective surgery in Queensland. As a result, we were able to open dedicated elective surgery theatres at Royal Brisbane, Nambour and Ipswich hospitals. Further, we also allocated funding to open the dedicated Allamanda elective surgery centre on the Gold Coast. This is the first stand-alone elective day surgery centre in Queensland Health. To date, 210 patients have received operations at the centre. In addition, as part of our 2000 election promise, we are committed to developing dedicated elective surgery centres at QEII, Redcliffe and Caboolture hospitals. But this does not mean that we are standing still. The Bligh government will continue to work to reduce elective surgery waiting lists and invest more in the health of Queenslanders. Petrie-Redcliffe Rail Link Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Premier. I note the Premier’s comments to the media yesterday that a rail line to Redcliffe is something she ‘would expect to see over the next two decades’. I also note the comments in the media on 17 December 2001, in which the Beattie-Bligh government 08 Oct 2008 Questions Without Notice 2923 promised ‘an extension of the Brisbane rail network to Redcliffe could be delivered within five years under a $131 million plan being considered by the state government’. Have the people of Redcliffe again been sold out by this government? How can anyone believe any promises the Premier makes about virtual rail lines in some distant future? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the opportunity to talk further about our initiatives in relation to rail transport and public transport. The announcement that the government made yesterday is made precisely because we anticipate that we will see additional capacity coming into the inner city areas of Brisbane over the next two decades from expanded and new rail lines and rolling stock from suburban and interurban rail expansions over that same period of time. It is because we are expanding the rail line from Brisbane to the Gold Coast—currently Robina to Varsity is underway—and we are currently in the process of sending the next new lot of railway track out to Richlands and then further to Darra and Springfield, and it is precisely because we are putting new rail track into the north coast and Sunshine Coast areas and because we are putting new rolling stock, more trains, on those new tracks that we anticipate more travel between those areas—Brisbane and the Gold Coast, Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane and the western suburbs and the western corridor. All of those lines will have to go either into the city or through the city, and we need to plan now so that capacity is available when it is needed. In response to questions yesterday about additional rail track beyond the inner city, I gave an answer which said that in the same period of time as we are looking at the development of this inner city rail capacity—to be delivered in two stages, remember; from 2016 is the current plan—we would expect to see additional track into other parts of the urban network. The member for Redcliffe will vouch for the fact that at the recent Redcliffe community cabinet I met with the local council. We are talking with them about how we can consider further opportunities for public transport, both bus and rail, into those areas, whether it is out to Redcliffe and into the Deception Bay area. When it comes to public transport, without any doubt the record of this government stands head and shoulders above anything ever delivered by the conservative side of politics. Australia’s first ever busways—the South East Busway, used regularly by the member for Mansfield— Mr Johnson: Who started it? Ms BLIGH: It was a Labor government that started it, and it was a federal Labor government that funded it under the Better Cities program. It is a Labor government that is delivering the Northern Busway. It is a Labor government that is delivering the Eastern Busway and the Boggo Road Busway. We have the best busway network in Australia. The inner city busway tunnel is open, being delivered right now—six months early. I say to the people of Redcliffe: if you want to look for public transport, it is Labor that will deliver it.

Computers for Teachers Mrs MILLER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Arts. Last year the government announced that every permanent state school teacher and TAFE teacher working two or more days a week would receive their very own laptop computer. Can the minister update the House on the progress of this outstanding program, which is providing our teachers with the technology they need for modern teaching? Mr WELFORD: If you need any indication of how our government is looking to the future, planning for tomorrow’s Queensland, you need look no further than the amazing initiatives that we are launching in education every day. Our government is investing $70 million over four years to provide our dedicated teachers with laptop computers to transform their classrooms into digital learning spaces. Part of our commitment is to develop a world-class education and training system for every Queensland student. More than a quarter of all of our state school teachers now have their own laptop computer thanks to our Computers for Teachers initiative. That is more than 13,000 teachers in 550 schools across Queensland. From Boigu Island in the Torres Strait to Coolangatta, from Boulia in the west to Dunwich in the east on Stradbroke Island, teachers now have their own laptop computers so that they can track the performance of students, plan their lessons, conduct administration and keep attendance records. We are on track to deliver these laptop computers to teachers in schools and in TAFE by the end of 2011. Computers have become an integral part of a modern education. They help engage and connect students at a national and global level, and they provide our teachers with the opportunity to engage in and exchange professional development with teachers around the world. The Computers for Teachers initiative will help our teachers stay at the forefront of teaching strategies. Our government is committed to ensuring that schools are also provided with wireless start-up kits. Not only are our teachers and students provided with computers but these computers are now more connected to the internet than ever before. 2924 Questions Without Notice 08 Oct 2008

Our world has changed dramatically over the last 15 years. Twenty years ago there were virtually no computers in classrooms in any Queensland school. It is a testament to our teachers and our schools that they have adapted so readily to this rapidly changing technology and integrated ICTs into the classroom and used computers in more exciting ways than ever before. ICT skills are an essential foundation skill, like literacy and numeracy, which equip teachers to teach and students to learn and succeed in life. These sorts of forward-looking initiatives are in stark contrast to the opposition. Only yesterday, the shadow minister was on Sunshine Coast radio trying to peddle a weak old story from the Courier- Mail that somehow our schools are overcrowded. He came up with one problem. Not a single school on the Sunshine Coast exceeds its capacity. I repeat: not a single school exceeds its capacity. Yet there he was trying to mount this beat-up that there are schools that are overcrowded and that this would challenge our children in those schools. The opposition members are utterly directionless; they are clueless. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Gladstone, I welcome to the public gallery today members of the Moreton Bay VIEW Club, whose visit today has been sponsored by the Deputy Speaker and member for Redlands, Mr John English. I also welcome teachers and students from the Beaudesert State School in the electorate of Beaudesert, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Kev Lingard.

Marley Brown Oval

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Premier. People in my electorate have welcomed the rescue package offered for Marley Brown Oval. However, some would seek clarification on the following to ensure transparency and certainty: are there conditions regarding subdivision or rezoning of the remainder of the club before sale of the oval and handover to council will occur; are the contributing coal companies receiving any special considerations on the basis of their contribution; and were the coal companies aware that their contributions would be used to launch the Labor candidate for Gladstone’s election campaign? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity to talk about the Marley Brown Oval again. As I outlined yesterday, this is a very important part of the regional city of Gladstone. Members in this House who represent regional towns know—just as those like me who represent city seats know—how important sporting infrastructure is, not only because sporting infrastructure gives young people and other members of the community the chance to play sport, to be involved in sport and to watch sport but because sporting facilities are places in our communities where families and people gather for social occasions; they bring people together. So when the current owners and managers of Marley Brown fell into problems and it looked like that facility might be lost to the people of Gladstone, some innovative thinking was required. I congratulate the Gladstone Port Authority on the efforts it made not only within its own funding sources but in making sure that those companies which are directly benefiting from the current resources boom—directly benefiting from the opportunities to export out of a city like Gladstone—are putting something back into that community. I am pleased to say that, as I understand it, those companies—and I read the list of companies out yesterday—were all very pleased to be part of an effort to ensure that the people who work in their companies and the families who live in Gladstone and who often work in their mines outside of Gladstone in central Queensland have a good quality of life, and so they should. We should expect it of them and I am pleased that they rose to that occasion. Specifically, the administration and management of this oval from now on will be turned over to the Gladstone Regional Council. I am very pleased that the council has indicated a willingness to do this. We do not want to put these funds in, have the oval saved and then have the same problems emerge again in the future. So I am very pleased the council is doing that. I understand—and I am happy to get further details on this for the member—that there is a small parcel of land associated with the facility that is held in freehold title by the current owners. Clearly, the government will not be resuming or taking that over; they hold it as freehold. I am not aware of any intentions that the current owners have for that freehold land. That is something that would have to be put to them. If they have made any indications on that, I am happy to advise the member but I am not aware of any intentions that they have. The sports facility itself will be put into the hands of the Gladstone Regional Council to administer on behalf of the people of Gladstone. 08 Oct 2008 Questions Without Notice 2925

Department of Public Works Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology. Can the minister tell the House about those public sector projects that have been delivered by the Department of Public Works? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for her ongoing support for the Department of Public Works in the delivery of what is now the biggest ever budget that the Department of Public Works has had in the history of Queensland, with $8.5 billion on foot at the moment. This is being delivered from the Torres Strait right down to the Gold Coast and west to the Great Divide by hardworking public servants who are highly competent and who understand the difficulties of terrain and the demands of modern service delivery. I cannot speak highly enough of the people in Project Services—all 500 of them—who deliver these projects. It does not matter whether it is the Robina Hospital, which is a highly complex project, or the Gold Coast Hospital, the Gatton prison, the Lotus Glen prison or the Townsville prison—we have got public servants who are out there delivering these projects on time and on budget. We have got people in the architectural division, we have got engineers. We have got people who are hardworking and who work on weekends and all the rest of it. So imagine my surprise when I heard that the Leader of the Opposition would not fill vacancies that occur in those departments. Imagine what we would have in Townsville, for example, where there is a vacancy in your electorate, Mr Speaker. We would not fill that. What would happen when a number of major projects happened there? The Leader of the Opposition would try to fill them out of Brisbane. He then went to Rockhampton and said, ‘We’re going to move all the departments to Rockhampton.’ I do not know how he would do that and take public servants out of where they are. That is just one of the stories. He says something in Rocky and he says something else here. The one thing that staggered me was this. In a boardroom I was in recently, I was absolutely astonished when people asked me about privatisation. They said, ‘When the Leader of the Opposition was here last, that’s what he wanted to talk about: privatisation.’ I said, ‘I’m not in that game. I’ve got dedicated public servants in Q-Build and Project Services who are out there delivering.’ I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition just what he says behind closed doors, what he says behind his hand. He sneaks down there and talks in the ear of business and then he comes back here into parliament and says nothing. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: You can laugh all you like, but are you saying to me that the people who told me that are not telling the truth? Are you saying that you did not actually say that? Can I get this on the record: you have never raised privatisation in a boardroom in Brisbane? Mr Springborg: My problem is your interpretation of it. Mr SCHWARTEN: Oh! My problem is my interpretation of it. Did you say it or did you not? Is it on the agenda? Answer the question. Oh, there is the old slippery eel of the opposition. Away he goes. Mr Lucas: Did you hear privatisation, or did you hear privatisation? Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker— Mr SCHWARTEN: Privatisation I think is what I heard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, there is a point of order. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am very happy to answer the minister’s question. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am delighted that he is on the record as having privatisation on the agenda. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am very happy— Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, given the interruption, can I finish please? Mr SPEAKER: Just quickly. Mr SCHWARTEN: I want to say that I thank the honourable member for putting it on the agenda. We now want to know what he is going to privatise and when he is going to do it. Emergency Services Personnel, Assaults Mr MALONE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. What is the minister doing to ensure the safety of vulnerable front-line ambulance officers who are rightly calling for greater protection from assault? Will the minister support mandatory sentencing for assaults on Emergency Services staff similar to laws in place for police? 2926 Questions Without Notice 08 Oct 2008

Mr ROBERTS: The one thing that we will not do is what the opposition proposed in its bill before this parliament a few months ago, and that was to protect ambulance officers from assaults by prisoners only. The bill which the opposition recently brought before the parliament to purportedly protect ambulance officers would have protected ambulance officers from assaults by prisoners only. I think that was one of the more embarrassing moments in this parliament when the opposition came in with that particular bill. Regarding what this government is doing to protect paramedics, there is currently a bill before the House which proposes to increase significantly the penalties for assaults against ambulance officers from the current provision of three years for common assault to seven years as a maximum penalty, because it would be treated as a serious assault. I am on the record on many occasions saying that one assault against one paramedic is one too many. No-one in the community, and indeed no-one from this government, supports anyone in the community who is prepared to put our paramedics at risk. In addition to the legislative provisions that we have put in place, we have a number of other initiatives in place in the Ambulance Service to look after our paramedics. We have a very proactive partnership with the Queensland Police Service. I have said publicly that I do not expect any paramedic to put themselves in any dangerous situation. If they feel threatened, they should not go into that situation until appropriate support from the Police Service comes along. I want to praise the Police Service for the exceptional support they give our paramedics. They will accompany paramedics into dangerous situations if required. If they feel threatened, paramedics have a direct link through our communications centres to the Police Service. This government does take the safety and welfare of our paramedics seriously. We have very stringent proposed legislation in the parliament to protect them. Again, I remind the House of the awfully embarrassing situation we had here a few months ago where the opposition tried to put a bill through this parliament which would have protected paramedics from assault by prisoners only. South-East Queensland Water Grid Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Can the Deputy Premier advise the House of the progress expected on the water grid in the near future? Mr LUCAS: The Bligh government is about getting on with the job of building the $9 billion water grid—the largest urban drought response in Australia. It is a big two months ahead with some significant milestones—the first delivery of water from the Gold Coast desalination project and construction finishing on the western corridor recycling project. On this side of the House, we build today and have a plan for the future, unlike the shambles that is the Liberal National Party opposite. When we talk about strong leadership, we might note the very strong leadership of the Leader of the Opposition that saw the member for Cunningham, his shadow minister and Leader of Opposition Business in the House, dumped at the expense of the time-serving member for Toowoomba South. It is not all dark clouds on the horizon. I do note the appointment of the member for Hinchinbrook to the shadow ministry. I have a fair bit of time for the member for Hinchinbrook. I have had a bit to do with him. He is someone who, if anything, would be a bit frustrated because most of the people on the front bench in front of him have half his IQ. If you know the member for Hinchinbrook well, you would know that he is a person who does not spew forth with rubbish and invective 24 hours a day, like the member for Burnett. He actually thinks a bit before he says things. When the member for Hinchinbrook says something, you can bet your life that it is considered and that he has done his homework. That is why it is important to refer to his contribution to Earle Page’s Page Research Centre, a National Party think tank—if that is not a contradiction in terms—in its 2006 publication The Page Review. What did the member for Hinchinbrook say in that document when talking about politics and various contemporary issues in Australia? He stated— Property rights in regional and rural areas have been under constant attack and indeed, have been significantly eroded by environmental zealots, State Labor Governments— An opposition member interjected. Mr LUCAS: Is it so far right? He continues— ... and urban small ‘l’ liberals burdened with middle class guilt. There is their mandate, and he sets it out. He is providing the intellectual leadership. There is the member for Clayfield in the firing line. The member for Moggill has had to go out. He is in trouble. You cannot refer to the big ‘l’ liberals, because the Leader of the Opposition got rid of them. What else does the member for Hinchinbrook have to say about the Liberals? He says this— The Nationals are working hard to more effectively differentiate themselves from the Liberals and moving in on territory previously occupied by Labor. My understanding is that ‘differentiate’ is not ‘decimate’. All I can say is that the member for Indooroopilly should look out, because the Nationals are after his seat. Tabled paper: Extract from The Page Review Bi-Annual Journal Volume 2 Number 1 2006 enclosing an article by Andrew Cripps titled ‘A Return to Certainty? Economic rationalism, the bush and the Nationals’. 08 Oct 2008 Questions Without Notice 2927

Local Government Reform, Rates Increases Mr HOBBS: At least he did not have a houseful of voters! I have a question for the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego has the call. Please ask your question. Mr HOBBS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have received a letter from Mrs Dorothy Miller of Kingaroy, whose rates have risen 34 per cent in the last six months. Mrs Miller is a pensioner whose only council service is a wheelie bin, for which the cost has risen 41 per cent. Mrs Miller is ‘absolutely disgusted in the way that this amalgamation which we had to have was done by Beattie and that young rooster’— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, is this an essay or a question? Mr HOBBS: This is Mrs Miller’s quote. Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the question. Mr HOBBS: Mrs Miller is further disgusted by the Queensland Premier, who now wants to supply only $21.1 million of the estimated $200 million cost of council amalgamation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask you to get to the question. Mr HOBBS: Can the minister explain why ratepayers across this state have to pay excessive rate rises caused by the government’s forced council amalgamations? They are paying those rates now, Minister. Mr PITT: Mr Speaker— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Transport, I ask you to give your colleague a go. He is up to answer the question. I call the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government. Mr PITT: I thank the member for Warrego for the question. If there is one thing that he is, he is consistent. They have locked themselves into this furphy about council amalgamations being the sole cause of rate increases. It would be very interesting for the member to note that the council’s rates that have been brought down so far—and that is now most councils—are pretty evenly divided in rate increases between those that were amalgamated and those that were not. As a matter of fact, most of the significant rate rises have occurred in areas where councils were not amalgamated. You can list off any number of them, but the important thing to realise is that rates rise for a variety of reasons. We are living in an economic climate where the cost drivers for councils are very similar to those that are cost drivers for the state and federal governments when building infrastructure et cetera. Some of the things have no bearing whatsoever to CPI— Mr Hobbs: What do you say to Mrs Miller? Mr PITT: I would suggest that Mrs Miller speak to her council and have them explain why her rates rose. Maybe they have a good reason for that. To answer the member’s question, there are enough examples across Queensland to indicate that amalgamation has not been the cause of rate rises in itself. The rate rises and services and charges rises are a reflection of the economic climate in which we live. Recently there have been a number of attempts by councils to indicate that the amalgamation has brought about extraordinary results. We have the Sunshine Coast claiming that $61 million worth of projects are being held up because of amalgamation. What a furphy that is, because just down the road we have the Moreton Bay Regional Council, which has effectively given a rates decrease by being able to deliver in its budget a moderate rate rise. It has indicated that so far it has saved millions of dollars and into the future will do so. I want to put on the record for anyone who is prepared to listen to the truth that the reality is that the costs of amalgamation are one-off costs and amount to about one per cent of one year’s budget. The efficiencies through amalgamation are ongoing. They click in at about two per cent and go up to about five per cent. They will occur year after year after year. It is up to the councils to work out how they are best going to present this situation to their constituents. I say to the lady who has written the letter to pop in to her local council and get some sort of explanation as to how they are going about their business. CoastConnect Mr HAYWARD: My question is to the Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations. Can the minister please detail why it is so important that there is planning for the future to deliver a fast, frequent and reliable bus system for the residents of the Sunshine Coast? 2928 Questions Without Notice 08 Oct 2008

Mr MICKEL: Currently only two per cent of trips on the Sunshine Coast are made by public transport. That is why we have to have a plan in place to develop the corridors. That is why we have a program called CoastConnect. We would think that people on the Sunshine Coast would have members of parliament who would support CoastConnect. But who is leading the charge against this planning for better public transport? It is none other than the shadow minister for transport. What did she say about the proposed busway? She said that it would become a drag strip. What did she say about a proposal to take buses into the shopping centres? She said that it will interfere with shopping. Talk about somebody who is all over the shop! Yesterday we announced the inner-city rail project. She said, ‘You shouldn’t be doing any more planning; what you should be doing is building.’ What we will do is lug all the railway lines down to the river, put them across the river on the riverbed, give passengers some gumboots, put a periscope in the steering wheel, put in an oxygen tank, put on the windscreen-wipers and take the trains straight across the river! That is the nonsense that those opposite are proposing as a policy. Of course we need planning. That is what we are doing. This is the same intellectual force that those opposite are bringing to this amalgamation. Let me quote what 4BC said about how they are selecting candidates for the Liberal National Party. It says— A private company is acting as a vetting agent for prospective Liberal National Party candidates. Many Liberals are deeply suspicious of the motives of Santo Santoro. Remember the great stockbroker. Do not wonder about Wall Street; Santo was the stockbroker in the Liberal Party. It continues— To say that the Liberal National Party is firmly established with a cohesive membership is a long way from the truth. Who are the people behind this vetting agency? They are none other than a former staff member of the Leader of the Opposition and none other than a former staff member of Santo Santoro. What we have is the Liberal Party fly-in, fly-out branch-stacking operation which is going to deliver a candidate from central casting into Indooroopilly. If you are a Liberal in Indooroopilly you have no chance. You will face a Santo Santoro National Party candidate. Taxation Mr MESSENGER: I direct my question without notice to the minister for small business, but since the government does not have one I will direct it to the Treasurer. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, can I ask you to desist from your wont to add some extra words to your questions. Ask the question, please. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the unprecedented financial crisis and the record commitment of $65 billion in state government borrowing, will the Treasurer give a commitment not to increase taxes which adversely affect Queensland small businesses such as payroll tax, land tax, the ambulance levy and stamp duty? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Burnett for the question. The reality, of course, is that this government has a strong track record of reducing the tax burden on small business in Queensland. That is why we continue to attract at record levels new people into Queensland and people to invest in Queensland. As the member for Burnett would recall from the budget—I am sure he studied it in detail given his new portfolio responsibilities—Queensland has the lowest rate of payroll tax in the country and the highest threshold in mainland Australia. We went further in the budget—that is to further provide relief to small business. We also went further in terms of land tax in the last budget by simplifying the rates and reducing the payment at the threshold for entering into the land tax system such that, by and large, people in Queensland pay less tax per person on average than people in all other Australian states. We do not have any plans to raise any taxes. The track record of this government in delivering the last budget was that we went the other way in providing tax relief not only to businesses in Queensland but, more particularly, to individuals. Our concentration in the last budget was providing support to people to enter the housing market for the first time. As of 1 September, with a slowdown occurring in the housing market, we saw, with the foresight of this government, stamp duty reforms kick in. For people now trying to buy their first home in Queensland, whether in a growth suburb at the back of the Gold Coast, in the booming city of Bundaberg, in a suburb in Brisbane or right around the state, this means they pay not one cent in mortgage duty—it was abolished in full—and not one cent in stamp duty all the way to $500,000. The question being put forward by the shadow minister in this context denies the strong track record of this government delivering a budget surplus and delivering sensible tax reform. As I said this morning, the game just changed. The game changed because what we see, as the IMF has said, is the most difficult set of financial circumstances that have beset the globe since the global Depression. In that context there is a requirement for an alternative government, a government that sees itself on the cusp of winning the next election, to put forward costed policies and to put forward its plans that it would actually propose to the people of Queensland. 08 Oct 2008 Private Members’ Statements 2929

The people of Queensland cannot afford to risk a party that is a heartbeat away, according to those opposite, from winning the next election that does not have a plan, that has not costed what it is going to do and that has not put forward to the people of Queensland its policies, its proposals or the way in which it is going to fund them. Right now the wood is on the Liberal National Party. Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the public gallery the principal and student leaders from Marymount College in the electorate of Burleigh, which is represented in this House by Mrs Christine Smith. I call the member for Algester. Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland Ms STRUTHERS: My question is to the Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Seniors and Youth. Can the minister indicate how organisations that support people in need in our communities can be part of the new vision for Queensland? Ms NELSON-CARR: I thank the honourable member for the question. We are about strengthening the partnerships between this Bligh government and the non-government service sector. It is actually a major outcome of Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland. We are already making significant investment in community services which are being delivered by non-government organisations. I would like to point out that in the 2008-09 budget $924 million has been allocated mostly for human services. That is of course to assist our most vulnerable Queensland citizens. I am really pleased that the member asked about building on these foundations, because that is the next step in how we can improve our relationships and the way we work together to achieve better outcomes for Queenslanders with the non-government sector, and that, I might add, is in stark contrast to the opposition. I can announce that we have developed a new agreement, or what we are calling a compact, which recognises the contribution that the non-government sector makes to provide a fairer Queensland, and that is about delivering services to vulnerable people and promoting opportunities for Queenslanders who can contribute to society through volunteering. The compact also recognises the sector’s sizeable contribution to our economy by the very many jobs that it creates and the value of the work that is being performed by those volunteers. We are after a strong and viable community sector, and that is vital to achieving a diverse economy powered by bright ideas which is our vision for a very strong future for Queensland. Mr SPEAKER: That completes question time.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Country Racing Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (11.30 am): I want to bring to the attention of the House today the importance of country racing across this great state. In the last four weeks I have attended three race meetings in my electorate—the annual Birdsville carnival on the first weekend in September, the Quilpie Diggers Race Club last Saturday week and on Saturday just gone an event celebrating the centenary of racing at Jundah south of Longreach. Birdsville is an iconic event and many thousands of people travel from various parts of Australia to attend, because it is an event that has been highlighted by the wisdom of the local people who have set forth an agenda to promote the region and to promote racing. Quilpie is my home town and it has only one race meeting a year. Some 600 people attended that meeting. With a town like Quilpie, which only has a population of 600, this is a wonderful occasion. Horses come from near and far, yet there are clouds hanging over these country clubs all of the time wondering whether next year there will be a race meeting. Jundah just celebrated its 100 years of racing with Anthony Balke, a local of western Queensland, winning the Jundah Cup on Able Seaman. I hope this event will not be similar to the event that we witnessed with the Isisford Shire Council—that is, on 100 years of being a local authority the council was taken away from those people. This is a situation where those responsible—I say this to Bob Bentley and I also appeal to the Treasurer, who is the racing minister in this state—have to make absolutely certain that they continue to monitor the great events of country racing in Queensland. In July I visited the annual race meeting at Ilfracombe and, again, there were 500 or 600 people in attendance and only 28 came from Longreach. Country racing is all about the people who support it. Time expired. Breast Cancer Awareness Month Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (11.32 am): October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and I know that many members in the parliament are involved in activities in their communities that will support breast cancer survivors and raise funds for research. Early detection is crucial in treating breast cancer most successfully, and I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of regular breast checks and 2930 Private Members’ Statements 08 Oct 2008 breast screening. More women are now surviving breast cancer by improved breast screening methods and continued advancements and treatments being available. Most certainly, the announcement by the Premier this morning of the digital screening rollout across the state is tremendous news for all Queenslanders. But make no mistake: breast cancer is still the most common cancer diagnosed and causes the deaths of far too many Queensland women. So the message that I have for women is that, no matter how busy or how hectic our lives are, regular checks and screenings are vital. I am about to undergo my three-year check-up, so I have to say that I apologise in advance this month for my testy demeanour, because it is an anxious time for me and in fact for all breast cancer survivors as we approach these milestones. But I am confident that I am in the hands of the best health professionals in the world here in Queensland. I am pleased to have this opportunity this month to host a pink ribbon breakfast fundraiser for the National Breast Cancer Foundation at the Aspley Coffee Club and to host a mini field of women for Breast Cancer Network Australia with the Minister for Women at the Aspley Lions Park, and I wish to thank the generous Aspley businesses for their support of these events. These events, staged nationally, will support women with breast cancer and continue to raise awareness of breast cancer and are an opportunity to bring the community together to support survivors. I am sure that all members will agree that it is an honour for us in this parliament to pay tribute to all of those organisations that play a part in educating and supporting women by promoting Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Southern Freight Rail Corridor Study Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (11.34 am): I rise to make a brief statement about the Southern Freight Rail Corridor Study that Queensland Transport is undertaking. This is upsetting people in my electorate. Over 200 properties will be affected. It is completely ridiculous. There is no need for this rail freight corridor. No business case study has been done for it. It is a rail freight corridor where there is no freight! How ridiculous! I have spoken to Everald Compton, which was involved with the Melbourne to Darwin line. They are not interested in this southern freight rail corridor. If they are going to unload freight in Toowoomba, surely that is where the distribution will be. Why would you hook an 80- or 130- kilometre line from Bromelton to Toowoomba? It just does not make sense. Rail freight will not make money on trips of less than 400 kilometres. This is just ridiculous. It is annoying the public in the Rosewood to Bromelton area. It is really frustrating. Members of the committee against this proposal have met with the parliamentary secretaries and with the department and they are very disappointed about what they have been told by the parliamentary secretaries and by the minister. They feel that they have been misled all of the way. They have to have submissions for the final report in by 31 October, yet it was only released this week. They really are under constant pressure with this issue. It really is an item of dislocation for many people. They are really concerned that this freight corridor goes against all good planning. The IPA legislation processes as required for these types of infrastructure projects have not been followed. The whole process has been an absolute disaster. I cannot understand why this government is pretending to be infrastructure savvy and interested in this project. It just does not make sense. The government would do much better to concentrate on a passenger line from Rosewood to Withcott rather than a freight line from Rosewood to Bromelton. This is just the height of stupidity and this government continues to carry on with it. I call on the minister— Time expired. Gold Coast, Dental Services Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.36 am): Many residents in my electorate rely on the nation’s only free dental service that is available in Queensland to meet their dental health needs. The demand on the service has increased with our ageing and growing population, and this government recognises this. With the election of a Rudd federal Labor government, improving funding arrangements between the state and Commonwealth regarding dental health was put high on the agenda, with the state’s health minister working hard to strike an agreement to reinstate federal funding for our free dental service. Like many of my constituents, I was looking forward to seeing the improvements to the service and its waiting lists. The $52.8 million that would have been allocated would have delivered for Queensland. Many residents I spoke with agreed that the scheme developed by the Liberal Howard government did nothing to provide improved services for people who could not afford private dental services and that the federal health minister’s proposal of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program is what was needed. Under this arrangement, Queensland would have received 11 times more funding than the previous Liberal government’s chronic diseased dental program. However, in an act of disregard for the benefits that this funding would have delivered, the Liberal, National and Greens senators rejected the proposal in the Senate and now the deal has been suspended. The Gold Coast Liberal members who have crowed about looking after pensioners should explain to the many people on dental waiting lists who would have benefited from this funding why Liberal senators rejected funds coming to Queensland. To think that there was increased funding being 08 Oct 2008 Private Members’ Statements 2931 made available to help address dental waiting lists and the conservative senators and the Greens blocked it without even bothering to speak in the debate! In fact, there were more conservative party speakers speaking on the luxury car tax and the Greens even broke an election commitment in opposing the dental funding. I call on the Queensland Liberal, National and Greens senators to rethink their position on supporting this scheme and to take heart from the nearly 832,000 pensioners who would have been assisted.

CoastConnect

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.38 am): Today I tabled a petition from about 3,000 signatories protesting the potential impact of the state government’s proposed CoastConnect six-lane highway through the area of Alexandra Parade and along Aerodrome Road. The project as a whole will go from Caloundra to Maroochydore via this area, and my comments today are targeted to this particular area of severe impact. Sunshine Coast residents want a better public transport system that enhances their lifestyle, not destroys their local businesses without compensation or creates a greater barrier between them and the beach. The current proposal needs to go back to the drawing board to look at ways of enhancing buses throughout the network of roads such as the Sunshine Motorway and pinch points along other roads but to take into account all impacts. After the minister’s extraordinary personal attack on me this morning for raising these concerns, it is clear that he does not intend to genuinely listen to the worries of those mum-and-dad business operators who have approached me and said that this proposal as it stands would send them broke. What I have heard from him today shows that he does not care. I urge the minister to put politics aside and to listen to these people’s concerns. When I asked the consultant to explain what the mode-share traffic projections and passenger projections were as part of this consultation, the consultant could not answer me—and I have witnesses to that. ‘No,’ the consultant said, ‘That modelling has not been done yet. It will be done as part of the business case when it is submitted.’ When I asked about the consideration of the impact on all of these retailers through losing their parking outside, the consultant said, ‘No, those people have been lucky to have that parking for all of those years. They have no right to that parking.’ This sort of nonsense has to stop. If it is happening on this road, where there is no consideration of the impacts on people, then it is happening elsewhere. Good government is about good policy that understands the impacts of decision making and takes that into consideration. It is not part of the consultation process that this government has launched. I say to the minister that he should put his politics aside and listen to the people about the best way to enhance lifestyle and public transport.

Yeppoon Hospital

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (11.40 am): It has been hard but rewarding work since 2004 to bring the now $22.5 million hospital at Yeppoon to fruition—not only actual buildings but also an enhancement of the services that are provided by our dedicated health professionals and allied health staff. Only the Leader of the Opposition could relate the 1987 bed numbers to the number of beds in the new building, which he did visit over the weekend. He needs to take a reality check. He did not even get it right. He also has an LNP toady in my region sprouting half-truths and distortions, which are a slap in the face and a denigration of the dedicated health staff. The present Yeppoon Hospital is past its use-by date, but the level of all types of care has been substantially enhanced because of the increasing needs of our community. Because of advances in medical science being met by our $10.5 billion Health Action Plan, our present services are far advanced since 1987 and will ensure further advancement in the care of Queenslanders. In stark contrast to 1987, we now have digital X-ray services, orthopaedic and obstetric and gynaecological specialist visits, including prenatal care, additional dental chairs and upgraded records, which will be needed as the acute care and community health areas will be cross-indexed when services are provided from the one facility. It is evident that the people of the Rockhampton-Capricorn region are receiving great medical services now. Coupled with the health targets that are outlined in Toward Q2, it will only get better as proposed infrastructure building and staffing increases flow through Queensland. Queensland Health treats in excess of 800,000 people each and every year under our free system, and the 62,000-plus staff need our full support and encouragement as we head into the 21st century. I know our Rockhampton and Yeppoon hospitals staff are working to meet the challenges of the 21st century and they will be supported by our new infrastructure. 2932 Private Members’ Statements 08 Oct 2008

Gladstone Electorate Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.42 am): This morning the Premier rightly said that coal companies that get so much from a region should contribute to that region. That principle applies to governments. This government receives a great deal of income from the Gladstone region and should reciprocate by reinvesting money into that region—not only to the port but also to other infrastructure. Today, the Minister for Health stated in a ministerial statement— Regional centres throughout Queensland are being transformed by strong economic growth and rapidly increasing populations. Places like Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay are undoubtedly benefiting from Queensland’s strong economic climate, but they also face a number of significant challenges. One of the biggest challenges they face is to attract and retain health workforces to meet the needs of their growing and ageing populations. I say to the Minister for Health and the Premier: so does Gladstone. Gladstone contributes significantly to this state’s economic prosperity, and the people in my electorate deserve consideration. A woman whose son is having problems with speech and communication came to see me. She tried to get an appointment with the hospital speech pathologist—and the pathologist is a wonderful woman— but she is busy. She has a nine-month waiting list. For a parent with a sick child, that is unacceptable. Gladstone needs additional physiotherapists, additional obstetricians—Gladstone needs additional services for the people in the community. More and more my community is saying, ‘We contribute significantly. We want the government to reinvest.’ If this is the government’s narrow-minded way of saying, ‘You don’t have a Labor member,’ it is worse than I expected—it is not a government for all Queenslanders at all. My community deserves services. My community deserves consideration. My community contributes significantly to this government’s prosperity and it deserves consideration. There is heavy industry in my region. Time expired. Climate Change Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (11.45 am): The Bligh government’s vision for Queensland—Q2— is for our state to be strong, healthy, smart, fair and green. One of the biggest challenges we face not only as a state but also nationally and globally is climate change. Fortunately, Queensland is in a strong economic position compared to other states. That is why I believe we are at the forefront in addressing this challenge. As the Premier said this morning, Professor Garnaut has made it very clear to all of us that if we do not act now the long-term costs are going to be much higher. Yesterday, the climate change minister, Andrew McNamara, announced that $2 million will be allocated for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility to be based at the Griffith University Gold Coast campus. NCCARF will undertake cutting-edge research on climate change adaptation. It will provide robust scientific information to help not only Queensland but also the nation prepare for the impacts of climate change. This facility is in addition to the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, which we announced last year. This initiative builds on our strong commitment to address climate change. I ask members to just look at our record. We have $430 million for the Climate Change Fund. In January next year we start the ClimateSmart Home Service program, which means that for only a small fee of $50 householders will have a tradesperson come to their home and conduct an energy audit as well as supply them with appliances in their home to help reduce their energy costs. We have the Premier’s Council on Climate Change, a 16-person advisory panel headed by Dr Tim Flannery. We have mandatory gas targets, which we are going to increase to 18 per cent by 2020. We have the low-carbon diet, with a new program worth $3 million. I am already working with the St Johns Wood community to try to get them on a low-carbon diet. But let us contrast this record with that of those opposite. As the Premier said this morning, when it comes to climate change they do not have a policy. When it comes to the environment they do not have a policy. In fact, they are a mob of climate change sceptics. They are going into this next election with no record in this regard. I ask Queenslanders to look at their policies and judge them for themselves. Time expired. Townsville, Tourism Industry Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (11.47 am): At a time when Queensland small business and tourism operators are facing increasing pressure and danger to their viability and profitability from an unprecedented global economic crisis and market downturns, those operators and small businesses are also having to deal with a government that neither understands nor appreciates and takes for granted the vital importance of small business and the community wealth and jobs created by the tourism industry. 08 Oct 2008 Private Members’ Statements 2933

Although this regrettable situation exists in every Queensland community, one of the best examples of a small business community and a tourism industry being taken for granted can be found in Townsville. Recently I attended an economic development forum in Townsville. I have spoken with many small business owners and tourism operators over a period of months and years, and the message is consistent and overwhelming: we have a tourism minister and member for Cairns who is showing a disturbing level of disinterest in the Townsville tourism industry. The Townsville tourism industry, under the recent Labor government restructure, has been forced into an unhealthy competition with Cairns businesses for funding, creating a situation where local Townsville operators are in danger of being swamped by those from Cairns. There is no guaranteed funding for Townsville tourism operators, who are being crippled by state government red tape, taxes and charges. Darin McDonald, the general manager of Sunferries and Sunsea Cruises, informed me that his company is forced to pay the Townsville Port Authority over and above the usual cost of diesel—an extra 2.4c per litre. His company consumes 1.3 million litres of diesel per year, which means that a vital tourism operator has to pay this government through its GOC an extra $31,200 on top of the usual price of fuel. Why should this essential Townsville tourism operator be forced to pay an extra $31,200 to the port authority? I call on the transport minister and the tourism minister to get together and at least talk to the tourism operators about their legitimate concerns. Time expired.

Redcliffe, Unemployment Rate Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (11.49 am): Redcliffe has had great news on our unemployment figures. At the 2006 election the Queensland unemployment rate was 4.2 per cent, but on the Redcliffe peninsula the unemployment rate was higher at 6.3 per cent. This included unemployment rates of 8.1 per cent at Woody Point and Margate, 7.3 per cent at Clontarf and 6 per cent at Scarborough. Over the past two years those figures have been going down. In June this year in Queensland the unemployment rate was 3.6 per cent and on the Redcliffe peninsula it was an exciting 3.8 per cent. This included a decline in unemployment to 4.1 per cent at Clontarf, 4.6 per cent at Woody Point and Margate and 3.3 per cent at Scarborough. I am sure that our local chamber will be very pleased with those figures as it has been very concerned about unemployment on the peninsula. This has resulted from the Bligh government’s Skilling Queenslanders for Work programs, which are giving people real jobs. More than 460 people have participated locally. The Bligh government will continue to deliver those opportunities to Redcliffe people because improving unemployment and people’s lifestyles is what this government is all about. This program is a vital part of our Q2 plan for the future initiative, creating a strong, green, smart, healthy and fair Queensland for all.

Regent Theatre Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (11.51 am): The people of Brisbane and Queensland have been led to believe that the Regent Theatre has been saved by the state government. This morning the Premier spoke about Queensland’s top 150 state icons. I wish to put forward the case for the Regent Theatre. In February this year the state government announced that under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 it would issue a direction to the Brisbane City Council that the development application for the Regent Theatre as proposed by Multiplex will only be approved under the following condition: the development must preserve in its current state the four existing cinemas and associated areas identified in the attached map. The area outlined in the map points to the four existing cinemas and associated areas. This includes the bar area, which has used heritage materials from the original mezzanine, and the showcase No. 1 cinema, which contains scaled down fixtures and fittings from the historical 1929 auditorium. However, the only things heritage listed are the lobby and staircase, so unfortunately these areas are not protected from development or destruction. In issuing the directive the state government supposedly recognised the historical significance of the Regent, as well as its importance to Brisbane residents. However, the new plans for the Regent issued on 10 September this year and referred to by the Deputy Premier in this place completely disregard the government’s own directive in the following ways: the four existing cinemas, with a total seating capacity of 1,460, which were protected under the directive have now been replaced with three smaller scale theatres with a total seating capacity of 420. We will not be able to hold the Brisbane International Film Festival there. The directive states that the Regent Theatre site has been used continuously as a place to screen movies since 1929. However, under the new plan the Regent will only be accessible to the public on weekends. During other times, the spaces will be made available for meetings, conferences and other restricted entry events. The directive seems to have been changed without any public consultation or notification. 2934 Private Members’ Statements 08 Oct 2008

Heritage reports state that there is potential for serious damage to the heritage areas if the cinema box is demolished. This could result in irreparable damage to the heritage listed foyer and staircase, as well as the abovementioned historical fixtures and fittings not currently heritage listed. It seems that these revised development plans have not yet been released for public scrutiny. Time expired. Child Protection Week Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (11.53 am): From 7 to 13 September 2008 was Child Protection Week. Child Protection Week is an opportunity for us to stop and examine our role in ensuring that everyone is taking seriously their responsibility to make our community child friendly. In the Logan area an organisation that is doing that is Protect All Children Today. On 17 September I was lucky enough to attend the 24th annual general meeting of Protect All Children Today with President Penny Gordon and patron Kay McGrath. The meeting was exciting because the Minister for Child Safety announced that the Department of Child Safety would be a sponsor for the 2009 PACT educational conference. This is an important conference to address child protection issues and, in particular, PACT’s interest in interacting with the criminal justice system. PACT does a great job in ensuring that children are prepared and ready to take on their roles as witnesses in the criminal justice system. Across Queensland PACT has 54 trained volunteers who support children through the court process. Last year they helped 1,063 children through the process. Unfortunately, 69 per cent of those children were complainants in criminal cases, and 58 per cent of those cases related to offences of a sexual nature. The sponsorship of the Department of Child Safety is an important initiative to ensure that PACT can continue to promote child safety amongst its volunteers and the broader child safety community, to ensure that people are taking seriously their responsibilities to support children and make our community a child friendly community where children can seek justice through our criminal justice system. English Family Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (11.55 am): Recently in Malanda I was privileged to attend functions held to honour James and Catherine English and their descendants for their contributions not only to the Malanda district but also to the Atherton Tableland and the far north as a whole. In 1908, 100 years ago, James, Catherine and their nine children moved from the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales to far-north Queensland and settled on the banks of the Johnstone River where the township of Malanda now stands. Malanda became the centre of the dairying industry in the far north and the English family was instrumental in its establishment. This family connection continues today through the expertise of great-great grandchild Greg and his wife, Bronwyn, and their seven children. Peter English and his wife, Veronica, also carry on the dairying tradition. They have nine children and still operate the dairy themselves. The English families were also instrumental in establishing the township of Malanda and donated land for a number of public utilities and recreational purposes. These include the show grounds, the bowling green, the post office, the Catholic church and Eacham Place. They also built the Majestic Theatre, which still operates, and the Malanda Hotel, which opened in 1911 and is currently owned and run by Tom and Joan English. Charles English, a son of Catherine and James, became the state ALP member for Mulgrave and served from 1953 to 1957, which was a crucial time when the building of Tinaroo Dam and Koombaloomba Dam took place. The people of the Tablelands will be forever grateful to the foresight of those founding fathers for constructing such vital pieces of infrastructure. Charles was an upstanding and well-respected member of the Malanda community. Phil, another member of the family, served as councillor on the Eacham Shire Council for one term and then as mayor for four terms until 2000. For many years the English families were also involved in the timber and sawmilling industries. It was wonderful to see so many descendants, some of whom came from as far away as Perth, Melbourne and Canada, partaking in the celebrations and the unveiling of a plaque in honour of the huge contribution of their forebears. In 1907 when James English travelled north to Malanda to make an inspection of the selection, he said that he had found the Promised Land. Time expired. Happy Valley Units Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (11.57 am): Access to affordable housing is a key priority for me and the Bligh government. That is why last month I was very pleased to join housing minister Robert Schwarten to officially open the Happy Valley Units in Ogden Street, Stafford. This $2.7 million complex includes 10 two-bedroom units and demonstrates the Bligh government’s commitment to providing government subsidised housing for Queensland battlers. From conversations with my community I 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2935 know that northsiders have embraced the Bligh government’s Toward Q2 vision, particularly the commitment to a fair Queensland. At the opening of the Happy Valley Units the minister highlighted the government’s commitment to providing social housing. That commitment certainly aligns with the objective of a fair Queensland. Despite Queensland experiencing the highest levels of economic prosperity in a generation, even in these troubled global economic times, record low housing affordability in the private rental market is impacting on many and, indeed, could get worse. That is why northsiders welcome the Bligh government’s spend of more than $1 billion on housing this financial year, including a massive $510 million to build more high quality unit complexes like the Happy Valley Units at Stafford. This new housing complex was named Happy Valley Units after the original name given to Stafford by the European settlers in the 1850s. Located close to public transport, schools and medical facilities and including two adaptable units, these high-quality new units are greatly appreciated by new residents such as Bob and Delwyn Gardiner and long-term residents such as David Kropp who has lived in Ogden Street for well over half a century. I thank the minister for his commitment to social housing on Brisbane’s north side and I wish that it will long continue. Law Reform Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (11.59 am): A system of justice that allows a person to walk out of court when they admit to violently assaulting a person who has died as a consequence of such an assault is a system out of balance. Justice is about balance and fairness, yet there is no justice for the families of deceased persons who have died at the hands of another person’s violent assault. Last week the Queensland Law Reform Commission handed down a number of recommendations regarding the defence of provocation and the accident defence. The commission has recommended no change to the accident defence. An assault that causes the death of another will continue to see no justice for the victims, their families and every Queenslander who will shake their heads in dismay when violent thugs walk out of court under the current legislative framework provided by this parliament. It was clear from the submissions received by the commission that in general there was overall support for change. Both public submissions and the Queensland police saw merit in the introduction of a new offence of an unlawful assault causing death. Sadly, the commission has not listened to community discontent. The Bligh government refused to pass a private member’s bill introduced by the LNP to provide this new offence. The LNP is committed to this policy in government. Victims of violence deserve a voice, and victims and their families will always be our priority. The government must keep community expectations in mind when it considers changes to the accident defence. The point was made in last Friday’s Courier-Mail by Terry Sweetman when he said that it is not the place of the Queensland Law Reform Commission to fulfil community expectation; it is the job of elected governments, and he is right. The government of Western Australia introduced an assault causing death provision into its Criminal Code to fill the gap and restore the balance in the offence continuum. Like Queensland, it had experienced similar incidents where persons walked free from court after violent assaults ending in death and had gone unpunished under its accident provision. It was Western Australia that adopted Queensland’s Criminal Code, yet it moved to correct the deficiency in the accident defence, whilst the Bligh government has to date chosen to ignore it. We as the Legislative Assembly must ensure that we listen to the community as a whole and strike the right balance for both the accused and, just as importantly, the victims and their families. The LNP will stand strong for these people. Time expired.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from 7 October (see p. 2900), on motion of Mr McNamara— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (12.01 pm): In rising to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), I can understand where the government is coming from but there are many aspects of this bill that I want to draw attention to. I want to speak very briefly about horse riding in national parks and the committee that will be formed to determine the outcomes of that after a period of time has elapsed. I heard the contributions in the House last evening by a couple of 2936 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008 members and one was the member for Nanango. I think she raised very valid points in relation to certain wildlife that is currently out of control in national parks. This situation worries me and I think it worries everybody in Queensland. We have feral animals that are out of control in our national parks. Riding horses through national parks is one of the most popular recreational activities there is. It is one of those activities that encourages young people to take advantage of being around animals and livestock. Ultimately, there are many people in the cities who have never had the opportunity to be near livestock. These riding trails are very important and are an integral part of the activities of a lot of people. In my time at Quilpie I was involved in pony club. Pony club is the second biggest organisation as far as recreational activity is concerned—second to the scouting movement. A lot of people in the south-east and right along the east coast of our great state take part in horse riding on the national trail. I say to the minister here today that a lot of damage has been done to our national parks by feral pigs. That is another issue we should be looking at closely. If he thinks horse riding is going to do damage, I can assure him that cloven footed animals such as feral pigs are doing more damage than any other pest we currently have in our national park. I believe that Bush Heritage Australia has done a far better job and has a more professional approach to looking after the state’s environment than what we see with the National Parks and Wildlife Service in some areas. With the properties that Bush Heritage Australia has purchased in my electorate, it has done a great job in making certain that those properties do have staff on them and that they are controlling the vermin. In the case of Carnarvon Station, which is under the management of Bush Heritage Australia, they are getting rid of the wild horses there. They are not something we want to see. Mr McNamara: I do not know that they are getting rid of them as fast as I am. Mr JOHNSON: They are getting rid of them all right. If I were not in this place, I would buy a few of them. The minister did not know I was an old horse trader from way back. I have trucked a few down to Wodonga and Peterborough and Caboolture and had their heads chopped off. It is an industry that has a lot of potential. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Member for Gregory, we might get back to the bill. Mr JOHNSON: I am just responding to the honourable minister. I can see the minister for primary industries sitting at the back there. He would certainly be very interested, in his area of exports and earning income for the state, if there were an opportunity to get rid of these horses. That is a recommendation I made, along with my colleague the member for Southport, when we were on the Premier’s Palm Island Select Committee. They should have got rid of the horses on Palm Island and run cattle. I see the minister for primary industries nodding in agreement. These are all situations we have to take into account. I say to the minister here today that I hope that the committee, which will review this situation over a period of time, has an open mind and has a clear objective and will make absolutely certain that the people who are out there wanting to do the right thing are not penalised and crucified and that their love of that industry is not going to be put down. The other issue I want to draw the minister’s attention to here today is that of dangerous goods. This is another part of this legislation that I believe has probably been overlooked by many. As a former transport minister and one that understands the carriage of dangerous goods, I think there are many people out there on our roads who do not understand the ramifications of carrying dangerous goods. A lot of heavy vehicles are carrying dangerous goods every day—companies like Mitchell Helidon or Helidon Carrying. They carry a lot of explosives through to the mines at Mount Isa. The honourable member for Mount Isa is not here but she would back me up on this. What a lot of people do not understand is that when these vehicles are travelling with dangerous goods they are travelling the highways with everyday people—whether it be caravaners, domestic traffic or heavy transport—and, if they want to pull up at a rest area to have a camp or a rest, they cannot pull up if there is somebody else there. If those vehicles get into difficulty—I see here in the explanatory notes that the person in charge is in control, which is fair enough. But I wonder how many local authorities are aware of their responsibilities when it comes to the carriage of dangerous goods. This is a hypothetical case, but there are lot of people out there who do not have an understanding of the ramifications of the dangerous goods that are being carried. We all know what happens with the mixture of Nitropril and dieseline—kaboom! That is what happens. The whole show goes. If 20 or 30 caravaners are parked in a rest area halfway between Winton and Mount Isa and no- one knows that there is a leak, she is all over before you can say Jack Robinson. At the end of the day, I think there are a lot of local authorities who do not realise precisely what is going on. When we talk about the mining industry in Queensland, this industry is growing every day. It is exploding at a rate of knots that nobody can comprehend. The technology that is being used in the mines—a lot of people would not know what is coming out of Mount Isa on the backs of trucks or on rail. Those trucks that are carrying very heavily concentrated dangerous goods fall under this legislation that the minister has before the House today. I think it is very important that local authorities are made to realise precisely where their responsibilities lie. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2937

Part 3 of the bill deals with the amendments to the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act. The heading for clause 72 is ‘Amendment of s 107 (Recovery of costs of government action)’. The explanatory notes state— The clause amends section 107 of the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001 to provide that these costs are recoverable from: • person who caused or permitted the dangerous situation ... We can look at this in two or three ways. A truckie might pull up in a rest area and fall asleep, and before he knew it other people might stop there as well and camp. According to this legislation, if they caused an explosion, then those people who caused it—not the truckie—would be the ones responsible. The minister might like to clarify that in his summary. There are a lot of issues here that a lot of people are not aware of. The explanatory notes continue— • an occupier of a place where the dangerous situation existed ... Again, that could be a rest area. It continues— • an owner of or a person in control of the hazardous materials involved in the dangerous situation; or • where any of the entities listed above is a corporation, an executive officer or parent corporation of that corporation. I want to bring that to the attention of the parliament today, because these situations arise on a daily basis in our western regions now, especially where our mining industry is booming and where we do have this type of heavy transport. A lot of people do not know what some of these vehicles are carrying. I think we should be marking areas as ‘dangerous goods areas’ where some of these trucks can pull up. They should be stand-alone dangerous goods areas where only those sorts of trucks can pull up. They should not be filled with caravans or other heavy transport vehicles which have pulled up there. I want the minister to know how serious this issue is. As a former transport minister in this state, I understand fully the rules and regulations regarding the conveyancing of dangerous goods. I would have thought the minister responsible for this bill and the minister for transport would have had an exchange of dialogue about some of the business in this legislation. I urge them to address this as a matter of urgency down the line. I honestly believe that we should have more signage and more stand- alone places where only these types of vehicles can stop so that those truckies do not need to worry about the other people who want to rest in those places in question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Warrego, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students, teachers and parents from Beaudesert State School in the electorate of Beaudesert, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Kevin Lingard. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—LNP) (12.12 pm): I am pleased today to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). This bill does a few things. First, it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of councils and the Environmental Protection Agency. I welcome those changes, particularly in relation to the roles and responsibilities of the councils. The minister said in his second reading speech— The EPA has consulted extensively on the changes with local government and many of the provisions in this bill are at their request. That may be the case. However, a problem arises—and I do not know what it is with this government and this issue—because the government does not seem to want to consult on the final draft of the bill. Local governments had about five days in total where they could comment on the final bill. There is a memorandum of understanding between the state government and local governments that full consultation is undertaken when these bills come into the House. I think it is important to remember that. In this particular case, I think the outcome is okay and we have got a plan that looks like it may work. The problem we have is that some of the ongoing costs are unknown to local governments—that is, some of their costs associated with having to set up some of their own structures to carry out this particular work. I hope the minister will be able to assure the House today that in fact there will be no cost shifting on to local governments. There should not be a further cost for local governments. The costs that have already been passed on to them are bad enough; they certainly do not want any more. In fact, I think the state government should be taking back some of the costs it has passed on to local governments over time. Under this bill, local governments will be responsible for managing environmental nuisance and minor water pollution while the EPA will continue to be responsible for managing more serious cases of environmental harm. Last year, the government amended the act to allow councils to recover the full cost of regulating environmentally relevant activities. That is reasonable enough; those costs can be recovered. If people pollute, whether deliberately or not, councils should be able to recover costs from them if the circumstances permit. We all understand that accidents can happen; however, the bill will give councils appropriate penalties and enforcement tools to manage this area. The minister stated— At present, the Environmental Protection Act requires a successful prosecution for the criminal offence of causing environmental harm before a court order can be obtained to recover clean-up costs. 2938 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008

The new enforcement tools delivered in the bill mean the state can come in earlier, and I think that is quite good. I presume that local governments come under the same clause insofar as they too do not need to get a prosecution to be able to recover costs. If the minister could answer that question, that would be good. These tools will allow the state to respond more quickly in situations where swift action is needed to safeguard the environment and human health. The other part of this bill that is important is in relation to the Nature Conservation Act. The bill amends that act to formalise the status of the independent scientific advisory committee established to assess the impacts of horse riding on the south-east Queensland trail network announced by the government last December. The minister talks about ongoing monitoring and having independent scientists look at the trails and adjacent areas, but the problem is that, while the government’s independent committee will be made up I am sure of very eminent and good people, the reality is it will not be balanced. It will not be balanced at all. The shadow minister made this point in his address earlier. The government has to have horse riders involved on that committee; it has to have stakeholders involved. I do not know of any committee or any investigation where stakeholders are not involved. From what I can see, I do not think they are involved in this committee in a meaningful way. I would like to see a balanced committee made up of more stakeholders. The government has already done an exhaustive investigation about the trails—it was drawn out for so long—and the government finally got to the situation where trails have been designated. Some of them might not be perfect and some do run a bit close to roads and so forth, but the reality is that there needs to be some certainty. The problem is that the government cannot seem to make a decision and stick to it, particularly in relation to these trails. If we want people to be healthy, happy, wise and so forth, there is no better way to become healthy than to go horse riding. The leisure horse industry is very big in this day and age. I certainly recommend it to people if they want to become healthy because they certainly will get healthy. It seems the government wants to have two bob each way. By having this ongoing committee that can keep reporting until 2025—I think that is the figure—the government is having two bob each way. The government is probably trying to pacify the Greens by saying, ‘We’re listening to what you’re saying,’ but the reality is that all the government is doing is creating more uncertainty. The government would be far better off making a decision and getting on with the job. That is what I would like to see. The trails need to be there. People want them. It is the government’s role to deliver them, and I think it should. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—LNP) (12.19 pm): I rise to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill provides amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001, the Integrated Planning Act 1997, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Wild Rivers Act 2005. In his second reading speech the minister states— Many of the changes in this bill are based on a clear principle: local governments will be responsible for managing environmental nuisance and minor water pollution while the EPA will continue to be responsible for managing more serious cases of environmental harm. I would like to bring to the House’s attention an environmental disaster involving a toxic cocktail released from the Mount Leyshon goldmine site into major creeks, rivers and tributaries near Charters Towers during heavy rain on 15 January in which the EPA was invisible. I hope the minister will be able to address this matter, because we need to have the responsibility of the EPA clarified. The Mount Leyshon goldmine is owned by Leyshon Resources Ltd and has been inactive since 2001. Newmont Mining Corporation is responsible for all site maintenance, and the site has not yet been rehabilitated. The contamination came from the overflow of at least five of the mine’s stormwater ponds, highly contaminated skats and flowed into nearby creeks such Puzzler, Clarke, Two Mile, Seventy Mile and other tributaries and then into the Broughton River, which flows into the Burdekin River. After the contamination outbreak, Newmont Mining warned a small number of landowners in close vicinity of the site to get their livestock out of the creeks and not to drink the evidently contaminated water. What the company failed to do was warn up to 100 families further downstream who relied on the water for all domestic livestock and agricultural purposes that their water had the potential to be contaminated. Most alarming is that the company advised the EPA on 16 January—the day after—yet the EPA was invisible up to 20 days after the outbreak. It was unbelievable that families were drinking, bathing and swimming in this water for almost 20 days after the incident which the EPA knew about but did nothing about. During this period there were reports of children with stomach upsets, bird deaths, dead plovers, dead finches, dead galahs, and still families were never made aware of it. The EPA made excuses that it could not get through because floodwaters had cut access to the area, yet there was a bitumen road right to the mine site and access was possible within two days. The mining company immediately used a helicopter to access the contaminated spill. With Treasury’s resources and the ability of departments to access helicopters and four-wheel drives, I cannot see why the EPA found access an insurmountable problem. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2939

The potential risk factor to human health should be a matter requiring urgent action. I suggest that reports of harm or distress to flying foxes would have an army of EPA heavies swarming the town. If the EPA is going to take on the responsibility of major things like this, we want to ensure that they fulfil the duty for which they were put there in the first place. An opposition member interjected. Mr KNUTH: Yes, a balance. It says here that the EPA will continue to be responsible for managing more serious cases of environmental harm. As we can see, this is not a good example of good management. This definitely needs to be brought to the attention of the House. The minister in his second reading speech states— ... local governments will be responsible for managing environmental nuisance and minor water pollution while the EPA will continue to be responsible for managing more serious cases of environmental harm. I would ask the minister what category flying foxes come under. Is it the responsibility of the council, or is it the responsibility of the EPA? I know that the two flying fox species in Charters Towers, which are the black and reds, are non-threatened species under the federal government’s biodiversity act. Therefore, it is a state government responsibility to remove the flying foxes. Yet the state government has done very little regarding the flying foxes. Whose responsibility is it when it comes to flying foxes destroying our pristine trees? Is it the council’s responsibility or is it the EPA’s? Obviously they have been flapping around and roosting in our community for seven years. All we are asking is that the minister come to Charters Towers and not talk about a bat habitat but take a strong stance and say, ‘We will do something.’ I cannot see what the problem is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Charters Towers, can you return to the bill. Mr KNUTH: This is a part of the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like the minister to clarify whose responsibility it is to protect the— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Charters Towers, would you please return to the bill. Mr KNUTH: I will. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister also states in his second reading speech— The bill also amends the Nature Conservation Act 1992 to formalise the status of the independent scientific advisory committee established to assess the impacts of horse riding on the south-east Queensland trail network announced by the government last December. This delivers on our commitment for detailed, ongoing monitoring by independent scientists of the trails themselves and adjacent areas. The minister further states— In addition to identifying impacts, the review process includes a requirement to consider how any identified significant adverse impacts can be addressed. Ultimately, if the impacts cannot be managed, a trail could be removed from the horse-riding network. The bill underpins the important role of expert and impartial advice by specifying that the required assessments must be carried out by a scientific advisory committee consisting of experts in relevant fields, such as conservation biology, freshwater ecology, social science, soil science, sustainable recreation and weed management. I feel sorry for horse riders, because horse riding is an Australian way of life. This country was built on the back of the horse. I cannot see why it is such a crime to ride horses in a national park. The biggest problem that national parks have—and probably the biggest environmental catastrophe besides the cane toad and the feral cat—is the feral pig. Just one pig can tear up a quarter acre of land like a rotary hoe along the banks of the rivers in pristine national parks. I cannot understand why the government is concentrating on horse riding. The greatest crime horse riders can commit at the moment is riding a horse in a national park. A similar issue cost Goss government back in 1996 when he tried to ban fishing in national parks. I cannot understand why the government is so obsessed with kicking people out of national parks. The government spends hundreds of millions of dollars buying up these national parks which become a breeding ground for feral animals and noxious weeds. One of our great Australian pastimes is horse riding. It is something which this country was founded upon, and yet the government wants to set up this committee which will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to assess the environmental impact these horse riders are having. This is absolutely ridiculous. Have members seen what feral pigs do with turtle eggs? Have they seen what feral pigs do with cassowary eggs? Have they seen the soil erosion feral pigs cause? Why is the government not concentrating on a bigger problem rather than horse riders? I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House and hopefully the minister can address that. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (12.29 pm): I want to speak on a couple of issues regarding the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I know that other speakers have asked for clarification about the clean-up notices. It is important that it is very clear whether it is a local government issue or an EPA issue. I note the previous speaker, my colleague from Charters Towers, pleaded for help as to who is responsible for the flying foxes in the city of Charters Towers. The explanatory notes to the bill clearly show that issues regarding environmental nuisance have to be dealt with. They indicate that councils have been seeking advice on this matter. I certainly hope that in his summing-up the minister can clarify for the member for Charters Towers who is responsible for the flying foxes. He sought that information from the minister. It is a big problem for his people. 2940 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008

The issue of dangerous goods which is addressed in this bill is extremely important in my area of Toowoomba. I have mentioned many times in this parliament the thousands of B-doubles and semitrailers that every day trundle through the city and the 16 sets of traffic lights because the second range crossing or the Toowoomba bypass—it is known by the two names—has not got underway. It is very important that we get a priority rating from the state government for this bypass so it can be top of the list and we can relieve the biggest inland city in Australia of the 4,000 to 5,000 B-doubles a day that trundle through the city and 16 sets of traffic lights. Many of these trucks are heading for Mount Isa and the mining areas and have dangerous goods on board. As the member for Gregory correctly pointed out, because he has a great knowledge in this area, nitrophyl, explosives and diesel are an absolutely lethal mix. Many of us remember the truck that exploded between Taroom and Theodore and tragically killed two or three people. A truck heading for the mines had broken down. A couple of station hands or property owners came over on their motorbikes to provide some help and the whole thing blew up and left a massive crater in the highway. It is important when discussing the issues around dangerous goods that we recognise that big cities like Toowoomba have trucks trundling through them with these goods on board. There are regulation and safety arrangements surrounding these trucks but these sorts of transports should be going through a bypass. That is another reason we need a priority listing of this project in the major capital works program of this state. We are getting some much needed improvements to the main north-south highway through Toowoomba, Ruthven Street. One of the icons of our city has been the huge, magnificent trees, the camphor laurels and the London plane trees. When the first plan for the improvement to a section of Ruthven Street was put forward by the Department of Main Roads it showed that whilst those trees on either side of the road would be cut down, replacement foliage would be put through a major centre median strip. It is a great disappointment to many of us in the city that as this has progressed what will be placed there will be substantially less than was outlined in the first plan. It is those sorts of things that are very important to the environment of a city. The trees of Toowoomba are an iconic part of Queensland. I want to speak particularly about horse trail riding in the south-east Queensland forest trails network. The outbreak of EI last year demonstrated what a massive contributor to the economy the pleasure and performance horse industry is. It makes up at least 10 per cent of the horse industry with the balance being the racing industry. It is a huge part of the economy, and particularly so in south-east Queensland. At a time when we are talking about the importance of balancing our lifestyle and when we are talking about people being active, involved in clubs and undertaking activities that can reduce obesity— and that is anything ranging from walking to riding horses to playing sport—I think it is important to ensure that throughout south-east Queensland the horse trail networks, like the ones through our state forests, are maintained. They are a very important social and recreational pastime for south-east Queenslanders. It is important to have walking trails for people. It is important to have beaches that the public can access freely. They need to be able to swim in the beaches and the rivers. They need to be able to climb mountains and walk through national parks. People need to be able to ride horses, which is such a big part of life in the bush and the open areas of south-east Queensland. One of the important issues that has been missed in this legislation with regard to the review committee is that this committee should be balanced. It would make sense to have a representative of the Queensland Horse Council—which represents all of the pleasure and performance horse organisations of the state—on the committee. An officer of that council resides within the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. There is good contact there with the government. It is important to have a representative from ATHRA, the Australian Trail Horse Riders Association, or representatives from horse riding groups or trail riding clubs on the Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast hinterland, for example. This would mean that there would be a good balance and if there was a particular issue or problem then it could be addressed by the review committee. This legislation puts in place this committee. Balanced representation would mean the committee could address the issues that may come up. The only thing that horses can do is some form of physical damage by riding on the trails or the paths but that is quite limited and it grows over quickly. That could be addressed by having the right sort of people on the committee who could say that the trails could be alternated. The areas where horses are loaded and unloaded and camped before they go on the ride could be managed in a particular way. I have heard it said at times that horses introduce weeds to our forests. I think that is highly overstated. Most of the horses used for these sorts of rides are stabled before they are ridden or in yards. All horses today are handfed on pellets. The pellets are steam extruded. They are specially designed treated pellets. They are not like race horse pellets that get them fired up to go. They give them plenty of energy but still keep them calm and do not make them hot so kids and older people can ride them. They are fed lucerne hay. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2941

The risk of any damage to our forests is negligible. But if there is a problem, say someone has got their horse on oats and a couple of oat seeds pop up here and there, those things can be handled if we have the right sort of balance on the committee. I think that is a very important issue for the minister to address. I know our shadow minister wants to address it. That is all that horse people are looking for. They are asking for a fair go. We all remember the massive protests outside this parliament. It is an indication of how strongly those people felt. It is an indication of how enormous the horse recreation industry is and how important it is to the health and wellbeing and economy of south-east Queensland. For that reason we need to have a balance on the review committee looking at horse trail riding in south- east Queensland. The government promised the horse riding fraternity that it would provide these trails. Then there was all the drama when it said that they could ride alongside railway lines and so forth, which is dangerous for kids and families. Things can happen there. Our forests are beautiful, safe, iconic places in which to ride and places in which to appreciate our environment. People can learn about our forests, enjoy the forests and have a real understanding and respect for our forests. The horse riding industry is a wonderful pleasure industry. I ask the minister to take note of the need for balance on that review committee. \ Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (12.39 pm): I rise to support the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. This bill predominantly provides for amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992 as well as a few other acts. This bill will improve the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Act as it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of councils and the Environmental Protection Agency. It is important to note that regional councils will be responsible for managing environmental nuisance and minor water pollution while the EPA will continue to be responsible for managing more serious cases of environmental harm. Therefore, each level of government will have the ability to set appropriate conditions for the developments they approve and to impose penalties if those conditions are breached. In my electorate there is a flurry of building occurring—residential, industrial and major infrastructure. This raises the chance that environmental harm can occur and is something that local residents are very concerned about. The same applies to the urban/rural interface which sometimes causes issues, particularly around noise and pollution. This bill gives councils the power to tailor local environmental standards by allowing them to implement local laws for nuisance matters, and I support that. It is also important to note that the penalties for environmental nuisance, air pollution and water pollution are being increased to provide a better deterrent to degrading our environment. I now want to turn my attention to the provisions in the Nature Conservation Act requiring horse riding impacts on the south-east Queensland horse trail network to be assessed. The horse trail network, as we know, was announced by the government in December 2007 and passes through proposed new national parks in south-east Queensland. As the House is also aware, the south-east Queensland Forestry Act is the historic agreement between conservationists, the timber industry and the state Labor government which has delivered 260,000 hectares of new national parks so far, with a total of 504,000, and it is vital that we protect these environmentally sensitive areas. The provisions in the bill give effect to the government’s commitment to ensure that any harmful impacts of horse riding on the trail network and adjacent areas will be identified and addressed. There will be a comprehensive monitoring program which will evaluate impacts at representative locations along the trail network. The monitoring program will not just single out horse riding impacts; it will take account of the cumulative effect of all activities occurring on the trails, including official use by rangers. The monitoring process will investigate a range of potential impacts such as soil erosion, degradation of water quality and the spread of weeds. Monitoring will also investigate social impacts such as attitudes and expectations of the community and impacts on recreational use. This is a very important aspect of the bill, as currently we have a mix of uses within our national parks—from motorbikes to four-wheel drivers to walkers and horse riders—and we need to make sure that we provide balance and we need to ensure that all recreational impacts are considered. This is very important in my area, because it is surrounded by a lot of state forest which has become or will soon become national park. We obviously have a range of trail runners who use those areas. Horse riding activity currently occurs through a national park just because of the historic use. We need to make sure that all of those impacts are considered and that each recreational user is also considerate of what other people are doing in the park. There is actually nothing worse than walking along some of the trails to be confronted by piles and piles of horse manure which just ruins the experience of the natural environment. We need to make sure that we find ways of mitigating that. We also need to make sure that we are not doing any more harm to these lovely areas than we have. The member for Toowoomba South said that if a few weeds get in that is okay. A few weeds getting in is not okay. If we find that horse riding is bringing that impact forward, then we need to make sure that is mitigated. It is not about saying, ‘A little bit of this weed is okay, but that’s not okay when the pigs are there.’ As a government we need to ensure that we are providing safe areas that are sensitive and that we make sure we protect them. That is our obligation to ourselves and to future generations as well. 2942 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008

Information gathered under the monitoring program will be assessed by a scientific advisory committee consisting of experts in a range of relevant fields including conservation biology, freshwater ecology, social science, soil science, sustainable recreation and weed management. In order to ensure impartial advice, the bill requires the scientific advisory committee members to be independent of government agencies and stakeholders that may have particular interests in decisions affecting horse riding on the trail network. I have heard criticism of this from the opposite side during the debate and a wish to have riding associations represented. I need to emphasise that this needs to be a rigorous scientific process, not one that just has all of the vested interests on it. They will be consulted, obviously, as part of the ongoing process—as they have been to date, and I am sure that will continue. However, we need to ensure that if we are undertaking a scientific process here we have all of the correct representatives on the committee, and I support the minister in his desire to do that. The assessments provided by the scientific advisory committee will be used to review the areas that make up the horse trail network. In addition to identifying the nature and extent of impacts, the review process includes a requirement to consider how any identified significant adverse impacts can be addressed. Ultimately, if the impacts cannot be managed, as the minister has said, a trail could be removed from the horse riding network. Once again, that is something that we will take into careful consideration but, as I have also said, we need to be protecting these sensitive areas. The review process will start immediately on proclamation, with priority to be given to identifying and monitoring the most vulnerable sites, and the review of all areas in the network must be completed by 2025. The provisions in the bill serve to formalise the scientific monitoring process that the government quickly moved to establish after announcing the trail network last December. A scientific advisory committee has been appointed comprising eight distinguished scientists chaired by Dr Marc Hockings of the University of Queensland. The committee has been actively working with the Environmental Protection Agency and stakeholder groups to develop the necessary monitoring program, and I note that long-term funding has been allocated to the EPA to secure the operation of the monitoring process. I take this opportunity to commend the minister on all of the work that he has done, his ministerial staff who have provided him with support and obviously the departmental officers who, as we know, always work hard to ensure that our environment is protected. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (12.45 pm), in reply: At the outset I want to thank all of the honourable members who have contributed to this debate and acknowledge the broad support across the House, including from the LNP and indeed the new Greens member. That must mean that we are doing something right to bring those different ends of the political spectrum together. I appreciate that support and the many members who have said that this is good environmental legislation. The speeches given during this debate have covered a number of areas, and I will try to perhaps just very quickly draw them together in three broad areas before picking up some particular questions asked during the second reading debate. The three broad areas are the responsibilities of local government and the related processes, clean-up notices and how they are issued, and an overwhelming number of members who have spoken have been concerned in relation to the horse riding committee, the funding allocated to that committee and how that process will work. In relation to the issue of local government, I want to say this at the outset: a number of members made contributions in which they suggested that this was a process of forcing local government to take on more responsibility—that is, taking state responsibilities and passing them on to local government without local government’s consent or involvement. I say at the outset that that is just rubbish—absolute rubbish. Members who stand up in this place have an obligation to be better informed around some of these issues. The consultation in relation to this process with local government has been going on for five years. In 2003 a process was commenced to review the roles of local government and the EPA. A report to the LGAQ and the EPA produced in January 2004 by both agencies—it is a joint document—was the starting point for this legislation. Members who come to this place and say that local government does not know anything about this and that local government does not support this really need to explain how it is that they draw their parliamentary salary. The speech by the member for Nanango is one of the worst that I have ever heard and she should hand back her pay for the day. Some of the things that she said around the allegations that local government does not know about this, that local government does not support this and that this is just pushing responsibility on to local government simply indicate that she is not merely ignorant of the provisions of the bill but clearly does not have the slightest idea of the processes by which the bill was arrived at. The most perfunctory consideration of this report indicates just how deeply involved local government has been in this process in terms of ‘seeking clarification and the operation of those roles and responsibilities is the subject of this review’. This report goes on to look in some considerable depth at the arrangements between the EPA and local government for ongoing improvement in the monitoring and outcomes in the area of the environment and particularly picks up the point about the need for evidence based reporting, something about which I will say more in relation to horse trails shortly. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2943

There is no question whatsoever that this bill picks up exactly the issues identified by local government in this report in seeking a review of relevant legislation to enable local government to autonomously set fees and penalties up to full cost recovery. That is precisely what has already been done with the EPOLA (No. 1) bill. We have moved to legislate to allow local government to do full cost recovery in this area, which was their request, which was their joint recommendation for reform in this area and which completely debunks any suggestion, which was unfortunately made repeatedly by members on the other side, that somehow local government is going to be stuck with costs in this regard. This is what local government asked for and this is what the government has delivered. Similarly, this document asks the government to come forward with a series of very clear guidelines on the thresholds for incidents being covered to establish appropriate mechanisms to fund clean-up costs. That is precisely what has happened. This bill represents, I think, a high-water mark in state government working with local government to identify gaps in legislation and to identify opportunities to improve environmental monitoring and outcomes for all of the people we represent. To suggest that this has been done without local government involvement is to be at best ignorant of the facts and, regretfully, that was repeated on a number of occasions. I just pick up the other point that this 2004 report makes, which is that, relative to some other legislative frameworks, environmental protection is new and not as mature in its operation and continues to evolve at a pace that challenges administration. Local government and the state government recognise that responsibilities are going to evolve in this area. That is explicitly what this joint local government-EPA report says. So this, of course, will not be the last EPOLA bill. This will not be the last realignment of roles and responsibilities between the EPA and local government. I thank local government for their involvement. It should be noted that the member for Warrego suggested that local government had not had adequate time to consult on this process. Again, the member was ignorant, I guess, of the five years that had been in play and, indeed, that the full detail of the legislation was made available to local government for nearly a fortnight prior to it coming to this place. Overwhelmingly, only one council objected. That particular council wanted to restart—go right back to the beginning and start from scratch. That obviously was not in the interests of all of those other local governments that had been responsible and played their part. I also pick up the point that was made early on by the member for Surfers Paradise. I thank him for his constructive comments. They were indeed worthwhile, and I understand he was filling in at short notice for the shadow minister who has been unavailable due to personal matters. The member for Surfers Paradise asked whether councils have asked for resources. I guess that is my starting point. Resources for this process have been built into this legislation in accordance with councils’ long-term requests to have that happen. That is in addition, I should add, to the $2 million that has been provided to local governments for any necessary capital acquisitions in this process. The member for Surfers Paradise raised the issue of definitions of ‘serious environmental harm’ and ‘material environmental harm’. They are set out in the Environmental Protection Act. Section 16 defines ‘material environmental harm’. Section 17 defines ‘serious environmental harm’. I do not know that I need to go through the process of reading both of those provisions into Hansard. They are available. But it is simply a difference between serious environmental harm, where the matter is irreversible or of a very high impact or widespread, and material environmental harm, which is not trivial or negligible in nature but does cause actual loss or potential loss of damage to a property of an amount of or totalling more than $5,000 but less than $50,000. There are some further provisions there, but it is an attempt to give very specific definitions that are easy to read in plain English. The member also posed the question whether Queensland was not soft in the penalties that are set out as compared with New South Wales. The penalties in New South Wales for noncompliance with a clean-up notice are for a corporation $1 million plus $120,000 for each day the offence continues and for an individual $250,000. In Queensland, under this legislation it will be $150,000 for an individual or $750,000 for a corporation. So the penalties are potentially a little higher in Queensland than they are in New South Wales for an individual but a bit lower for corporations. These are still very significant penalties and I am sure the honourable member, living so close to the New South Wales border— Mr LANGBROEK: I rise to a point of order. Can I take a point of clarification from the minister? I think the minister said $750,000 for corporations. Mr McNAMARA: Yes. Mr LANGBROEK: I think the explanatory notes state it is $300,000. I might seek the minister’s clarification when we consider the relevant clause. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! That would be a better time. Mr McNAMARA: These are still very substantial penalties, and I am sure the honourable member would concede that we do not have to mimic everything that happens in New South Wales for there still to be a good outcome for Queensland. The member might be looking at a slightly different penalty for serious environmental harm, where the penalty is $312,375 for an individual and $1.561 million for a corporation. Nevertheless, there are some different penalties under different clauses. 2944 Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee 08 Oct 2008

The member for Nicklin raised some issues in relation to the guidelines for farmers. This is a matter about which I met with him, and I have had some long discussions with him and departmental officers about how we provide for ongoing rural activities and make clear that urban encroachment should not shut down their reasonable operations which, in many cases, have been ongoing. The member for Nicklin raised the issue of the draft Rural Futures Strategy for South East Queensland. That document states— Planning for rural areas involves more than simply maintaining rural use zones—it requires managing urban growth, encouraging compact rural settlement and ensuring rural industries are able to undertake normal daily productive activities. ...

The rural precinct planning process promotes the development of local solutions to local issues ... government has developed rural precinct planning guidelines to support local governments in establishing rural precincts. Importantly, this legislation also recognises that pre-existing uses of land should be taken into account. This legislation makes it very clear that the ‘nimby, too’ syndrome of ‘now it’s my backyard’ should not operate to shut down rural industries that have been operating to provide those necessary goods that we all need to live on. In particular, this legislation provides that the order of occupancy between the person causing the emission and the affected person is to be one of the criteria to be taken into account when considering issuing a directions notice. So it does matter who was there first. This legislation makes that clear. That does not detract from the fact that farmers should, of course, strive to meet contemporary environmental standards. That is important in their farming practices. But this will certainly assist rural industries to respond effectively and efficiently to the changes that impact upon them. The member for Burnett asked a question about how, had this bill been in place, the outcomes of the Binary incident would be different. That is something of a hypothetical question. As well, the member also asked about the costs of the Binary incident, as it has been ongoing. In relation to the costs, I can inform the House that, as at May 2008, the total cost incurred by the state of Queensland thus far in cleaning up the environmental harm caused by the Binary fire is $6,030,119.18—a very substantial sum. That total is made up of two parts: $4.8 million in relation to remediation of the site and a further $1.1 million relating to EPA costs per person hours dedicated to the delivery of the project outcomes. Unfortunately, that is clearly a matter that is ongoing. But that cost indicates the need to get these things right. In relation to how things will be different, one of the issues that has to be dealt with when you are acting quickly when there has been some sort of environmental spill is to get in and make things happen, not be stuck worrying about whose responsibility it is or whose fault it is. That is why this whole process of directions notices give us the capacity to move quickly and to sort out some of these issues afterwards. It simply is a case that if we are going to reduce costs in these circumstances then the earlier we can begin remediation work the better and afterwards we can let costs follow the chain of causation as necessary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Before we adjourn, I would like to welcome to the parliament teachers and students from Genesis Christian College in the electorate of Kurwongbah, which is represented in this House by Linda Lavarch. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Debate, on motion of Mr McNamara, adjourned.

INVESTIGATION INTO ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY COMMITTEE

Report; Notice of Motion Mrs LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (2.30 pm): I seek leave to table the report of the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee, Investigation into the decriminalisation and regulation of altruistic surrogacy in Queensland, October 2008, and the submissions to the investigation that the committee has authorised for publication and tabling. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee, Report titled ‘Investigation into the Decriminalisation and Regulation of Altruistic Surrogacy in Queensland’, October 2008 Tabled paper: Submissions received by the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee (two folders). Mrs LAVARCH: I would like to report that the committee has unanimously agreed that altruistic surrogacy should be decriminalised in Queensland. However, the committee has also taken a cautionary approach. Our position should not be interpreted as encouraging surrogacy. In the report the committee makes 26 recommendations to ensure the Queensland government develops an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework for altruistic surrogacy. The committee is agreed that the government’s role is to ensure the protection of vulnerable people from harm without unduly restricting 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2945 the liberty of consenting adults. The committee’s recommendations also reflect its view that the government should ensure parity for families created through altruistic surrogacy by providing a mechanism to transfer legal parentage to the intending parents. The committee would also like to record its appreciation for the assistance provided by Julie Conway, Jaana Hokkanen and Angeline Curran from the secretariat and other Parliamentary Service staff for this report. I would like to thank the other members of the committee for their commitment, cooperation and support in undertaking this challenging investigation. I commend the committee’s report to the House and give notice that I intend to move that the House takes note of the report.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from p. 2944, on motion of Mr McNamara— That the bill be now read a second time. Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (2.32 pm), continuing in reply: I now turn to an issue that occupied the minds of quite a number of members during the second reading debate. That relates to horse riding in the state forests that are to be transferred to national park. I thank members for their contributions. I understand that the opposition will move an amendment that we will consider in due course. At the outset I would say that there has been some fundamental misapprehension about what the bill intends to do in relation to the science that we are seeking to put in place. As I have acknowledged publicly, the simple fact is there is not sufficient or adequate science about the impact of horse riding on trails in national parks. There simply is not sufficient science. In circumstances where there is no clear evidence of either detrimental effects or an absence of detrimental effects, the government has chosen to proceed on the basis of allowing horse riding to continue on form management roads and we will put in place a very well based and grounded scientific program to properly assess any damage. We will do a proper longitudinal study so that we can put this issue to rest scientifically. This is about getting the science in place. Some of the contributions to the debate were a bit florid. The member for Darling Downs had one of his typically incoherent rants, which added nothing to the debate. He quoted from a 7.30 Report interview that I and others did on this issue. I note that he did not choose to quote David Somerville, from the Australian Horse Alliance, who appeared in the same interview. Mr Somerville said— We, at this point in time, have been successful with being granted 95 per cent of what we asked for. Therefore, the people who have carried on about this bill somehow being a dreadful outcome for those who ride horses on these trails have simply ignored the fact that the horse riders themselves have already publicly expressed a very strong satisfaction with the outcome of the legislation. They have been consulted extensively during the legislation process, particularly in relation to the methodologies for the scientific committee that is to be formed, and they have been involved in a two-day workshop, working on those processes. At the end of the day, what is to be achieved by that scientific committee is good science. It is not a stakeholder reference group, it is not a management group and it is not about terms of reference for issuing licences. It is about science, pure and simple. Neither the government nor I want advocates of a position to be on that committee; we want science. Dr Marc Hockings and the other committee members come to that table with extensive scientific knowledge, great scientific backgrounds and all of their own academic integrity to give the government the proper long-term science that will be required to settle this particular gap in our approach to seeking evidence based policy. At this time we are giving certainty to horse riders in relation to agreements that have been made with them and our stated election commitment from 2006. However, there is a hole and I intend to fill it with good science. I am disappointed that some former Liberal members have chosen to follow their new National Party masters down the path of rejecting the need for science and instead have decided that it would be better to fill a scientific committee with people who have already made up their minds—that is, people who come from a perspective of ‘this is what we should have and this is how it has always been’. It is not about that. The Liberal Party once had a very proud tradition in this area. Robert Menzies himself considered that his proudest accomplishments from his time in political life were his contributions to universities and higher education in better forming Australia’s national life around our debates. I think a real shame and one of the clear downsides of the takeover of the Liberal Party by the National Party is that Liberal Party members who might otherwise have said, ‘Yes, we see the value of good science,’ have chosen to fall in line with the book burners and go down this path. Nevertheless, we shall have evidence based policy. Effectively, the scientific committee is already resolved. We have spoken to the relevant members of that committee and we expect to see them proceed down this path. 2946 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008

I want to deal with a couple of points that were raised in relation to the scientific committee. The money for the scientific committee is not being paid in large sums to the members of the committee. The committee is designing a series of longitudinal studies and projects which, by and large, will be carried out by the EPA. Science officers from the EPA will perform various tasks to obtain the necessary information. The $150,000 per year is an estimate of the cost to the EPA of buying and maintaining monitoring equipment, doing the monitoring and research, travel and meeting some reasonable reimbursement costs for committee members. However, it is very much the intention to gather the science and for the EPA to do that work after the scientific committee meets and sets parameters. There are 547 kilometres of trails in these forest reserves. It is a big job. They will want to monitor the patterns of use by horse riders and other users. They will be looking in detail at the weed distributions and causes of any changes over periods of time. They will be looking at trail compositions and conditions. They will be looking at soil stability and vegetation. They will be looking at water quality in the streams. There is a stack of scientific work here where we just do not have knowledge. It is the government’s intention to fill that gap with first-class knowledge. In relation to the time frames for reporting, again it has been suggested that leaving this until 2025 is not in the interests of certainty. It is precisely to make sure that we have genuine certainty around this that that end date has been inserted. But it should be clearly noted that clause 95, which inserts new section 70JB(4), provides that monitoring and evaluation must be conducted over a period long enough to assess the likely impacts of horse riding use. The clause was specifically included to assure horse riders that decisions would not be based on premature information such as very short-term impacts. We want everyone to understand that this is a serious long-term study. But the clause also indicates the intention to consider results ahead of 2025 as long as adequate information is available. The terms of reference will be formalised shortly to confirm the responsibilities of the committee. Those terms of reference will specify details about reporting intervals—for example, they could easily include interim annual reporting to give us a feel for how it is going. With those few words, I thank all of the members who have contributed. I particularly thank the member for Brisbane Central, who has been closely involved in this legislation and who has had ongoing concerns in relation to noise and construction noise in the inner city. This is a big issue for all of those people who are seeing gentrification and higher urban infill in inner-city areas. Her involvement in this has been very welcome. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Mr LANGBROEK (2.42 pm): I would like some clarification from the minister about something he just referred to in his summing-up that I had noted in the explanatory notes in relation to clause 28 and the insertion of section 363I, and that is the proposed maximum penalties. The minister made the point that we do not need to match New South Wales in terms of the amounts. But could he explain to us how the quantum amounts were arrived at in terms of the differences between what they decided to do in New South Wales and why it was decided to go with the amounts that we have here in Queensland. Also, could the minister give us some explanation, if possible, in regard to what he said in his summing-up about the actual amounts. I have looked through other clauses to find those other amounts he mentioned in relation to corporations being fined up to $750,000. Is it just in relation to clean-up notices where the maximum is $300,000 for a corporation and $150,000 for an individual? He also mentioned up to $312,500 for individuals. I seek some clarification from the minister about those aspects. Mr McNAMARA: The issue of quantum of penalties is always in some ways a partly objective one. We will always look at other jurisdictions and what they are doing. But in the end it is a question of what is considered to be reasonable in all the circumstances here having regard to what the previous penalties were and where we are. So the penalties which we have attached to this bill we think are reasonable. As I mentioned before, with a clean-up notice there is a penalty of up to 2,000 penalty units, which equates to $150,000 for an individual or $750,000 for a corporation. We think that is a reasonable incentive for people to head down that track, remembering of course that people can under this legislation pursue someone else who they think might be ultimately responsible if they have had to incur costs. For a very serious matter, it is likely that the EPA would also seek to bring prosecution against a person responsible for causing serious environmental harm. Again, the maximum penalty for a person who wilfully unlawfully causes serious environmental harm is 4,165 penalty units, which is $312,000-odd for an individual or $1½ million for a corporation or five years imprisonment. The prospect of imprisonment is often a more serious inducement to do the right thing than any fine. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2947

The issue of reasonable costs that can be added on to these sums for organisations like the EPA which are involved in seeking costs on these matters is well understood. It is a perfectly well-understood concept in the courts. It is used in lots of Queensland legislation and has been interpreted by the courts on many occasions. Internal costs can be itemised for the courts by giving evidence of the number of hours spent and multiplying that by a standard rate depending on the Public Service level of the officer involved. Again, there are no hard and fast rules here. We think that the penalties are substantial, reflect the seriousness of the issues, are broadly in accordance with what other jurisdictions are doing and are appropriate at this time. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 40, as read, agreed to. Clause 41— Mr WELLINGTON (2.47 pm): I note that clause 41 talks about power boat sports in waterways, amplifier devices, open-air events, indoor venues, refrigerated equipment, air-conditioning equipment, pumps and it goes on. Section 440Z ‘Power boat sports in waterway’ states— (1) A person must not use a power boat, or permit the use of a power boat, in a waterway for a power boat sport if the use makes audible noise for the same affected building for more than a continuous period of 2 minutes— (a) on a business day or Saturday, before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m;’ or (b) on any other day, before 8 a.m. or after 6.30 p.m. Then there are the definitions of ‘power boat sport’ and ‘waterway’ and it goes on. I have spoken in this chamber before about the serious noise pollution caused by trail bikes. Other members from the government and opposition have spoken about the issue of trail bikes. I ask the minister: why can’t we have similar legislation to this sort of bill which talks about environmental nuisance to deal with this very contentious issue throughout all of Queensland? It is not just an issue on the Sunshine Coast in my electorate on a Sunday and during the week. It is not just an issue in suburban Brisbane early in the morning or on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. It is not just an issue in Cairns and north Queensland. It is an issue throughout all of Queensland. Why can’t we have similar protection to what is being proposed here—that is, protection from environmental nuisance caused by power boats—for people who are currently having to put up with environmental nuisance caused by noisy trail bikes? I clarify: it is the noise from the trail bikes which is the issue. It is not just the trail bikes; it is the noise. I can listen to trucks, V8 motor cars, six-cylinder motor cars or four-cylinder motor cars going down the road, yet you can hear a two-stroke motorbike or a little four-stroke motorbike for miles. They are louder than peacocks, they are louder than the massive trucks on our highways, but we do not see similar strong leadership to deal with this issue of environmental nuisance caused by trail bikes. I know we have discussed this in the past and I have raised it with the minister. Why can’t this state government lead in Australia? Why can’t Queensland have a universal muffler that is fitted to trail bikes to remove this very real issue of noise pollution and nuisance from our trail bikes? I do not believe we would have the level of anxiety and anger in our community that we have at the moment about our trail bikes. So I am asking: can we have similar strong legislation to what the minister is proposing here? Further, would the minister support the government calling for a prize for people who invented a universal muffler that was fitted to our trail bikes to try to allay these concerns? We have had solar hot water system rebates and rainwater tank rebates. Maybe we can do something else to lead the way on this very contentious issue of noisy trail bike nuisance in Queensland. Mr McNAMARA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I understand it is a genuine and heartfelt issue. The short answer is that this legislation does not deal with nuisance relating to the noise from trail bikes because that issue is dealt with in other legislation. As the member is aware, in the circumstances he is talking about, the nuisance and noise from trail bikes is managed through the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; the nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act apply where there is not another relevant or applicable piece of legislation. In this case, trail bikes are managed under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and that is considered to be the appropriate place for it to be dealt with. There are a number of other issues in relation to the management of trail bike noise and the operation of that law, but I do not want to take up the time today when we are debating the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) to work through the provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. I could do that but that is not really part of this legislation. I will say though that the suggestion the honourable member made about a universal muffler being mandatorily fitted to all bikes sounds simple when it is said quickly, but all vehicle standards in Australia start off with the Australian Transport Council with mandated centralised standards. If we wanted to force manufacturers and importers to meet certain vehicle standards, it would not be a small 2948 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008 thing to simply say that they must be built with or have some particular piece of equipment fitted to them. There is a process which the transport minister works through with the Australian Transport Council to determine those standards in relation to vehicles across Australia. Again, that is not part of the operation of this bill. This bill certainly seeks to push this far and further than we have ever gone before in relation to regulating noise nuisance. The member referred to power boats, which is something that the member for Broadwater has brought to me on numerous occasions, and I am pleased to have that amendment in this bill for consideration. Regretfully, I cannot take the issue of trail bikes any further in this legislation. It is regulated under another piece of law. Clause 41, as read, agreed to. Clauses 42 to 65, as read, agreed to. Clause 66— Mr LANGBROEK (2.54 pm): My question is about clause 66, which is the insertion of schedule 1AA ‘Exclusions relating to environmental nuisance or environmental harm’. The explanatory notes under paragraph 2, ‘Government activities and public infrastructure’, state— Local governments requested an exemption for ‘out of hours’ maintenance, repair and emergency works associated with essential community infrastructure or facilities such as roads, bridges, sewerage and water supply ... The legislation itself in clause 66 on page 78 does not mention that it is out-of-hours maintenance, as contrasted to the clause the member for Nicklin just referred to. Can I have some clarification there? It seems to indicate that this could be very frustrating for householders. If there is work being done, the government—and I presume it means the local government or it could be the state government—would be excused from the offence of environmental nuisance supposedly because it was going to be out-of-hours maintenance but that is not specified there on page 78 under paragraph 2 of clause 66. Mr McNAMARA: I thank the honourable member for the question. The schedule again sets out some matters which are excluded from the aspects of environmental nuisance. There are a range of reasons where it is considered appropriate for other mechanisms to perhaps be employed. These exclusions do not extend to planning decisions, and administering authorities can still condition proponents in environmental approvals to manage the environmental nuisance caused by the matters. Most of the exclusions in this part are because the environmental nuisance is simply better managed in a different way, by conditioning of development approvals. Accordingly, it is simply a recognition that some things need to not be part of the nuisance. Non- domestic animal noises and cooking odours were excluded, for example, by section 6G and 6K. We will continue to seek feedback in these areas but the feedback there from councils was that those types of exclusions should apply. So it is about exclusions from the standard rules where we understand that there will be a noise or an odour that will happen in the evening, for example, but it is that sort of thing where we say that as a society we do like Indian restaurants very much and it is therefore appropriate that there be some slightly different standards in that regard. Clause 66, as read, agreed to. Clauses 67 to 93, as read, agreed to. Clause 94— Mr WELLINGTON (2.58 pm): Minister, I would like to definitely comment on clause 94, in particular 70BA which is headed ‘SEQ horse riding trail network’. The bill says— ‘(1) The SEQ horse riding trail network is the network of horse riding trails in South East Queensland designated as ‘finalised horse trails’ on maps held by the department for this section. ‘(2) Copies of the maps may be inspected, free of charge, on the department’s website and, during office hours on business days, at the department’s head office. There is even a note that says— The department’s website is .’. I say thank you on behalf of the horse riders on the Sunshine Coast. As I said earlier during my contribution, I have received many, many calls where people have said, ‘Thank you for the trails that you have put out there for publication.’ They certainly appreciate them and they have certainly taken the time to inspect them. Many have been through the process as long as I and other members in this House and departmental staff have. Finally, it is great to see we have some trails out there which we can be proud of. If it is the case that the opposition’s amendments or my amendments are not successful and we end up with the expert panel that is currently contained in the bill, I certainly hope that common sense will prevail and those trails that we have come to use for years and years and years will be able to continue for the future generations of our wonderful part of Queensland. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2949

Prior to the election of Mr Elmes, the current Minister for Child Safety joined with me and other people from the electorate of Noosa and we went horse riding on some of these trails. I must say that I was a bit saddle sore and I think she was, too. I thank the government for listening to our concerns, because I know that initially that trail was not proposed to be included. We appreciate that the minister took the time out of her busy schedule to come to the Sunshine Coast and to go for a ride. I say thank you again for listening. I hope that our current proposed trails will be able to continue for the good of the region. The composition may change and there may be some reasons found to take some off the current maps. If we can continue to publicise the horse riding trails, I think there will be great support to see this open a whole new venture for the Sunshine Coast and south-east Queensland. I and other members have spoken in the past about horse riders being the eyes and ears of our great open country. There is so much goodwill out there from our horse riders who have been protesting and rallying outside our chamber in the past. Let us see if this government can harness that goodwill and move forward to another chapter where we have a strong partnership in our forests—be they national parks, be they state forests or whatever they may be. I say thank you for those maps. They have been studied by many of my constituents and other constituents from the Sunshine Coast region. Mr ELMES: I seek a quick clarification from the minister regarding the map which I passed to him yesterday and the eight horse trails shown on it. Can the minister clarify that they, too, will remain open until such time as the committee which he is in the process of setting up has made a determination? Mr McNAMARA: As agreeable as I would like to be, I cannot give the member for Noosa that commitment today. I thank him very much for passing over the map. I have had an opportunity to look at it. The trails which are to be preserved under this legislation are the ones marked on the map in red lines. The member has identified a couple of areas—Nos 8 and 6; one in the Tewantin Forest Reserve and one in the Woondum Forest Reserve—where trails have been taken out. This was all done after extensive consultation with user groups. On some occasions, trails were deleted because there were some concerns about safety—the trails were not in good shape and it was considered better to take them out right up-front—or they were considered to be in areas where they were clearly going to do some environmental damage on soft soils. The 500-plus kilometres of trails which have been left in are ones where there has been consultation. We have had horse riders tell us that they are trails they really do use. An inspection of them indicates that they are safe and there is no obvious environmental harm visible to the naked eye. That is not the end of the issue but that is the rationale. To the extent that a single trail has been taken out of both of those sizeable areas, those are the sorts of reasons for those decisions. The other six trails which the member identified are all in state forests, but they are in state forests which are not proposed to become national parks under the EPOLA legislation. Those trails will effectively stay open. Trails in state commercial regrowth forests will stay open until trees get cut down and the trails disappear in the normal course of commercial operations. For some of those trails the arrangements are not so much set in stone—for example, where they go through commercial forests. The reason that the other trails are not part of this legislation is simply that they will not be governed by the Environmental Protection Act. What we are doing here for the first time is allowing horse riding in national parks. In state forests that are going to be upgraded to national parks we are allowing horse riding to continue. In state forests which are not becoming national parks, riding will continue for as long as there is a forest and a safe arrangement that can be maintained. That is the answer on those eight trails. Clause 94, as read, agreed to. Clause 95 (Insertion of new ss 70JA and 70JB)— Mr WELLINGTON (3.04 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 95 (Insertion of new ss 70JA and 70JB) At page 99, line 25— Omit ‘must’; and Insert ‘may’. Clause 70JA(1) currently reads— The chief executive must review the areas within forest reserves that comprise horse riding trails in the SEQ horse riding trail network. My proposal is that the mandatory word ‘must’ be replaced with the discretionary word ‘may’. The reason I am proposing this is that horse riders have been riding many of these trails for years—for longer than some of us have been on planet earth. If it is the case that there has been no detrimental effect to date on some of these significant horse riding trails, why do we need to go through the process of having this new independent panel spend the time and resources in investigating these trails, if quite clearly to the ordinary man— Ms Grace: And woman. 2950 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008

Mr WELLINGTON:—and woman it is shown that there is no detrimental effect being caused to these trails? One case in point is a fire trail. Regularly the grader or the dozer goes along and grades the fire trail. It is on a boundary between private property and future national park. It is currently crown land. Every couple of years the dozer or the grader goes around and dozes this as a fire break. That has been happening for many years, and there is no plan to change it. It does not seem sensible to me to require this independent panel to spend time, resources and energy—and at the end of the day taxpayers’ money—in investigating and studying a proposed trail. If my amendment were supported the committee would simply say, ‘It is not necessary to take our time. Let’s move forward to look at some more sensitive horse riding trails that we believe we need to investigate.’ What I am asking is for common sense to apply and for the independent panel to have discretion. It may simply say, ‘It is not necessary for us to spend time and effort investigating this trail because, quite clearly, to the ordinary person and to us it is going to be a waste of time. Let’s move on to some more sensitive areas.’ I am seeking support from the minister for this significant amendment because I believe it is a common-sense amendment. Mr McNAMARA: I thank the member for Nicklin for the amendment which he has moved. The government will not be supporting it. I assure him that we share the same objective, which is to put this issue to bed once and for all. The difference is that I guess we disagree on how to achieve that aim. As I explained earlier, there are trails which people have been riding for a very long time. We have a cardinal principle in relation to the use of national parks, and that is that non-native animals should not go there. We have a commitment to preserve the Queensland lifestyle, and we take that election commitment very seriously. I, as minister, am in a situation where I do not have conclusive scientific evidence one way or another to determine whether harm is being done or not. In my view and in the government’s view, the way to end this once and for all is to do that scientific work. Accordingly, the member’s suggestion that we change the wording from the ‘chief executive must’ to the ‘chief executive may’ in my view, regretfully, does not get us immediately down the path of resolving the issue. There is no doubt that the scientific committee will look at some trails and make very quick determinations. They will look at other trails and see that substantial and long-term work needs to be done. The government has resolved to go down this path. We have nominated the membership of the scientific committee. Upon the passage of this bill we will ask them to get to work. Each time they look at a particular trail and do the work on it it will be one more trail that is no longer in issue one way or the other. We think that is extremely worthwhile. In the meantime, we recognise that this is long-term scientific work. We want to give certainty to riders. That is why the final reporting date of 2025 is in there. I think we need to get on with it. Regretfully, as far as the member’s amendment is concerned, the horse has bolted. The committee will commence its work. It is not a matter of the chief executive may go in that direction; I require the chief executive to go in that direction. Accordingly, we cannot support the amendment. Mr WELLINGTON: Still speaking to the amendment and as a result of the minister’s explanation as to why the government cannot support the amendment, can the minister indicate how early he would be receiving advice and informing Queenslanders of the status of some of the trails? What is the timing for receiving information? Mr McNAMARA: I cannot commit to a time line here. I am not expecting any particular substantive work to come in inside three years. I would not expect at this point to be reporting back to the House that I have received an interim report inside three years. It is a substantial job. There are over 500 kilometres of trails. There is a significant amount of scientific work to do. This is going to be world-leading work. We want to get it right. I think horse riders can take some comfort that they will be riding these trails for a while. We will ensure that all interested parties have access to the scientific work. All interested parties will continue to lobby as they have along the way. But I want this to be a science based approach. It will not be rushed. Non-government amendment (Mr Wellington) negatived. Mr LANGBROEK (3.12 pm): I move the following amendment and table the explanatory notes to my amendment— 1 Clause 95 (Insertion of new ss 70JA and 70JB) At page 100, after line 8— insert— ‘(4) The chief executive must give the Minister a preliminary report about the review within 3 years after the commencement of this section.’. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Langbroek’s amendments to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2951

As members will see, this first amendment to clause 95 deals with the very long time frame of 17 years for this scientific study to be completed. We think it would be appropriate to have a review after three years. We believe the members of this eminent scientific committee, whom the minister has referred to, should come back and give an interim report as to their findings. They might find that basically nothing is happening on the horse trails and therefore we could save $150,000 for the subsequent 14 years. I at least acknowledged in my second reading contribution that the committee members whom the minister referred to may be horse riders and therefore would have an interest in these horse trails, not just from their scientific perspective but from a rider’s perspective. The LNP is not rejecting the need for science. We are just saying that we think that there should be some balance. I will get to that later in my contribution on our amendments. We think there could easily have been some balance, as I mentioned in my second reading contribution. I did note a few minutes ago that the minister intimated that horse riders have no interest in science and therefore would not be appropriately placed on this committee. In fact, I believe he called horse riders ‘book burners’. That made me go back to the clause to make sure that the members who are supposed to be on this scientific advisory committee— Mr McNAMARA: Sorry to have to take a point of order, but I cannot let that stand. I did not say that. That is not true. I find it offensive. I did not say that. I was clearly referring to members of the National Party, who we know to be book burners. Accordingly, I require that comment to be withdrawn. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I still make the point that I had to look at the clause again to check that it did not actually say that to be on the independent scientific advisory committee a person should not be a horse rider because that would be almost unbelievable. I would hope that some of the people on this committee actually are horse riders. It would be nice if we had eight people who are experts in all these fields and some of them have thrown a leg over a horse at some stage. Mrs Reilly: More horses than you. How many horses do you ride in Surfers Paradise? Mr LANGBROEK: I only bet on them and bet very badly. Therefore I do not ride horses. I am looking to the revision of the horse trail in the magnificent electorate of Surfers Paradise through Macintosh Island Park, preferably not during Indy week. I make the point, as the amendment does, that we think that a three-year review period would be appropriate. As I said earlier, 17 years at $150,000 is just another example of the reviews that we see from the Rudd Labor government almost infecting the Beattie-Bligh Labor government. They are reviews that go on and on. We have considered the science of fluoride in dentistry here. We have considered the views of other people who may be professionals or may have had anecdotal or community views. We are certainly happy to put those people on committees to consider these issues. It really looks one-sided here. For the purpose of this amendment we are talking about the review period. We think it is appropriate that there be a three-year review. Mr McNAMARA: Can I indicate that the government will not be supporting the opposition’s amendment because it does misconceive the idea of a scientific committee giving high-level scientific advice. It is perfectly appropriate for stakeholders to have an input—and I thank the Australian Horse Alliance and Horse SA who have had input into this process for their valued input—but a scientific committee is designed to give dispassionate, high-level academic advice to assist this government and governments into the future in working through this issue. The involvement of stakeholders as such is just not appropriate if we are trying to take any sort of partisanship out of it, which is the aim. I should mention that stakeholders have been significantly involved in the creation of this scientific committee. Horse riding representatives participated in a two-day workshop held with the scientific committee on 9 July and 10 July this year. They discussed the monitoring needs and the methodology of the science that will be undertaken. David Somerville from the Australian Horse Alliance and Julie Fielder who is the executive officer of Horse SA were involved in those discussions. I should add for completion that conservation groups were also represented at that workshop. The workshop was highly successful, I think, in obtaining significant input from the stakeholders with all groups working well together to contribute to outcomes. That close participation of stakeholders with the scientific committee will continue. The scientific committee will continue to meet with stakeholders. But science will come from the scientific committee and broad user advice will come from those users who have experience. So there is no question whatsoever about that. I understand that Dr Marc Hockings, who has agreed to chair the committee, will be meeting with the Australian Horse Industry Council on 13 November. Horse riding groups and conservation groups will have their opportunity to continue to work with the committee. At the end of the day, what I want is high-level scientific advice. That is what we are going to get. Regretfully, I cannot accept the opposition’s amendment and advise that we will be voting against it. 2952 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008

Mr LANGBROEK: The minister actually has not addressed what this particular amendment is about—that is, there should be a review within three years after the commencement. I know that I have actually addressed the matters about the make-up of the committee, but this particular amendment deals with just the review period of time—three years—that we think is appropriate. There should at least be some sort of interim report from these eight eminent scientists. Mr McNAMARA: As I said in earlier comments at another point in this debate, it is anticipated that there will be interim reports along the way. I have indicated that, from initial discussions with the scientific committee, we expect to have some substantive interim reporting material available within three years. The terms of reference will be formalised after the passage of this legislation to confirm the responsibilities of the committee, and I as responsible minister would expect to receive a report as to the committee’s activities and progress on an annual basis, notwithstanding that that may not amount to a full scientific report of findings to date. But I would expect the committee to report to the chief executive of the EPA as to its activities and provide an interim scientific report when such a report is able to be provided. I say to the member for Surfers Paradise that I expect we will see these reports periodically. The 2025 date is to put an end point on the process, not to stall it until that date. Therefore, we do not consider that the amendment is sensible. We want good science. We want a scientific committee that provides a scientific report when the science is in shape to be provided. We do not want to truncate that process. The initial advice that we have received from Dr Hockings and the committee is that they expected that for this process to be undertaken properly—that is, to do proper longitudinal studies in an area such as this—it would take up to that time frame, out to 2025. Again, the date has been suggested by the scientific committee rather than picked arbitrarily by me. Division: Question put—That Mr Langbroek’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes NOES, 53—Attwood, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Langbroek) negatived. Mr LANGBROEK: I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 95 (Insertion of new ss 70JA and 70JB) At page 100, line 16, ‘comprising members who—’— omit, insert— ‘the membership of which is comprised of an equal number of independent experts and interested representatives. ‘(3A) For subsection (3), the independent experts are persons who—’. 3 Clause 95 (Insertion of new ss 70JA and 70JB) At page 100, after line 27— insert— ‘(3B) For subsection (3), the interested representatives are persons who are representatives of the pleasure horse riding industry and/or representatives of areas in which horse riding trails are situated.’. These amendments are consequential on each other. Amendment No. 2 relates to the fact that we think this committee should have a membership which is comprised of an equal number of experts and interested representatives, for the reasons that I and other members have stated throughout the second reading debate. Of course, the chairman would have a casting vote. Amendment No. 3 states that the interested representatives are persons who are representatives of the pleasure horse riding industry and/or—importantly ‘and/or’—representatives of areas in which horse riding trails are situated. Based on the discussions that we have had before, this is something that the LNP thinks would be appreciated by the people who are horse riding on these trails—that is, they should be represented and have substantial representation on the committee where of course the chairman would have the casting vote. As I say, unless we note that these committee members are horse riders, we need to have the perspective of people who are from horse riding associations. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr HORAN: I spoke about this issue in the second reading debate prior to lunch. I think these amendments would give the minister some real balance and some practical experience on that committee and would be of great use to the minister and to what we are all trying to achieve in state forests with horse riding trails to ensure that it is successful and works well for both the environment and for the thousands of people who are involved in the pastime of horse riding or trail riding. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2953

It does not have to be these people, but the Queensland Horse Industry Council represents 80 per cent of the pleasure and performance horse industry. As we saw during the equine influenza outbreak, that is a massive industry in terms of the number of people involved in it, the activities that take place and the contribution that it makes to the state economy. But, more importantly, it is one of the very important pastimes and recreation sports of the state. If we counted up the thousands of people who are involved in trail riding, dressage, or pony club with kids and so forth, it would be quite obvious to us how important an industry it is. In these times everyone is concerned about work-life balance, obesity and people doing family activities together so that they can reduce the obesity rate. I see the minister for sport is sitting near the minister. During the estimates hearings we talked about how we measure sporting activity. It is difficult to measure, but if more people were out there being active and doing things every afternoon and every morning, such as feeding their horses or riding their horses, and once a month or once every three months or six months they went on a trail ride with their horses so they had some defined activity for their horse and their sport, then we would have a healthier and a better society. South-east Queensland is becoming a very crowded place. The state’s population is approximately 4.3 million. A large percentage of that population lives in the south-east corner. It is important that those people who have horses for recreational activities and their friends who join them— either they just go along to help load and unloaded horses or they are part of that sporting activity—and all of their families associated with the sport have somewhere to go. In order to ensure that they do have somewhere to go to ride horses—and in this case we are talking about the state forest, which would be part of a network of trails—it is important that they are represented on a review committee so that the government has considered, experienced and professional views when issues are discussed, such as what feed can be brought into the area or what the horses are fed beforehand. As I mentioned, the concern about bringing in weeds and so forth is really absolutely minor, because people who live in the south-east corner and who take horses on trail rides would mostly have horses that are kept in paddocks and handfed with pellets which are steam extruded and treated, lucerne hay and so forth. The days of feeding horses oats and barley are pretty well gone. It is all manufactured feeds. Those sorts of issues that might be of concern in the strictest environmental sense in terms of introducing weeds into the forests could well be overcome by having a marshalling point or having the horses go to where they are able to be ridden. Issues to do with the tracks that they ride on— the physical conditions of those tracks, the maintenance of those tracks, the use of alternative tracks and so on—could be examined really well if you had a good balance of members on the committee. That balance might be achieved by having not only people who represent the Queensland Horse Industry Council, which is ensconced within the department of primary industries, or ATHRA—the Australian Trail Horse Riding Association—but also local groups based on, say, the Sunshine Coast hinterland or the Gold Coast hinterland. I think you would have a far better balance if you had such people on the committee. You would be able to address all sorts of issues. That way there would be greater security for both those who represent the maintenance of the environment and those who want to undertake the wonderful family pastime of horse riding through the native forests. Both sides would have good security and would know that the principles that they are working towards could be maintained. I think these amendments are really worthy of consideration because, through them, the minister would be able to achieve all the aims that he is setting out to achieve. Mr STEVENS: In relation to the Gold Coast area, through my local government experience I have had a lot to do with several trail riding groups on the Gold Coast. They are a very important part of the hinterland and the planning that we did for many years in terms of catering for all sectors of our society. There are a lot of horse riders in the Gold Coast hinterland, particularly those who live on small rural lots. But again, they are a minority interest group. That is not to say that we ignore minority interest groups and do not give them a fair say on any particular committee that we would like to put in place. For instance, we can have scientists from here to the end of the earth making directions, but we balance that with the practical realities of the communities that are affected and the participants in particular industries. For instance, I wonder what the minister would say if we took every scientist’s recommendation in relation to the Hervey Bay area about whale watching or even fishing and said, ‘We will do exactly what the scientists say about staying away from whales.’ We are asking for a balance, and it is the right of these people to have a say. We are not saying that they should be the final arbiters on what happens. To its credit, the Gold Coast City Council did a lot of work on pony trail riding places in Mudgeeraba on the Gold Coast. The minister would be very well aware of the Nerang State Forest, which is part of the future national park area under his government’s direction. Quite clearly, that forest is probably more likely to be damaged by the activities of trail bike riders who go through there, by the mountain bike riders who go there and even by the boots of the walkers who go through there. As the 2954 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 08 Oct 2008 minister knows, people who go into the national park at Springbrook have to be very careful about weeds et cetera being introduced into that park. That is ignoring the fact that the forest is absolutely full of lantana. There has been no reasonable amount of government money expended to remove that noxious weed from the national park at Springbrook. These amendments are not unreasonable at all. They would give a fair and effective voice to industry participants, particularly when the ruling is about those participants. We are not saying that they should have the majority say on this committee. All we are asking for is a fair and reasonable acceptance of the views that they may put forward and their ability to talk to these things as part of a committee rather than in a negotiated way, such as, ‘Yes, we will listen to you, but we will make the decision.’ Unfortunately, this Labor government has for many areas adopted this holier-than-thou rule, which has led to its unpopularity as we are seeing in the polls today. I do not want to see the minister add to that unpopularity by putting in place a committee that is unfair and one that squashes a minority group just because the minister believes that he might have better access or more control over a group of scientists who may or may not be funded by the government in particular areas or over whom he may have more influence in particular areas. In the interests of reasonableness, in the interests of being fair to all sectors of our community, these amendments are absolutely common sense. That is something that we would love to see from the minister in this particular instance. This sporting group will be affected by this outcome—and it is a long- term outcome; we are talking 20-odd years here rather than the three years that we suggested would be a good compromise on the issue. We are talking about the long-term access by these groups into these horse riding areas. It is only reasonable and fair that they be given a voice around the table in a reasonable and fair manner so that scientists can say to them, ‘These are the reasons you cannot go forward’ or ‘You have to meet these criteria with your horses.’ Maybe the horses will have to wear what we call poo bags to stop them bringing these infectious weeds into those very sensitive areas. Those are my concerns. I think the minister should take them on board and address them. Mr McNAMARA: Again I note that the government will not be supporting the second and third amendments moved by the member for Surfers Paradise. It has been said that a camel is actually a horse designed by a committee. I suspect that the unintended consequence of adding interested representatives—no matter how genuine, and I accept that they are very genuine people—to something called an independent scientific advisory committee will not give us the outcome we want. By definition an independent scientific advisory committee is not made up of committed partisan interested representatives. It cannot be. Those representatives have been doing great work. On behalf of the government, I thank those organisations that have been working with the government. The member for Robina might not have heard me say that on 13 November Dr Marc Hockings, the chair of the committee, will be meeting with the Queensland Horse Council. It is the government’s intention that environmental groups and horse riding groups should continue to meet with the scientific advisory committee and be apprised of the work that it is doing. Those groups have the same voice they have always had with which to approach government in the myriad ways that they have over the long course of arriving at this point. That does not change. We are trying to establish and we will establish an independent scientific advisory committee to give us advice. Obviously, the government will consider that advice in due course, but we want good high-quality science to make informed, well documented and evidence based policy. Obviously, we will continue to listen in every other way to various ends of this debate, but it is simply not appropriate for people who are described in the opposition’s own amendment as ‘interested representatives’ to be part of a non-partisan and independent scientific committee. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be supported. Mr HORAN: I take the point that the minister makes about an independent scientific committee, but I think he is missing a wonderful chance to avoid any difficulties or problems by using the skills of the people whom we suggest could be on the committee. For example, with bushwalking in the national parks we do not need an independent scientific committee to check whether someone spat out a mandarin seed as they were walking along, resulting in the growth of a mandarin tree in the national park. I think that this is missed opportunity. An enormous rally has been held, which I believe indicates the strength of feeling about this issue. A promise was made that trails would be provided, but the initial details of those trails showed that they were way off the mark. There were tracks beside train lines which would be probably the worst place you could take a young horse. Now there will be access to the forest trails and that is a good thing, but it is an absolute shame that the government is not prepared to have a balanced committee. As I said in my contribution, this is not about being partisan. It is about the practicality of being able to address some of these issues. If an issue is brought up by the scientists, those who represent the pastime would be able to say, ‘We can overcome that by doing this or that’. That would be invaluable in making sure that the promise is delivered to the people and the organisations that engage in this wonderful pastime. At the same time, the principles and promises that we make to the environment could be maintained and we would get the balance right between the environment and the people. 08 Oct 2008 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2955

Mr LANGBROEK: The minister has stressed—indeed, it is part of the legislation—that it will be an independent scientific committee and he has stressed how independent its members will be. A while ago in a moment of levity I asked whether horse riders were not allowed to be on the committee. Now I am wondering whether the minister will vet the members of the independent committee and check that they have no interest in horse riding! Will he check that their children are not members of a pony club? I ask for clarification from the minister. Clearly the minister is hanging his hat on how independent this committee is. He states that it is all about science, but that raises the valid point whether people will be discouraged and actively ruled out from being on the committee if they have an interest in horse riding or if any member of their family has an interest, because that could be seen as a conflict of interest. Mr McNAMARA: This is really becoming quite unfortunate. The opposition is starting to impugn the integrity of some of Australia’s leading scientists who have been picked for their academic expertise and their standing in their respective fields of academic endeavour. I urge the member for Surfers Paradise, who is rather a good chap notwithstanding that he tried to badly verbal me earlier, not to go down this path. The members of this committee have their own standards of academic independence that they will guard very jealousy. They have been selected absolutely on the basis of their academic standing in a broad range of areas, and the membership includes Dr David Newsome whose area is sustainable tourism and recreation and Dr Joseph Reser whose area is social science. They all have the highest level of academic qualifications. They are working academics who are professionally obliged to be independent. The suggestion that I should start vetting them out to the third generation to see if they have ever ridden a horse because that might change the quality of the academic work that they provide is at best absurd and, frankly, offensive. I urge the opposition to desist from this line. Division: Question put—That Mr Langbroek’s amendments 2 and 3 be agreed to. AYES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Elmes NOES, 53—Attwood, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Jones Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendments (Mr Langbroek) negatived. Mr WELLINGTON: I wish to seek some clarification in relation to clause 95. In the minister’s answer earlier he indicated that it is not anticipated that the government expects any report from this independent committee within the next three years. Can the minister clarify what he means by the fact that he does not expect a report within the next three years? My second point is in relation to section 70JB(5), which states— The assessment must take account of the cumulative impacts of horse riding and other activities conducted in the areas to which the assessment relates. I and other members have indicated that we believe trail bike activities very clearly are much more significant and have a more adverse effect on Mother Nature than horse riders. I seek some guidance and advice from the minister as to how this panel is to consider the issues when a few horse riders are riding on a fire trail on an irregular basis and numerous trail bikes are using that same trial and I believe causing a lot more damage to the environment. How is it anticipated that the committee is going to come back with a report— Mr Purcell: How are they are going to differentiate? Mr WELLINGTON: Yes, differentiate—thank you, Pat. My last point is that this is an advisory committee that is going to provide a recommendation to a future minister for the environment. Effectively after three years, or whenever it might be, a report will be received by a future minister for the environment to take to cabinet to make a decision. It may be the case—I am being hypothetical—that the future minister may not like the outcome of that report. He might say, ‘Sorry, I don’t like that report. The government’s position has changed. We are now going to make a decision that horse riding trails will continue, irrespective of the adverse reported incidents, or will not continue because we believe the report may be flawed.’ What I am concerned about is that, effectively, it will be up to another government at a future time to make a decision about the future of our currently identified horse riding trails. Can the minister please clarify? Mr McNAMARA: I thank the honourable member for Nicklin. I will take his last point first. The only certainties in life are death and taxes. The member is quite right in suggesting that a government in 15 years time may take a different view. What the government is trying to do here today is establish a solid scientific basis upon which all governments in the future can proceed. It will give them, for the first time ever, the advantage of long-term scientific data, long-term monitoring, long-term peer reviewed, high-quality work. That is what we are attempting to do here today. I think any future environment minister will be well pleased to have that evidence before them when they ever consider this issue again. 2956 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

The member’s first point was about the three-year time frame. The initial advice we have had from the scientific committee is that they would not expect to have a substantive piece of work prepared for about three years. I am just trying to be as open as I possibly can with the member and the House. That is the time frame that we are expecting before we see substantial work. As I have indicated to earlier speakers, it may well be that we will have some annual progress reports on what is being done, but they will be reports of what studies have been established, what programs are being run, what evidence is being collected. As to the assimilation, collation and interpretation of any data, we would not expect to see a first cut for about three years. Finally, the other point the member made was about taking into account the cumulative impact of horses. This is again why scientists need to do this work—to separate out the impacts of illegal trail riding and so on. It needs to be made very clear that this bill is not proposing to somehow allow horse riding to continue but also to invite trail bikes in. They remain completely and utterly prohibited under our national parks legislation. The job of the scientific committee is to separate out the various impacts and to attribute to horses those impacts that can be identified and to attribute what damage, if any, is caused by those impacts. Again, at the end of the day, we will get that information down the track. The member may still be in this place; I may not. This is a genuine attempt to fill in a space which has been vacant in Queensland public policy for a very long time—that is, the impact of horse riding in national parks. Today we will embark on actually answering those questions. Clause 95, as read, agreed to. Clauses 96 to 98, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (4.01 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. AI McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation) (4.02 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CORRECTIVE SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 1 May (see p. 1432), on motion of Ms Spence— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (4.02 pm): I wish to advise the minister from the start that the opposition will be supporting the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This legislation refers to the Anti-Discrimination Commission and the rights of prisoners, but I always thought that prisoners did not have too many rights. The bill will ensure that offenders are required to utilise existing complaint mechanisms prior to making complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. It will modify how the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 applies to the consideration of direct and indirect discrimination for corrective services. The bill will provide a mechanism to freeze compensation and damages awards made in favour of offenders and notify victims of crime. The bill will also enable prescribed Queensland Corrective Services dog squad officers to lawfully possess dangerous drugs for the purpose of training drug detection dogs and it will outline the manner in which drugs possessed for such purposes must be managed. 08 Oct 2008 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2957

When we talk about Corrective Services and police and law and order, a lot of people always refer to the Corrective Services officers as the poor cousins of the Queensland police. But I want to put on the record today that if we do not have a good Corrective Services institution in this state, we certainly are not going to have a good backup from the Queensland police. I have always said that from time to time the justice system lets the system down, and that must be frustrating for the minister. It appals me somewhat when I think of these prisoners inside, so I liked the minister’s comments on page 6 of the explanatory notes when she said, ‘If you want choice, especially the option to choose the best product on the market or the most comprehensive service to meet your need, don’t commit a crime.’ No truer words were ever said. I applaud the minister for that because some of these people who are inside deserve to be inside for the reasons that they are there. I speak at times with police, Corrective Services officers and many other people. I know the legislation is not about this, but there is the issue of building more prisons and housing these types of people who break the law. We must restore the balance so that we paint a picture that the people inside are treated humanely and according to their culture and also according to the law of the land in relation to the Corrective Services Act. The Corrective Services Act 2006 provides for the humane containment of prisoners, and that is very highly scrutinised in Australia and throughout the Western world for that matter. I enjoyed a trip to the United States a few years ago with the honourable minister and we saw the number of people incarcerated in that country. I do not think prisoners there are treated the way that prisoners in other parts of the Western world are treated. The fact is that prisoners in Queensland are provided with an appropriate standard of accommodation. As the minister said, they are given food and a safe environment, they are clothed, they are given everything. But we have to make certain that they are not there to be comfortable; they are there to receive their punishment and also receive rehabilitation. This is one thing that a lot of people mention. I recently visited the correctional centre at Capricornia in Rockhampton. I have to say to the minister that that is one of the best run facilities in Queensland in relation to the rehabilitation and training of prisoners and enabling them to find another way of life where some of them did not have a way of life before. When I went through there a few months ago, we witnessed firsthand how these people were really proud of what they were achieving and what they were doing. If you commit a crime but then find another way of life, it means that the rehabilitation process is working in centres like Capricornia. The centre at Stuart is under construction and the new women’s centre has been built there, and I have had words to say about this in the past. There are only 70 or 80 women incarcerated at Townsville in a 200-bed facility, and it makes me wonder why we are building new facilities in Gatton and other places when we have other prisons here in the prison reserve around Wacol not being properly utilised. We talk about prisoners’ rights and prisoners’ needs, and prisoners do have access to the Anti- Discrimination Commission Queensland. If prisoners have complaints, they have mechanisms to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. But, as the minister said in her second reading speech, offenders make frivolous and mischievous claims of discrimination and seek financial compensation, and awards of compensation serve to encourage other serial complainers. I have spoken with many people in corrections, and this is one of the things that happens. No doubt the big boys who think they are the leaders of the community—and I suppose it happens in women’s prisons, too—will teach others to make the same frivolous complaints. If our prisons are run properly, which I believe to a certain extent they are in Queensland, and if we are going to have an outcome where prisoners can lodge complaints through the Anti-Discrimination Commission, they must relate to the worth of what their complaint is about. An issue that I want to touch on today and which has been pretty close to my heart for a while is that of Queensland Corrective Services Dog Squad officers to lawfully possess dangerous drugs. This is something which my colleague and former shadow minister for corrective services, the member for Burnett, made reference to. An ex-prison officer also made reference to it through a media outlet. I think it is what caused the government to implement this, because now we see that dangerous drugs can be used by the Dog Squad. It is no good having the most sophisticated technology in the world for our prison officers to work with and for dogs being trained in drug detection when people on the inside are providing drugs. There have been arrows placed over fences, and people have been getting through perimeter fences in many and varied ways. We need to ensure that these dogs are trained with the proper material—with the proper drug—and that our personnel are trained accordingly. I have raised issues in the House in recent times regarding Drug Squad detection officers in the Queensland police. We do not want to see the same thing happen in the prison system. We want to make certain that these prisoners are there to undergo rehabilitation programs and to fulfil their punishment. I also want to touch on the issue of people from different ethic backgrounds who think differently from people of European or Christian backgrounds. While we eat certain foodstuffs, many of them do not. These people should be able to have their special food needs met in prison. While 2958 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

I understand that people of different nationalities and ethnic origins do not eat all the sorts of food that we do, it is still important that they recognise what they are there for. We hear from some people in detention centres around Australia what they want and what they do not want, but the fact is that if they want to come to this country or they want to become citizens of this country then they must abide by the laws of the country. Here in Queensland it is no different. It is very important that, whilst we tolerate and understand them, they need to understand our system and uphold the law of our state and of this country in question. Another issue is the payment of monetary compensation by a tribunal in limited circumstances. The tribunal will determine whether direct or indirect discrimination has occurred. Its capacity to award compensation is limited to cases where it finds that the treatment of the offender was done in bad faith and no other order will effectively redress the offender for the discrimination. The minister says that this will ensure compensation will not be awarded in situations where correctional authorities have acted or omitted to do something in good faith in attempting to accommodate a prisoner’s request. I believe we need to be very careful that with some provisions of this legislation we are not playing into the hands of the perpetrators and we are not at their beck and call. As the minister rightfully said in her second reading speech, prison is not a place to go for a holiday and to be treated with four- or five- star rated motel accommodation. Those men and women are there to repay their crime to society. Therefore, they need to remember that they do not have the same rights as ordinary free Queenslanders who are out there endeavouring to uphold the law and do the right thing. At times these people think they are a law unto themselves. I have spoken many times with some of the managers of Corrective Services. After a while you would think that the prisoners are running the prisons instead of the managers. This legislation will provide for the creation of a victims trust fund. The government has decided that compensation is to be awarded and will be treated in accordance with part 12B of the Corrective Services Act. For too long we have seen the victims of crime become the losers in crime. I think this is a good part of this legislation where the victim chooses to not bring a claim and instead applies for an ex gratia payment from the state under the statutory scheme such as the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. Eligible victims will be located and advised of the victims trust fund. I think a lot of people are not aware of what they are entitled to and where they should be looking for assistance. This piece of legislation will certainly provide a different outcome for people who are victims of crime. At the same time we must never lose sight of the fact that people who are incarcerated are there to do their time and to repay the state. Some of the people in the state who they are supposed to be repaying can never be repaid. For crimes like murder and the most horrific crime of the lot against society, rape, people can never repay. I do not believe for one half of one minute that these offenders should be given any consolation or any comfort at all over and above what they already have. I remember 20 or 30 years ago when some prisoners were sentenced with hard labour. For a lot of them today, hard labour is a thing of the past. Prisoners were sentenced with hard labour in some of the old European prisons, as they were in some American prisons and some of our early prisons. I appeal to the minister today because I am greatly worried about the number of people who are incarcerated in our prisons in Queensland. Twenty-five per cent of those people represent two per cent of our population, our Indigenous people. I think the justice system needs to take a long, hard look at where the system is breaking down. I know the minister was a former minister for families and Indigenous affairs. It is a very difficult portfolio area, but it is one where every member of this parliament and every person in this state has a responsibility to ensure we get the mix right. We need to educate these people on good health issues, teach them how to work, teach them how to get a livelihood and teach them to be part of a constructive, positive society. That is where we are breaking down. It is all very well to say that we have to look after the communities, but we need that integration. I know that it will not happen overnight, but we do have Indigenous people in prisons and we will have prisons everywhere in north Queensland before too long if we do not look after these people now. It is something that does not give me any joy, and I would not think it gives anyone here any joy. On that note, I trust that the minister in her capacity as the minister for police and corrective services talks to her colleagues in the justice, communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy portfolios to get some better programs started. I know that the federal government is also working on programs. However, I do not believe that in a society as educated and as sophisticated as Queensland in 2008 we should be building more prisons to house our young people, in particular, people of ethnic backgrounds and especially our Indigenous people because they have run off the rails due to poor policy. Both sides of this parliament have been responsible for doing that over a long period. I think we should be working more closely together to get an outcome that gives these young people opportunities and helps them into life rather than out of life. With those few words, I support this piece of legislation. 08 Oct 2008 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2959

Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (4.19 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and particularly the provisions relating to discrimination complaints by offenders within the corrections system. While supporting this bill, the details in the amendments further highlight the continued failure of this state government to consistently address the balance between the individual rights and responsibilities of all Queenslanders. As the minister stated in her second reading speech, this bill seeks to address the misuse of anti- discrimination legislation by offenders as a complaint mechanism and an avenue to claim compensation for their treatment during imprisonment or supervision in the community. The bill limits the circumstances under which offenders may apply to the Anti-Discrimination Commission to resolve complaints and seek compensation and also limits the ability of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to make compensation awards to offenders. The bill provides for the setting up of the victims trust fund. This is to be highly commended. It is great to see that this has finally come to fruition. The bill also outlines that if an offender is awarded compensation as a result of their treatment or any injury suffered in the corrections environment, the award of compensation will be frozen to enable victims to be notified and claim against the fund for injuries they have suffered as a result of the offender’s previous actions. This bill also restores balance in the limitations of actions legislation by allowing victims to have an extended period to make claims against offenders who receive compensation claims and by removing the extended time period that offenders have to instigate proceedings. Finally, this bill also makes specific provisions for corrective services passive alert drug detection dogs to have access to drugs for their training. This is an issue that has been identified for quite a number of years and was alluded to by the shadow minister. It is great to see that this issue has finally come to fruition and finally been taken seriously by this government. The minister previously pointed out that prisoners have the following internal complaints mechanisms available to them: they can make a written complaint to the general manager of the prison, complain to an official visitor or make a complaint to the Queensland Ombudsman. In my first week in parliament we had an orientation day and we were addressed by the Queensland Ombudsman. The significantly high proportion of complaints from prisoners coming through Corrective Services that had to be worked on by the Ombudsman was noted by me and other new members of parliament. We also noted the need for extra funding and staff to be directed towards addressing the high number of complaints coming from this specific area. In the Courier-Mail in 2007 it was reported that the Queensland government had spent $800,000 over the previous four years hiring lawyers to defend complaints before the tribunal. It also stated that the corrective services minister believed the majority of the government’s $800,000 legal bill had been spent on vexatious complaints. This highlights a lack of government resources allocated to address this area of need. The current government has been governing this state for the last 10 years, and 18 of the last 20 years. The minister has been quoted in other news articles as saying that the department has spent $6,000 defending a claim by a prisoner who claimed discrimination because he was denied potatoes. Some $10,000 was spent defending a claim by a prisoner who complained he was not allowed to watch videos. Some $5,600 was spent defending a claim by a prisoner who did not want to work on Sundays and $2,000 was spent defending a claim by a prisoner who complained that he was discriminated against because he stated he was tired and did not want to go and do farm work. These matters, along with the case of a transsexual prisoner who made complaints about prison issue hair products and running shoes not being fashionable enough, shows that this legislation is quite urgently needed. I thank the minister for finally paying attention to this matter. This has wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars. There has been a lack of funding for the corrective services area over the last 10 years. Now the government is playing catch-up in relation to legislation and infrastructure in corrective services. In relation to the proposed new sections 319E and 319F, the bill states that at least four months must pass before an offender makes a written complaint. I would like the minister to explain why this time has been put in the bill and why there is this length of time before a person can make a complaint to the Anti- Discrimination Commission. I would like to thank the hardworking and dedicated corrective services staff for the effort they put in under very difficult circumstances, circumstances that the majority of people in the community do not realise they face on a daily basis. I would like to highlight a comment from corrective services that correctional authorities receive requests for special treatment for offenders on an almost daily basis. Corrective services must be able to consider factors such as available resources, community expectations and fairness to other offenders when deciding whether to grant the request and to reach a compromise solution where necessary in order to maintain the security and safety of staff, visitors and offenders. Obviously by making this statement, we can identity a great need for further staff and further funding to assist them as well as the prison population with rehabilitation. 2960 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

In the notes provided in relation to this legislation it was very interesting to read the comments made by federal Human Rights Commissioner, Graham Innes. He raised concerns about the impact of the bill. He quoted the human rights principle of equality before the law, meaning prisoners should have their rights protected as well as all other Australians. He said that in its current form this bill raises significant human rights questions and it will also create inconsistency with Commonwealth discrimination laws. He further stated in a media release that he supported Queensland Anti- Discrimination Commissioner Susan Booth’s call for a consultation process before the bill was drafted. This consultation process would address whether there are ways of preventing vexatious complaints without in turn curtailing the rights of prisoners. Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Susan Booth also commented on aspects of the bill in a media release in May 2008. Ms Booth stated that there was no consultation on the bill with anyone outside the Queensland government. She stated in a media release— The Bill potentially breaches Australia’s international human rights obligation, so at the very least there should have been detailed consultation with the ADCQ and the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission ... It is not too late for consultation to take place with a full range of stakeholders, including victims’ rights groups, the prison officers union, prison rights advocates as well as anti-discrimination groups and HREOC. I confidently predict that consultation would lead to a better bill that preserves human rights for all Queenslanders while improving the ability of prison authorities to manage complaints fairly and expeditiously. Whilst supporting this bill and giving consideration to the comments of the eminent professionals mentioned, we must be mindful of people’s rights within the corrective services system. We must still be mindful that Queensland will be the only state in which prisoners must exhaust internal complaint processes before being allowed to make a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. We must also be mindful of the statement by the police minister that Queensland Corrective Services sought comprehensive legal advice in the development of this bill and is confident that it does not breach Australia’s human rights obligations. How confident can this government be when it has already paid over $800,000 in four years and after a short period since the act was passed we are again here in this House making amendments? I hope that the amendments that will be passed today will assist victims of crime and those who are putting in hard work and dedication in the area of corrective services. Mr BOMBOLAS (Chatsworth—ALP) (4.29 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill which introduces laws that will aid the detection of drugs in prisons and enhance the training of drug detection dogs. Before turning to the bill in particular, I first want to comment on the contribution made by the honourable member for Bundaberg. I praise him for bringing up some of the frivolous and ridiculous claims that are brought against Corrective Services but do not get the logic that because certain hair products are not provided to prisoners that means that we are in desperate need of more funding to Corrective Services. I did not quite get that logic, but perhaps the honourable member can explain it to me at a later date. Returning to the detection of drugs in prisons and the enhancement of training drug detection dogs, in February this year the Bligh government introduced legislation to strengthen Queensland’s drug laws and provide increased maximum penalties for the unlawful possession, supply and trafficking of a range of dangerous drugs. The maximum penalties for the unlawful possession, supply and trafficking of drugs such as ecstasy and death was increased from 20 to 25 years. These new laws provide a serious deterrent to anyone thinking about becoming involved in illegally dealing in drugs and reflects the government’s determination to rid Queensland of the dangerous drugs that ruin so many lives. This commitment extends to Queensland’s corrective services facilities. The Queensland Corrective Services drug strategy, which is a zero tolerance strategy, utilises a variety of responsible detection, prevention, identification, treatment, support and rehabilitation methods in order to prevent drugs from entering Queensland’s jails. One of the most valuable assets in detecting drugs being brought in and within correctional facilities are Corrective Services Passage Alert Drug Detection Dogs, better known as PADD dogs. The PADD dogs conduct searches on vehicles and visitor services, prisoners, internal accommodation and mail. As parliamentary secretary for police, corrective services and sport, I have been lucky enough to see a couple of very impressive demonstrations by the dogs and their handlers at the opening of the Brisbane Correctional Centre and the new Townsville Women’s Correctional Centre. Both of the demonstrations showed the detection, apprehension and general duty skills of the dogs and their masters. It was also clearly evident just how much pride the handlers have in their professional pooches. The valuable role that PADD dogs play was most recently demonstrated with the discovery of a soccer ball sized package of drugs, syringes and a mobile phone located between two perimeter fences by Dog Squad and custodial staff at Borallon Correctional Centre. For the last 17 years Queensland Corrective Services has been training its PADD dogs with predominantly pseudo drugs. Queensland is the only jurisdiction in Australia that is using these synthetics as pseudo drugs. They are considered old technology which cannot effectively replicate the mixing and/or manufacture of street quality drugs due 08 Oct 2008 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2961 to the rapidly changing make-up of these drugs. With the proliferation of a new age of street drugs, Queensland needs to bring its drugs detection capabilities in line with other states and territories by legislating for the lawful possession of dangerous drugs by authorised Corrective Services officers for the purposes of training PADD dogs. The bill amends the Corrective Services Act 2006 to enable prescribed Corrective Services Dog Squad officers to lawfully possess dangerous drugs for the purpose of training for drug detection. In order to reflect the serious nature of these powers, the bill mirrors similar drug handling provisions under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Corrective Services will work closely with the Queensland Police Service to develop protocols that meet the highest possible standards of accountability and has also commissioned the building of a drug bunker in line with that of the Queensland Police Service. It is time that Corrective Services is able to adopt the same contemporary practices used by all other law enforcement agencies including police, Customs and other correctional services here in Australia. It is fair to say that the detection of drugs in correctional centres is of paramount importance for the safety and security of all prisoners, staff and visitors. In order to ensure that those individuals who are stupid enough to try to bring drugs into Queensland’s prisons are caught and prosecuted, it is vital that PADD dogs are exposed to real drugs both in their training and reaccreditation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WEIGHTMAN (Cleveland—ALP) (4.34 pm): I am pleased to speak in support of the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I commend the minister for addressing a number of issues that the community expressed a great deal of concern about regarding apparent inequities such as prisoners receiving compensation and damages and at the same time avoiding paying compensation to victims of crime. Amongst other things, this bill will modify how the Anti- Discrimination Act 1991 applies to awards made to inmates. The Queensland government is constantly inundated with frivolous compensation claims—the member for Bundaberg outlined some of those claims—from prisoners that relate to obscure personal injury or antidiscrimination claims. It is incumbent on the government to act to protect public funds against these sometimes ridiculous claims. The situation has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, with some claims being made about anything from not being provided with potatoes to not being allowed to purchase a certain brand of female deodorant. While I am not an advocate of running over the top of any person’s basic human rights, I will draw the line at trivial issues. This particular group of people have, after all, been placed in these circumstances as a result of their own antisocial behaviour that effectively violated basic preset community expectations and standards. Historically speaking, they have already effectively, by their own actions, forfeited certain rights. It can be said that the government is not running a hotel and a prisoner’s every whim should not be accommodated. I believe this is a popular community expectation. On the odd occasion that a prisoner is successful in their claim the government will move to have that money frozen and placed in a trust fund with a view to notifying victims of the crime of the prisoner’s changed financial circumstances. This will allow the victim of the crime to pursue their own claim for compensation for the crime perpetrated against them by the prisoner. I stress that this bill does not remove or restrict the right of a prisoner to make a complaint to the ADCQ and, more importantly, it does not condone discrimination in any shape or form. This legislation will provide a further layer in the complaints process in that any complaint will be investigated internally first and that this process will have to be exhausted prior to being elevated to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. Prisoners have been circumventing the internal complaints process by applying directly to the ADCQ. This in effect has been costing taxpayers a substantial amount of money. Many of the complaints sent to the ADCQ have been seen as trivial and most certainly could have been resolved as a result of the internal process. Once a complaint has been forwarded to the tribunal, this bill will require it to consider whether the treatment of a prisoner was reasonable within the unique environment of a corrections centre. Should the tribunal find that the prisoner was discriminated against, then this bill will limit its ability to provide compensation to cases where the prisoner has been treated in bad faith. This should in no way affect the organisation’s ability to manage the unique prison environment. There will always remain the need to make decisions that maintain the good order and security of prisons and, conversely, the safety of the community, staff, visitors and of course prisoners. The bill places an onus on the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland to consider whether the prison management’s attempts to accommodate a request for special treatment were reasonable under the circumstances and each case will be judged on its own merits. As I have said before, this bill is not about steamrolling rights; it is about streamlining processes and ensuring that victims of crime have ample avenues to access compensation from the perpetrators of their injury. As the member for Gregory said, this about getting that balance right. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (4.38 pm): The Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 seeks to ensure a balance. On the one hand there is a community expectation that prisoners will serve their time under conditions where their freedom is curtailed. While their safety is ensured and their daily needs are met, they nonetheless forfeit many of the privileges that they enjoyed 2962 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008 while on the outside. On the other hand, should prisoners be injured there should be an opportunity for them to seek compensation. They should also be given an opportunity to amend their offending behaviour and, if appropriate, to make recompense to any victim of their crime. Our prisons are not meant to be holiday camps, nor do we want to see prisoners profiting from some spurious claim of discrimination. Rather, prisoners need to face up to their offending behaviour. The first part of this bill is thus seeking to amend the Corrective Services Act 2006 and the Anti- Discrimination Act 1991 by limiting the scope of the Anti-Discrimination Commission to pay compensation to prisoners. There is a set process for prisoners to report on any grievance. In the first place, a prisoner should write to the general manager of the prison and allow a period of four months for the case to be considered. Should the prisoner not be satisfied with the result, the prisoner may then make an approach to the official visitor or to the Queensland Ombudsman. Only after having exhausted all other measures will a prisoner be permitted to approach the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Following all investigations, should a compensation payment be warranted, on payment the funds are then frozen in a victim trust fund to be administered by the Public Trustee. Every effort will then be made to contact victims who may be eligible for compensation. Other payments to be considered from these funds are for child support as well as money reimbursed to the state government should an ex gratia payment have been made to their victim. Only after all debts have been satisfied will funds be held on behalf of the prisoner. To overcome the issue of the time elapsed since a crime was committed, there will also be an amendment to the Limitation of Actions Act 1972 to allow a victim to make a claim up to six months after the payment is made to the prisoner. However, should a prisoner sustain a disability that prisoner will be allowed to apply for compensation up to three years following their release. This bill also amends a number of acts to allow for the use of drugs when training drug detection dogs. High security and registers for the drugs will be maintained and a high standard of professionalism will be required throughout the training. Unfortunately, given the level of drug and alcohol use in our communities, the high level of anger and violence and lack of respect for our laws, it seems inevitable that our prison population will continue to rise. However, we need to continue to intervene to break the cycle of crime in individuals and also work in our communities to break the generational effect. We need to maintain appropriate treatment for prisoners requiring anger management and for those suffering other psychological disorders. Prisoners from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds may benefit from culturally focused programs, which also may apply to Pacific Islanders, Maoris and other cultural groups. Women also have specific needs. The model of restorative justice and having prisoners understand the impact of their crime on their victims as well as facing the very significant issues that they may have in their own lives, particularly for the many who were abused as children, are all important components if we are to reduce recidivism and see lives turned around. I am glad to support this legislation and thank the ministers and those others who have been responsible for its preparation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (4.43 pm): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Having a background in law and a previous position in the Magistrates Court where as a justice of the peace I visited many prisons throughout Queensland with a visiting justice, I am aware of some of the antics that prisoners will get up to. It has been a bone of contention for me and for many other people in the community that prisoners have been able to make what appear to be frivolous claims and secure large amounts of money that ultimately do not go to provide any restitution to the people they have wronged. One of the mechanisms that will be created through this bill will force prisoners to use existing complaint mechanisms, such as appeals to the chief executive officer or to the official visitor, before they make complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. This bill modifies the Anti-Discrimination Act in relation to awards made to offenders for damages suffered or compensation that may be ordered to be paid. It really has always mystified me why the state can be required—and this certainly is to the benefit of victims of crime—to make a pro rata payment but the prisoner never has to make a contribution to the payment of moneys in respect of their actions. To me, that is not any sort of justice, because the prisoner does not learn that for every action there is some retribution. This amendment goes a little bit beyond punishment and it should help with rehabilitation, although I do not doubt that there will be claims made that rehabilitation will not occur because the prisoners will not have the money that they would have had by making these claims. An issue that concerned me initially is that the award of compensation with which we are dealing is not an award of compensation that comes from an outside court where prisoners may get further awards for damages; it is only an award for damages under the Anti-Discrimination Act. But in saying that, the amount of money that will be received will go some way towards recompensing the victims of these prisoners. 08 Oct 2008 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2963

This bill allows for extensions of time. For those who may not understand fully, there are certain areas of law where a person is prevented from bringing an action in a court after a specified period under the Limitation of Actions Act. In relation to personal injuries, for a number of years that limitation of time has been three years and in relation to the recovery of a debt under certain circumstances the limitation of time is six years. This bill amends section 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act so that the time starts from the date of the payment of money. The bill makes provision for the future care of victims, or forces prisoners to have some consideration for payment to the victim of their actions. Recently I visited a women’s prison with the minister, and I thought it was very instructive. One of the prisoners was directing the making of artwork. She freely outlined that the moneys that she earned from any sale or any moneys that came in from that work went to the victim who had suffered as a result of her crime. I believe that ultimately that is what it has to get to: any moneys that a prisoner has, or any moneys that a prisoner receives outside of payment that they would receive, should be utilised to recompense victims. The third limb of this amending legislation relates to the allowance for the Corrective Services dog squad to use dangerous drugs to train drug detection dogs. How you train a dog to locate a certain drug if you do not have some of that drug to train them with baffles me, because the only way you can properly train drug detection dogs is to have a regime. The legislation sets out very strict criteria for the possession of those drugs and for recording how those drugs are dealt with. I believe this amendment goes a long way towards ensuring that our prisons are kept free of drugs, because those dogs will ultimately be used to ensure that that occurs. All in all, I believe that the amending legislation addresses some of the concerns of the community in relation to our Corrective Services institutions. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (4.50 pm): This bill recognises that many prisoner complaints are made against the state including, for example, by notorious paedophile Dennis Ferguson who alleged that a strip search constitutes a sexual assault, serious rapist Ray Garland who alleged he was injured during the course of his capture for serious crimes committed whilst he was on parole, and arsonist Max Sica who alleged injuries after falling over on pathways and falling down stairways in correctional centres. Many of those claims have been frivolous and petty. Between March 2006 and October 2007, one Queensland prisoner serving eight years for rape lodged 11 complaints directly with the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland. Amongst other things, he claimed that he had been discriminated against on the basis of race because he was transferred from one prison to another, he was not granted full-time student status, he was poisoned with celery and tomatoes and he was not allowed to use an exercise bike. Each of the 11 claims were accepted by the ADCQ and so far Queensland Corrective Services has had to pay almost $45,000 to external legal providers for preliminary advice. This is in addition to in excess of 150 work hours by Queensland Corrective Services legal staff in managing the claims. This trend is not just occurring in Queensland. In 2007 the New South Wales government lost an appeal against a paedophile when it tried to stop him pocketing $175,000 in compensation after he was assaulted in prison. The New South Wales government had wanted to freeze the money to allow victims of crime to seek a share of those damages. Discrimination complaints served on Queensland Corrective Services rose from five in 2003 to 16 in 2005. In fact, since 2003 all personal injury, discrimination and judicial review claims brought by prisoners against Queensland Corrective Services have amounted to a total cost to date of $5.5 million. Queensland is a world leader in the provision of corrective services. There are plenty of other jails in the world where prisoners really would have grievances to make. Prisoners are there for one reason: they committed a crime so serious that the court sentenced them to time behind bars. A jail sentence means losing certain entitlements that law-abiding citizens take for granted. Our prisons are tough but fair. At the end of the day, we are running jails and not motels. This government wants to ensure prisoners will not have the opportunity to waste taxpayers’ money by clogging up the Anti-Discrimination Commission and tribunal with trivial and frivolous claims. This would mean that when prisoners are given running shoes that are not their preferred brand or when they are given hair products that are not their preferred brand, they will not be able to allege discrimination and abuse the anti-discrimination legislation. There are a number of major prisons on the doorstep of my electorate of Mount Ommaney. In December 2005 the former Sir David Longland prison was closed to allow a $110 million expansion and refurbishment. Work included the demolition of some old cell blocks and the construction of new blocks, encompassing state-of-the-art electronic security and water and energy saving devices. In July this year the centre was reopened as the Brisbane Correctional Centre. It now has the capacity to hold 540 beds and is the main reception prison in south-east Queensland, receiving newly sentenced prisoners from the courts. Most prisoners will spend around four to six weeks in Brisbane while various assessments are conducted before moving on to a permanent placement. Around 150 long-term prisoners work in the industrial laundry, the kitchen and associated services. The Brisbane Correctional Centre also houses a 2964 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008 special unit to cater for 17-year-old offenders. Those offenders are separated from the mainstream prisoners and take part in specialist programs to address their individual needs. Programs include the Big Feet program, which is conducted by former Brisbane Bullets star Andre Moore. For a number of years now I have served on a number of community advisory committees in each of the various prisons including Sir David Longland, the Wolston prisons, the women’s prison and the youth detention centre. I started way back in 1997 with the Moreton A and B prisons, which have now closed. I have enjoyed my time on those committees and I have learnt a lot about how prisons work, how they are run and how much community support is needed. All correctional centres and work camps in Queensland have community advisory committees. The Wacol CAC is made up of enthusiastic volunteers from the community, many of whom I know, who assist with forging links between the community and the correctional centres. The Wacol CAC has engaged in a large number of projects utilising items constructed with prison labour, including the provision of shelving and storage to local kindergartens; in conjunction with the Brisbane City Council, the manufacture and erection of park benches throughout the Centenary suburbs, particularly on the Wolston Creek land that was handed over by the government to the Brisbane City Council a number of years ago; plus the provision of water tanks to a number of kindergartens. A few years ago a number of prisoners from Sir David Longland successfully crafted furniture and auctioned paintings to raise money for children’s hospice Zoe’s Place in Jamboree Heights. The volunteers who work for community advisory committees try to maintain a link between prisons and the community to provide a better understanding of what prisoners face when they get out of prison and are resettled into the community. It also gives prisoners an understanding of what to expect from the local community. I commend the minister for bringing this legislation forward. She has done a great job in the role of Minister for Police and Corrective Services. It is a great responsibility and she has handled it very well. I appreciate all the assistance that she has given me in relation to the prisons that are on my back doorstep. Yesterday I spoke to her about a number of issues that I have in relation to that. A few issues need to be resolved there, but all is going well. Recently one of my local football clubs, the Centenary Junior Rugby League Football Club, of which I am a patron, had to relocate its grounds from the end of Centenary Highway because of the plans to build a fourth railway track to open up rail services to the Springfield community. The football field had to move. Because the club needed four football fields, the only real option was the prison land at the end of Grindle Road near Wolston House. The club was delighted to be able to move there, where it has state-of-the-art fields that it is very proud of. The president of the club has been overwhelmed by the support of Main Roads in moving to those fields, which they lease. The football club has around 300 young members and it is expanding rapidly. When people see the club’s fields, they want to join. Over the next few years the club expects to expand its membership because of its new facilities. I thank Corrective Services for allowing the club to move to that land. As I said before, there were not too many other locations of that size in the local community. I am also hoping to get the cricket club a spot on those fields, which would create a great community hub. The area is quiet and peaceful. It is a great location for kids to enjoy their favourite sports. I commend the minister for bringing this bill to the House and I congratulate her again. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (4.59 pm): I rise to support the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill recognises that victims who have not been adequately compensated for injury suffered as a result of a crime can in certain circumstances be given the opportunity to know when an offender has had a change in financial circumstances. Offenders who have previously shown no respect for the laws that govern our society are not shy about using the law for their own purposes to sue the government while under the supervision of correctional management. It is unfair though that the offender may be fully compensated for his or her claims against the government when the offender has victims who may be suffering out in the community as a result of the offender’s criminal behaviour. This bill is based on similar legislation in New Zealand and in New South Wales which have also introduced schemes where an award of compensation or damages to an offender by the government for the treatment of injury that has occurred while under supervision is kept in a victim trust fund by the Public Trustee. The money in the fund is frozen for six months to allow victims of the offender an opportunity to claim against the fund to seek financial redress for injuries received by them from the offender. This bill is consistent with the common law where a person may choose to make a claim for damages against the offender who caused them a personal injury. However, when making this decision there are a range of issues that may make it difficult for a victim to be successful. For example, in most cases an offender rarely has sufficient assets with which to pay any damages that could be awarded. Even if an offender comes into money, the victim will probably not be aware of this change and finally by the time the offender comes into money or the victim decides to make a claim the time has run out for making that claim under the Limitations of Actions Act 1974. 08 Oct 2008 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2965

This bill seeks to improve the position of victims by notifying them when an award of damages or compensation is made to an offender by the government and removes previous limitation periods. In practice the scheme will operate as follows. An award of compensation or damages in relation to an offender, minus medical expenses and legal costs, will be frozen in a victim trust fund for six months to enable victims to be notified and for them to decide individually whether to commence civil actions against the offender. Corrective Services, with help from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police, will make reasonable efforts to identify and notify victims within one month after the award of compensation or damages. In order for victims to be able to consider whether it is worthwhile to pursue a victim claim against the offender, victims may seek information from Corrective Services about any other victim claims notified to them. Victims may then consult with their own lawyers to decide whether to pursue their own claim. The bill contains provisions to ensure that information may be provided by correctional management despite a non-disclosure clause in a settlement agreement. If a victim decides not to start a civil action against an offender then the money frozen in the victim trust fund will be available for the payment of any outstanding debts to the state—for example, in relation to fines and also the Commonwealth Child Support Agency. If there are no state or Commonwealth claims, the offender is paid the residual amount in the trust fund subject to public trustee fees. If one or more civil actions are commenced against the offender, victims’ claims will be paid proportionally out of the victim trust fund. If the damages amount exceeds the amount in the trust fund, the court will order payment of the moneys to the extent of the victim trust fund and the victim will be entitled to enforce any shortfall as a judgement debt under normal civil enforcement procedures. I would like to talk briefly now about the Queensland Corrective Services dog squad officers because they will be able to lawfully have in their possession dangerous drugs for the training of the drug detection dogs. We need these dogs to detect these drugs and they should be trained to the highest possible level. If this means access to real drugs then so be it. I am very sure that our community will be in total support of this. I would also like to let the parliament know that there are many prison families who live in the Bundamba electorate. These are families who move into my electorate because they are close to the jails. They can hop on the train to Wacol to see their loved ones. We look after these prison families because in many circumstances these families are also serving time: they are serving time in my electorate. We do not discriminate against them at all. We actually try to stop generational criminal activity. We have them in our local schools. We look after the parent who is not in jail. We try to get them training. We try to get them education. We try to get them jobs. But most importantly we try to break down generational prison behaviour. Many years ago it shocked me to find out that some young people in our community, particularly in the schools, actually wanted to go to jail because they thought that that was a rite of passage. We have now been fairly successful in breaking that down in our community. We also had the Goodna Neighbourhood House, which was funded by the Community Renewal program in the Department of Housing to have a prisoners’ handbook published. What we wanted to do there was that when the prisoners had served their time we wanted them and their families to go back to their home communities wherever that may have been across the state. I also place on record my thanks to the hardworking officers who work in the prison system, from prison officers through to social workers and our hardworking correctional nurses. They do a job that few people in the community actually aspire to, but they do it well. I would also like to thank the minister for this legislation. I believe it is common-sense legislation. It corrects the balance in the system. I would like to thank her and her staff in the ministerial office and in Corrective Services. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.06 pm): I rise to support the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and commend the minister particularly in relation to victims being able to access compensation and correcting the balance, if you like, of complaints by prison inmates in relation to their treatment. The establishment of a victim trust fund I think is welcome. I did not want to talk a lot about that. I recognise that perpetrators who have access to or who are allocated any kind of monetary compensation will be required to make that money available for victims to be able to claim compensation. As part of that package, the amount of time that the victims have to claim compensation will be extended to six months from the time the victim is advised that there is money available through this new source. I think the extension of time is important, not just to access funding that may have been allocated to the perpetrator—and I understand that there is a defined set of circumstances where this extra six months will be given—but in some instances there will be victims who have not considered accessing victims of crime compensation and the contact that will be made with them to advise that there is money in trust may be sufficient for them to consider that as an avenue. In many instances they are too busy trying to recover from the trauma of what they experienced. So I welcome that extension of time. 2966 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

The limitation on prisoners to be able to access the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal will be welcomed I believe by everybody in our community. In the minister’s second reading speech she states— Prisoners do not pay rent on their cell in prison, they are not paying for utilities such as water and electricity, they are not paying for their three meals a day or the clothes that they wear or the other number of services provided to them while in custody like individuals in the community. If they did pay, then perhaps they could choose to obtain a softer pillow or eat a specialised diet that caters for their personal tastes. The bottom line is that if you want choice, especially the option to choose the best product on the market or the most comprehensive service to meet your need, do not commit a crime. I think that paragraph reflects how the community feels about prisoners. We can go into social disadvantage and reasons why people are in prison. For some, it is a tragic string of events that they may contribute to; for others, it may be that they are a product of their environment and their learnt behaviours have placed them in that position. But the fact is that they have committed a crime and the community sees that part of the restitution that they make to the community is that they do without some of the comforts that members of the community who are not in prison work very hard to provide not only for themselves but for their families. In the small number of instances that have received a significant amount of publicity where prisoners have taken matters to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, there has been quite a reaction in my community. We do not have a prison in my electorate. The closest one is in Rockhampton, but I certainly believe that community members on the whole are affronted by the behaviour of prisoners when they overstep the mark. I do not think people want to see prisoners in our prison system treated inhumanely or abused. I do not believe there is that general feeling in our community, but they do want prisoners to understand that they do give up a lot of their rights when they perpetrate a crime and that part of their restitution to the community involves a significant loss of some of those comforts. The bill also makes provision for Corrective Services passive alert drug detection dogs to have access to drugs for their training. I can understand in theory at least why actual drugs would be more beneficial for dogs to train with then artificial substitutes. I think the drug detection dogs and other detection dogs that are used throughout our state are amazing animals. They have an extraordinary ability to detect drugs and other things. Their handlers have to be commended for the balance they establish with the animals in terms of work and recreation. I commend the minister for this legislation. I believe it is very reflective of the community’s attitudes and expectations. I look forward to the passage of the bill. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (5.12 pm): I want to also add my considerable weight to the debate on the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House tonight. As many members here would appreciate, the correctional environment is not a pleasant one and nor for that matter is it meant to be. Many would agree that a person who chooses to break the law does not get sent to prison to enjoy a better standard of living than the average law-abiding individual in the community. Rather, an offender is in prison for two purposes: punishment and rehabilitation. As such, when incarcerated in an Australian correctional facility, a prisoner is provided with basic entitlements and adequate living conditions, which include access to basic amenities like clean water to drink and bathe in—albeit restricted in keeping with community standards—nutritionally balanced foods and of course opportunities to undertake rehabilitative and other programs. However, if a person wants to access the best quality of accommodation, then my advice is do not commit an offence, and I think that has been relatively well said here tonight. People need to be aware that prisons are not five-star hotels and that offenders do not pay for correctional services and therefore their choices may be limited. However, members may be aware that some offenders in recent times have been pushing the entitlement barrier too far. This is because some of them have expectations that because the government operates the prison then the government, with access to a bottomless pit of taxpayers’ money, should be able to cater to a prisoner’s every request. Let me assure members of the House that there are many better ways for this government to spend those funds that are spent on catering for the special requests of prisoners. Unfortunately, however, the belief that this government is able to accommodate the frivolous requests of some prisoners has been taken further in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The end result of this has been that this government has been required to use valuable taxpayer funds defending mischievous claims by some offenders. It is at this point where once a matter reaches the tribunal it sometimes appears that insufficient weight is given when making decisions to operational realities of the correctional environment. This bill aims to address the lack of recognition given to the correctional environment under the Anti-Discrimination Act by modifying the way complaints relating to the treatment of an offender by correctional management are considered. This proposed legislation details the modifications and provides for a range of matters that the tribunal must take into consideration when deciding whether the treatment of an offender, or the imposition of a term on an offender by correctional management, amounts to direct or indirect discrimination. As such, when determining whether the treatment or imposition of a term is reasonable, the tribunal must consider any relevant submissions made about the following factors. 08 Oct 2008 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2967

The first factor is the safety and security of the corrective services facility where the offender is detained. This is an important consideration, as in the correctional environment special treatment delivered to one individual can result in an offender becoming the target of other prisoners or it can equally result in prison unrest across the relevant centre due to perceptions about unequal treatment. The second factor to be considered is the administrative and operational burden associated with providing an alternative treatment and the disruption that supplying the special services or facilities might cause. In this case, correctional management must seek to be as consistent as possible when supervising approximately 17,500 offenders in custody in the community on a daily basis. In corrective services facilities, this means providing services to around 5,500 prisoners every day. As members would appreciate, prison routines are extremely structured to ensure that prisoners are kept meaningfully occupied so that security can be maintained at its highest level. If prisoners are left unsupervised in order to accommodate the special requests of a few prisoners, the risk to the safety and security of the entire centre can be elevated. The third factor is whether the treatment or imposition of the term adequately meets the needs of the offender, notwithstanding that there may be a better alternative to meet the need. For example, a prisoner with a medical condition may require a walking aid. However, upon receiving medical advice, even though there are more expensive walking frames available, the prisoner’s needs can be adequately met through the provision of a walking stick. If the tribunal determines that the correctional management did not make a genuine attempt to accommodate an offender’s needs or act in good faith, it may make a finding of direct or indirect discrimination and order an appropriate remedy under section 209 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 including compensation. However, the tribunal will be placed under a statutory obligation to only award compensation if no other available remedy would prove effective, such as an apology or a direction to cease the conduct in question. If the tribunal considers that correctional management made a genuine attempt to accommodate the prisoner’s needs and acted in good faith but that discrimination nevertheless occurred, the tribunal may not make an award of monetary compensation and must instead use one of the other remedies contained within section 209 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, such as an apology or a direction to cease the discriminatory conduct. The changes being proposed to the way the ADCQ deals with offender complaints are not about giving correctional management an excuse to treat offenders poorly. Rather, it is hoped that the new system introduced to parliament today will mean benefits to correctional management and less resources being spent on wasteful complaints. It will be a system that deals effectively with genuine complaints by offenders and provides victims with the opportunity to obtain financial compensation. As such, I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.18 pm): I rise to support the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill which introduces laws that modify the way a prisoner makes complaints about treatment in the correctional environment. In particular, the Corrective Services Act 2006 is to be amended to require that offenders use an established internal complaints system, which includes making a complaint to an official visitor in the custodial environment prior to making a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland, the ADCQ. Due to the highly structured nature of the correctional environment, prisoner complaints are usually made in respect of a decision by correctional management to deny a prisoner a request for special treatment. The prison environment is unique, and requests for differential treatment can only be accommodated in certain circumstances. Many prisoners have a misdirected sense of entitlement and believe that even though they are in custody they should have the same level of access to goods and services as people in the community. These amendments have been made in response to prisoners making complaints directly to the ADCQ alleging discriminatory treatment without any attempt to raise the matter with correctional management. This is despite the fact that prisoners have access to a number of internal and external complaint mechanisms, including the agency’s complaints management system introduced in early 2007, official visitors and the ability to correspond confidentially with prison management, the chief executive, the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport and the Ombudsman. How can Queensland Corrective Services make any attempt to address issues alleging discrimination if correctional management are not even made aware of the allegation? I am aware of a situation where a hearing impaired prisoner lodged a complaint to the ADCQ because the telephone equipment at the corrective services facility at which he was accommodated was interfering with his hearing aid equipment. The prisoner lodged a complaint regarding the matter with the ADCQ prior to the matter being raised with management. What a simple request that would have been. During the early stages of this matter, management at the correctional facility where the prisoner was accommodated was advised of the issue and took action to dispatch a technician to rectify the situation. As a result, the problem was resolved. However, the resolution did not come before taxpayer funded government 2968 Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008 resources were dedicated to the preparation of legal proceedings resulting from the lodgement of a complaint with the ADCQ in the first instance. No doubt there are many more matters that could be resolved more quickly and efficiently if correctional management were made aware in the first instance of a prisoner’s concerns. A number of corrective services officers live in my electorate. I actually studied at university with a corrective services officer. I have found them to be smart, fair and reasonable people. I cannot see why they would not consider any reasonable and legitimate requests and consider them appropriately. I am sure that there will be differing opinions, but this legislation provides the opportunity for any unfair decisions to be reviewed and rectified. I cannot see anyone in the community or in Corrective Services having a problem with a legitimate and reasonable request being granted or, for that matter, a legitimate complaint being addressed. I believe the community expects that the system would work in this manner and would not support a simple, legitimate complaint or request like the one I outlined being processed through the ADCQ. I think this is just common sense, to be quite honest. It is also important that, if the treatment is truly discriminatory and not a frivolous claim because the prisoner does not like the response they received, correctional management be made aware of the matter in order to address the issue and prevent the discriminatory practice from continuing. Suggestions have been made that requiring prisoners to use the complaints management system as a first port of call is discriminatory. I do not believe this is true. I believe it is inaccurate. The status of a prisoner is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and therefore the bill is not in conflict with the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The use of the agency’s complaints management system will assist in achieving good outcomes for all concerned. The way that the new legislation will work in prison is as follows. A prisoner makes a written complaint to the general manager of the corrective services facility where the offender is accommodated. The complaint is investigated by Queensland Corrective Services’s Ethical Standards Unit, which identifies whether the complaint is of a minor or a major nature. A complaint of a minor nature, for example, will require a written response to the complaint to be provided to the prisoner within 30 days. If the prisoner is satisfied with the response to the complaint, then the matter is resolved. If the prisoner is unsatisfied with the response, then the offender must make a further written complaint to the official visitor who attends the corrective services facility where the offender is accommodated. This provides an additional layer of independent oversight for prisoners. The official visitor has 30 days in which to provide a formal response to the offender’s complaint. As I said before, I think this system provides for any unfair decisions that could be made and then overturned. Should the official visitor identify that the decision of the corrective services facility cannot be resolved, the official visitor will formally advise the offender, who will then be able to take the complaint to the ADCQ. Should either response be provided within the time allowed under the provisions, a prisoner can move onto the next step in the complaints process. The new provisions do not mandate that each complaint must take one to five months before a final decision is made. Rather, the time frames set out in the legislation are maximum time frames and are considered necessary for investigating minor and major complaints. The use of the internal complaint mechanism will provide an opportunity for decisions to be reviewed and most matters to be resolved quickly at a local level in order to avoid delays associated with pursuing judicial remedies. In addition, as correctional management will be alerted to the alleged discrimination, the offender will not be unnecessarily subjected to any protracted unfair treatment arising out of the complaint. Requiring prisoners to exhaust internal complaints avenues first rather than unnecessarily escalating a complaint to the ADCQ minimises the unnecessary waste of government resources defending claims of discrimination based on legitimate management decisions. The Public Works Committee report into the redevelopment of the Sir David Longland Correctional Centre said that Queensland Corrective Services has a strong record in the design and construction of secure correctional centres. I want to go a bit further in this debate tonight and say that I think it is not only in the security of prisoners that we are well out in front. When it comes to responsible and fair treatment of prisoners we are well out in front, too. We are offering the right types of programs for their rehabilitation. At the end of the day, people want to know that we are not only keeping our prisoners in prison but also releasing them when they are ready to come into our community. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (5.25 pm), in reply: Firstly, I want to thank all members who participated in the debate. I think they all showed a very good understanding of our correctional system and an understanding of what this bill is setting out to achieve. I believe we in Queensland run the best prison system in Australia. I have visited prisons in many other states and in many countries of the world, and I have not seen anyone who is doing it better than the Queensland correctional system. This is backed up by the fact that we have the lowest recidivism rates in Australia. That is something I am very proud of as well. 08 Oct 2008 Motion 2969

I am proud of our infrastructure. We have rebuilt our prison infrastructure in the last 10 years, and most of it is new and modern. I am proud of the educational opportunities we provide our prisoners. I am proud of the programs we give our prisoners. Programs relating to substance abuse, ending offending and stopping the violence are all good programs. That is why we have low recidivism rates. I am proud of the employment opportunities we provide prisoners. I visit prisons on a regular basis and talk with prisoners who are doing traineeships and apprenticeships. I talk to prisoners who are studying and completing university qualifications. There is opportunity in our prisons for anyone who wants to turn their life around and improve their opportunities. I do not want to be the minister of a prison system that shows discrimination to any prisoner. I am very keen to ensure that we have fair rules in our prisons that apply to all people and that people are fed and looked after adequately and responsibly. But what I as the minister am not prepared to do is sit back and watch prisoners abuse our system, abuse the complaint process and go straight to the Anti- Discrimination Commission. It costs taxpayers a lot of money in fighting these complaints, because every time we go there the department has to engage lawyers and pay legal fees over very frivolous and vexatious complaints. We have seen too many of them in the last couple of years. One man claimed he was prevented from eating potatoes, which was rubbish. Another one claimed he was banned from using an exercise bike. A transgender prisoner in a male prison wanted a specific style of joggers and specific brands of shampoo and cosmetics. We had the famous case of the Islamic prisoner who succeeded in the Anti-Discrimination Commission, despite the fact that our prison officers went overboard and provided him with tinned halal meat—the first Islamic prisoner in Queensland. This was not good enough. I think all members who have spoken on the subject tonight agree that people are in prison because they are being punished for some crime and that, while we want to treat them fairly, our prisons are not hotels. The bill does not deny prisoners access to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. I know that there has been some criticism by some media commentators and the Anti-Discrimination Commission about this legislation. All it does is ask our prisoners to exhaust all the complaint mechanisms before they take a case to the Anti-Discrimination Commission. We have a lot of complaint mechanisms in our prisons. We, the taxpayers, fund official visitors who go into our prisons. I just strengthened that whole accountability mechanism when I changed the Corrective Services Act in 2006 to give a new formal, more official role to our official visitors. We also support prison chaplains who go into our prisons regularly. Our prisoners can give mail anonymously or by using their names to the general manager if they have a complaint. Our prisoners are the biggest users of the Ombudsman of any group in Queensland. As members can see, there are a number of complaint mechanisms that prisoners can use before they even have to contemplate going to another independent umpire which is going to cost us all a lot of money, and that is the Anti-Discrimination Commission. I am pleased that all members of parliament have acknowledged that this is a sensible provision to finally put in place. The other major issue involves access to drugs for the training of our drug dogs. The truth is that this change has become necessary because of changes made to the Drugs Misuse Act earlier this year. Drugs that were previously available from the John Tonge Centre will now be obtained from the Queensland Police Service. Importantly, this allows the drug dogs to train with authentic cannabis which will greatly improve the quality of our drug dogs. I think it is fair to say our drug dogs need to be trained with real drugs rather than synthetic drugs. That is what we are doing here tonight. Debate, on motion of Ms Spence, adjourned.

MOTION

Reserve Bank, Interest Rates Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House calls on the federal government to show leadership to ensure banks pass on the full Reserve Bank interest rate reductions. On 1 October this year in a Courier-Mail article opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull demanded banks pass on in full the interest rate cut which the Reserve Bank was expected to approve in the week following. The article stated— The Reserve Bank is tipped to announce a cut to the official interest rate, but, given the global financial crisis, it is uncertain whether banks will pass on the full amount to home owners. Mr Turnbull said the banks should deliver the full amount of any rate cut. He stated— My view is the Australian banks have the capacity, given their profitability, given their size, to pass on in full any official interest rate cut from the Reserve Bank. I’m sorry that Mr Swan seems to be weakening in his resolve on that. Our view is they do have the capacity to pass that on and they should. 2970 Motion 08 Oct 2008

Let us have a look at the capacity that has been outlined. The ANZ in 2006 had a consolidated profit of $3.6 billion and a company profit of $3.1 billion. In 2007 it had a consolidated profit of $4.1 billion and a company profit of $3.5 billion. The Commonwealth Bank in 2006 had a profit of $3.9 billion and in 2007 a profit of $4.4 billion. The National Australia Bank in 2006 had a group profit of $5.1 billion and a company profit of $3 billion. In 2007 it had a group profit of $5.5 billion and a company profit of $3.6 billion. For Westpac the consolidated profit for 2006 was $3.1 billion and the parent entity profit was $3.3 billion. In 2007 it had a consolidated profit of $3.4 billion and a parent entity profit of $2.7 billion. Today QCOSS posted a press release which stated— ‘We applaud the Reserve Bank of Australia for the full one percent reduction,’ says QCOSS President Karyn Walsh. ‘And it’s encouraging to see many Australian banks passing on the majority of that reduction. ‘Lenders have used official interest rate rises to justify increasing their rates. And many have increased their rate by more than the Reserve Bank increase. ‘Thousands of families are struggling as a result of interest rate rises. Many people pay up to 50% or more of their take home income on rent or home loan repayments. Reducing payments will put more food on the table for disadvantage families in Queensland. It will also help pay for other essentials such as medical, clothing, transport, education and life’s necessities. ‘Interest rate rises have also been used as a reason for property owners to increase rents for their tenants. The rate reductions mean repayments should now decrease. Interest rate rises can no longer be used as an excuse to increase rents.’ Householders in Queensland are hurting. Whether they are buying a home and have mortgage repayments or renting, their costs have risen significantly. On top of accommodation cost increases, families have had to cope with increases in the price of food and petrol. In my electorate of Gladstone where fuel is landed it is still $1.47 a litre, yet oil prices are down to $93 a barrel. Normally the cost of a barrel in dollars equates to the cost of fuel in cents per litre. We have seen those drops. The oil companies have said that the dollar is dropping. They have always got a story. In the end it is the consumer who pays. The intent of the Reserve Bank with its reduction is clear. In an interview with Malcolm Turnbull he refers to the second paragraph of Reserve Bank Governor Mr Stevens’s statement. He says— ... the board has decided to make an ‘unusually large movement in the cash rate’ and he said this was appropriate and I quote: ‘in order to bring about a significant reduction in costs to borrowers. A significant reduction in costs to borrowers. That’s what we’ve been talking about—because this rate cut will only be of benefit to the overall economy, to borrowers if it is passed on. The Reserve Bank’s intention is clear. In the Daily Telegraph it headlined that homeowners would be robbed of $500,000 a day if the banks failed to pass on the expected—and at that stage it was expected—0.5 per cent reduction in interest rates. The article goes on to say— But Australia’s major banks, which last financial year posted record profits of more than $10 billion, have refused to guarantee they will pass on the entire RBA cut. Remember that was when it was expected that it would be a five percentage point reduction, not a full one percentage point reduction as it turned out. From my understanding, little comparison can be made between Australia’s major banks and those in the US. If that understanding is incorrect, the information being released by the banking sector and the federal government is flawed. In an interview on Radio 2GB between Malcolm Turnbull and Alan Jones, Jones stated— I pulled out some further figures, for the March quarter, I mean that’s only 90 days, the big four had a net profit of $5.039 billion, and that’s a 40 per cent increase compared with March 2006. There wouldn’t be too many business groups out there whose profits have gone up by 40 per cent in the last two years. We are asking that people in our communities get a fair go. We are not naive; we believe that banks have to survive. But overwhelmingly members of our community are offended by the level of profit that banks have been accruing over the last five years in particular and the level of debt that homeowners have had to accommodate and the increase in the cost of living that they have had to accommodate. We are saying that now there is an opportunity for the Reserve Bank’s interest rate drops to assist those same hardworking members of the community it is incumbent on the banks, which are quite happy to increase interest rates at or above the Reserve Bank rate increases when it suits them, to also reduce the interest rate levels when the Reserve Bank makes that possible. In moving this motion we are asking for a fair go—a fair deal—for so many in our communities struggling to make ends meet. Not only has the cost of fuel increased but the cost of food and every other commodity that is moved by rail, road or air has attracted a premium increase. People are hurting. They do not get a bank CEO’s pay. I know that is an easy and cheap line to run, but it is the truth. Many are subsisting from pay to pay. If the banks continue to be able to shave the top off the Reserve Bank interest rate reductions as they have done in this instance, these same families will fail to reap the benefits the Reserve Bank intended. When we look at it in a per day sense, a 0.25 per cent reduction witheld by the banks means that the banks net $500,000 a day in increased interest rate revenue. It puts into stark reality the amount of money we are talking about. 08 Oct 2008 Motion 2971

Remember, we are talking in the main about the four major financial institutions, for the March quarter this year, returned a net profit in excess of $5 billion. The people to whom I have spoken in my community and the articles that I have read in the papers—not only in our local paper but also in our southern papers—reflect the community concern that they should benefit from the Reserve Bank’s decision not in part but in whole. We have an opportunity here today to reflect that community wish of people to see their lives and their ability to survive improved. They wish that the interest rates they are being required to pay and the home loan repayments they are struggling to meet on a month-by-month basis can be decreased in line with the Reserve Bank’s intention. I commend this motion to this House. I believe it is a reasonable motion. I believe it wholeheartedly reflects the wishes of people in our community to be able to be responsible and loving parents, providing a good quality of life for their families. I commend the motion to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.40 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by my parliamentary colleague the member for Gladstone that this House calls on the federal government to show leadership to enforce banks to pass on the full Reserve Bank interest rate cut. This is not the first time that the member for Gladstone has spoken about issues of local, state and national significance. It is not the first time that this and previous parliaments have spoken about like matters. I hope that the state government will support this motion as it supported the call of the member for Gladstone for the federal government to retain public ownership of Telstra in August 2005 and as it supported the motion moved by the member for Nanango in relation to the negative effects of the national competition policy in our community. At this stage I must say how disappointed I am in our Prime Minister and our federal Treasurer in simply dancing to the bankers’ tune. Only this evening we heard on the national news that one major Australian bank has purchased a smaller bank. We have seen profits before people—a continuation of what has been happening for many years in relation to the banks. Everywhere we hear of doom and gloom. A cloud of uncertainty has descended on the world caused by the collapse of the American investment banks. The United States is almost certainly in recession, Europe is on the brink of recession, Icelandic banks are simply going bankrupt and China, the manufacturing heart of the modern world, is said to be ‘very worried’. Banks are falling like cards throughout the world and stock markets have followed America down. Australian battlers, particularly those in the mortgage belts, are already struggling to cope with higher interest rates and now they are worried about job security. In my electorate on the Sunshine Coast people are asking me, ‘How can this country cope with the global downturn?’ They are confused and uncertain. They are looking for leadership from this government and from our federal government. They are looking for real leadership from our Prime Minister. The good news is that, through all this doom and gloom and uncertainty, the Australian prudential banking system has emerged as fundamentally strong and continues, in the Reserve Bank’s assessment, to be highly profitable. Here we have one of the major banks announcing this evening that it has decided to purchase a smaller bank, but it has not given a commitment about passing on the interest rate reduction in full. For years this country has enjoyed boom times with record growth and record low unemployment, and during that time the banks made significant profits—obscene profits, as the member for Gladstone has said and as has been referred to in the media over recent days. They are charging the highest interest rate in years and even today we hear that the Commonwealth Bank has moved to buy BankWest. Again, it is profits before people. Yes, the banks have had it good for years. They have ridden the crest of the economic boom and now with the hard times looming they are refusing to pass on what the Reserve Bank intended: the full rate reduction of one per cent. That is all we are asking—one per cent. Their excuse is that they are suffering the downturn as well. I do not believe they deserve our sympathy. I do not believe they deserve the federal Treasurer’s sympathy or the Prime Minister’s sympathy, but they certainly seem to have the sympathy of those two leaders of Australia. They have gambled with investors’ funds, lending money for hugely overvalued properties, and they have foreclosed on families, some of whom, many of us would be aware, were encouraged to borrow more than they could afford. They have offered incentives to people to take up credit offers knowing full well that they could not afford them. Australians are facing tough times and they need a helping hand. They supported the banks during the good times and it is only fair that the banks should support them. Where is the banks’ community service obligation? We are simply seeing profit before people. I am talking about the battlers in the mortgage belts—those who have borrowed money to build homes for their families and who are now crippled by high interest rates. I am talking about the builders who borrowed money for their businesses which in turn provided jobs which slashed our unemployment. I am also talking about the young who borrowed to educate their children and to further their careers. 2972 Motion 08 Oct 2008

This is a time when everyone needs to work together for the common good. I call on the banks to be good citizens and to give something back to our community—to give something back to our region and to Australia and to help the people who have supported them. I urge them to not put profit ahead of people. I warn the banks that Australians have long memories. This motion is very simple. It is calling on the federal government to show real leadership to force banks to pass on the Reserve Bank’s interest rate cut in full. We need leadership. We need clear and decisive leadership. We do not need more mumbo jumbo and bureaucratic talk as our Prime Minister is so used to doing. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (5.45 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘calls’ be deleted and the following words inserted: ‘on Australian banks to pass on the full Reserve Bank interest rate reductions.’ We are in extraordinary times. We are in unprecedented times. We are in previously uncharted waters. As the International Monetary Fund has said, this is the most difficult set of circumstances to beset the global economy since the Great Depression. At last body count, 25 banks have failed or been bailed. In the last hour the wires are reporting that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer has moved to partially nationalise the British banking system. The numbers continue to escalate. This is not the making of Australian governments, past or present. It is the contagion effect of the ridiculousness of subprime mortgage loans like ARMs, adjustable rate mortgage loans—in many ways, the quintessential subprime mortgage. These types of loans started with interest rates as low as one per cent and then reset. Options ARMs enabled borrowers to skip payments and to load it on to the principal. For the average option ARM, payment rises were 63 per cent when their rates reset. Is it any wonder that these loans failed? They were loans that likely were never going to succeed but they were packaged up and sold around the world. These loans were not a dominant feature of the Australian mortgage lending landscape. However, the reality is that the toxic debt—the bundled loans at the core of this problem, the loans that have failed so spectacularly—lies at the core of the woes being experienced around the globe. The contagion from this toxicity is rolling up on shore more than 12 months after the consciousness of the world was introduced to the notion of the US subprime mortgage crisis. Of course banks should pass on the full effect of interest rate cuts and they should do this as quickly as possible. We as a government recognise the changed circumstances in international financial markets. As the Premier has stated today, the banks should be passing it on, and where they are not they should be explaining the circumstances that are preventing them from doing so. With all due respect to the member for Gladstone, we deregulated our financial system a generation ago. Unquestionably, that deregulation has stood us in good stead. It is precisely because of the strength and the flexibility that flowed from these reforms that our banking system has withstood to date the tidal wave of asset destruction that is washing around the globe. Frankly, the alternative defies contemplation. The motion put forward seeks an intervention by the federal government—a regulatory intervention and the sort of move that should not be contemplated at this time. The first principle for the federal government—indeed, all governments—is to act to protect the stability of our financial system. It is well capitalised, it is well regulated and it has served our nation well at this time of unprecedented global financial turmoil. Our ability to withstand the extraordinary fallout from the global financial crisis as a nation is our most valuable attribute as a nation today. As the Prime Minister and federal Treasurer stated, the position of the federal government is clear: it expects the rate cuts to be passed on in full as conditions normalise. In that context, I note also for the record the comments today from the Commonwealth Bank, which has indicated that it expects in the future to pass on cuts that exceed the Reserve Bank’s adjustment to the cash rate. The global financial meltdown has decoupled the official cash rate from the bank funding rates. That much is the new reality and it lies at the core of the debate of the last 24 hours. In these extraordinary times it is up to the cornerstone banks of the Australian banking system, which are the bulwarks of our financial system, to not only act commercially but also act to protect their own and the nation’s short, medium and longer term economic prosperity and they need to communicate their actions to the broader public. The banks also need to recognise that the game has fundamentally changed in the Australian and, indeed, global financial landscape. The reality for all of us to face at this point is this: what is being faced at present by the taxpayers and the public of America and the taxpayers and the public of Great Britain is that the alternative to supporting a banking system that withstands what is occurring around the globe is that it is not just the banks that wear it; it falls back on all of us as individuals and taxpayers. We will be the final repositories for the sort of irrational action and irresponsible action that might see further turmoil wreak the sort of 08 Oct 2008 Motion 2973 destruction that has beset the great economies of the world and which will redefine the previous mores, the previous ideas about what many people thought underpinned the global financial system. In that regard, I commend the amendment to the House. Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (5.51 pm): I rise to speak in support of the passion of the motion moved by the member for Gladstone and to second the wisdom of the Treasurer’s amendment to the motion. On a number of occasions I have spoken in this House about the importance of housing affordability. I have focused especially on the many and varied factors that contribute to housing affordability, both for those purchasing a home and for those renting a home. In recent time housing affordability factors such as land supply, land development costs and escalating building costs have all received a huge amount of attention. However, there are other underemphasised issues related to housing affordability, such as housing choice, built-fabric operational costs and effective taxation treatment of investments. Although this huge array of factors play significant roles in housing affordability, put simply, the cost of credit is the overwhelming influence in the Australian housing environment. Therefore, on behalf of all those Queenslanders who are battling to keep a roof over the heads of their family, I want to thank the Reserve Bank Board for responding decisively to the global credit crisis. Yesterday’s one per cent cut in the interest rate has delivered a clear signal that the Australian economy wants to stay ahead of the destructive wave that is sweeping markets worldwide. Realistically, Australia’s economy—and Queensland’s economy—is not immune. It has become more than trite to say that when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold but, as honourable members will understand, the US has experienced much more than a sneezing fit. In truth, Australia enjoys a much sounder set of financial institutions and their regulatory environment means that they have been inoculated somewhat—and I do mean only somewhat. Despite that inoculation, I am concerned about whether we can afford to deny the banking sector a few sips of vitamin C rich orange juice. As a nation, we must support the stability of the Australian financial system. The banks are the cornerstone of this system. As I have mentioned, the banks have indeed enjoyed—and I note the comments of the Treasurer—the benefits of our regulatory environment and are therefore, unlike many similar sized financial institutions across the world, not facing collapse or voluntary nationalisation. That is why I support the motion before the House. It is not the time for the federal government to intervene and I am particularly concerned about the word ‘ensure’ in the motion, which effectively would have to require a federal government intervention. This is an alternative that could result in greater intervention of the magnitude that we see occurring in countries like the United Kingdom and in other parts of Europe where there is the voluntary nationalisation of banks. The federal government, which has been responsible for maintaining the regulatory environment at a time when other financial sectors in other parts of the world have increasingly found themselves less fettered, has done its bit. Now it is up to the banks, who owe Australians a quid pro quo. I understand that the banks are facing the higher cost of raising funds as a result of the credit crisis. Largely, their funds are raised in overseas markets—that is if they can raise them at all. However, the banks have a responsibility to pass on the relief supplied by the Reserve Bank to mum and dad borrowers. Our big four banks and their shareholders have profited, especially over the past five years, from a strong economy and a safer prudential environment. Although some banks might feel bruised and have taken a hit on the market, to sustain a good economy that will allow them to stay strong into the future these banks need to cut some slack to their bread-and-butter: mortgage holders. This situation is akin to a mirror image—a flip side—of that famous scene from the Frank Capra film It’s A Wonderful Life. In the scene on the eve of the Great Depression, the Jimmy Stewart character, George Bailey, pleads with the members of the Bailey Building and Loan Association— No, but you...you...you’re thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money’s not here. Your money’s in Joe’s house ... right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Macklin’s house, and a hundred others. Why, you’re lending them the money to build, and then, they’re going to pay it back to you as best they can. Thus George Bailey talked the locals out of a run on the Bailey Savings and Loan Association, saving them all from the evil local bank owner, Mr Potter. All sound stewards of the nation’s economy should take a leaf out of George Bailey’s book and encourage the local banks to give their customers a chance to keep our economy ticking over. Although I have referred the House to a 1940s Hollywood melodrama, I do not wish to make a drama out of this issue. We need stability. I commend the amended motion to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (5.56 pm): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Gladstone that the federal government show leadership and ensure that full interest rate reductions are passed on to borrowers. This is especially so today when we have a rapidly worsening worldwide financial crisis and it is having a very harsh impact on many Queenslanders. This situation epitomises the downside of globalisation, which the major parties have insisted on applying to this state and country. There have been many benefits for the megacorporations, as we have seen many years of massive executive salaries paid and huge corporate profits, especially in the 2974 Motion 08 Oct 2008 banking and financial sectors. Globalisation has benefited only a very select few at the top end of town while average Queenslanders have paid the price in many lost jobs and industries—ranging from tobacco to seafood, to manufactured goods, to customers service centres and so on. Imports now rule. The national average wage is more than $50,000 a year, yet in Queensland many people are still earning only $30,000 to $35,000 a year and others earn much less than that. Although the average Australian has paid more and more on their home loan for years now with interest rates increasing for most of the last seven years, the banks have kept hauling in the profits. For example, as the member for Gladstone has already stated—and I will repeat it—in 2005 the ANZ announced profits of $3 billion and, in 2006, consolidated profits of $3.6 billion and last year, $4.1 billion. The Commonwealth’s profit was $3.4 billion, $3.9 billion and $4.4 billion respectively. Last year the NAB had group profits of $5.57 billion and Westpac had consolidated profits of $3.4 billion. All the experts kept telling us that the economy was sound and stable. The Reserve Bank of Australia in its Financial Stability Review of March last year stated— It is difficult to dismiss the view that the world economy is more stable than in previous decades. It is clear that while things were good the banks and other lenders took the chance to rip every cent they could out of the average family. They even increased their interest rates beyond the RBA settings. Now that things are going badly, our financial institutions continue ripping off ordinary Australians. For example, they are going to take the latest RBA interest rate cut and keep 20 per cent of it for themselves. I note recent reports that Australian households have lost the gains of the past three years in terms of household net worth. Yet it is Australian householders, especially those with mortgages, who are being told that they have to keep on paying to prop up the banks. Even worse, not only are the banks pocketing a slice of this latest interest rate cut but our federal Labor government is not even putting pressure on them to do better. It is the deliberate globalisation of our financial systems, our markets and our entire economy that has left ordinary people carrying the can for the unlimited greed of big business. America, the home of free market trading and capitalism, has now nationalised its two major home lenders and nationalised nearly a trillion dollars of its financial system’s debt. It is the American situation and our exposure to it through globalisation that is dragging down the economic health of this nation. Only blind Freddy could still believe in the system that has led us to this financial precipice. This current crisis is a stark lesson for all believers in globalisation and free markets. While things are good a few might benefit and a very few might even become unimaginably wealthy. However, when it goes bad it is the mums and dads, the youngsters just starting out and the average working Queenslander who pays the price. I do not believe one cent of public money should be paid to keep any bank or financial institute afloat while that organisation continues to reap mega profits and while its executives, whose decisions have created this chaos, continue to pocket multimillion-dollar salaries. Let the high-flying executives give up their obscene pay cheques in the interests of saving their companies and then perhaps the public might be prepared to help them out. However, as was reported in the media in recent weeks, the rescue packages are all about protecting corporate profits. That was spelt out in a recent newspaper article which stated, ‘ANZ this week warned its 2008 earnings would fall by up to a quarter’ and later ‘...but also held its forecast for profit to double by 2012’. The same article later states, ‘UBS sees net profit for the big four banks, ANZ, CBA, Westpac and NAB, in the year to June 30 falling by 6 per cent to a collective $15.33 billion, but rising by almost 10 per cent in fiscal 2009 to $16.82 billion.’ I believe there is no good reason—it is just greed—for the banks to keep part of the latest interest rate cut for themselves. They are not doing that to save their companies; they are propping up their profits. That is globalism. That is what happens when greed is king and obscene levels of profit are protected at the expense of average folk and the people are reduced to being slaves of corporate greed. I support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone. Time expired. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (6.01 pm): Most of the constituents of my electorate and I welcome the comments made yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer regarding the interest rate cut. Many residents in the Mount Ommaney electorate are suffering mortgage stress brought on by the current economic crisis. There is no doubt borrowers are breathing a sigh of relief today. Last month’s 25 basis point rate cut followed by yesterday’s 100 point cut will ease the pressure on working families. I join the Treasurer in congratulating the Reserve Bank on its much-needed decision. However, as the Treasurer also said this morning, the game has changed. These are extraordinary economic times. As far as interest rate cuts go, the Australian banks should be passing on the full Reserve Bank interest rate reductions. As we have seen, the global banking sector has been annihilated by the global financial crisis. While bashing the banks is an easy game, the truth is that our stability depends on their survival. 08 Oct 2008 Motion 2975

A Housing Industry Association report states that first homebuyers earning an average annual household income of $98,000 would need to commit 31.7 per cent of their income to buy a home. That is the highest on record. The report went on to say that housing affordability had reached its lowest level since the series began in 1984. The monthly loan repayment needed on a typical first home mortgage rose to $2,606 from $2,506 to post a four per cent increase. I commend the Treasurer for providing the first homebuyers with the opportunity to buy their first home without the burdensome stamp duty. People trying to save up a deposit to buy a house while having to pay increasing rent prices are feeling more financial stress than somebody who has borrowed to buy a house. These are usually low to middle income earners who are more likely to be experiencing mortgage stress than high-income householders. These are the working families that Labor governments represent. Their welfare and their future is of greatest concern to us. I understand the difficulties that financial challenges bring to families. Issues often outside their control can result in families accumulating too many expenses. Financial education is the key to good financial management, not only on a national and international basis but also on a domestic front. Unfortunately, too many Australians have little knowledge of financial management and are susceptible to falling into bad debt. It has been claimed that over 40 per cent of households spend more than they earn each month. This is stressful in itself without taking into account the rising interest rates for homeowners. This is the result of a lack of financial management education. There is a financial education assistance facility available for families in Mount Ommaney. It is designed to enable families to live better lifestyles by having a financial plan that they can work towards. A number of months ago a constituent of mine, Craig Singleton, came to my office offering his skills and experience to assist families to manage to live within their budgets. The Triple B program is the name of the service he offers. People can get in touch with him through my office and make an appointment to see him. He wants to give back to the community by providing this service to help families make ends meet. It is good to see that the Reserve Bank and the government recognise that cutting interest rates at this stage of the economic cycle is the appropriate course of action to adopt. I fully support any measures that relieve budgetary and financial pressures on the residents in the Mount Ommaney electorate. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.06 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone. I begin my contribution with a quote from Henry Ford who said, ‘It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.’ My background is in finance and accounting so I understand that our banking system is full of three-letter acronyms or TLAs, which itself is a three-letter acronym. The industry uses terms such as ‘25 basis points’ rather than simply saying ‘a quarter of a per cent’. Supply side economics and other jargon percolates through our system and is also regularly reported by our news media, but is not understood by the average person on the street. In a poll conducted today, Australians were asked whether banks should pass on the interest rate cut in full. Unsurprisingly, of 1,395 people 81 per cent said yes and 18 per cent said no. Most economists expected the banks to pass on half a per cent, but the majors actually passed on 0.8 per cent. It could be argued that they were a little more generous than banks usually are, and they are not known for being generous. The question must be asked: in these very difficult economic times when families are doing it tough, why didn’t they pass on the full one per cent? Over the years there has been a financial sea change. Pre-deregulation banks lent money on deposits times a certain factor, whereas now we have the situation under deregulation where money is simply bought and sold as a commodity. Previous speakers have outlined some of the foolish transactions that have taken place with the subprime mortgage market selling absolute junk and rubbish. Moving back to the local situation, all over Australia banks have closed branches and put people out of employment. They have cut the cost of doing business radically through the introduction of things such as ATMs and, particularly, online banking. No longer do you need to go into a bank branch to make a face-to-face transaction. At the same time, whilst interest rates have been modest banks have continued to charge outrageous fees, particularly user-pay fees, on credit card type short-term loans. They have wanted it both ways as they have put their greedy paws out for ever-increasing user-pay fees. The banks cannot have it both ways. They cannot hold back the interest rate cuts and not pass them on to the average Aussie and then belt the average Aussie with increasingly scandalous fees. Mums and dads on struggle street deserve a lot better than that. The member for Gladstone outlined the very profitable state of some of our Australian banks. I do not support the Treasurer’s amendment. He has said that the member for Gladstone’s motion calls for regulatory intervention from the government. He either has not read or has not understood the member for Gladstone’s motion because it calls on the federal government to show leadership to ensure banks pass on the full interest rate cut. I reject the notion that that is only done in legislation. Modern governments regularly consult and negotiate with the industry and usually use legislative intervention as a last resort. 2976 Motion 08 Oct 2008

I want to conclude by talking about Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld, who was paid $17,000 per hour to send a 158-year-old company to the wall. Last year he earned $45 million and was a miserable business failure. He had the hide to sit in front of an investigative committee crying crocodile tears about how he has been affected as well. Warren Buffett, the great share market investor— probably one of the greatest share market investors in the world—said that in judging whether corporate America is serious about reforming itself CEO pay remains the acid test. I agree with the member for Gladstone and I urge the banks to pass the full interest rate cut on. I urge the federal government to use all of its marvellous influence to ensure that they do. Time expired. Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (6.11 pm): The motion by the member for Gladstone is moved in a climate of what could be the most difficult set of financial circumstances, certainly internationally, since the Great Depression. The federal Treasurer has made the point that the government expects that the banks will pass on in full official rate cuts when conditions normalise. He said that the bottom line is that when conditions normalise the government expects that the banks will pass on full interest rate cuts. Whether we like it or not, until yesterday 25 banks around the world have either collapsed or had to be bailed out. Today it is reported on the internet site crikey.com, under the heading of ‘Consumer credit numbers show the US economy is in free fall’— It’s now clear that the US economy is in far worse shape than even thought yesterday. That is how quickly it is changing. It continues— Figures overnight from the Fed on consumer credit show the biggest fall in the history of the recorded figures, and major industrial, Alcoa, suffered a 52% drop in third quarter earnings and has joined the mighty General Electric in eliminating a share buyback to conserve capital. It then goes on to say— ... the Fed extended the boundaries of its “Lender of Last Resort” understanding; that is, by supplanting temporarily the frozen $US1.6 trillion commercial paper market, the day to day lifeblood for American business activity. That is in the United States. In Britain, crikey reported, under the heading ‘UK poised to bailout a host of financial giants’— ... the biggest bailout of a national banking system so far— will occur tonight our time— when the UK Government reveals a much leaked 35 billion to 50 billion pound plan to partly nationalise some of the biggest names in finance. It then goes on to mention those particular banks. It goes on to say— It will be the first concerted attempt by a national government to provide support to an entire sector. So we are operating in troubled times. I could go on with all of those things, but I think I have made my point. The great point about all of that is that it has not happened in Australia because I think we have a strong financial system. Whether we like it or not, that strength is dependent upon strong banks that are well geared to withstand an economic buffeting and that can continue to fund and support their clients including homeowners and businesses. Make no mistake: in order to do this banks have to borrow money in a very tight market. In these circumstances that borrowing is more expensive. The fact is that it costs more. The Reserve Bank of Australia took decisive action yesterday in reducing the official interest rate by one per cent. I do not believe that anybody in this House was expecting such a drop in rates. I understand that banks have indicated a drop to their customers of 0.8 per cent. That happened yesterday and today. That is not quite the full amount. But let us be real about it: that is pretty close and that is a lot more than anybody in this room would have expected was going to happen two days ago. If pretty close means that funds can be borrowed by banks to ensure client liquidity and normal business dealings, that is what we all want to see. It is important that the Australian banking system remains stable. It seems to me that one of the reasons Australia has been able to absorb the global financial buffeting is a strong budget surplus. Let me assure this House in case I am accused of some sort of petty partisan politics that I am talking about a surplus that has been built up over many years by a conservative government and continued and strengthened of course by the Rudd Labor government. Not many countries around the world are able to boast about having such a budget surplus. One can only wonder if those senators who for I think crass political reasons attacked the original budget surplus by opposing taxes on alcohol and luxury cars would do the same thing now in these current world financial circumstances. I think we would all hope not. I do not believe that many borrowers would have expected that their borrowing rate would have been cut by 0.8 per cent just two days ago. I do not think any borrowers would have been expecting that. But the Reserve Bank has taken decisive action and we all welcome it. When the Reserve Bank cut official rates by one per cent I think it sent out another message—that is, that inflation is no longer 08 Oct 2008 Motion 2977 the danger that it was. That analysis will lead to interesting wage negotiations around the enterprise bargains that are now underway. To move on from that, the recent deterioration in prospects for global growth and much more difficult market conditions— Time expired. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (6.16 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone, which states— That this House calls on the federal government to show leadership to ensure banks pass on the full Reserve Bank interest rate reductions. David Uren, economics correspondent, wrote in the Australian on 24 September 2008— AUSTRALIA’S major banks were enjoying record profit margins when they cried poor and lifted mortgage interest rates independently of the Reserve Bank. Official figures show the profit margin for the major banks was 54.8 per cent in the March quarter, resulting in $1 profit for every $2 in interest and fee income they charged. The banks profit margin during the quarter was more than double the long-term average return of 26.9 per cent. That is in excess of $5 billion in 90 days. Recently we saw the NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth and Westpac all lift their mortgage rates by more than the Reserve Bank and now we have seen them give less back to the people than the Reserve Bank allocated. I would have to deduce from that that the banks snub the Reserve Bank when they feel like it and I even go so far as to say the Reserve Bank has lost much of its clout as the majors go up as much and down as little as they think they can get away with. The article in the Australian goes on to state— The official figures released yesterday— that is, 23 September 2008— by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority show that the interest income of the four major banks from loans was rising by substantially more than the interest they were paying to depositors and the wholesale markets. At that time the banks’ interest income rose in the quarter by $7.2 billion, lifting their profits to a record of $31.9 billion. On top of that, the banks’ earnings from fees and commissions rose 36.9 per cent while the average worker was lucky to get a rise in income of just the CPI to meet those rising bank charges and fees. We must not forget that the many unions who marched on parliament on 30 September did so because they were offered only a 3.2 per cent rise—less than the CPI. I have a non- conforming petition here that I would like to table. Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to the government’s 3.25 per cent wage offer to employees of the state of Queensland. So when the banks cry poor and use a lack of profits as an excuse not to pass on the full Reserve Bank cut, I and many others are more than a little annoyed. We must remember that the banks put their interest rates up higher than the Reserve Bank raised rates and now have lowered rates less and they try to tell us they are doing it tough. Come on, who the heck do they think they are kidding? Borrowers struggle under the weight of increased interest rates, yet the banks’ net profit in the quarter was up significantly. So it must be asked: why is it that banks do not pass on the entire rate reduction, if it is not greed? While everyday mortgage holders fight for increases aligned with the CPI, bank shareholders achieved record returns of 20.5 per cent in the quarter. Only months ago the banks gave out money to almost anyone who wanted it, encouraging people to take on more and more debt knowing full well there were dark clouds on the horizon. The banks knew a crisis was coming. Maybe it is bigger than they believed it would be, but they blatantly disregarded the impact on the most vulnerable in our communities—those endeavouring to acquire their own home, the Australian dream. Mismanagement has created the current crisis. Year after year, bank executives have walked away with massive payouts and retirement packages, and it is the man on the street who has been forced to bail them out. Why is it that these executives get to sit back and watch from the sidelines while those who will not receive the full interest rate cuts and who can least afford it are being made to pay for the mismanagement of the CEOs and bank executives? I do not believe the current crisis has anything to do with greed but everything to do with very poor decision making by the banking sector. Why are they not helping to bail out the banks from a crisis they created? We are told it is not a bad cut, and that is true—it is pretty good—but remember that the banks went a little higher and added cream to their profits when interest rates went up and now they are shaving a bit off when interest rates drop. The banks are not missing out and they are winning at both ends. As was stated by Malcolm Turnbull in the Courier-Mail, the profitability, strength and size of the banks means they are in a position to pass on the full one per cent reduction. A question was asked by Paul Graziotti in the Australian today, and I believe that many people are asking the same question today. He asked, ‘Is the Reserve Bank dropping interest rates to stimulate the economy or to shore up bank profits?’ The amendment moved by the Treasurer, while supporting the member for Gladstone’s motion, has moved to cut out the reference to the federal government. We cannot do that because the federal government must be included and must apply pressure to the banks to pass on the entire one per cent cut. I find it appalling that the state government is shying away from calling on the federal government to 2978 Motion 08 Oct 2008 play the role it was elected to do and is obligated to do—that is, govern in the best interests of not only Queenslanders but all Australians. I support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone and so do the people of Queensland, and I believe everybody in this House should support it. This is not the first time the Independents have fought on federal government issues, on local issues or on state issues. They are all our responsibilities. There are no borders when it comes to trying to represent the people of this great state. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (6.21 pm): I want to quickly add my support tonight to the Queensland Treasurer’s amendment and to the comments made by the Prime Minister and federal Treasurer yesterday. It is my understanding that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has said that he expects the full one per cent rate cut announced yesterday to be passed on by the banks, and it was pointed out earlier that we should not forget the quarter of a per cent reduction announced last month as well. I must say that I agree with Wayne Swan’s approach, because I think it is important to get the balance right between maintaining Australia’s financial system and ensuring we assist working families. The way this is best achieved is by ensuring the financial stability of not only the larger banks but also those smaller regional institutions. To do this, we have to ensure that banks and building societies can consolidate their balance sheets and assist those institutions doing it tough. Mr Speaker, this is not pie-in-the-sky scaremongering because, as you would know, already some 25 banks around the world have either failed or have had to be bailed out, and that has been well documented here tonight. Indeed, I am aware that the Queensland Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, has commented on the fact that we are in a time of unprecedented global financial turmoil, and no-one here would dispute that. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the Bligh government will continue to be committed to maintaining our economic strength and at the same time continue to work to make housing more affordable to first home buyers. For an example of this we need look no further than the tax reforms introduced by the government in the budget this year, such as the reductions in stamp duty. That said, I agree that the passing on of the full one per cent rate cut by the banks would provide much-needed relief to families and small businesses who have been struggling for some time with the rising cost of living. I heard that a 0.8 per cent reduction has been passed on by one of the banks already today. That 0.8 per cent certainly is not one per cent, but it is not something that anyone would have sneezed at yesterday if we had heard it. I should point out that I am fully aware of the difficulties currently being faced in the community, because many of my constituents have told me that they have had to forgo some of the niceties in order to simply pay the bills and put food on the table. When we talk about niceties, it may only be a take-away meal once a week or something like that, so I understand exactly where they are coming from. As our Prime Minister said yesterday, we should all expect that there would be a maximum pass- on of the cut through to our working families and small businesses. As we all know, we have been saying for some time that households needed a break and the Reserve Bank needed to start cutting interest rates. I should state that the one per cent reduction has been decisive and swift and it caught many of our financial analysts by surprise—as it caught many here by surprise. As such, this move by the Reserve Bank to secure Australia’s financial stability should be applauded and not downgraded at all. We cannot risk outcomes which put at risk further interest rate reductions like yesterday’s cut, which is worth around $150 to the average Queensland mortgage holder. We need to be very aware that an extra $150 in a family’s budget would make significant differences to their standard of living. Mr Gray interjected. Mr WENDT: I take the member for Gaven’s interjection: it makes a huge difference. As members would know, moves like this are needed to secure the long-term prosperity of the state and, for that matter, to support many of our working families. As such, I join with the Treasurer in urging the banks to pass on the full rate cut, keeping in mind that the stability of our economy is of paramount importance. I support the Treasurer’s amendment. Division: Question put—That Mr Fraser’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 49—Attwood, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Jones, Male NOES, 26—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Rickuss, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Foley, Lee Long Resolved in the affirmative. Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Motion, as agreed— That this House calls on Australian banks to pass on the full Reserve Bank interest rate reductions. Sitting suspended from 6.33 pm to 7.35 pm. 08 Oct 2008 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2979

CRIMINAL CODE AND OTHER ACTS (GRAFFITI CLEAN-UP) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 10 September (see p. 2695), on motion of Mr McArdle— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr DICKSON (Kawana—LNP) (7.35 pm): I rise to speak to the Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill. The LNP is trying to work with the government to rid our neighbourhoods of this blight on society. It has gone on for far too long. On the Sunshine Coast we have our fair share of graffiti. And it is not art; it is an eyesore. The people of the Sunshine Coast have had a gutful of it. The Sunshine Coast has some extraordinary people, past and present—people like Grant Kenny and Lisa Curry-Kenny, Steve Irwin, and the list goes on and on. We have another champion on the Sunshine Coast, a man by the name of Graham Hall. He is someone who has contacted my office on numerous occasions. I had been in touch with Main Roads and had sent letters to these people asking if this graffiti could be cleaned up. Another man who has done a fabulous job is Warren Pitt. He came on board and he has decided to rid graffiti from the Sunshine Coast, and I say that very sincerely. Graham’s story is very simple. He is a man who got in touch with my office regularly. He wanted this graffiti gone. He drives down the highway on a daily basis, as many people on the Sunshine Coast do, and it is an absolute eyesore. He consistently and continually got in touch with my office. The bottom line is that nothing happened to get rid of this graffiti. He contacted my office probably once every six months or so. Eventually he got in touch with me a couple of weeks ago and said, ‘Listen, I am going to paint this graffiti off.’ I said, ‘I really don’t think it is a good idea. We will probably get ourselves into strife if you do that.’ He said, ‘I’m going down; I’m going to paint it off anyway.’ I said, ‘I’ll come down and give you a hand,’ and I did. We painted roughly 150 to 200 metres of fencing with mission brown paint. I think we did a pretty good job generally, but it got rid of the graffiti. It sent a very clear message to the graffiti vandals. I am going to talk in a bipartisan manner on this. I might have a go at the government every now and then, but I will not on this issue. We have to work together and we have to be united to get rid of graffiti. I just watched Today Tonight on the television tonight, and graffiti is costing the Australian people $500 million. Think of what $500 million could do in this country. The world is in economic meltdown at the moment. $500 million could be spent on a lot better things than getting rid of graffiti. The guys and girls out there doing this are not champions of society. We all know that. It is just not the right thing to do. I am requesting that all members of parliament support this bill tonight. They will or they will not; that is up to them, but I think consciously we all need to do something a bit different. We need to be united, we need to be empowered and we need to work with our society, because at the moment it looks like society is decaying. What graffiti says to young people is, ‘You’re getting away with it. You can do it and nobody is going to do anything about it.’ One young fellow in our area who is now in his mid-20s has been caught three times doing graffiti. He has been caught in Brisbane on railroad trains, and he has been caught on the Sunshine Coast a couple of times. He is going to go to court and he is probably going to get another slap on the wrist. Is this good enough and is it acceptable? In my mind it is not, and I am sure in the minds of all honourable members tonight it is not either. We need to stand up and we need to fight this, because this is just the tip of the iceberg. If we let society degenerate in this way, it will continue to melt down. We need to send a very clear message to these vandals. They are not graffiti artists; they are graffiti vandals. We are letting this happen today. That is the point I am trying to make. A gentleman from the Sunshine Coast Daily by the name of Bill Hoffman put forward a suggestion this morning relating to the barriers. If we plant them out, it is a way of covering up these fences and the graffiti vandals will not get any benefit from people seeing what they do on these fences. Our mission should be to cover this stuff up on the same day that it is put on these fences or we should be directing our bodies of government— Ms Male interjected. Mr DICKSON: That is the problem we are facing. This bill is a step in the right direction. I am saying in a bipartisan manner that what we are trying to do with this bill tonight in Queensland is one step. It is one component which can assist in getting rid of graffiti. The law at the moment is very clear in Queensland. It states that a judge can impose a jail term of five years. It states that an offender can receive 240 hours of community service. It states that there can be a $10,000 fine. None of this is being implemented. It is being used very poorly by our legal system. I want to say very clearly that the legal system is getting it wrong. It has the power to do something about this. Judges are not making the hard decisions. I think the government should be very loudly and very clearly stating this right across Queensland. It should do something about this. I remember when we were first inducted and we were basically told to keep our hands off the judges. I do not think that is real clever, to be honest. It is not a matter of making judges do anything. It is a matter of 2980 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008 asking them to fulfil their commitment and their role. As politicians, we have to do what we have to do. Judges also have a responsibility to society to uphold the law. In this particular case I do not think they are doing their job very well at all. They should be setting an example to society that this will not be accepted, that they will stand on these people from a very high height. It is a little bit like Singapore, when drug dealers used to feel free to deliver drugs throughout the world. In Singapore they hung a couple of them, and drug dealing cut back in a real hurry. Repeat graffiti offenders who continue to do what they do—for example, a person who graffitis three times and is caught three times—might need 30 days in prison. Maybe the judges need to do a little bit better than they are doing. The first time, get them out there cleaning it up. The second time, get them out there cleaning it up. But after the third time I think they need to be sent a very clear message. Those opposite can laugh and joke about it if they like, but I do not think it is very funny and I think the whole nation is starting to get behind this. I think the government could lead the way in Australia and start a national antigraffiti day when we get rid of this eyesore in our community. It is not hard to do. It is a matter of getting motivated and wanting to change the way society is today. This is really simple to do. A bloke by the name of Graham Hall got rid of 150 metres of graffiti almost on his own. He and I did it together. Two people did that job. It cost us just on $1,250. When we think about it, that is not a lot of money in the scheme of things. But $500 million to clean up graffiti is a lot of money. We can say it quickly, but it takes a long time to earn that sort of money after tax. We will work with the government to get rid of this graffiti. We need a bipartisan approach to this. I am sure the federal government is looking to do something about this issue as well. Why not be leaders in the field for a change? Why not lead by example? I am going to keep harping on the legal system because they are just not getting it right. They need to be talked to about this. The Minister for Justice sitting across the chamber may be able to have a talk to them—that is his job—and let them know that one politician is not happy about this situation. I am sure a lot of other politicians in this chamber are not happy about this. There are many people in the media and many people in different businesses right across this land who have had a gutful of this. They want something done about it. We can sit in this parliament day in and day out and debate bills back and forth, but this is something we can all get our teeth into in our areas when we go home. We should start to do something about it. We should start to push the issue of getting rid of this blight on society. I know that people on the Sunshine Coast are pretty keen to get rid of it. I know that they will get out of bed and buy themselves some paint and paint it out. I thank Warren Pitt very much for his commitment and his stand on this. I know that he is an honourable and good man. Mr Hall is an honourable and good man who will do the right thing by Queensland. I thank you for not doing him over as well. I say to all in this House: please jump on board. This bill we are putting forward is one step in the process. There are millions of different ideas that we can all put in place. We can come up with ideas in each of our areas. We can all do a little bit. This is easy. It is not rocket science. We can do it together. Graffiti is happening in Glass House, it is happening in Kawana, it is happening in Clayfield and it is happening in every part of this state and every part of Australia. Society is decaying because of this. Let us stand up to these little buggers and tell them that we are not going to accept it anymore. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (7.45 pm): I rise this evening to speak in support of the Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2008. The stain of illegal graffiti costs hardworking Queenslanders many millions of dollars and is an ugly eyesore on our urban landscapes throughout Queensland. I will outline some recent examples that have occurred in Bundaberg. The Bundaberg cemetery was recently hit by numerous cases of serious vandalism and graffiti. The latest offence was an attack on the graves of four babies. This sends a very sad message to the community. It is a sad reflection on our youth when a few of them are doing the wrong thing. Through July and August an excessive number of reports were made to police after offensive hate messages were graffitied around the city on a daily basis. Homes, businesses, cars, rubbish bins, phone boxes, playgrounds, parks, public toilets and even the Don Tallon bridge were defaced with illegal graffiti. As members can imagine, many of the property owners removed the graffiti straightaway as they were ashamed to have offensive symbols on their properties. After excellent work by the local police and information from the community, two young offenders were arrested and charged with numerous offences. This type of community spirit again illustrates why Bundaberg is such a great place in which to live, but it also highlights the community’s disgust at this type of offence. This needs to be reflected in appropriate legislation. 08 Oct 2008 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2981

A 2005 crime and safety survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 25 per cent of Australians believed graffiti was a major problem in their neighbourhood. The cost to our communities of graffiti clean-up is enormous. According to former police minister McGrady in 2003, Queensland-wide this clean-up costs at least $100 million every year. While there is little quantitative data to support this statement, Victoria’s graffiti management web site claimed the cost of graffiti clean-up across Australia was $300 million a year in 2003 dollars. We are now five years ahead of that. The cost of graffiti crime is passed on to the community through higher service costs, insurance premiums and council rates. This is not the cost of clean-up and surface and paint repair work. In drafting the Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill, the LNP listened to the growing concerns of Queenslanders who are just fed up with having their properties vandalised and their neighbourhoods infected by this out-of-control urban stain. Graffiti affects the whole community in the hip pocket as the cost of cleaning up this mess is paid for by every taxpayer. The judicial system needs legislation to treat the crime of graffiti seriously and to hand down sentences that reflect community expectations. According to figures released by the Attorney-General in response to question on notice 1,467, 600 offenders were found guilty of graffiti offences in 2005-06. Some 743 offenders were found guilty of a graffiti offence in 2006-07. The Penalties and Sentences Act states that with regard to community service orders the total number of hours stated in that order must not be less than 40 and not more than 240 and must be performed within one year from the making of the order or another time allocated by the court. From the figures provided by this current state government, this private member’s bill could clearly save Queenslanders the cost of 29,720 hours of graffiti removal that would otherwise be performed by their local council or state government agencies. This figure is actually calculated at the minimum number of hours of the order of 40 multiplied by 743 offenders to make sure that we are not excessive in that estimation. A recent letter written by the police minister stated— [The] claim that graffiti vandals continue to be treated with kid gloves is wrong. Every year, people on community corrections orders, including graffiti offenders, are ordered to remove graffiti as part of their reparation for their crimes. Last year, Queensland Corrective Services, with offenders 17 years and over, spent 336,000 hours removing graffiti. This work has a value to the community of about $5 million. This letter also inadvertently supports the LNP bill because it shows that more graffiti is occurring than is being reported to police and far more offenders are getting away with this type of offence than are being caught. This is shown in sharp contrast by the figures provided by the Attorney-General’s department and that of the police minister in that letter. The government’s figures supplied to the parliament, as I have already stated, equated to 29,720 hours performed by 743 offenders, yet on the information supplied by the police minister, only the adult offenders, which is the minority group of offenders in this graffiti offence bracket, were removing 336,000 hours of graffiti. The opposition has tried to gain details from this government on several occasions as to the number of graffiti criminals who have been placed on community service orders under the current sentencing regime and have been denied that information claiming it is too onerous. The lack of enforcement of these orders due to insufficient resources and proper legislation justifies the need for the introduction of this bill. Graffiti has a negative impact on the urban landscape. Criminologists James Wilson and George Kelling stated in their publication Broken Windows, which was mentioned by a number of members of parliament on both sides, that graffiti in a particular place indicates to the law-abiding users of the area that the environment is uncontrolled and uncontrollable and that anyone can invade it to do whatever damage and mischief the mind suggests. This bill is about ensuring that the public can have faith that all who commit graffiti will be made to repay the damage they cause by undertaking community service and by magistrates ensuring that offenders are made to clean up the mess of graffiti as part of their sentence. Currently the law provides an option to the courts to impose such a penalty on top of any other punishment handed down, but there is no certainty that this is occurring. The people of Queensland deserve that certainty. The time for making excuses for these criminals has passed. We need action to ensure that their crimes are atoned for and community confidence is returned. In closing, this bill’s objective reflects community expectations. If people commit the crime of graffiti, regardless of the amount of damage they do they should expect to be undertaking some form of community service on top of the court’s punishment. It also reflects the re-establishment of community confidence in the young people of our community as a symbol for the future in that we start to restore the faith of the youth. Bringing forward this legislation and voting on it in a positive way also assists young people in that they will not have to go through more serious court proceedings. By undertaking these community service orders, they would be diverted from committing more serious offences. They 2982 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008 would be seen to be working at helping the community, but their future would not be adversely affect. They would not be diverted from their jobs or future study opportunities because they committed what is seen to be a stupid offence on the spur of the moment. I ask everyone to support this bill before the House. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (7.54 pm): I rise to speak against the Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2008, which was introduced as a private member’s bill by the member for Caloundra in February. There is no doubt there are significant costs to the community as a result of graffiti. The government agrees that those convicted of graffiti offences should be punished and, where appropriate, should be ordered to perform clean-up work as part of a community service order. What is different between the current laws and what is proposed in the opposition’s bill is that the courts currently determine whether community service is a suitable punishment for a particular offender on a case-by-case basis. The government does not believe that making clean-up orders mandatory is practical and neither do I. Forcing offenders who are suffering from an illness or disability to conduct clean-up work as part of a community service order is just setting them up to breach the order. This will force them back before the courts at a further cost to the community. Mandatory orders do not take into account the circumstances of different cases and may see those convicted of minor offences sentenced to similar community orders as serious offenders. It is more appropriate for our independent and learned judicial officers to determine an appropriate sentence after considering all the facts of the case, including the offender’s circumstances. There is another issue with this bill, in that mandating community service orders is inconsistent with the legislative requirements in certain sections of the Penalties and Sentences Act and would lead to these orders being breached. Effectively, the opposition is setting offenders up to fail, which means they will be brought back before the court, they will be punished for breaching their community service order and the court’s time is wasted. The cost to the community from graffiti is already high enough without money also being wasted on bringing people back before the court because they have breached a community service order they were never going to be able to comply with. Another impact this bill would have if it were passed is that, by introducing mandatory community service orders for graffiti offences, it is possible an offender could be punished twice for an offence. Under this private member’s bill, a mandatory community service order would still have to be imposed even if a judge or magistrate decided that a more severe punishment, such as imprisonment, was appropriate. There is no doubt that in the most serious cases a period of imprisonment may be appropriate. The danger is that if this bill is passed and there was a possibility of a double punishment for offenders, any custodial sentence imposed may be reduced because of the fact that a community service order has to be imposed. The fact is that current laws encased in the Criminal Code and the Summary Offences Act already contain strong penalties and include the ability for community services orders to be imposed. In fact, last financial year Queensland offenders completed around 336,000 hours of community service valued at more than $5 million to the community. It is quite clear that many offenders are already subject to community service orders and that mandatory orders are not needed. In 2003, the report of the all-party parliamentary law and water task force concluded that the current laws are adequate. This bill also fails to consider measures taken to reduce graffiti in our society. The most effective way to fight graffiti is to remove it as soon as possible. People are less likely to deface someone’s property if it is clean. Also, if graffiti artists are not able to admire their work or have it viewed by others then they will be less likely to deface property in the first place. If property owners had to wait for an offender to receive a community service order to clean graffiti off their property they could be waiting for months for court cases to finish. The community is better served through the swift removal of graffiti rather than waiting for mandatory community service orders to be imposed. It is also highly unlikely that property owners who are victims of graffiti artists—and I use that term very loosely—would want people convicted of graffiti offences coming to their homes to serve out community service orders. A policy of mandatory community service orders for graffiti offences has yet to be adopted in any Australian jurisdiction. Indeed, the Bligh government believes a policy that requires a community service order to be imposed in all graffiti cases, irrespective of the best interests of the victim, the community and the offender, is not the best policy. We have already introduced amendments to the Summary Offences Act to prohibit the sale of aerosol paint cans to minors, thereby reducing the incidence of graffiti. Once again, the opposition has shown it has little imagination when it comes to policy on crime. Its members are either not willing or not able to come up with a bill which produces solid solutions to prevent graffiti crime or appropriate punishments. I would also like to point out that, in an answer to a question on notice that I asked in April this year of the member for Caloundra, he conceded that I am right in my stance that effective, immediate clean-up is vital, yet he has brought in a bill that would do the exact opposite. It would mean that graffiti 08 Oct 2008 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2983 would remain in view for months until the matter is resolved by the courts. I note, too, that the member for Kawana has said exactly the same thing in the debate tonight. This is an ill-conceived and ill-thought out bill, and I do not support it. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (7.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill, which was introduced into this House by the former shadow Attorney-General, the member for Caloundra. I just heard what the member for Glass House had to say. I was somewhat dismayed to think that the government is not going to put these louts before the court because they will go back and do it again. I just find that absolutely mind-boggling. The one thing that I think we— Ms Male: I didn’t say that. Mr JOHNSON: The member virtually said it. That is what she meant. You said that, if you are going to keep on putting them back before the court, they will go and do it again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! I ask members to direct their points through the chair. Mr JOHNSON: The one thing I want to say to the member for Glass House—and I think every member in this House would agree with this—is that one of the ugliest things in our community today is graffiti. There is no doubt about that. I remember that when I was the Minister for Transport and Main Roads the bill every year for Queensland Rail to clean up graffiti was somewhere about $3 million or $4 million. You see coal wagons and these rolling stock wagons that go out into the west and to the north covered in graffiti. Some of these people who do this graffiti are very good artists, I will grant you that, but why do they have to disfigure public property or private property? Because most of them come from a family or from an environment where they have never, ever had a kick in the butt from their old man. They have never, ever been made to do anything. They have never, ever respected themselves, let alone anybody else. Unfortunately, we have an out-of-control element in our communities today who are blatantly abusing and violating people’s property just to give themselves a thrill. I know the government has put in place a ban on the sale of aerosol spray paints to juveniles under a certain age, but the point I make here is that you can impose any sort of restriction at all on these young people but they will get the paint whichever way they can. It is a bit like the federal government putting the extra tax on the premixed drinks; now the young people go and buy a bottle of rum or a bottle of scotch and add their own mixers. That is what is happening at this very moment. We are driving people underground. You can drive along Coronation Drive and see graffiti on that beautiful Brisbane Valley bypass. I do not know how they get up there and paint it. It just beggars belief how they do it. They must nearly commit suicide to do it. I see the Minister for Main Roads and Local Government in the House. He must think the same. We see graffiti on these beautiful sound barriers. I do not know how they get up there. All of a sudden you will see graffiti. There is nothing there today, but tomorrow it will be there. We certainly do not need graffiti in our country and in our state in 2008. At the time the member for Caloundra introduced this legislation the government introduced amendments to the Summary Offences Act also relating to graffiti. This private member’s bill was on the table, but debate on it had not been completed. If people are going to commit a crime, community service work is one way of making those people go out there and correct the ill of their ways. They have to be made an example of. If we are not going to make an example of those people, these little brats will do it again and again and again. Unfortunately, in our society today our police are not respected the way they should be. I know when I was a young fellow growing up in the bush the police were No. 1. If you saw a police car parked in the street, even if you did not know why it was parked there, you certainly made sure you were doing the right thing. I think the same applies to many of us today. One thing we have to do in our society today is get people to respect the law and to respect themselves. If they are not going to respect themselves, there is not a way in the world they are going to respect somebody else’s property. As I say, this bill makes changes to the wording of the Criminal Code as well as introduce sentencing provisions in the Summary Offences Act and the Regulatory Offences Act. This bill is all about making people responsible for their actions. We could talk for hours about issues related to crime. This afternoon in this House we passed legislation relating to the rights of prisoners and what they can do and what they cannot do. That is the damn trouble with our community today. There are too many people out there now who know what their rights are, but their rights are not fruitful rights. They are out there destroying somebody else’s property—being vandals, being delinquents and thinking that that is funny and big time. When I was a young bloke growing up I did a lot of silly things, but there is one thing I did not do and that is vandalise other people’s property. The only person I hurt was probably myself, because I was frightened of my parents and I was frightened of the police. I still have that fear of police, because that is the way I was brought up: to respect the police. I believe we have to instill those values in our young people today. The police are our friends, but I think with the way these people are going, the minister for police and corrective services is right: we will have to keep building more prisons to house this element of society. 2984 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

We talk about giving these kids a rap on the hand and saying, ‘Don’t do it again.’ This private member’s bill is about making these kids do community service. If we are going to continually say, ‘No, don’t do it again,’ we will find them coming back doing something bigger and better than ever. Yes, we will have to build more jails and we will find ourselves with juvenile centres full of these young people. Before too long, they will be in the main prison facilities where they will be learning the ropes from the hardened types. That is where it all starts but it never finishes there, because they get in there and do two or three years with the hardened ones, come out and do something else and it goes on. I think wherever we go in life we always find somewhere where people start. I think graffiti is the ugliest scourge that we have on property around Queensland. It not only occurs in the nicer areas; it occurs in every area of the state. You see it around the railway lines, you see it on the walls of buildings, you see it on the fences around sporting facilities—you see it everywhere. I think everybody in this House and in this state must be absolutely ashamed of what they witness. I think we have to get into the schools in our state more often and encourage our young people to be positive, to be committed and to be respectful of other people as well as themselves. While the justice system is not making these people do the right thing, I feel we are wasting our time. It is up to the justice system. I see the Attorney-General in the House here tonight. I have great respect for the Attorney-General and for his role as the chief law officer of the state. I really think that is where it has to start. We have to start with the penalty, and that is exactly what this private member’s bill is about. If we are going to be fair dinkum about cleaning up crime, we have to be fair dinkum about this type of petty crime. This bill is about ensuring that the public can have faith that those who commit graffiti are made to repay the damage they cause by undergoing that community service. The government’s bill that was debated in this place a couple of weeks ago said that there were only certain properties where people could go and clean up graffiti. I think people who had graffiti imposed on them would like those people who did it to clean it up, regardless of whether it is private property or public property. At the end of the day, regardless of where it is, it is people’s property and it must be respected as private property, or public property, or whatever. People do not spend tens of thousands of dollars beautifying their properties and putting up beautiful walls and fences just for some lout to come along under the cover of darkness, when he has no guts at all, to spray-paint all over it or write obscene remarks on it just to give himself or herself satisfaction. I can assure this House that the people of Queensland have had enough. I just hope and trust that as legislation is further revised and brought back to this House the Attorney-General will see merit in making these penalties harsher and that we will see members on both sides of the House agreeing with what the penalties and the policies in relation to graffiti should be. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.10 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to participate in the debate on the Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill introduced by the member for Caloundra. I have listened to the debate on this bill. I take members to the second sentence in the shadow minister’s second reading speech where he says very simply that the bill introduces changes ‘...making it certain that all persons found guilty of a graffiti or graffiti related offence must complete some form of community service to give back what they have taken away’. I think that very simply sums up what the bill is about. We have certainly heard a lot of debate about the issue of graffiti and how it has impacted on so many lives. The reality is that whether this bill succeeds or fails—and certainly it appears it will fail tonight—the member for Caloundra can leave the House knowing that he has been instrumental in prompting a lot of debate in our community, in government circles and in many homes throughout Queensland on the issue of graffiti. I have no doubt that somewhere in Queensland parents will be talking to their son or daughter about this very issue of graffiti simply because of the increased publicity that has arisen in our community as a result of the member for Caloundra bringing forward this bill and prompting the government to respond in the way it has. I am concerned that one of the real causes of graffiti is simply people having too much idle time. In their minds they have nothing better to do. As a community, as members of parliament and as parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts we all have a responsibility to the people in our community who may be otherwise idle and getting into mischief to explore more appropriate ways to engage them in productive activities. The Sunshine Coast Police Citizens Youth Club in Nambour has been doing wonderful things with our young people. I regularly walk under the subway at the Nambour Railway Station and often it distresses me to see the graffiti that time and again comes back onto the wall. Members may not be aware that we have three surveillance cameras in that small subway, yet the graffiti still happens. Some people who have a lot of idle time are prepared to leave a mark notwithstanding the risk of being seen or caught. The member for Caloundra has suggested a sensible step. I do not have a problem with mandatory community service orders. I believe that parts of the bill are worthy of a trial. I am not convinced, as some government members have said, that this bill would automatically lead to failure and increased penalties for offenders. Neither am I convinced that all the people who are involved in 08 Oct 2008 Criminal Code and Other Acts (Graffiti Clean-up) Amendment Bill 2985 graffiti painting and writing are young people. I think they are all people who have too much idle time on their hands. I repeat that as members of parliament, parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts we need to better engage many in our community who are otherwise idle and getting themselves into mischief. I wonder if some of the people involved in graffiti are also involved in other unsavoury activities. I shall resume my seat, although I thought that the member for Gladstone was going to contribute before the shadow minister spoke in reply. I commend the member for Caloundra on his bill and I look forward to the next bill that he introduces. Who knows? Perhaps this time next year he will be sitting on the other side of this chamber, so all is not lost. He has been instrumental in prompting the government to respond. I congratulate him and I wish him well in the future. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.15 pm), in reply: I start by thanking all members who spoke on the bill, particularly those on this side of the House who supported the bill. I thank the member for Nicklin for his kind words. I certainly hope that his prediction about next year is right. A government member: It wasn’t a prediction; it was just speculation. Mr McARDLE: We can debate the terms. I certainly thank the member for his words of encouragement. The crux of this bill is very simple. It states that, if a person is convicted of a graffiti offence or a related offence, by way of part punishment or full punishment that person will be required to undertake some form of community service, which can include removing graffiti from property. I think government members have missed the point that, although an individual may own a fence or the state municipality may own a wall upon which graffiti is sprayed, we are all victims of graffiti offences because we all have to view it, we have to drive by it and we have to live with it. It is an offence that impacts upon every member within this House. It impacts upon how we view our own society in the light of what some young people believe is a fair and honourable thing to do. We need to understand the concept behind this bill, which is to establish that if someone is going to commit a graffiti related offence they will pay some form of reasonable penalty. If they are convicted of an offence, I do not see any reason why the penalty should not be getting down on their hands and knees with a scrubbing brush and a bit of soap or Salvo and scrubbing off the graffiti. If they had the audacity to get up in the middle of the night or slink around in the early hours of the morning spraying graffiti over walls and buildings, they should be taken to task. They should be put on their hands and knees in front of the people whose property they have desecrated and be made to remove the particular offending item. Government members offered what can only be called fairly lame excuses for not supporting this bill. One excuse was that we could not expose young men and maybe women to the toxic chemicals that would be used to remove the graffiti from the wall or other property. However, those same people were quite happy to use toxic chemicals to place the graffiti on the wall, building or on some other place that they thought was appropriate and that could be viewed by the public. We could even stretch the budget and buy them masks so they do not breathe in the toxic fumes. Therefore, the issue raised by government members can be dealt with appropriately. There is also a concern, as I understand, about offenders who suffer from a mental condition or disability I think was the phraseology used. Again, these people certainly took it upon themselves and had the capacity to first of all go and buy a spray can and then form the thought process to go out and spray the wall with this filth. I imagine then that they would understand that they should pay a penalty and be asked to remove that graffiti from the wall. It was also proposed that this was a simplistic solution, to have people convicted of an offence told that they are required to go out and scrub it off. But on some occasions the simple solutions are perhaps the best. It is a simple solution in that if you commit the crime in essence you do the time. In this case the time equates to the person, scrubbing brush in hand, going out and about and removing the various items of graffiti that they were so joyfully happy to place on the wall. There have been comments made by members opposite that a rapid removal process is the best process. My opinion is that there is no requirement for the graffiti artist to remove his own graffiti. This is an area of criminal activity that unfortunately is covering holes and there are swathes of them in our regions, towns and cities. I am certain there is no shortfall in relation to where these young men and women could be told to go and what they could be told to do. At the end of the day, these young men and women are starting down a path which could lead to further criminal activity as time goes by. So it is important that these young people understand that, yes, they may have rights but with those rights come obligations. So, if they undertake this criminal activity, there is an obligation on them to remove the offending item from wherever they place it. Judy Durham, from the New South Wales Corrective Services probation and parole office, in a paper in 2003— Mr Horan: From the Seekers. 2986 Motion 08 Oct 2008

Mr McARDLE: From the Seekers as well. I take the interjection from the member. She raised in her paper a number of benefits that flowed through from the fact that offenders clean up their graffiti mess. The first one was that many people in our community are incensed about graffiti and the offenders who do it, and rightfully so. We know that from day one when this bill was introduced into the House significant numbers of people have been in contact with members and have been saying that graffiti is a major problem across the state, across their own electorate, across their own suburbs. People hate it. They hate the sight of it. They hate to think that people have spent tens of thousands dollars, if not a lot more, building a home, building a business or buying a car only to have it destroyed by some graffiti artist. So people in our community are saying to this House that we need to get our act together and make certain that something is done about it. By having young people out there being made to clean up the mess, the community sees that the young offenders are making reparation to the community for committing what is in essence a community crime. The community says that having young people clean up their graffiti is making visible reparation to the community for the mess that they have made. Mr Rickuss: It is a sort of justice. Mr McARDLE: The member is quite right. I take that interjection. It is a sort of justice, because the community sees that they have been violated and they certainly do want the offender dealt with in a manner that shows the offender is sorry for their crime. To be quite frank, the statistics coming through from the government indicate, to the best of our knowledge anyway, that no-one has been given a term of imprisonment. I understand that no community service orders have been issued by the court to offenders in relation to graffiti clean-up orders. Graffiti itself is exceptionally detrimental to our physical environment. It is an eyesore and has a detrimental effect on the way people see their own community. The fact that it is removed increases community pride and therefore promotes projects extending to other environmental areas. It is quite clear that when people walk around a suburb or a street or a city or a town and they see the town neat, clean, tidy and devoid of graffiti they are proud of that town and they are proud of that region but they clearly have the opposite point of view when they walk around and see graffiti all over walls and all over buildings. Clean-up orders also allow local councils to obtain the benefit of labour to assist in removing graffiti at a greatly reduced cost. The councils bear an onerous burden at this point in time and this saves the cost of employing a contractor. I also think that one of the greatest benefits in these circumstances is to the offender themselves. Sometimes the offender may only be required to perform one set of community service orders. That person will learn quite clearly that what they have done is wrong, that if they continue down this path their life of crime will continue. They will learn the difference between right or wrong very quickly. I suspect that there is nothing more sobering than being on your hands and knees with a scrubbing brush and a bit of old Salvo and being asked to remove graffiti from a wall. You would soon wake up to yourself that what you have done is wrong and you would learn a bit of respect not only for the community but for the people who own the building and for yourself. Sometimes it can be a great eye-opener when you stand in the other person’s shoes. It is then that you can get a greater sense of that person’s pride and ownership and a greater sense of what is indeed right or wrong. I once again commend all speakers in relation to this bill. In my opinion this bill provides a very effective answer to graffiti. It imposes upon the offender an obligation to clean up their mess. Our society believes that people are required to make reparation. Our community believes that graffiti is one of the great environmental vandalisms that can be committed. Making that person remove that vandalism goes a long way to rehabilitating that person. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 25—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Foley, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Pratt, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Dickson, Rickuss NOES, 48—Attwood, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Finn, Male Resolved in the negative.

MOTION

Order of Business Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (8.34 pm): I move— That general business order of the day No. 2 be postponed. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2987

LIQUID FUEL SUPPLY (ETHANOL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 14 May (see p. 1611), on motion of Mrs Menkens— That the bill be now read a second time. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Regional Development and Industry) (8.35 pm): Next year the Bligh government will be introducing into this parliament legislation to mandate five per cent ethanol in all regular unleaded petrol by 2010. The Bligh government remains committed to developing an ethanol industry in Queensland, and this will be driven by our 2006 election commitment to mandate ethanol. It is part of our alternative fuels policy, which supports the development of a range of renewable and alternative fuels in Queensland. Already, considerable investment has been made through this government’s $7.3 million Ethanol Industry Action Plan, which has seen the number of service stations retailing blended fuel increase from 40 to over 400 since the end of 2005, the development of blending and storage facilities and a necessary adjustment to transport capacity. This government has also provided $1 million to the Dalby Regional Council to put in infrastructure to ensure the supply of water to the Dalby Bio-Refinery. The development of a successful ethanol industry in Queensland forms part of our Q2 vision for the state as it will help to drive regional economic development and deliver a greener future for all Queenslanders. We are pleased that the opposition has indicated its support for our commitment to an ethanol mandate through the introduction of this private member’s bill. Further, in relation to this bill I note that the Liberal National Party has got the fundamentals right in three areas: (1) it wants to implement a five per cent mandate; (2) it wants to implement a mandate by volume rather than per litre; and (3) it wants to aim for a 10 per cent mandate in the longer term. There are, however, some areas of disagreement that the government has with this private member’s bill so we will not be supporting it. There are also significant issues that have not been resolved by this bill. If you are going to do something as important and yet as difficult as to mandate ethanol, it is important that you get it right. The first area of disagreement is in the implementation schedule for the mandate, and that is probably the most important of the issues. Put simply, the Liberal National Party has not developed a clear implementation schedule for its mandate. Instead, it is proposing a graduated mandate that starts at two per cent and increases to five per cent. A staged increase that may assist the expansion of existing producers is all very well, but it will not drive the development of new producers and a competitive, sustainable industry. In fact, it would discourage development of new ethanol plants and a more sustainable local industry. The Bligh government is focused on getting a new industry up and running in a structured and predictable way. This is essential for the development of a sustainable ethanol industry whereby Queensland can supply its own ethanol and all players are given reasonable balance and opportunity. To achieve this, we are currently building support for our legislation which is to be considered by government later this year, with introduction of the legislation proposed for mid-2009. This approach will provide enough time for the ethanol producers and fuel companies to prepare for the introduction of the mandate in 2010 and enough time for consumers to become familiar with all of the issues surrounding ethanol blended fuels. The second concern is in relation to the opposition’s approach to amending the existing Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 in order to implement a mandate. The 1984 legislation was intended to be used in emergency situations where there is a shortage of fuel. This has never occurred and the legislation has never been used. Using this legislation as a mechanism for implementing an ethanol mandate is inappropriate and actually will not work. The Bligh government wants to deliver a greener, smarter Queensland. We want to protect our lifestyle and environment, and we want to do things properly. The Bligh government’s approach is to develop specific legislation to implement the mandate that is suited to its purpose. The third major issue is that the opposition has no plan for the administration of the mandate. The Liquid Fuel Supply Act is designed for emergency use, and appropriate administration arrangements would be required to implement and manage the mandate. The next issue is that the opposition’s plans make no distinction between regular unleaded and premium unleaded fuels. This means that both regular unleaded and premium unleaded will be subject to the mandate as proposed by the opposition. Including premium unleaded petrol in the ethanol mandate would require a greater volume of ethanol—by our estimation about 225 million litres annually—which would be difficult to source in the short term. The Bligh government’s approach requires the application of the mandate to only regular unleaded petrol. This volume can be met, however, by local supply. Under the Bligh government model we would require 170 million litres per annum, which could be produced in Queensland by 2010. The 2988 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

Bligh government’s approach will ensure motorists with older vehicles, those who need to use premium fuels and boat owners will continue to be able to access fuels that best suit their vehicles and provide more customer choice. A further point of difference is that under the opposition’s bill the liability for complying with the mandate will fall exclusively upon petrol wholesalers. Under this model, there is a risk that the mandate may not lead to the required uptake of fuel ethanol by fuel retailers, as in many cases the fuel wholesalers will not be able to compel them to take up ethanol blended fuel. For this reason the Bligh government is considering an approach that will involve legislation to impose a liability for complying with the mandate on petrol wholesalers as well as a prescribed class of petrol retailers. This will share the responsibility for the mandate more broadly across the fuel industry and thereby help ensure that the mandate is actually met. The Bligh government is undertaking extensive consultation with major fuel companies and affected petrol retailers prior to finalising our decisions on liability. The opposition’s bill includes exemption provisions linked to the prescribed price for ethanol and allows fuel companies to exempt themselves from retailing ethanol for a time. But the opposition bill provides no detail on how this might be done. There are likely to be significant difficulties in prescribing a price for ethanol in legislation. This would be highly impractical given how difficult it is to establish an appropriate benchmark price. Ethanol pricing is affected by a range of factors including feedstock prices, particularly in Queensland, for sorghum and sugar, oil prices, exchange rates and the cost of imports. Most of these factors are determined by international markets and are beyond the control of the fuel companies, ethanol producers or the Queensland government. Under the Bligh government’s approach, the proposed exemption provisions do not prescribe a price for ethanol. Rather, the exemption provisions will allow a liable party to demonstrate that ethanol supply is uneconomic under current market conditions. This will ensure that ethanol producers do not use the mandate to charge excessive prices. Further, it is intended that under the Bligh government’s approach the government will be able to audit both fuel companies and ethanol producers to determine if the exemption being requested is justified. This will add credibility to the mandate and ensure that any decision to provide an exemption is made on the basis of facts. The final issue that the Bligh government has with the private member’s bill is that it includes no provisions for the suspension of the mandate should circumstances require it. A suspension provision may be necessary in extreme situations such as drought and to prevent exceptional rises in the cost of fuel for Queensland motorists or disadvantage to other important Queensland industries such as feedlots. The good news is that the opposition supports the government’s decision to mandate ethanol. The Bligh government remains completely committed to implementing the mandate by 2010, and we commend the opposition for its in-principle support. The inadequacies of the present bill notwithstanding, I invite the opposition to work with us on developing thorough and well thought through legislation to further address the issues that I have raised tonight and to ensure that the ethanol mandate is effective and equitable. It would indeed be a great positive for Queenslanders to see us working together on this legislation which will, we hope, have many benefits for Queenslanders. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (8.44 pm): I rise to oppose the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill brought before the House by the member for Burdekin, Mrs Menkens. The bill proposes to amend the Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 in order to facilitate a proposed five per cent ethanol mandate. As the minister has just outlined, the mandate is consistent with the Queensland government’s policy announced in 2006 of implementing a five per cent mandate by 2010. The government’s opposition to the bill, therefore, relates to its mechanism rather than to its intent. In simple terms, the government’s objections are as follows: firstly, the Liquid Fuel Supply Act is a specific piece of legislation for the purpose of managing limited supply in an emergency. It has never been enacted. The implementation of a mandate is a complex intervention in a market and the government’s intention, therefore, is to develop a specific act which we propose to introduce in 2009. The attempt to amend an incompatible act rather than legislating from scratch has led to a number of oversights. Specifically, the bill gives no consideration to how the mandate will be administered and there are no provisions for an auditing mechanism to ensure compliance. The bill includes no provision for a ministerial directive to suspend the mandate in exceptional circumstances. We should understand that such a suspension may well be necessary. We have already seen reports this year in the Australian Financial Review of increasing bread prices in some American states where grain has been diverted from food to fuel production in order to meet the various state based mandates. That is a real possibility with a mandate such as this. It is not the public policy objective, and so any mandate must have an exemption clause to avoid any such negative unintended consequences. As the second reading speech for the bill states, ‘Oil stocks worldwide are understood to be reaching a peak in the near future.’ The prospect of peak oil is a serious one. As I have said in a series of speeches to this House over the last four years, we face the very real probability that in the years 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2989 ahead world supply of oil will peak and decline, while oil demand continues to rise. Such a scenario if left unchecked will lead to the scenarios outlined in the Queensland government’s oil vulnerability task force report, of which I was deputy chair, of rising petrol prices impacting seriously on agriculture, on tourism, on private transport costs, particularly for people living in outer suburbs, and on the freight costs of all goods. These are serious matters and they must be dealt with through careful policy consideration. It is quite possible that biofuels like ethanol will form some part of the solution to this dire scenario, although it should be understood that it would take more than all of Australia’s agricultural land to replace our current liquid fuel production with biofuels, and that is if we did not produce any food at all. These are serious matters, as I said. The problem with the Nationals’ longstanding approach to the ethanol debate is that they have seen ethanol as a kind of cargo cult offering some hope to a highly regulated and now struggling cane industry. That kind of desperation is why we have the cobbled together legislation that we are seeing today. The government’s approach does not differ in its end. We agree on a five per cent mandate, but we do differ on the means. We support ethanol through a considered approach to industry development. That is why we will develop a stand-alone act, and that is why we are currently working closely with Queensland’s nascent ethanol industry, both from cane and grain, to ensure that the mandate can be met. But we are also developing a serious response to the much bigger challenge of peak oil. Following the report of the oil vulnerability task force released last year, the sustainability minister, Minister McNamara, has recently released a community information paper for public comment. Titled ‘Towards Oil Resilience’, the paper details a range of responses to the challenge of peak oil including better urban design, building self-reliant cities and regions and improving public transport. The paper is open for public comment until 17 October. Responding to declining world oil supply is a serious business. It will be a defining challenge of our political future. The issues are more serious than cobbling together a bill in order to provide yet another subsidiary—in this case a mandate—purely for the purposes of holding up what is now a struggling cane industry. A serious approach with a stand- alone bill is the policy of the Bligh government. It is not what is contained in this bill and that is why this bill should not be supported. Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (8.50 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill, which is before the House and was introduced by the opposition spokesperson. From the outset, I think we probably need a bit of an education program in this House tonight. The situation in Queensland is that the only ethanol currently made in Queensland is made out of molasses which is a by-product of the sugar industry. There is no ethanol made out of the actual sugar or the juice. What we are calling ethanol produced in this manner is first generation ethanol. It is basically made out of grain, cane and products that can actually be used for food. What we are all looking for and what we really should be trying to do and funding quite extensively is second generation ethanol production which is ethanol made out of cellulosic product. That is the material that is left after the sugar is taken out of cane; the cells that are left in the cane after the sugar is produced. It is garden waste, it is green waste from cities, it is weeds, it is timber waste that will ultimately form the basis of very sustainable second generation ethanol production right across the world. We are at the cusp of a breakthrough with regard to this matter. With an ability to decrease the price of the catalytic converters that are needed to produce that ethanol we can see that in the future the production of ethanol would be a very cheap alternative for the oil industry around the world, particularly the liquid fuel industry. I will get a few facts straight. The state government is proposing a five per cent mandate. There are a couple of interesting questions that we should ask to blow holes in that straight away. Currently we have ethanol production from a waste product of the sugar industry. We have no grain industry ethanol plant in Australia at this stage. We are not going to have enough production to actually meet the five per cent mandate. The bill before the House tonight proposes that the mandate will be put in place as the production increases. Basically, if we have enough production to supply a one per cent mandate that is exactly what the mandate will be. Investors, farmers, graziers and financiers right across Queensland will be able to invest in an industry knowing that as they invest in the industry the industry is underpinned by a mandate that moves along with the increased production of ethanol. I would have thought that that was a reasonable assumption and a bill that the government could actually support. I have listened to what members opposite have said in relation to this bill before us tonight. I find it very difficult to understand where they are coming from. They raise concerns regarding the liquid fuel act that passed this House many years ago. Quite frankly, I do not see the relevance of that. As I said, the government is proposing a five per cent mandate by 2010. I totally support the principle that we need some sort of mandate to make sure that there is viable financial backing for the very costly establishment of plants to produce ethanol. We seem to have a mindset in this House that somehow or other the production of ethanol is going to be the saviour of the sugar industry. I can tell members that that is not necessarily the case. 2990 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

As we move forward there will be a lot of ethanol production out of many other products. I certainly do not envisage that there will be great production out of sugar juice. It will be the by-products of the sugar industry that will certainly help out. Most important will be the biomass that is left over from the production of sugar. Ultimately, once the bagasse is fermented through a cellulosic plant, the by- product of that will be able to be used as either stock food or cogenerated through a cogenerational green electricity production plant. There are a lot of positives. We need substantial investment in setting up the cellulosic production of ethanol. There is some wonderful work being done on this around Queensland and right around the world. In terms of investment dollars, the Americans are leading the way many times over. It is a wonderful story. As we develop and move forward with research, second generation ethanol will certainly be a mainstay of the liquid fuel industry not only here in Australia but right across the world. I heard the member for Ipswich say that the peak oil situation is of great consequence to all of us. That is particularly the case in terms of liquid fuel. The transport industry, the shipping industry and the airline industry rely on liquid fuel. There are plenty of other energy sources for generating electricity such as hot rocks, tidal generation or solar. In terms of liquid fuel we do really have a problem. If this government recognises that we have to move forward quickly with a mandate for ethanol—a mandate that will move with the production of ethanol—it will ensure that the plants go up. We have been talking about this for so long. We still do not have major investment in this except for the plant that is being built out on the Darling Downs. We do not have massive building programs for ethanol plants throughout Queensland. How long is it now that we have been talking about the production of ethanol? It goes on and on. There is no doubt that we have bowsers right around Queensland that have ethanol. As most members would realise, that runs out very quickly because of the 3c differential in price. A lot of people are realising that even though it is probably slightly less efficient in terms of the litres per 100 kilometres for a car, it is certainly a great alternative. Once we get up to 10 per cent or even 85 per cent ethanol in our fuel like they do in Brazil, we will be starting to talk. What we should be trying to achieve in the longer term is up to 85 per cent ethanol in our fuel. In going back to the theme that I mentioned a while ago, it is about education. I am sure Mike Horan will raise the issue when he travels through America. We have to get the plants in place and a mandate in place. If they are not in place and people are not comfortable with using ethanol it will not go ahead. I think that the education of motorists around Queensland is such that they are accepting ethanol in their fuel and they are willing to use it. Obviously there are some issues in terms of outboard motors and small stationary motors. Some of the older cars that we are seeing less frequently on our roads have problems with ethanol. At the lower mandate that we are talking about most cars would run on a two per cent ethanol content with no trouble at all. I have some difficulty dealing with the fact that the government is not supporting this bill. I think it is short-sighted. I think there are issues that can be worked out between both sides of the parliament. There are probably issues within our bill that need to be looked at a little more carefully. We would be happy to take suggestions on board. If there are issues, we would look to the government to put some alternatives forward in the discussion we are having tonight. We are not seeing very much of that at all. Like most private members’ bills in this House, the government is opposing this bill basically because it does not want to support anything the opposition puts up. Within a short period of time we will find that a bill will come before this House that is very similar to the one which the government is knocking back tonight. With those few words, I support the legislation before the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Order! Before calling the next speaker, I would like to acknowledge some students from both the University of Queensland and Griffith University who are in the public gallery this evening. Welcome to parliament. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (8.59 pm): I rise to make a speech in this important second reading debate. Speeches at the second reading stage are part of a parliamentary tradition that is centuries old in which members explain the reasons behind their decision to support or not support a piece of legislation. In a moment I will make clear to the House how it is that I will be voting on this piece of legislation, but first I believe that it is important to explain the reasons behind my decision. The challenges that our society faces as a direct consequence of human induced climate change mean that we must reject the temptation of moving towards a business-as-usual model of political decision making. Our governments need to be greener and our governments need to be smarter. Climate change is the single greatest challenge that our generation of decision makers will face. How well or how badly we tackle climate change will, without a doubt, determine whether future generations thank us for our time as custodians of the planet or whether they curse us. We need to make smart decisions that will genuinely tackle climate change. This has to involve reducing our society’s carbon emissions. There are many ways that we can do this. 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2991

Electricity generation is a massive contributor to Queensland’s carbon footprint. There is an overwhelming reliance in Queensland upon coal-fired power stations to run our electricity network. There are simple things that governments can do to transition away from coal and towards a renewable energy future. I have spoken many times about the importance of solar energy. A simple thing that can be done within this parliament is to put in place a solar feed-in tariff based on the gross electricity generated by people who are good enough to install solar panels on their roofs rather than pay them based on the net of the solar energy they produce minus the electricity they use. What is important here is building a renewable energy future. This bill specifically deals with another great contributor to carbon emissions here in Queensland, namely transport. There is no doubt that we desperately need to reduce transport based carbon emissions, and this bill goes some way towards achieving this. However, a far better way of reducing our state’s transport carbon footprint would be to urgently develop a world-leading public and active transport system for our communities. I welcome yesterday’s decision by the Premier to proceed with an underground rail system for Brisbane. Indeed, this is something for which the Queensland Greens have campaigned for quite some time, as have I. However, we need to act now, not in 18 years time. We also need to heed the calls of the University of Queensland to not cut this busy transport destination out of the loop on any future metro system. Trams, too, are an important part of our sustainable transport future and we should not forget those. However, this bill deals mostly with transport emissions associated with private motor vehicles. The priority here, of course, should be to transition to far more efficient vehicles. Electric cars have the capacity to be run using power from an electricity system that could rely upon renewable energy. There is also, I believe, an important focus that we should not forget about and that is to allow people to downsize in terms of their transport carbon footprint with some priority for active transport like walking and using bicycles. This is a direction in which we clearly need to go in the future—and soon. I will be supporting this bill, but I have a range of concerns. Firstly, it is important that ethanol production does not impact negatively upon fertile crop-growing lands, nor should it contribute to the destruction of forests. Forests should never be cleared to produce ethanol. I have concerns, too, about the impact that the production of ethanol might have upon the Great Barrier Reef, specifically in terms of increased nutrient run-off. But I am excited by the possibility of using waste from the sugar industry to produce a handy fuel that has lower carbon emissions than fossil fuels. However, I feel it is important to take issue with some of the scientific figures that are referred to in the proposing member’s second reading speech. CSIRO is referred to as suggesting that ethanol produced from grain and sugar has a 20 per cent to 50 per cent lower emission rate than fossil fuels. I note from the member’s second reading speech that it does not actually refer to the specific CSIRO document. However, it is my suspicion that this is, in fact, an incredibly optimistic assessment of the difference between the carbon emissions associated with fossil fuels and those associated with ethanol. There is a very optimistic reference as well to ethanol from ligocellulose, often referred to as a second generation biofuel. I believe that today ligocellulose still exists mainly in laboratories and is not as yet a working fuel. I would caution members as to the optimism of some of the science referred to in the proposing member’s second reading speech. Having said that, this bill represents a good effort. It will help us to develop an industry that will allow us to clearly rely less upon polluting fossil fuels and, ultimately, to transition to sustainable biofuels and ideally to clean renewables. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.06 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill. Might I start by saying that the Bligh government is very happy to see that the opposition has decided to support our commitment to deliver a five per cent ethanol mandate by 2010. The Bligh government strongly supports the implementation of a mandate, and we remain on track to deliver on that commitment. The implementation of the mandate is consistent with our Toward Q2 vision. The mandate will help us deliver a greener, stronger Queensland. It will contribute to helping the Bligh government create a diverse economy powered by bright ideas while helping us to protect our lifestyle and environment. The opposition’s bill is really a rushed and watered-down version of the Bligh government’s commitment. It is striking how similar the aims of the opposition bill are to those of the Bligh government. We want to implement a five per cent mandate and so do they. We want to implement a mandate by volume rather than per litre; so do they. We want to aim for a 10 per cent mandate in the longer term; so do they. The Liberal National Party knows full well that the Bligh government is already working through the issues leading up to implementation by 2010 as outlined in our election commitment. Its members know that we are taking steps to ensure a mandate is implemented to maximise benefits for the local 2992 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

Queensland ethanol industry and the Queensland community. They know there is serious work that needs to be done before you can rush something into the House and change the law. The truth is that the opposition bill is not serious about this at all. What they have presented to the House is nothing more than a rush job. As there are numerous problems with the bill that have been overlooked and which would make it foolhardy and irresponsible, the government will not be supporting it. Let me go through some of the issues that the government has with the Liberal National Party bill. Under this bill there has really been no consideration given to the administration of the mandate. We believe this is a significant oversight. The existing administrative arrangements for the Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 are designed for emergency situations, whereas the private member’s bill proposes amendments that would require routine administration. How this would operate really has not been revealed by the opposition and it is a matter that would need to be resolved for the mandate to be effectively implemented. Secondly, under the opposition’s bill, any liability for complying with the mandate would fall exclusively upon fuel wholesalers. This model means there is a risk that the mandate may not lead to the required uptake of fuel ethanol by fuel retailers as the government would not be able to compel them to take up ethanol blended fuel and in many cases the fuel wholesalers would not be able to, either. It is for this reason the Bligh government is considering legislation to impose liability for complying with the mandate on petrol wholesalers plus a prescribed class of petrol retailers. This will distribute responsibility for the mandate more broadly across the fuel industry and help the government to ensure that the mandate is actually met. We are undertaking consultation with major fuel companies and affected petrol retailers prior to finalising our decision on liability. The opposition’s bill does not have any provision for the suspension of the mandate should this be necessary. A suspension provision may be needed during drought or other emergency situations. In situations such as that, a suspension clause is necessary to allow local retailers to continue operating in breach of a mandate without being penalised. Unlike the opposition, the Bligh government will be including a suspension provision in its legislation. The approach by the opposition to amend the existing Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 in order to implement a mandate is also a matter of concern. The 1984 legislation was meant to be used in emergency situations where there was a shortage of fuel. This situation has never occurred in Queensland and, as such, the legislation has never been used. To use this legislation a mechanism for implementing an ethanol mandate is just inappropriate. It is really a makeshift solution by this opposition, which is trying to rush through the House an ethanol mandate bill for cheap political reasons. The Bligh government wants to deliver a greener, smarter Queensland. We want to protect our lifestyle and environment, and we want to do things properly. The Bligh government’s approach is to develop specific legislation that will implement a mandate that is suited to its purpose. The Bligh government would not be so silly as to support a stopgap measure when we have already made a commitment to deliver a properly considered and implemented mandate program. That is another reason we will not be supporting this bill. Clearly, though, I am pleased to see the opposition coming out in support of the Bligh government on the issue of an ethanol mandate. We were the ones that went to the people with a commitment at the last election. However, it is not good enough for the opposition to just cobble together an ill-considered piece of legislation and seek to score cheap political points. That is not what this House should be about. The Bligh government’s vision is for a smarter, stronger, greener Queensland. We want to advance the interests of all Queenslanders, promote stronger industries and protect our environment. We want Queenslanders to be smarter and we want to do things smarter. This bill will not deliver these outcomes. Therefore, we are unable to support it. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (9.12 pm): Isn’t it interesting to hear the old ethanol haters over on the other side who have fought against these private members’ bills since 2002. They have had all the excuses in the world. It used to be about section 92 of the Constitution—how you could not mandate it because then we would have a mandate up here and you could not trade across the border. That was Peter Beattie’s original excuse. It could not be done because of mutual recognition. All of a sudden tonight we have heard the lead speaker from the other side say that that has gone. That has disappeared. All the members opposite have wanted to do is block the introduction of ethanol in Queensland and they have tried to do that consistently since 2002. They hated the fact that the mandate was brought into parliament by this side of the House. They have hated and fought it, and they have been dragged kicking and screaming to the final admission by the minister tonight that they hope to do something maybe next year. We know what promises mean over there. They rarely get delivered. Mr Rickuss interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Palaszczuk): Order! I cannot hear the speaker because the member for Lockyer is interjecting. 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2993

Mr HORAN: I will talk louder. Since 2002 we have brought into this House three bills about ethanol. I brought the first bill into this House after an inspection of the ethanol plants in the mid-west of America—in Nebraska and Minnesota. I was amazed by a couple of facts in particular. The ethanol industry in those states would never have got off the ground had it not been for a mandate. Time permitting, we can go through the technicalities of the mandate later and explain how we would be doing it by regulation so its introduction is pragmatic and practical. But, without the mandate, ethanol would never have got started in those states. The mandate was brought in in Minnesota. As a result the industry got started, got on its feet and it has built up to the extent that it is today. I do not agree totally with the amount of corn and grain that is being used in America in the production of ethanol. But here in Australia, we have an opportunity to be able to produce ethanol from our great sugar industry by utilising the production of molasses and then at that stage moving into the production of ethanol. Prior to the mandate being introduced into those states, there was unbelievable opposition from vested interests—from fuel companies, from used car businesses, from all sorts of things. But, once the mandate was in place, those companies started bringing out brochures about how good ethanol was for the environment; the fact that it was a cleaner burning fuel and that it lifted the octane rating of your car by a couple of points so it was a better fuel for your car. Then they started bringing out brochures about how good ethanol was for this car, or that car, and so on. The industry in those states has now matured to such an extent that ethanol is used widely. Also, cars in Brazil use around about 80 per cent ethanol and can use up to 100 per cent ethanol. When we see the side benefits of the ethanol production industry in America—the feedlot industries and the dairy industries, where cows are being fed wet slurry or dried slurry that is taken down the river in barges to those dairying states—we can see that the ethanol industry developed the mid- west and the other farming areas of America. It put a platform under the corn price in America so there was a better price received per bushel. Little country towns that were dying were able to rebuild themselves. Cooperatives, or private companies, began producing ethanol. New motels sprang up. The towns had life in them again. Ethanol production brought real economic development to those areas. Here in Australia ethanol can do some great things. It is good for the environment. It is good for cars. But importantly, it will cut down our reliance on overseas imports so that money is not flowing out of our country to other countries to boost their economies. Instead, we will spend it at home for our own Queensland and Australian farming families. That way the money stays in our backyard. An important issue to note in relation to the production of ethanol is the environment. I have some figures that can demonstrate the CO2 abatement potential of ethanol. We are talking about a figure of five per cent. Our shadow minister will speak about our system, which is doing it by regulation. The regulation is introduced in line with the availability of ethanol. This mandate is introduced in a graduated way so that it works. It is done by volume at the wholesale end so that people who cannot access it—for example, people living up in the gulf—are not forced to use ethanol. But in other areas of the state the percentage mandate is being achieved that has been regulated for and which is practical. If we move to 100 per cent E10 using ethanol from sugar cane, we would achieve in Australia four megatonnes of CO2 abatement. Australia consumes about 18,000 megalitres of petrol. So if we move to 100 per cent E10 blend, it would require 1,800 megalitres of ethanol. Australia’s 35 megatonnes or 40 megatonnes of sugar cane has the potential to produce 3,100 megalitres to 3,600 megalitres of ethanol at a yield of 90 litres per tonne of cane. So some 50 to 60 per cent of Australia’s sugar cane would be required to meet 100 per cent E10 demand. So we in this state can easily meet a mandate of five per cent to 10 per cent, or any figure in between or below five per cent, according to how our bill would provide the regulation system. It can be produced easily from the sugar cane industry in Queensland and Australia. Members should bear in mind that Queensland produces—and the member for Mirani will correct me if I am wrong—about 85 to 90 per cent of Australia’s sugar cane. This bill provides the parliament with a wonderful opportunity to get cracking and move on this issue. It has been absolutely disgraceful and shameful that the Labor government has consistently fought against the ethanol ideas brought into this parliament since 2002 by this side of the House, yet now the Labor members stand up and blatantly carry on about possibly bringing something in in 2010. They have not done so previously because they were jealous. They did not want to accept a sensible idea brought into the House by the opposition. It was dog-in-the-manger stuff. The arguments that they espoused so strongly in the past did not stack up at the time, and they still do not stack up. It is important to consider a number of issues when discussing the production of ethanol. It is best to produce ethanol from crops or biomass that has the smallest carbon footprint. There is no doubt that using biomass, particularly sugar cane, to produce ethanol is one of the better ways to go. The intensive farming industries of Queensland, such as the dairy industry, the pig industry and feedlots do not have any problems with grain being used for ethanol production if it helps grain farmers, provided that the grain farmers are not subsidised which would makes things more difficult for them. It is important that we find the best way of doing this. 2994 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

We need to take into account the amount of cane that is being grown and the processes used to produce ethanol. Sugar is produced from the first squeeze of the cane, and then ethanol is produced from the second squeeze of the cane. That system does the right thing by the environment, it does the right thing for the production of ethanol and it also does the right thing by the intensive livestock industries that depend upon a reasonable and an affordable level of production of grain to undertake their activities. Figures outlining the value of sugar cane show what an ideal position Queensland is in. Let us have an end to comments like those we heard from the member for Whitsunday, who spoke about how pleased members of the government are that we support their system. From day one Labor members have fought the ideas that we have brought to the parliament every inch of the way. This parliament and the community of Queensland has to be told that the Labor government has fought against E10, it has fought against ethanol, it has fought against a mandate system and it has fought against a graduated mandate system. It has fought against everything to do with ethanol until it saw the overwhelming public support and need for it. Finally, Labor members say that next year they will accept 99.9 per cent of our ideas. In the meantime, tonight provides a chance to do that a year earlier by voting for this bill. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—LNP) (9.22 pm): I would like to start by saying how ironic it is that at the start of the 20th century when Henry Ford produced the Model T he planned to fuel it with ethanol. Now at the start of the 21st century we are debating the mandating of 10 per cent of the total volume of fuel sold in Queensland to be an ethanol blend. However, oil prices were much cheaper then and readily available. No-one considered that oil reserves could run dry and that alternative sources of energy would need to be found. No-one considered that perhaps emissions from engines were detrimental to the environment and no-one considered the health impacts on the general public of our reliance on transport. Therefore, we find ourselves in the curious position of being overreliant on a finite source and needing to find an alternative quicker than probably could ever have been anticipated. The main benefits of ethanol and biofuels are the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the reduction of our reliance on imported oil and improved community health. Queensland currently produces around 32 million litres of ethanol. A mandate for 10 per cent by volume would require approximately 350 million litres of ethanol, which would give the industry, financiers and farmers greater incentives to invest in ethanol production. This investment has the potential to create jobs in rural and regional areas, as well as reduce our current reliance on imported fuels and fossil fuels. Brazil has a long history of ethanol production. The country’s ethanol-for-fuel program started in the 1970s. Ethanol use was mandated and production levels were regulated. The Brazilian government gave companies low-interest loans to build ethanol plants and guaranteed prices for their product. Technology projects were paid for by the government and in 2007 these measures resulted in nearly one million jobs in the industry and significant cuts to oil imports. In 2006 Brazil produced 16.3 billion litres of ethanol with production predicted to reach more than 26 billion litres in 2008. Following the development of flexi-fuel cars, on any single day Brazilians turn up at the service station and have the choice to fill up with anything from zero to 100 per cent ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China are following Brazil’s progress closely. India, the world’s second-biggest sugar producer behind Brazil, mandated a five per cent ethanol mix in 2003 for nine of its states. For E10 there is a reported eight to 11 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a decrease of 50 per cent in tailpipe pollutants, which would result in significant healthcare savings for health departments, particularly in large cities where pollution is a significant health risk. Regional development would result from investment in ethanol plants. Employment would increase in those areas. An increase to the value of existing industries, as well as other business opportunities relating to the production of ethanol, would revitalise rural communities and give farmers opportunities to expand and remain viable. In the United States the production of over seven billion litres per year has created over 190,000 jobs in rural and regional communities. Fuel ethanol could replace five to 10 per cent of Australia’s total petrol consumption, reducing our reliance on imported fuel and reducing the trade deficit. It is predicted that we will need to import more than 70 per cent of our oil requirements to meet demand. Any measure to reduce this figure and remove our reliance on the volatile oil industry must be seen as a positive move. We need to stop pandering to the large oil-producing companies and start mandating the full-scale introduction of alternative organic fuels. The recent oil price hikes have shown that global oil companies have enjoyed little in the way of competition while forming unbridled monopolies in dictating rising oil prices. Put simply, this flies in the face of our national competition policy which is meant to protect consumers. I believe the solution is simple: if the oil companies believe they can decrease and increase production according to demand and price, then as a nation we have little alternative but to follow countries like Brazil and other nations in producing alternative renewable fuels like ethanol. Right now ethanol is becoming highly competitive as an alternative to petroleum and currently is even cheaper to produce. Furthermore, given the current situation in our own domestic sugar industry it makes plain common sense to seriously consider killing two birds with one stone. What is needed right now is a checkmate to meet oil producers. 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2995

We need a mandate of 10 per cent ethanol at the bowsers now and a continual percentage rise every time oil goes up. This mandate would provide the first step towards improving our own ability to meet our own energy requirements by ourselves for ourselves. It would provide motivation to the ethanol industry and, rather than force fuel companies to import ethanol from overseas or interstate, a staged introduction of the mandate would boost the industry’s development within Queensland and give the battlers who are paying an arm and a leg for a litre of fuel a cheaper, clean, alternative fuel source. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (9.28 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill. I commend the member for Burdekin for introducing this private member’s bill to once again provide the opportunity for the state of Queensland to become a leader in the development of a renewable fuel industry in Australia. This is the third time that the opposition has introduced such a bill. To that end, I have a history lesson for the member for Whitsunday. If the state Labor government does not support this bill, it will be the third time that the Labor Party has denied Queensland the opportunity to develop the commercial confidence and commercial certainty required for a strong renewable fuels industry to be established. The opposition introduced a Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill during the 50th Parliament which was debated and defeated by Labor in 2002. The opposition also introduced a Liquid Fuel Supply Amendment Bill during the 51st Parliament which was debated and defeated by Labor in 2004. Both bills sought to introduce an ethanol mandate. I was hoping that it might be a case of ‘third time lucky’ for an ethanol mandate in Queensland and that base politics would be put to one side. I am very disappointed that the state government has indicated that it will again deny Queensland this opportunity. The objective of the bill is to amend the Liquid Fuel Supply Act 1984 to require a minimum ethanol content in relation to the total volume of motor vehicle fuel sold in Queensland. The primary policy objectives of the bill are to specifically require a minimum ethanol content in relation to the total volume of fuel for motor vehicles sold in Queensland; to allow the required percentage and periods for the required percentage to be maintained to be determined by regulation; to stimulate the orderly development of and investment in a fuel ethanol industry in Queensland; to stimulate regional and rural economic development through the creation of an alternative market for feedstock produced in Queensland and the creation of new jobs in the fuel ethanol industry; to improve the quality of unleaded petrol and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles in Queensland by blending a minimum quantity of the oxygenate, ethanol, with unleaded petrol used in Queensland; to reduce Queensland’s reliance on foreign oil imports and Queensland motorists’ exposure to the vagaries of the global oil market and subsequently the volatile domestic price of fuel; and to take advantage of the emerging second generation technology producing ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass, eliminating the need to use traditional food crops and creating a renewable, clean and green liquid fuel alternative to fossil fuels. Today marks 760 days since the last state election. The state government distributed glossy brochures to letterboxes during the 2006 election campaign committing a re-elected state Labor government to a five per cent ethanol mandate in fuel sold in Queensland. Mr Rickuss: Did you say 760? Mr CRIPPS: I certainly did say 760 days. Despite an abundance of rhetoric and slogans, no serious action has been taken to deliver on the campaign pledge. The opposition has demonstrated a strong commitment to establishing a demand for ethanol in Queensland, twice introducing private members’ bills into the Queensland parliament to create an ethanol mandate, and is again today advocating for a proactive move to encourage a renewable fuels industry. For cynical political reasons, the state Labor government has twice voted those private members’ bills down. And it is strike 3 today. The state Labor government had previously suggested that Queensland did not have the power to legislate a mandate at a state level because it conflicted with a Commonwealth act, but the government has since proven itself to be a hypocrite by promising a five per cent mandate at the last state election. The state Labor government evidently misled the people of Queensland in 2002 and 2004 because it has changed its tune since then and, indeed, because another state, New South Wales, has introduced its own ethanol mandate. Following the state election in September 2006, the state Labor government used the speech by the Governor of Queensland during the opening of state parliament to qualify its election commitment to introduce a five per cent ethanol mandate in Queensland. It is regrettable that the state Labor government sought to avoid responsibility for its election commitment and decided to announce its intention to go soft on its election commitment via the Governor’s speech, which made a convoluted reference to further studies and lengthy consultation before a mandate might be introduced in December 2010. That time line delayed the promised mandate until after the next state election, due by September 2009, which of course means that the state Labor government will promise the five per cent mandate again during the next campaign, giving it two promises at two elections for the price of one. With high fuel prices hurting consumers throughout the state, an ethanol mandate would deliver some relief for more motorists by making ethanol blended fuel, which is excise free, more widely available at petrol stations. That relief is needed now, not after the next state election. Queensland 2996 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008 motorists could be using a higher percentage of renewable fuel, improving the state’s air quality and offering an opportunity to rural industries, such as the sugar industry—a major industry in Queensland, including in my electorate of Hinchinbrook—to diversify the sources of demand for its product if this bill is passed today as a result of the initiative of the LNP opposition. This private member’s bill follows the Rudd Labor government’s decision to cut more than $15 million in ethanol grants in this year’s federal budget. The grants had been available to assist service stations reduce the cost of installing new pumps or converting existing infrastructure to supply ethanol blended petrol. The Rudd Labor government has cut funding to the Ethanol Distribution Program by $5 million and the Ethanol Production Grants program by over $10 million. These programs, which were established by the former federal coalition government and which offered incentives for investment in ethanol production and distribution, have now been undermined by Labor. More than ever before, incentives to give commercial certainty and commercial confidence for the establishment of a renewable fuels industry is needed, and this bill has the potential to make that happen. A mandate would help to create a Queensland biofuels industry by sending a clear signal to consumers that biofuels have merit and do not cause damage to vehicles that are suitable to use ethanol blended fuel. That has been an insidious rumour perpetuated by some groups with a vested interest in undermining the establishment of a biofuels industry. On that point, I think the promotion of the use of E10 fuel by the state Labor government through its various advertising campaigns has been a good thing and has, to a certain extent, been useful to encourage the use of E10 in Queensland. Having said that, this state Labor government has always done the public relations exercise particularly well, but it has always had trouble following through with the decision to take action. This is true once again with the ethanol mandate. On that basis, this bill should be supported by the state Labor government, because it is an action to implement an initiative that it has supported, at least in principle, since the 2006 state election. The New South Wales government has introduced a two per cent ethanol mandate. Queensland was beaten to the punch by New South Wales. This must have been terribly embarrassing for the Queensland government. It is important Queensland is not left behind as this important renewable fuels industry develops throughout Australia. With the federal Labor government cutting funding for ethanol programs, it is even more important that Queensland moves to encourage investment in ethanol production. This bill being considered today addresses some previous concerns about ethanol production levels by allowing for the exact mandated percentage to be introduced in stages as production capacity increases. Mandating a mixture of fuel ethanol will improve air quality in urban areas, reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions and provide an economic incentive to primary industries. An ethanol mandate could provide a massive boost to the fledgling renewable fuels industry, reduce Queensland’s reliance on imported oil for fuel and create jobs. As far as north Queensland is concerned, it offers an opportunity to the sugar industry to diversify and reduce its current reliance on world sugar prices. The exact percentage of the mandate would be staged as production capacity increases. If this bill is passed, a five per cent ethanol mandate could be increased to 10 per cent by 2011, over a period of time. We would then be substituting a significant level of fossil fuels for a renewable fuel source in the state of Queensland. With rising petrol prices and the global push to remove carbon emissions, demand for renewable fuels is growing. An ethanol mandate in Queensland will give investors confidence to pursue ethanol production. Of all the Australian states, Queensland is the best equipped to develop an ethanol industry because of the size of our sugar cane and grain industries. Another reason raised in the past in some quarters for not supporting previous efforts to introduce an ethanol mandate related to Queensland not having the production capacity to satisfy a percentage mandate. The flexible provisions of this private member’s bill make that excuse redundant. Existing refineries and the extra incentive created by this proposal could prove to be the catalyst for significant investment in a renewable fuels industry. All that is needed is some political will from the state Labor government. The flexibility of the private member’s bill put forward tonight by the LNP in relation to supply and production capacity should make it worthy of bipartisan support for an ethanol mandate. The state Labor government is to be condemned for its petty, base politics on this issue. Once again I commend my colleague and friend the member for Burdekin and my colleagues in the LNP opposition for their continued support for this worthy initiative. I commend the bill to the House. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (9.38 pm): I rise to say a few words on the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2008. I congratulate the shadow spokesperson on this excellent bill. It just goes to show how hypocritical this government is by not supporting it. We have now introduced a bill similar to this three times and the government has procrastinated—it is going to do something; it is going to do something; it is going to do something. But nothing has happened yet. I cannot believe that this government continues to procrastinate. 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2997

I am also concerned about the Queensland fuel subsidy that is involved with this ethanol bill, simply because the government is about to try to impose a cost on service stations to the tune of $70 million purely to advertise the grants for this fuel subsidy. I am really disappointed because the government could have been able to impose no costs on the service stations and it could have actually provided a benefit to the community and to Queensland, but the government is not doing anything about it at all. This is really disappointing. The Queensland fuel subsidy is a ridiculous way of managing it. It imposes extra costs on the service stations simply because it will be a $70 million free hit for the government, but who will pay? It will not be the government; it will be Queenslanders. Queenslanders will be the ones to pay. The Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill is a good piece of legislation. I commend the shadow minister for introducing it. With those few words, I support the bill. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (9.40 pm): The other day when I was filling up my car with E10, I thought to myself, ‘Those blokes and ladies on the opposition benches sometimes have their hearts in the right place, even if they don’t get the practicalities completely right. This E10 is good stuff.’ I went in to pay and I said to the manager, ‘I noticed that once recently you ran out of E10.’ He said, ‘Yes, we need more infrastructure. The supply is not completely regular in this area. We cannot always guarantee supply but we can generally get it for the number of people who are purchasing it at the moment.’ I thought to myself, ‘That’s good. Thank goodness our promise to introduce a five per cent mandate on ethanol by December 2010 gives us time to put in place the infrastructure that we need in order to guarantee the supply.’ It did not occur to me at that time that the opposition would come in with this Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill to mandate it immediately, without any regard whatsoever as to whether the supply was available. What we have here is a well-intentioned bill from the opposition—and I give the opposition credit for its good intentions; the road to hell was paved with good intentions—that undertakes to legislate for the achievement of the impossible. Achieving the impossible in transport is a longstanding National Party tradition. Bjelke-Petersen used to talk about the hydrogen fuel cell car. This actually is the best National Party transport initiative since the hydrogen fuel cell car. Bjelke-Petersen knew that what he was proposing was impossible and the opposition members know that what they are proposing is impossible. The difference between the opposition and its mentor, Bjelke-Petersen, is that Bjelke-Petersen never came into this House with legislation to implement the impossible. It would be a little bit embarrassing if this legislation was carried and we found that the infrastructure was not there, the supply was not there, the necessary lead time was not there. I note that, even when the statistics provided by the honourable members for Burdekin and Charters Towers are analysed, we see that they indicate that the supply is not available to mandate at any significant rate at the moment. There is nobody who supports ethanol in this House more than me. I have been driving on it for longer than anybody else here I think. Nevertheless, I am not in favour of trying to do the impossible. The other thing I would say about this piece of legislation—well intentioned as it is—is that it leaves out a great deal of complexity that you would need in order to effectively regulate any industry, particularly an industry as complicated and nascent as ethanol. A piece of legislation like this needs many springs and levers to influence the retailers as well as the wholesalers. It needs a regulatory system put in place, including a regular system of auditing. Without any audit machinery so we can supervise to determine whether people are obeying the decree to use a certain proportion of ethanol, such a regulatory system would be completely pointless. It would be as pointless as legislating for the impossible. Legislating for the impossible and administering the unsupervised are two activities that this legislature should withhold its hand from. Mere declaration such as is proposed in this legislation is not a regulatory system. There is no regulatory system in this legislation, there is no start date, there is no implementation schedule—and these are things that we need. In conclusion, I compliment opposition members on their idealism with respect to ethanol. I compliment them on having their heart in the right place with regard to this. However, I do say to them that there is absolutely no point in legislating for the impossible or in proposing to administer something that is completely unworkable. The government will do it with appropriate legislation with an appropriate regulatory system by the time that we promised back in 2006—that is, by December 2010—with a proper implementation schedule and a proper regulatory framework. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—LNP) (9.45 pm): Let me commend the member for Burdekin for bringing the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill before the House. I would like to refer to the speech made by the honourable member for Toowoomba South. He mentioned that this is the third time this bill has been before the House. It is the third time the Labor government has had the opportunity to do something about this but it blatantly refuses. As the member for Toowoomba South aptly said, it is simply jealousy. In 2002 Mike Horan, the member for Toowoomba South, who was the opposition leader at the time, travelled to the States and did a study on this. He came into this House and presented very good legislation, but the government is showing its pride and is not supporting it. 2998 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 08 Oct 2008

All the government had to do tonight was put in a tiny little amendment to the bill and it could have claimed it. We would not have minded because this is such good legislation. A tiny little amendment would have helped this industry and helped the state of Queensland immensely. Government members should hang their heads in absolute shame, because they are sitting here and they had the opportunity tonight to do something solid and productive for Queensland. But what have we seen? No, they have not done it once again. As the member for Mirani said, the only place ethanol is produced in Queensland at the moment is Sarina. It is made out of molasses from sugar cane. I mention where it comes from for the benefit of those opposite. At this very moment in the town of Dalby in the middle of my electorate, an ethanol plant is being built. Dalby Bio-Refinery Ltd is building that plant. It is a massive plant, and I congratulate everyone involved in it. I did a tour of that plant about three weeks ago and it is simply brilliant. If this five per cent mandate were introduced, as the member for Burdekin said in her presentation before the House, the mandate could go up and down. On a supply and demand situation, it is simply brilliant legislation. We have heard the government’s promises for years, and we have got more promises of it happening in 2010 or something like that. We hear of more promises about the tunnels under Brisbane, which we saw on the news last night, and people think, ‘Labor is doing something for Queensland.’ We have promises, promises, promises. Government members have an opportunity tonight to support something solid, but what do we see? They will vote this down once again. Plants like the one that is being built at Dalby need this mandate; they desperately need this mandate to survive in the market out there. That plant will be run on sorghum. Sorghum is a massive summer crop on the Darling Downs. It is a perfect location to put an ethanol plant because if there was a drought on the Darling Downs they could access sorghum from central Queensland or northern New South Wales. In the summertime, we get our summer storms and we very rarely miss out on a sorghum crop. Over the last few years we have missed our winter crops of wheat and barley. This year we have a massive sorghum crop. As you drive from Dalby to Toowoomba, you see the wheat silos at Malu and the AWB grain set-up further down. There are blue tarps everywhere—they are massive mountains of tarpaulins—which are covering the sorghum. They cannot get rid of the sorghum because Queensland Rail cannot provide the services to take it to port. That sorghum will be used to produce ethanol. That plant hopefully will open at the end of this year or early next year. It will use 20,000 tonnes of sorghum per month. That equates to 240,000 tonnes of sorghum per year. They are looking at putting farmers on contract in a few years time. There are woes within the feedlot industry, but gradually it is being accepted. The by-product from the sorghum is very high in energy and is very good for feedlot cattle, so it is not such a loss. The problem is that the feedlot industry and some dairy farmers are saying—and I can accept this—that the grain being used will be subsidised when they have to buy it on an open market. We have to address this situation. If they can cheaply buy the by-product from what is left over after producing ethanol from the grain and use it in their industry, it might not be so bad. So I accept their argument. Last year’s crop was 13 tonnes a hectare. With modern technology and hopefully a few good seasons, those crops will increase. There is a big demand out there, and we can produce the grain to make ethanol. Ethanol can be produced from corn, sorghum and sugar cane. Kevin Endres is the CEO of the Dalby plant, and he has done a brilliant job in coming to town and setting up a plant like that. Dr Peter Wylie who worked for the DPI for a long time is now in charge of purchasing the grain. I have every confidence in these people. I also recognise the work that former mayor Warwick Geisel did. Elliott used to set it up. In 2002 I met with him on a number of occasions, and had dinner in parliament regarding the vision of an ethanol plant in Dalby. We had public meetings. There was adversity but now people accept the need for ethanol. The Labor government tonight is refusing to accept that need. It has a bill before the House. As the member for Burdekin will mention in her summing-up, all the government had to do is move an amendment and it could claim it. We would not mind. It needs to implement this legislation and do something good for Queensland. This is an opportunity gone begging. If the government put the ethanol industry on its feet, other plants could then open up. The government talks of green, clean fuel. Look at Brazil, which has 85 per cent ethanol. Look at America. There are ethanol plants in nearly every country town. It is amazing what they are doing. We talk about a world shortage of food, but with the modern technology that we have it is only a start on what we can do. I would like to invite any member of the House to come and have a look at this ethanol plant. I will happily take the time out to give Kevin or Peter a call. I will take them over to that plant, and I will buy them lunch in town. I am serious. I will show them the town of Dalby and show them how good this plant will be, because this is exactly what Queensland needs. I rang Kevin today and I asked him what I could say on his behalf tonight. He said, ‘ASAP; they are the words to use.’ He said ‘as soon as possible’. This is a man involved in the industry. He is involved in producing ethanol. He is exactly what this bill is all about. Labor has fought this bill each and every time. Once again we see the same old repetitive jealousy. The government will vote against it tonight. Leighton Brothers is building that ethanol plant. It has had over 135,000 man hours and not one bit of lost time. It is a credit to it. 08 Oct 2008 Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2999

Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (9.53 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the consideration of the Liquid Fuel Supply (Ethanol) Amendment Bill 2008. I believe it is important that I make a contribution to the consideration of this bill, just as I have done to the consideration of the two previous bills which LNP members have introduced into this House as private members’ bills. It is a point that has been made by other speakers on this side of the House tonight. This is the third time that we have tried to ensure ethanol is part of the fuel supply in Queensland. It is the third time that the Labor government has come in here with weak, mealy-mouthed excuses for not supporting the initiative that we have brought forward. For so many years now the Labor government has made empty promises that have come to nothing. I listened earlier to the contribution made by the member for Hinchinbrook, who represents an area in which the production of ethanol would be very advantageous. I listened to the contribution that he made when he pointed out the number of promises that have been made—promises that have proven to be empty and assurances given by the former Premier, Premier Beattie. Like so much that he did, they were designed to create a false impression that the Labor government supported ethanol and it was doing something about ethanol. In reality, as time has gone on it has become increasingly obvious that there is no commitment on the Labor side of this House to the production of ethanol in Queensland. There is no commitment to ensuring that Queensland has what it should have, which is a viable ethanol industry as part of our fuel supply. A number of speakers in this debate have set out the natural advantages which Queensland has which make it almost tailor made for the production of ethanol—the sugar industry that we have, the grain industry that we have and the great competitive advantage that those industries have in the production of their various products and how those products are tailor made for the production of ethanol. The people of Queensland can justifiably wonder why on earth something that is so obviously good for our producers and for our state has not been advanced by the Labor government. I think the case has been made for the inclusion of ethanol in Queensland’s fuel supply. It has been made over and over. From an environmental point of view it is almost a no-brainer. We have a fuel that is renewable. We have a better quality fuel in terms of emissions. We have a better quality fuel in terms of its use in so many of the modern internal combustion engines. Yet we have this stubborn resistance to the introduction or the facilitation of an ethanol industry in Queensland that is almost impossible to understand. It can only be explained by the base politics that we see played out in this House time and time again when we in the opposition introduce good initiatives and good ideas. The Labor government has consistently refused to ensure that there is the right environment for ethanol to be produced in Queensland. It has consistently refused to provide the right economic environment for this fledgling industry to become established, but it has done it for other industries. This is the point that I made the last couple of times I spoke in this House on the previous legislation. The Labor government has done it for other industries, yet in this parliament it claims credit for introducing a 13 per cent mandate for gas-fired electricity. The introduction of that 13 per cent mandate allowed the establishment of a gas industry in Queensland. It provided a quarantined market. It provided an assured market which allowed investment to take place in the coal seam gas industry. It allowed the companies involved to confidently invest the money that was necessary to make that industry a reality. That is the model that the ethanol industry needs. The ethanol industry needs the exact same guaranteed market and the exact same boost of confidence as was given to the gas industry by the creation of that 13 per cent mandated gas-fired electricity market that has proven to be a considerable success. Not only has it proven to be a success in ensuring that we have a domestic gas industry; the gas industry that was fostered by that 13 per cent mandated market has proven to be so successful that we now have the major gas companies of the world looking at Queensland for a supply of liquified gas to the whole South-East Asia area and to the world generally. It has all been possible because those companies that were involved were provided with an economic situation that allowed them to have the confidence to make those investments. This bill before the House would provide that same confidence to the ethanol industry. It would ensure that there was a mandated market. It would ensure that the investors could invest in the production of ethanol with confidence. It would ensure that producers of the feedstocks for ethanol could also invest in their industries with confidence. It is a no-brainer. This bill should have the support of every member in this House. I commend the member for Burdekin for introducing a bill into this House to achieve those ends yet again. From the debate here tonight it is obvious that the Labor government is going to vote against this yet again. I look forward to the day when we can come into this House and have bipartisan support for the establishment of a clean, green ethanol industry in Queensland which everyone who is not interested in base politics would acknowledge is a no-brainer and should have happened years ago. Debate, on motion of Mr Seeney, adjourned. 3000 Adjournment 08 Oct 2008

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.00 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Toowoomba, Water Restrictions Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—LNP) (10.01 pm): As members would know, Toowoomba has been suffering under very severe water restrictions for some time. Toowoomba has had them for much longer than the south-east. One of the consequences of building a major city in inland Queensland at the top of a mountain range is that the water supply is very restricted. The people of Toowoomba and the businesses of Toowoomba have done a marvellous job in reducing their water consumption in their city. It has been a very difficult and very divisive time, given some of the debates we have had over the past few years. It has been a time when the Toowoomba community has really pulled together to make sure that we do what we can to ensure the long-term future of the city and a long-term water supply. The former Toowoomba City Council proposed a number of things in this regard. The current Toowoomba Regional Council has continued on with those. We will have a secure water supply for a long time to come. A number of bores are being drilled that will secure our water supply. It is an ongoing concern for us. Over the last little while the water supply in the Toowoomba dams has decreased to below 10 per cent. That has major ramifications for our city. We are in a desperate situation. The government has proposed linking the Wivenhoe Dam to the Toowoomba water supply by pipeline. We support that. We think that is a good idea. We think that will secure a long-term future water supply for Toowoomba, but it is not the only thing that would do so. The government has proposed putting recycled water into Wivenhoe Dam. We do not agree with that. That has been a longstanding difference been the LNP’s policy and the government’s policy. We have had a vision and the member for Callide, in various roles, has had a vision for the 100 per cent recycling of the water supply in Queensland. We continue to support that vision. We want to see 100 per cent recycling for industry and agriculture to free up freshwater supplies for potable use. That is something that I continue to support. The people of Toowoomba have been through a very long and difficult period. The construction of the water pipeline to the dams in Toowoomba has raised a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot of issues that need to be addressed by this state government. There needs to be a discussion between the state government and the Toowoomba Regional Council to see who is going to pay for the construction of that pipeline, who is going to own the assets and all of those sorts of things. We need to make sure that the government and the Toowoomba Regional Council have those discussions to make sure the long-term water supply into Toowoomba is assured. It is a very difficult issue. It has been a very divisive issue over the years in Toowoomba and we need to address it. The Water Commissioner came to Toowoomba some time ago and discussed this issue. It is something that needs to be addressed. Time expired. Strathpine, GP Superclinic Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (10.04 pm): On Monday night I attended a community forum at the Strathpine Community Centre to hear further details about the $2.5 million commitment by the Rudd Labor government to fund a GP superclinic at Strathpine. During the federal election Nicola Roxon, who is now the federal Minister for Health and Ageing, came to the area with our Labor candidate for Dickson, Fiona McNamara, to make the announcement of this exciting initiative. It was great to be with both Fiona McNamara and the federal member for Petrie, Yvette D’Ath, at the forum to welcome the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP back to Strathpine and for us to be able to continue our advocacy for additional services to be provided by our federal and state Labor governments to improve the health and wellbeing of our local residents. The forum also had the opportunity to discuss Queensland Health’s proposal of providing around 400 square metres of land at the Pine Rivers Community Health Centre at Strathpine which would be leased at a peppercorn rent to the GP superclinic. Queensland Health would also provide additional land to construct car parking and provide other associated ancillary services and entitlements. Already Queensland Health provides a range of services for people living in the Pine Rivers area which include community child health, child development services, child and youth mental health services, primary healthcare coordination, HACC services and aged-care assessment services. Queensland Health has already stated that its preference is for the GP superclinic to have an Indigenous focus, delivering comprehensive primary healthcare services, including appropriate support 08 Oct 2008 Adjournment 3001 and advice, to Indigenous families. It was great to see a large number of the local Indigenous community attending the forum and voicing their support for this focus, which was acknowledged by Minister Roxon as well. The minister took time to outline her reform agenda, which included capital investment and a desire to also reform the way that government does business. She said that we need a focus on preventative health care, which means we must start doing things differently. I believe that the GP superclinic at Strathpine is the way to do this. It will also provide an attractive environment for medical graduates to be trained in specialities and located where they are needed—in our growing communities. We can also look at creating options of working with private hospital services and ensuring that our local GPs are not displaced as part of this process. It is really about addressing traditional shortages in primary health care in our local area. I encourage the local GPs, allied health workers and the wider community to continue working towards an excellent medical services model for our community. I thank the Rudd Labor government for its commitment to the people of Pine Rivers. Eumundi and District Historical Association Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (10.07 pm): I rise tonight to speak about the town of Eumundi, a community in my electorate of Noosa with an extraordinary community spirit. On 17 September I attended and chaired the election of office-bearers for the AGM of the Eumundi and District Historical Association. The EHA runs the famous Eumundi Markets, which are at the heart of this community and the proceeds of which are distributed to worthwhile local community organisations. At the AGM I witnessed many of these groups receiving varying amounts, ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, including Riding for the Disabled, the Eumundi State Primary School P&C and Eumundi Care and Share. In addition to this, more than $100,000 has been provided by the EHA, in a one-off contribution, towards the establishment of the Eumundi Aquatic Centre. In total, around $200,000 is raised and distributed by the EHA each year. When we consider that the Eumundi and District Historical Association has been in existence for around 25 years it gives us some idea of the enormous contribution that this dedicated group, now managed by CEO Peter Homan, has made. The community of Eumundi is creating for itself a unique image which contributes to its success outside of the market days on Wednesdays and Saturdays. This blend of business, together with the encouragement of exceptional local creative talent, means that Eumundi is now a destination in its own right and a significant contributor to the overall tourism experience of the Sunshine Coast. A few days after the AGM, the second Australian Body Art Carnivale was held in the town. This event is supported by EHA and many thousands of additional visitors flocked to the town to experience this original and distinctive art form. I must admit that I wondered what the public reaction would be to some of the very scantily clad men and women who were decorated in paints, in some cases from head to toe, as a living canvas. Not one untoward comment was heard, which highlights the maturity of the community and its willingness to embrace and appreciate all forms of creative talent. I am pleased to be able to advise that the third Australian Body Art Carnivale will be held in Eumundi on 12 and 13 September 2009. Along with her committee and supporters, Joyce Turnbull, the President of the Eumundi and District Historical Association and the publisher of the local paper the Eumundi Green, deserves the highest accolades for her contribution to Eumundi, a unique Queensland community. Airlie Beach Triathlon Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.10 pm): The Bligh government has set a range of goals in our Toward Q2—Tomorrow’s Queensland vision that will challenge us and require all of us to step outside our comfort zone to make real changes in our lives and our thinking paradigms. For me personally the biggest challenge is becoming healthier through exercising more regularly and eating more wisely. As I look around for inspiration I find it hard to go past the example set by the fantastic and dedicated athletes who participate in the triathlon circuit. We saw them compete in the Olympic Games and they are often featured on the small screen. However, nothing beats witnessing this physically gruelling event firsthand. This was exactly what was offered in the 2008 Airlie Beach Triathlon. This event, the 10th anniversary of the Airlie Beach Triathlon, was but one of a range of triathlon related events to be held during the Airlie Beach Triathlon Festival of Sport. From humble beginnings in 1999 when a field of 75 competed in the first event, the triathlon has grown to an event that attracts more than 250 competitors including world-class competitors, local athletes and teams who participate more for the fun of it than the glory. I am proud to say that, while I did not participate in the event itself, I was again this year given the genuine honour of starting the sprint distance event which saw competitors swim, ride and run a course in and around Airlie Beach. It was great to see so many schoolkids competing either as individuals or in 3002 Adjournment 08 Oct 2008 teams. This year the open winner was 20-year-old Brisbane resident Samuel Betten, who completed the course in a stunning 56.3 minutes. Anthony McSweeney came in second, with veteran athlete Brad Beven third. One triathlete, however, did not finish the race. Sadly, Chris Rawling, a 20-year-old from South Australia, collided with a noncompetitor who inexplicably rode a BMX bike across Chris’s path. The result was quite devastating for Chris, who suffered head, facial and back injuries in the resultant fall. However, contrary to reports in the Brisbane media, Chris did receive medical assistance and paramedic attention in a timely manner and was transported to Proserpine Hospital and then on to Townsville Hospital. Chris is now out of hospital, but I want to put on record the best wishes of everyone in my community and our admiration for his courage and resilience during his convalescence. This was a tragic accident that could not have been foreseen by the event organisers. The BMX rider has been charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm whilst being adversely affected by liquor. He will face court at the end of this month. I am glad to say that this terrible accident has not diminished the success of the event. I place on record my admiration for Wendy Downes, the event organiser, and her band of energetic helpers who helped to make the triathlon a great event. As usual, there was a range of volunteers who pitched in to help including the SES, who always do a great job. I am also proud that the state government was again able to sponsor the triathlon through the Queensland Events Regional Development Program. Time expired.

Blackbutt Range Road Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.13 pm): I stand here today absolutely furious because I have to report to parliament tonight that yet another life has been lost—people and livestock killed. This occurred—yes, you guessed it—on the same road that I have been talking about in this place for 10 years. I have been trying to get the government to seriously address it all that time. I am referring to the Blackbutt Range road. Honourable members are probably sick to death of hearing about it, but I will keep bringing it up in parliament until something is done. The police report I have just received states— Update—Fatal crash, Blackbutt Range: Police are still at the scene of a fatal accident on the D’Aguilar Highway. Around 12.30pm a truck, a ute and a car collided. One man died at the scene and a woman is in a serious condition at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. A second woman was taken to Kingaroy Hospital with minor injuries and the truck driver is being treated at Nanango Hospital. At the time of this report— The highway is still completely closed, with the clean up continuing this evening. The Forensic Crash Unit is investigating. How many times have I stood in this place and brought the dangerous and inadequate condition of this road to the attention of the parliament? How many times have I talked of the road crashes and the injuries and lives lost, both people and livestock? The traffic travelling on that road has grown exponentially and yet I read in the local paper ridiculous statements from Main Roads that the traffic on this road has remained static. It has not remained static. That statement is so incorrect that I am tempted to call the information lies, damned lies and statistics. I travel this road four to six times a week, if not more, at varying times of the day, in the evening and in the early hours of the morning. The Main Roads statement is wrong, wrong, wrong. The roadworks that have been undertaken appear to be substandard and the work, which is only weeks old, is breaking down already. The latest overtaking lane was placed not, as one would expect, going up a hill so cars could overtake slower trucks and vehicles but downhill where those same slower vehicles speed up, making it difficult and dangerous to pass. I lay this life lost and the injuries suffered squarely at the feet of this government. It has known about this road for years. It puts it on the RIP probably to shut me up for a while and then it is removed again. It will cost money to totally upgrade and realign this road, but the price that this government is asking travellers on the road to pay is too high. How many lives must be lost before something is done? The minister is the only one who can address this. I ask him: will he instruct his department to stop this carnage by putting this road on the RIP and leaving it there until it is finished? Only a couple of weeks ago I outlined a cattle truck rollover on the range and tonight I rise to say that another man has lost his life. How many more times will I have to stand here before the extent of the traffic that traverses this road from the Brisbane Valley, the D’Aguilar Highway and the Sunshine Coast is acknowledged? It is growing. Please do not try to tell me it is not. Do not tell the council that it is not. We know that it is. We see the accidents. We hear about them. We see the stock loss. We see the people lined up for hours and hours when there is nowhere else for them to go. There is no turnaround for traffic to get away even if there was room. Please attend to this road. Time expired. 08 Oct 2008 Adjournment 3003

Economic and Population Growth Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (10.16 pm): It may surprise some members of this House, but Queensland is not the only state in the federation experiencing substantial economic and population growth. Western Australia is also in the midst of substantial growth following the economic boom in that state on the back of the resources sector. Last week in my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister for planning I led a delegation of some 32 mayors, senior councillors, CEOs and head town planners from 10 councils in a visit to Perth and surrounds to examine how they are handling that rapid growth. We also had the opportunity to spend a day in Sydney examining a number of greenfield and brownfield sites to look at how we build communities for the future. Participants in this trip had the opportunity to see firsthand some of the urban planning success stories of the past 10 years. These included the New Rouse Hill in Sydney, where we saw a shopping centre with an ecological footprint of at least 25 per cent less than a normal big box retail outlet. It was designed to bring back a ‘main street’ integrated with the local community. Ms Stone interjected. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I take that interjection from the member for Springwood. It is indeed a fantastic centre and is well designed. We also visited Vale in Perth’s Swan Valley, a master planned community that will be home to 15,000 residents when completed in 2014 and a multi-award winner for its environmental excellence. Finally, we also visited Subi Centro at Subiaco, a nationally recognised transit oriented development in Perth. In all, the delegation visited 10 different greenfield and transport oriented development sites and met with developers, planners and government officials. Both state and local government realise the challenges of growth facing Queensland and that they are issues that we have to tackle together. Given that no one level of government can adequately address these issues on its own, as I discussed with the mayors and councillors who were with me, I welcome the fact that we once again have a federal government that is interested in cities and urban environments. We must work together. That is why the state has a strong Integrated Planning Act that gives councils the power to implement and enforce a planning scheme that has teeth. That is why we are doing the population projections and regional planning that will help us manage a growing state. As elected officials, we need to lead the way in providing sustainable development and infrastructure that supports growing communities. I would particularly like to thank the mayors who took time out of their very busy schedules to join the trip. I thank Mayor Melva Hobson of Redland City Council, Mayor Allan Sutherland of Moreton Bay Regional Council and also Mayor Pam Parker of Logan City Council. There were very senior people from a range of councils across south-east Queensland and also councils in the north such as Mackay, Townsville and Cairns Regional Council. Time expired. Scottville Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (10.19 pm): The small mining town of Scottville is having an identity crisis. This government has removed its name from the map and it has placed it under the name of Collinsville, a town that is five kilometres away. This move has caused consternation and confusion among the proud people of Scottville. Scottville is the original settlement in this area. This change has put lives at risk. The problem is that there are street names in Scottville and Collinsville that are the same. I know of two incidents where there was a mix-up involving an incident at Station Street, Scottville and emergency services were sent to Station Street, Collinsville. It took them 40 minutes to get to the correct location owing to the duplication of names. Delays such as that could result in patients dying. Mail is another problem for Scottville residents. Telstra bills, driver’s licence renewals and Centrelink payments are being delivered to Collinsville addresses instead of the intended Scottville addresses. When people ring to complain, they are told there is no such place as Scottville. This situation was created when a Department of Natural Resources and Water officer reviewed place names in the federal electorate of Dawson and decided that Scottville, with a population of 500, did not really need a name and should instead become part of Collinsville. In February this year the Minister for Natural Resources and Water told the press he would get Scottville back on the map. Has he come good on that promise? No. Instead residents are still suffering the frustrations of having to explain the duplication of addresses and pray that if they call the emergency services they will come to their address and not go to a Collinsville address. Last week the Bowen Independent reported that the Department of Natural Resources and Water was undertaking the usual consultation process involved when dealing with a proposal to name a place under the Place Names Act, which, if approved, would make Scottville an official locality. The officer said that the department had developed a suggested map, of all things, for the boundaries of the proposed Scottville locality. Scottville has been there for nearly 100 years. The department had written to the affected stakeholders to seek feedback. I would like to point out that there was no such consultation with these people when their town’s name was summarily deleted from the electoral roll and maps. 3004 Adjournment 08 Oct 2008

The department could have saved some money on printing and stamps, as I have some feedback for the department in the form of a non-conforming petition from 146 residents of Scottville titled the ‘We Want Our Town Back’ petition. The petition states that the residents of Scottville demand their town back—‘Are you sick of having Collinsville on your address when you live in Scottville?’ Not only does Scottville mail have Collinsville on it, but important documents such as licences have Collinsville written on them. Try explaining to the police that you live in Scottville but your licence has Collinsville on it, not to mention the confusion that occurs with emergency services. Will it take a death before something is done and the bureaucrats realise they have made another mistake? I now table this non-conforming petition.

Tabled paper: Non-conforming petition relating to the identification of Scottville as a town.

Mount Isa, Lead Levels Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (10.22 pm): Again this week we have seen media attention on blood lead levels in the city of Mount Isa. The minister has provided information to the House in response to this matter. As the member for Mount Isa, I place on record my commitment to the people of Mount Isa in that I remain steadfast in ensuring that the government keeps the Mount Isa community informed and provides information to them about the health and wellbeing of the children and residents of my city. It is vital that the community is updated in respect of the results of ongoing lead testing of Mount Isa children. In relation to any legal action, I respect the duty of our courts and the right of individuals to exercise their right before that court. However, information to my community and matters before the courts are two distinct and different issues. Over a 15-month period from September 2006, 400 children were tested. Approximately 11 per cent—45 children—tested as having elevated blood lead levels. The results of the testing program were publicly presented to the Mount Isa community on 22 May 2008. Based on the 2006 census figures, approximately 1,840 children aged between zero and four live in the Mount Isa city area. Statistically, and based on the results of the testing, it could be assumed that there could be as many as 200 children who could have potentially tested with elevated levels. I am in no way scaremongering or suggesting in any way that our children’s blood lead levels, particularly elevated ones, are not of great concern. As we know, 45 children of the 400 returned test results above 10 micrograms per decilitre. Of the 45 children who returned test results above 10 micrograms per decilitre, 23 did not submit to retesting. Queensland Health is case managing all children whose blood lead levels are equal to or greater than 10. Recent figures—September 2008—indicate that a further 41 children have been tested since June 2008. These are outside the original testing group. Thirty-six of the 41 returned less than 10 micrograms per decilitre, while five returned greater than 10 micrograms per decilitre. One of those five children returned a result greater than 15 micrograms per decilitre. Given this information, it is imperative that we continue to advocate and encourage the testing of our children. My community needs to be kept informed and I refuse to not have relevant information released to my community, irrespective of numbers or levels. I can only take responsibility since I was elected. From day 1 my community has known that there are no secrets. I would have to say that the residents of Mount Isa can and do access all manner of information. I am extremely satisfied with the amount of work and the quality of work that the Living with Lead Alliance has achieved since its inception in February 2008. It is also vital that parents bring their children forward and through the continued monitoring of the results and public education we can know that we are reducing the lead levels in children and also we can monitor any child with an elevated level above 10 micrograms per decilitre.

Riverina Rail Siding Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—LNP) (10.25 pm): I wish to bring to the attention of the House my concern and disappointment about Queensland Rail’s backflip in offering a guarantee that it will service the Riverina rail siding, which is located in Cory Street, Oakey and continue the south-west sea freighter service in the future. Riverina (Australia) Pty Ltd was informed on Friday, 21 December 2007 that the Riverina rail siding, located in Cory Street, Oakey was to be red flagged effective Monday, 24 December 2007. Riverina had used this siding for a period of 30 years and had discussed the state of disrepair with QR in February 2007. Since that date they had not received any further advice until 21 December, informing them that the siding was not to be used after 24 December 2007. This advice devastated the company, as its entire site infrastructure and freight requirements were centred on QR freight services. 08 Oct 2008 Adjournment 3005

In January 2008 I contacted the office of the minister for transport regarding this matter. The minister advised the following in correspondence dated 20 March 08— QR Limited advised that due to the current Riverina (Australia) Pty. Ltd. turnout being past its useful life, there is no alternative to turnout replacement. However QR Ltd advised that it informed Riverina (Australia) Pty. Ltd. that it could load containers at the A and B siding, which was nearby. QR Ltd also advised that this practice is currently occurring, although Riverina had advised QR Ltd that it costs an additional $40 per container to load out of that Siding. The minister also stated that the cost for a new turnout and siding maintenance was assessed by QR Ltd to be approximately $180,000. QR also advised that although for some time it sought the full funding from Riverina in relation to the turnout replacement and siding maintenance, it had now amended its pricing to be on a like-for-like basis. This resulted in a requirement for an approximately $70,000 payment from Riverina for the turnout replacement. The pricing was amended to assist Riverina maintain the rail connection. On 30 March 2008 the turnout was removed. Following a meeting between QR Ltd and Riverina (Australia) Pty Ltd in May 2008, an agreement was made in respect to reinstating the siding, with Riverina investing a total contribution of approximately $150,000 towards this work. Following the May meeting, Riverina has been seeking an assurance from QR that the existing south-west freighter service would continue in the future. This assurance was sought to guarantee Riverina’s long-term investment in this project and ensure its ability to move freight efficiently to the port. On 8 September 2008, the managing director of Riverina had a meeting with QR staff who at that time gave a verbal assurance that this south-west service would continue and the container corridor was here to stay. Along with this assurance of the service QR also delivered a very hefty 45 per cent freight increase to all container business effective from 1 November 2008. Time expired. Peter Doherty Awards; Caboolture Regional Environmental Education Centre Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.29 pm): Tonight I am so pleased to tell the parliament that a Burpengary Meadows State School teacher, Jo-ann Bates, is one of Queensland’s most outstanding and innovative contributors to science and science education. She was named as a Peter Doherty award winner during National Science Week. She received one of only 10 awards for innovative science teaching. The Peter Doherty awards are announced each year as part of the state government’s Science Education Strategy. Peter Doherty was named Australian of the Year in 1997 in the area of science research. I see that the Minister for Education and Training is here tonight. He has previously said that the Peter Doherty Awards for Excellence in Science and Science Education are a key part of Queensland’s Science Education Strategy. Because Queensland is the Smart State, it is important to encourage more young Queenslanders to pursue careers in science as well as improve the quality of science education. Ms Bates will receive a $5,000 prize as part of the awards program. The purpose of the awards is to reward excellent teachers such as Jo-ann and give them an incentive to strengthen their education program. Not only is this award a great result and recognition of teaching excellence; it is also a strong recognition of the Burpengary Meadows State School. The school is relatively new in the local community. It opened only three years ago. It is a state school that is given strong and practical leadership by its principal, Peter Black, who has the support of a dedicated teaching and support staff at the school. It is also worth noting that Jo-ann Bates lives in the local area. These science awards have the support of the whole parliament. I have been told that this year’s nominations were of a very high standard and all winners should be very proud of their efforts. However, I am particularly pleased to see that Jo-ann Bates, a teacher at the Burpengary Meadows State School, has won this award. Congratulations to Jo-ann Bates. Just across the road from the Burpengary Meadows State School is the Caboolture Regional Environmental Education Centre. As the local member I had the pleasure of representing Minister John Mickel at the graduation of long-term unemployed job seekers at the centre as part of the Caboolture shire bush restoration project. Skills were learnt on the job as part of the Skilling Queenslanders for Work funded employment project. The project was supported strongly by the Moreton Bay Regional Council. The centre is located on Burpengary Creek and is the base for a number of prominent environment groups. It is where the walking track system along the creek commences. This great Burpengary community project is aimed at restoring nature vegetation and koala habitat and making improvements to the track system used by local schoolchildren, visitor groups and local residents. I congratulate the people who participated in the employment program. Time expired. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.32 pm. 3006 Attendance 08 Oct 2008

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson