29 Apr 2003 Legislative Assembly 1301

TUESDAY, 29 APRIL 2003

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

ASSENT TO BILLS 9 April 2003 The Honourable R. K. Hollis, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Speaker I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on 9 April 2003: "A Bill for an Act to amend the Indy Car Grand Prix Act 1990, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act to amend the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982" "A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code to provide a statutory enactment of the 'double effect' principle for palliative care" "A Bill for an Act to reform the law of civil liability for negligent acts, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act to provide for a coronial system, and for other purposes" "A Bill for an Act to regulate the process of cremating human remains". The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor

OPPOSITION APPOINTMENTS Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.32 a.m.): As everyone knows, when I was elected Leader of the Opposition, as a part of my positive politics agenda, I committed myself to the reformation of the Queensland coalition. Today I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that that has in fact happened. I am Leader of the Opposition, shadow minister for environment and heritage, shadow attorney-general and shadow minister for justice. Mr Bob Quinn MP is the deputy leader of the coalition, shadow treasurer and shadow minister for urban development. Mr Jeff Seeney MP is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, shadow minister for natural resources and mines, shadow minister for fair trading, shadow minister for industrial relations and shadow minister responsible for decentralisation. Mr Stuart Copeland MP is the shadow minister for education, shadow minister for youth, shadow minister for multicultural policy and shadow cabinet secretary. Mr Howard Hobbs MP is the shadow minister for local government and planning, shadow minister for regional and rural communities and shadow minister for trade. Mr Ray Hopper MP is the shadow minister for public works and housing. Mr Mike Horan MP is the shadow minister for state development and small business and shadow minister for racing. Mr Vaughan Johnson MP is the shadow minister for police and corrective services, shadow minister for transport and main roads and shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy. The Hon. Vince Lester MP is the shadow minister for seniors and volunteers, shadow minister assisting in environment and heritage and opposition whip. The Hon. Kevin Lingard MP is the Leader of Opposition Business in the House, shadow minister for sport, shadow minister for families and shadow minister for disability services. Mr Ted Malone MP is the shadow minister for emergency services and shadow minister for employment and training. Mr Marc Rowell MP is the shadow minister for primary industries and forestry and shadow minister for northern development. Mrs Joan Sheldon MP is shadow minister for tourism and shadow minister for the arts. Miss Fiona Simpson MP is the shadow minister for health and shadow minister for women's policy. Dr David Watson MP is the shadow minister for innovation and information economy and shadow minister for energy and deputy opposition whip. 1302 Papers 29 Apr 2003

PETITIONS The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Education Resources Mr Hopper from 675 petitioners requesting the House to note their strong objections to the way our Queensland Education Department is teaching and pushing our children in and out of our schools and requesting that (a) new schools be opened or some schools allocated to help the below average students; (b) new and improved avenues to help below average students; (c) less holidays; (d) more teachers and qualified help for each classroom and school.

Innisfail Child and Family Health Clinic Mr Pitt from 350 petitioners requesting the House to prevail upon Queensland Health to reconsider its decision to relocate the Innisfail Child and Family Health Clinic and to maintain the current services at the existing location.

Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project Mr Lawlor from 23 petitioners requesting the House to advise the Gold Coast City Council that the House will not agree to the recommendations contained in the Gold Coast Harbour Vision 2020 Project—Report No. 1 and is against any commercial development of the Broadwater (including Wavebreak Is) and the western foreshore and any further reclamation.

Ambulance Levy Ms Lee Long from 410 petitioners requesting the House to ensure that whatever legislative is put in place is equitable, so that no one who presently pays an Ambulance Subscription is worse off as a result of the new legislation.

Townsville State Development Area Mr Reynolds from 39 petitioners requesting the House to withdraw the proposal to establish a Townsville State Development Area over the Stuart Industrial Area and the Townsville Port Eastern Access Corridor and ensure that the development of heavy industry is not allowed to proceed in both the Stuart and Woodstock areas in the future.

The following honourable members have sponsored e-petitions which are now closed and presented—

Reparations Offer for Aboriginal Wages and Savings Ms Bligh from 710 petitioners requesting the House to re-enter negotiations regarding the Queensland Government's Reparations Offer for Aboriginal Wages and Savings with relevant Indigenous representatives and bodies to formulate a proper consultation process and outcome with the Queensland Indigenous peoples on their terms.

Miami Bushland Mrs Smith from 107 petitioners requesting the House to ensure that the native bushland known locally as Miami Bushland and comprising Lot 612 and Lot 683 in RP42591 be retained in its natural state and that it is managed to protect native birds, animals, reptiles, the prominent landscape and recreational opportunities that this area provides.

PAPERS PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 4 April 2003— Response from the Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mrs J Cunningham) to a petition presented by Mr Livingstone from 543 petitioners regarding the decision of the Esk Shire Council to abolish electoral divisions for the 2004 Local Government Elections— 27 Mar 2003 Ms Royalin Denning Fairneyview-Fernvale Road FERNVALE Q 4306 Dear Ms Denning I refer to a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Queensland requesting that the House re- introduce electoral divisions for the area of the Shire of Esk for the purposes of the 2004 local government elections. 29 Apr 2003 Papers 1303

I note that, in 1993, the then Local Government Commissioner undertook a review of the electoral arrangements for the Shire of Esk and, following public consultation, recommended that the electoral divisions be abolished. The Governor in Council, by the Local Government (Electoral Matters) Regulation 1993, subsequently approved the abolition of electoral divisions for Esk Shire on 26 November 1993. The re-introduction of electoral divisions in a local government area is a reviewable local government matter under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and, as such, must be referred by me as Minister for Local Government to the Electoral Commissioner of Queensland for independent review. In accordance with present Government policy, such references are only issued where the Council has resolved to seek a change to its existing electoral arrangements. I am informed that following consideration of your petition, the Council resolved not to change its electoral arrangements for the purposes of the 2004 local government elections. In the circumstances, the 2004 local government elections for the Shire of Esk will be based on the existing electoral arrangements. I regret I am unable to be of further assistance on this occasion. Yours sincerely (signed by Minister) Nita Cunningham MP Minister for Local Government and Planning 9 April 2003— Queensland Dairy Authority—Final Report 2003 15 April 2003— Bundaberg Health Services Foundation—Annual Report 2001-02 Late tabling statement by the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy (Mrs Edmond) regarding the Bundaberg Health Services Foundation Annual Report 2001-02 16 April 2003— Queensland Theatre Company—Annual Report 2002 24 April 2003— Permanent Trustee Company Limited—Consolidated Financial Report for the year ended 30 September 2002 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Registration) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 60 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994— Consumer Credit Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 61 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982— Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 62 Transport Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2002— Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 63 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 64 Fair Trading Act 1989— Fair Trading (Code of Practice—Fitness Industry) Regulation 2003, No. 65 and Explanatory Notes for No. 65 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 66 Duties Act 2001— Duties Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 67 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statement for No. 68 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— Workplace Health and Safety (Advisory Standards) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2003, No. 69 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— Motor Accident Insurance and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 70 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994— Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 71 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003, No. 72 1304 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

Environmental Protection Act 1994— Environmental Protection Policies Amendment Policy (No. 1) 2003, No. 73 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984, Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984— Community Services Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, No. 74

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Trade and Investment Mission to New Zealand Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.): On 8 and 9 April I led a highly successful trade and investment mission to New Zealand. Three biotechnology agreements were signed—proof that Queensland's Smart State strategy is delivering results. What this means for both Queensland and New Zealand is the prospect of more long-term, new-age jobs in the century of biotechnology. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard and to table two copies of my report on this trade and investment mission. Leave granted. The agreements are: A New Zealand-Queensland Biotechnology Collaboration Agreement signed with New Zealand Minister for Science and Technology, Pete Hodgson; A Horticulture Collaboration Statement between the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and HortResearch of New Zealand; An agreement between New Zealand biotechnology company EndocrinZ and IMBcom, the company created by the University of Queensland's Institute for Molecular Bioscience. These agreements show the value that is placed upon our biotechnology capability and expertise and demonstrates that we are being recognised as the Smart State. I am pleased that New Zealand Minister for Science and Technology Pete Hodgson supports the concept of Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and New Zealand marketing ourselves as a biotechnology hub to overseas interests. There were many other significant outcomes and I table two copies of my report on the trade and investment mission.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Funding for Opposition Parties Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.): In the interests of ensuring the strength of Queensland's democratic system, I have allocated an extra $500,000 to the coalition opposition. Democracy is improved if a government is constantly challenged and scrutinised by an effective opposition. The new coalition is much smaller than the one that operated from 1996 to 1998 and there are arguments that funding for an opposition should be linked to actual representation in the parliament. I have largely rejected that argument. While I may be criticised for spending more taxpayers' money on the opposition, I have always made it clear that Queensland and our system of government are best served by an opposition that is properly funded. I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard, along with a letter I have written to the Leader of the Opposition setting out the extra entitlements, a letter I have written to Bill Flynn, the leader of One Nation, and a letter I have written to you, Mr Speaker, in relation to these added benefits. Leave granted. When the last Budget was drawn up, the National Party nominated itself as the official Opposition, with the three Liberals operating independently and not qualifying for funding as a recognised Parliamentary party. Total funding for the two parties in the 2002-03 Budget was $1,867,000. I was planning to give them an increase in the next Budget to give them a total of $1,910,000 but this extra $500,000 now gives the Opposition a total of $2,410,000. An increase of more than 25% is obviously a substantial increase and comes in addition to a "top-up" I gave in this year's mid-year Budget review process of $64,000. I have asked Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg to give me his recommendations on how the extra $500,000 should be allocated between more staff, resources and materials. And I have reminded him that in addition to these arrangements, Coalition Members of Parliament now have the services of an assistant electorate officer which was not the case in the last Coalition. 29 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1305

The Coalition also wants an additional $23,387 in salary for Liberal Leader Bob Quinn to bring his pay up to the level of the leader of a recognised party. The Parliament of Queensland Act would have to be amended and I am asking Mr Springborg on whether he supports such an amendment. I have also outlined to the Mr Bill Flynn that One Nation has also be allocated an extra advisor and an additional $7500 travel.

24 April 2003 Mr Lawrence Springborg MP Leader of the Opposition Parliament House Alice Street BRISBANE 4000 Dear Lawrence Thank you for letter of 16 April 2003, advising that the parliamentary and organisational wings of both the National Party and the Liberal Party have reached agreement on the formation of a Coalition, to become the official Opposition in the Queensland Parliament. I also appreciate you forwarding to me on 22 April, at my request, a copy of the actual Coalition Agreement. I have given consideration to the issues you have raised in your correspondence, and also in previous discussions we have had in relation to the level of resources available to the Queensland Opposition, and the level of resourcing that was provided to the official Opposition when you were last in Coalition. Obviously, there is a very great difference in the total number of Members in the Coalition in Parliament now compared to 1996-98. There are arguments that the resourcing for the Opposition should be linked to actual representation in the Parliament. However, as you know, I have always made it clear that our State and our system of government is best served by an Opposition that is properly resourced, especially in research capability, in order to provide ideally constructive criticism of Government policies. Accordingly, I have taken the view that significant additional funding of $500,000 should be provided to the Opposition. I would, therefore, be grateful if you would provide me with your recommendations in relation to the specific allocation of an additional $500,000.00, as to how you would want this allocated to extra staff, resources and materials. Of course, in addition to this, all Coalition Members now have the services of an Assistant Electorate Officer at their disposal. Because of this extra allocation, Liberal Members should no longer have an ability to pool their resources. I have considered your request to provide Mr Quinn, as Deputy Leader of the Coalition, with an additional salary entitlement, similar to that which a leader of a recognised political party is entitled (currently $23,387.15). However, I am advised that such an entitlement would not be lawful without amendment to section 112 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. I would appreciate your views on whether you support such an amendment. I believe the request you made to me in your recent correspondence has now been fully met, providing the Opposition with substantial additional resources in order to fulfil its responsibilities. I await your advice, as soon as possible, on your suggested detailed allocation of those additional resources, so that I can provide final approval. Yours sincerely (sgd) HON PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER AND MINISTER FOR TRADE

24 April 2003 Mr Bill Flynn MP Leader of One Nation Party and Member for Lockyer Parliament House Alice Street BRISBANE 4000 Dear Bill I refer to recent discussions regarding additional resources for the One Nation Party. I will be announcing today additional resources to be provided to the Opposition as a result of the Liberal and National Parties re-entering a Coalition. In the interests of assisting you as Parliamentary Leader of the One Nation Party, particularly with an election due by early 2004, I am also willing to provide you with an extra AO7(1) advisor position and additional $7,500 travel budget. 1306 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

These resources will be administered by Ministerial Services, Department of the Premier and Cabinet. They will be in addition to your existing Parliamentary entitlements and will be subject to review after the next election. I am aware that you do not currently pool assistant electorate officer resources with your One Nation colleague. The provision of this additional staff member should mean that you would not have any requirement to pool resources in the future. For further details please contact Mike Goodman, Director Ministerial Services on 3224 6922. Yours sincerely (sgd) HON PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER AND MINISTER FOR TRADE

24 April 2003 Honourable Ray Hollis MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE 4000 Dear Ray Please find attached a copy of a letter to the Leader of the Opposition approving additional resources as a result of the new Coalition agreement and a letter to Mr Flynn, Leader of the One Nation Party providing him with an additional staff member. I understand that staff accommodation is currently provided to the Liberal Leader on Floor Nine of the Parliamentary Annex. This accommodation, together with existing Opposition accommodation would be suitable to house the additional staff provided to the Liberal Party in Coalition. In the interests of maintaining the overall costs of running Parliament at reasonable levels I request that you continue to make this staff accommodation available for this purpose. If Mr Flynn requests accommodation for his additional staff member I also request that you arrange some suitable work space available either in the Parliamentary precinct or in his electorate office. The staff members involved will be funded through Ministerial Services. Any costs associated with office equipment for these staff will be met by them. Please advise if you are agreeable to this arrangement. Yours sincerely (sgd) HON PETER BEATTIE MP PREMIER AND MINISTER FOR TRADE

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.): Worldwide concerns about severe acute respiratory syndrome show little sign of abating in the short term. In Queensland, our growing profile as an international tourism destination and trading partner means we are not immune from such pandemics. But, as the Smart State, we are positioned to respond to international health threats and to cushion our tourism industry from the adverse effects. My Health Minister, Wendy Edmond, who will shortly make a ministerial statement about SARS, is in the process of making it a notifiable disease under the Public Health Act. Queensland Health's strategy to minimise any SARS risks to Queenslanders includes the following: education of health care providers to enable prompt detection and appropriate management of people who may have SARS; providing information to overseas passengers arriving in Queensland; screening passengers arriving from areas affected by SARS who exhibit any symptoms; and heightened infection control procedures at all health facilities. We have a SARS action group comprised of very senior Queensland Health staff and a working group led by the manager of Communicable Diseases. The manager of Communicable Diseases is in daily contact with the Commonwealth and other state and territory governments to monitor the situation beyond Queensland. Queensland Health is making up-to-date advice available to health care workers and the public. For instance, it is estimated that the risk of SARS for travellers to affected areas is low. Travellers returning from affected areas need not be excluded from work places or schools. If travellers returning from areas affected by SARS become unwell, they should seek medical advice. The exception to this concern is in relation to health care workers who have worked in infected facilities where local transmission has occurred. These 29 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1307 people should not return to work in a health care facility until 10 days after their last possible exposure. Students and teachers who have been in a SARS affected area should not return to work or study if they have any symptoms and not until at least 10 days since they developed the symptoms. Queensland Health is also giving valuable information to Tourism Queensland, which is responding prudently to the uncertainty of SARS. Just as public health measures are in a state of flux as an understanding of SARS evolves, the tourism industry is on shifting sands. Between now and the end of June $4 million will be invested in domestic tourism campaigns, taking the total for the first half of the year to $8 million. The bumper Easter season enjoyed by tourism operators in many regions of the state is a testament to the success of our domestic marketing. Tourism Queensland is cooperating with other state and territory tourism organisations, the Australian Tourist Commission and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. This approach has led to Roy Morgan Research being commissioned to conduct a travel intention survey in coming weeks. While domestic marketing continues at full throttle, Queensland Tourism's international tourism campaigns, with the exception of New Zealand, are on hold until the impact of SARS is precisely determined—that is, the international tourism marketing campaign. Most of Australia's key international markets are taking a 'wait and see' approach and many would-be visitors to Queensland are postponing their travel plans. We know bookings from China have seriously declined and bookings from Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan have also slumped. Arrivals to Brisbane from Asia are down, but on the brighter side arrivals from New Zealand, the UK and Germany increased in the week to 20 April. Qantas, Malaysian, Singapore Airlines and Australian Airlines have temporarily cut services into Australia from Asia. Tourism Queensland is monitoring the situation, and once the impact is fully determined it will join with industry in a strategic marketing campaign. Spending more money now in markets such as Asia would be a scandalous waste of resource. We are conserving resources, which will be rolled out as part of recovery strategies at the appropriate time. Timing is crucial. We have provided a record base budget to Tourism Queensland. No previous Queensland government has provided such support, and that support will continue. I remind the House that Queenslanders planning overseas travel should heed advice from the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which strongly recommends Australians defer non-essential travel in SARS affected areas. In today's world there can be few guarantees about an unforeseen pandemic such as SARS, but I guarantee the government will continue to do its utmost to protect Queenslanders and our vital industries from the disease and its impacts.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Buderim Ginger Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): I want to highlight some good things happening in our tourism industry. Later today I will open a new tourist attraction which will give visitors yet another reason to travel to our wonderful Sunshine Coast. Buderim Ginger's new 'Taste of Ginger' tour at Yandina will take visitors on a journey from the ginger fields to a tasting room where they can sample ginger-inspired delicacies combined with the best of the Sunshine Coast's local produce. The dedicated tasting room and test kitchen will become a focal point for visiting celebrity chefs and foodies to showcase their wares and cooking techniques with visitors to the Ginger Factory. This is a Smart State operation; it is a powerful example of value adding to one of our great primary products by a Queensland company which is a world leader in its field. Buderim Ginger already attracts 400,000 visitors a year. It is expected a major proportion of those visitors will experience the 'Taste of Ginger' and will spread the word about Buderim Ginger and the Sunshine Coast. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The attraction will also create the equivalent of about five new jobs, another bonus for the region. I have said many times that becoming the Smart State is about broadening our economic base. 1308 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

While we need to continue with our traditional industries like mining and agriculture, we need to put our eggs in lots of other baskets. We need to apply a culture of innovation to everything we do and that's what Buderim Ginger is doing. They are making sure they get their core business right and then they are value-adding to that with ideas such as the Taste of Ginger Tour. I congratulate Buderim Ginger on opening this new attraction and wish this venture every success.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Magnesium Corporation Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 a.m.): Given the recent media coverage of the Australian Magnesium Corporation's recent announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange on its Stanwell magnesium project, I consider it appropriate that I outline the state's understanding of the current status of the project and clarify the state's involvement in that project. The Commonwealth and state governments have jointly recognised the importance of the AMC project to the development of value-adding industries. I remain satisfied that the public investment in this project is in the national interest and in Queensland's interest, as well as central Queensland and Rockhampton in particular. The announcement and subsequent letter to shareholders indicated a number of facts about the current status of the project. Firstly, AMC has been unable to reach agreement with its principal contractor, Leightons, on the lump sum price for the engineering, procurement and construction contract. Secondly, AMC would pursue an engineering, procurement, construction and management strategy involving United States based Fluor Corporation and Leightons which would require approval from its banks. Thirdly, AMC has requested Fluor to deliver a detailed capital cost and schedule review by early June. Fourthly, while early indications are that some $150 million to $200 million in additional capital will be required to support the project, the exact level would be determined after the Fluor review. Fifthly, this additional capital requirement may involve the participation of new parties. Sixthly, in addition, the new engineering, procurement and construction contracting strategy will necessitate additional balance sheet support. Seventhly, production of first metal would be deferred from fourth quarter 2004 to first quarter 2005. AMC has stated in its letter to shareholders that 'the business case fundamentals underlying Stanwell's project international positioning remain sound'. The state is not aware of anything that would indicate a contrary position. It is now a matter for the company to work with Fluor, Leightons, its major shareholder, Newmont, and its banking syndicate to implement its strategy to ensure that the project is delivered. The state will continue to honour its contractual commitments and I expect that the Commonwealth government will do likewise. As honourable members would be aware, the Commonwealth and the state have pledged considerable infrastructure and financial support to the project. This support is on commercial terms and is the subject of various formal legally binding agreements with the company. These arrangements, which are set out in the AMC prospectus for its distribution entitled securities, are as follows: the Commonwealth government will provide a guarantee facility to assist AMC in obtaining total funding of $100 million and a CSIRO research and development commitment of $50 million. The state government will provide a $100 million subordinated loan to be used to fund distributions on the distribution entitled securities. This loan is now unconditionally committed and will be paid back by AMC when the project proceeds. A distribution support facility has been provided to a maximum of $28 million. This facility has now been repaid to the state. Some $50 million provided to establish state-owned infrastructure in the proposed Stanwell Energy Park, which is subject to the payment by AMC of user charges. There is no obligation for payment by the state until the infrastructure has been constructed by AMC, and this is common user. Some $70 million provided in a Stanwell Corporation Limited additional contingent cost overrun facility. This facility cannot be called on until after bank finance has been fully drawn. An $8 million Stanwell Corporation Limited working capital facility. This facility has now been repaid by AMC. Buyer specific infrastructure, particularly that pursuant to Stanwell Corporation Limited's energy supply agreement and water supply agreement. Construction of certain elements of the infrastructure has commenced. Stanwell has protected its interests through guarantees from banks and AMC. Complex arrangements for the project are in place to protect the state's investment. These are specified in the various project agreements, including the individual agreements in respect of 29 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1309 each of the facilities I have just outlined. The state subordinated loan and the Commonwealth guarantee are secured against the project's assets and rank equally but behind the banking syndicate and Stanwell. Until the bank's debt facilities are drawn down by AMC, the state and Commonwealth have priority call on the project's assets. The bank debt facilities can only be drawn down once a range of conditions are met, including an agreed cost estimate for the project and sufficient funds are in place for the project to proceed. The state will continue to closely monitor the situation over the coming months as AMC endeavours to bring this project to fruition. Let me say finally in relation to AMC that we had a choice and so did the Commonwealth. This technology either went to the United States or created jobs in Queensland. My government will do everything it possibly can to create jobs for Australians. My government is sick and tired of metal being dug out of the ground, put in a ship, sent overseas, value added and bought back by Australians at an increased price. We have 19 and a half million Australians. Our capital is therefore very limited. That is why the Commonwealth government and the state government work to support this project. Can I say that it is unique. You have the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party all agreeing on supporting a major project for the future of Australia. That bipartisan support is important for the future of this project and the future of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Education Reforms Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.51 a.m.): A key priority of our government's education reform agenda is to equip students with the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future. Information and communication technologies are essential classroom tools in the 21st century. That is why our government has committed an extra $118 million over four years to boost the number of computers in classrooms and skill students and teachers in the use of ICTs. In our 2002-03 budget statement we said that we would provide an extra 3,000 new computers over three years to schools which needed help to reach the state government target ratio of one computer for every five students. Today I am delighted to report that by the end of semester 1 this year about 5,000 new computers will be delivered to these priority schools. In only one year we have not only met our commitment; we have exceeded it by 2,000 computers and delivered it two years earlier than promised. Over the same three-year period we also committed to connecting a further 1,600 classrooms to the Internet in schools which had limited access to such technology. We are also on track to meet this commitment ahead of schedule. By the end of June more than 730 classrooms are expected to be connected to the Internet, with the remaining targeted classrooms scheduled to be cabled by June 2004. So again we have met the commitment and expect to meet it 12 months earlier than originally scheduled. A key component of the Government's ICTs for Learning Strategy has been to look at smarter ways to buy computer equipment and services for schools. As a major consumer of computer hardware and software, Education Queensland is well placed to use its buying power in the market to drive prices down. And it has done just that. Following a tender process, the department struck a deal with eight computer companies to give state schools more value for their technology dollar. The new bulk purchasing process has delivered savings of more than 20 per cent on desktop computers and up to 33 per cent on laptop computers. These savings have enabled state schools to make their share of the $12 million in extra funds go even further. During March 2003 all state schools were invited to place their orders centrally for servers, computers, laptops, pocket PCs and selected software packages. I am delighted to inform members that the first bulk buying process has been an outstanding success. In three weeks, just over three-quarters of Queensland state schools—that is, 982 schools—purchased more than 9,000 computers worth about $10 million. This buying spree will play a significant role in helping to meet another of our government's commitments, which is to replace 19,400 of the oldest existing school computers over three years. This injection of new computers will also help propel Queensland state schools closer to the government's statewide target of one computer for every five students. 1310 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

Delivery of computers to schools has already commenced, with all equipment to be delivered by the end of semester 1 this year. The next bulk procurement will happen in October 2003, timed to coincide with schools receiving their October ICTs for Learning grant. While it is only early days, Queensland state school students and teachers are already benefiting from our government's commitment to creating classrooms for the 21st century.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Employment and Training Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.54 a.m.): There are 10,000 young Queenslanders aged 15 to 17 who are out of school, out of work and out of training. This is simply not good enough and we have to do better. One of the ways in which the Queensland government is striving to create better options for young people is through an industry that naturally attracts and harnesses young talent—the arts. Within my portfolio, Arts Queensland is investing $1 million annually to work with the Department of Employment and Training to deliver outcomes with a range of industry and community partners. Through a suite of initiatives, young people are supported in their transitions from school to work. Our commitment to innovation in training and employment programs is demonstrated by the success of programs such as the Young Artists Mentoring Program, which has been operating since 1999 and is delivered by Youth Arts Queensland. In 2003 this program will provide 15 young people with a career kick-start through an investment of $125,000 from Arts Queensland, and a further $60,000 from the Department of Employment and Training's Breaking the Unemployment Cycle. YAMP is nationally recognised as an important industry bridge that supports young people aged 18 to 25 in making the transition from training and education to developing and establishing a professional career in the arts and cultural industries. Based on the success of the Queensland model, Youth Arts Queensland was recently awarded the national tender for delivery of a further 10 mentoring partnerships through the Australia Council Theatre Board. Of the 48 past participants in YAMP, 90 per cent are now involved in full-time employment or continuing education in the arts and cultural industries. Annette Turner is one of the success stories who, at the age of 26, is now one of the youngest gallery directors in Queensland. Effective partnerships are the foundations on which the newly established Transit Lounge initiative has been developed. The Transit Lounge: Creative Industries Resource Centre for Young People is based on level 3 of the Judith Wright Centre for Contemporary Arts. It is linked closely with the Education and Training Reforms for the Future White Paper and designed in the context of the government's Creative Queensland 2002 policy. The Transit Lounge aims to provide young people with responsive, flexible training and employment opportunities within the arts, cultural and creative industries. It is about harnessing young people's creative talent. It is about equipping young people across Queensland with skills required by the demands of a new work force and to deliver our Smart State vision.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Medicare Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.58 a.m.): Today is a sad day for health care in Australia. John Howard's so-called overhaul of Medicare is nothing more than an insult to Queensland families. It is the demise of a universal health care system that was the envy of the world. John Howard and his Health Minister have killed off Medicare. It is now a system based on what you can afford, not what you need, and will provide different levels of health care for people with different levels of income brackets. Under the so-called Medicare reforms, doctors will be encouraged to bulk-bill pensioners and concession card holders only. Millions of families will no longer have access to bulk-billing. Doctors will charge a fee of their choice up front and claim the Medicare rebate themselves directly from the Health Insurance Commission. Worse is to come as the states try to negotiate a new Australian Health Care Agreement with the Commonwealth. 29 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1311

The so-called Medicare reforms will not reduce demand on public hospital emergency departments by GP-type patients. Last week, the Prime Minister said that state and territory governments would receive an additional $10 billion for our public hospitals. Today, in the Australian newspaper, we have the Prime Minister finally confessing his $10 billion extra is actually $1 billion less, as the states had said. And yet we have the Queensland coalition leader running around the state saying that the government should grab the Commonwealth's offer with both hands. The dollar-for-dollar matching conditions proposed by the Commonwealth place an unfair burden on Queensland. This state already provides $6 out of every $10 spent on public health care in Queensland and all of the capitals. On another note, as the Premier has just informed the House, the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic is continuing to cause serious concerns around the world. I want to assure this House that Queensland is taking a responsible approach to the virus and that our health professionals are well prepared to deal with the situation. For that reason, Queensland is moving to have SARS declared a notifiable disease under the Public Health Act. My department is fully prepared to minimise the risks to Queenslanders and visitors to our state. I am aware that some concern has been expressed regarding the potential impact of SARS on Beef Expo, which is being held in Rockhampton. Visitors to Beef Expo are welcome in Queensland. However, as a precaution, information about SARS will be given out by the organisers to people who have travelled to Rockhampton from overseas to attend this important event. Queenslanders can be assured that we are taking sensible and responsible steps to minimise the risks associated with this illness without causing the hysteria we have seen in some quarters.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Manufacturing Industry Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (10.00 a.m.): Last week I launched a landmark development plan to position Queensland's $10 billion manufacturing industry as a global leader in investment, innovation, growth and technological change. The strategy appropriately named Making Queensland's Future takes on issues facing the industry and builds on Queensland's strengths and reputation. Manufacturing is a major pillar of the Queensland economy contributing $10 billion to the state's economic activity and standing as Queensland's second largest provider of full-time jobs with 182,000 jobs. The Department of State Development is making available $26 million over four years to drive future manufacturing growth in the state and consolidate manufacturing's position as a key contributor to Queensland's economic growth. The funding, which is a mixture of new resources and refocusing on existing resources, will support new initiatives and enhancement of existing programs. Some of the key themes Making Queensland's Future will address include a focusing on skills and training. State Development is working with the Department of Employment and Training to facilitate greater collaboration between industry and the training system to implement a more flexible sectoral and geographic approach to address skill shortages in priority manufacturing industry sub-sectors. It will also address building exports and collaboration. To help Queensland's firms become more exported focused, a manufacturers export and collaboration pipeline has been developed to deliver targeted awareness raising, training and support, market assistance and ongoing after-care services. A variety of programs will provide access to experienced export managers for export-ready firms in addition to supply chain development initiatives to improve competitiveness. It will also address attracting investment for Queensland. Making Queensland's Future is committed to increasing activity by lifting the number of Queensland manufacturing firms that are investment ready for both traditional finance and venture capital. The Queensland manufacturers capital raising pipeline will offer integrated commercialisation and capital raising services and proactively target strategic manufacturing investments where Queensland has a competitive advantage or gap in existing capabilities. It is important to note that this strategy has come about due to the cooperation of industry, unions and academics that came together under the Manufacturers Leaders Group over the past 12 months, and to those people I express my thanks. The Beattie government is working to ensure the state's manufacturing base grows. This strategy is proof of the commitment not only of the government but of other leading stakeholders that Queensland's manufacturing is relevant in the state's economic future. 1312 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Crime-Fighting Equipment Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (10.03 a.m.): I rise to inform the House about a new initiative which stands to assist police investigations. The state government recently approved $300,000 for a high-tech light which will reveal evidence at crime scenes which would otherwise be invisible. The $300,000 will be used to buy 12 polilight forensic light sources from Rofin Australia, which is also supplying them to the FBI, the United States Secret Service and Scotland Yard. The forensic light source is a specialised instrument that emits light at variable wavelengths and is therefore able to detect this evidence. The polilight PL500 can locate concealed fingerprints, footprints, bloody fingerprints and blood patterns, bone fragments, fibres, powders, stains, paint chips, gunshot residue, semen and bruises. The forensic light source also has a variety of forensic document applications, including being able to help spot obliterations, alterations or indeed forgery. Traditional policing, observation and hard work such as doorknocking are still important in solving crimes, but scientific and high-tech advances are now tilting the balance more and more in favour of the fight against crime. I warn criminals that it does not matter how smart or careful they think they are being: our police are now armed with the sort of scientific and high tech crime-fighting equipment that can track them down. Queensland is the Smart State and the state government recognises that science is now occupying a place at the forefront of solving crime. We have introduced legislation to allow for DNA testing and we support other smart policing initiatives so that no stone is left unturned in the fight against crime here in Queensland. During 2001-02, the Beattie government committed more than $3.2 million in funding for a project to upgrade police laboratories, testing centres and scenes of crime offices right across the state. This program is continuing again this financial year. These upgrades will ensure Queensland's accreditation with the National Association of Testing Authorities, or NATA, which audits forensic processes to ensure the integrity of the systems used to collect and analyse exhibits.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT AusLink Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (10.06 a.m.): The Commonwealth government's AusLink proposal purports to be a national transport plan and yet at a recent meeting in Brisbane of all state and territory transport ministers this claim was categorically rejected. As I have said in this House before, AusLink is a so-called national transport plan lacking any reference whatsoever to aviation, shipping, or the impacts of congestion in urban areas or public transport. AusLink heralds an intention by the Howard government to walk away from a decades-long commitment to 100 per cent funding of the National Highway—a massive cost-shifting exercise that will see the states required to pick up the tab for funding shortfalls for projects already identified in our roads planning processes on the basis of previous commitments from the Commonwealth. They include projects like the Ipswich Motorway upgrading, six laning of the Bruce Highway between Brisbane's northern outskirts and Caboolture, six and eight laning of the Gateway Motorway, and upgrading of the Barkly Highway and the Toowoomba second range crossing. AusLink is a proposal to redistribute existing roads funding away from Queensland's roads. It is not a national transport plan. This fact was agreed to by all state and territory transport ministers. At a meeting of transport ministers in Brisbane on 11 April, it was unanimously agreed that the Commonwealth should continue to fund the National Highway system, including a 100 per cent commitment to both capital and maintenance funding; AusLink must include public transport issues and key urban issues such as congestion and urban links; and that the state and territory governments must be key decision makers in partnership with the Commonwealth in determining priorities for national transport investments. A truly national transport plan would not only at least maintain existing road funding levels but also cover all modes of transport. A truly national plan recognises that efficient, effective and affordable public transport can and does reduce congestion but can markedly reduce the need for expensive road construction. A truly national transport plan would look at the benefits of strategically planning and properly resourcing public transport infrastructure. The AusLink green paper says that congestion levels in Brisbane are predicted to exceed congestion levels in Sydney and Melbourne within 15 years. John Howard's government need 29 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1313 only look to the past to see examples of former federal governments funding important public transport infrastructure. The Keating government's Building Better Cities program helped to fund the 46 kilometre extension of the Brisbane to Beenleigh line to the Gold Coast—a program scrapped by the Howard government. The Whitlam government was responsible for funding the electrification of Brisbane's railway and construction of the Merivale Bridge in the 1970s—a program ended by the Fraser government. The Hawke government funded the duplication of central city rail tunnels in the early 1990s, under a Commonwealth program, and they are no longer in existence. Over the last 10 years Commonwealth funding for roads has remained static whilst state funding for roads has more than doubled. In addition, the Beattie government has funded the $599 million South East Busway and transit lane project, funded the Inner Northern Busway and contributed $100 million to the Brisbane City Council's Brisbane transport plan. We are getting on with the job while the Commonwealth squanders the opportunity to develop a worthwhile national transport plan in cooperation with the states and territories. Despite the fact that John Anderson pretends to be interested in developing a national transport plan—however flawed it might be—I was rather puzzled yesterday, after reading the draft agenda for the next Australian Transport Council meeting in Melbourne in May, that it does not include a single reference to AusLink.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Healthy Waterways Awards Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.10 a.m.): The Healthy Waterways Awards celebrate and reward achievements in improving the health of ecosystems in the catchments and waterways of south-east Queensland. The program is an initiative of the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership, which represents governments, industry, primary producers, community groups, researchers, schools and individuals. Nominations for awards were up by 50 per cent from 2001. This illustrates an increasing awareness by, and engagement with, community groups. Earlier this month one award was presented for each of the following categories—and honourable members will be extremely proud of what their constituents, with their support, have achieved: Rural Award, won by Peter and Suzanne Chudleigh for the Kinmond Creek Streambank and Ecosystem Protection Project; Industry Award, won by Port of Brisbane Motorway Alliance for the Stormwater Quality Management Strategy; Government Award, won by Toowoomba City Council for the Alderley Street Detention Basin project— Mr Shine interjected. Mr WELLS: I note the support of the member for Toowoomba North for that project. The School Award, won by Tamborine Mountain State High School, for their protection of Cedar Creek catchment; Community Award, won by Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee for their Oxbow Rehabilitation Project; Communication and Media Award, won by Riverfestival for the Riverfestival Program, including Riverclean and Riversymposium; and Science Award, won by Dr Peter Pollard and the Griffith University study team for the sewage overflow abatement project, the Lota Creek Pilot Study. The quality of work and commitment by each of the project teams was extremely high. All projects play a vital role in ensuring the conservation, protection and improvement of our waterways. The supreme award this year was shared between two, the Port of Brisbane Motorway Alliance for their Water Quality Management Strategy, and Griffith University for the Lota Creek Pilot Study. The Port of Brisbane Motorway Project raised the benchmark for water quality treatment on road infrastructure projects in Queensland. It was a collaborative effort between industry and community and achieved an excellent environmental outcome. The project comprised large treatment systems to reduce stormwater pollutants, linear wetlands, and recycling of road pavement run-off to protect and enhance the wetlands on the Bulimba Creek floodplain. Griffith University's Lota Creek Pilot Study was undertaken by a dedicated group of scientists and engineers researching impacts from, and management options for, overflows of sewage. I hope the example set by these winners is encouragement to other groups in our community to become involved in helping to improve the health of our waterways. Whilst recognising that more work needs to be done, we must recognise those groups that are paving the way to produce good environmental outcomes. I am sure all honourable members commend the efforts of all nominees. 1314 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Suncorp Stadium Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.13 a.m.): I would like to report to the House that it is almost game-on at Suncorp Stadium, with construction nearing completion. Suncorp Stadium is the largest construction project ever undertaken by the Department of Public Works in the history of Queensland. It is on budget and on time, as all projects completed by this department have been since I have been minister. It is a significant investment for Queensland, generating more than 3,400 jobs during the construction phase. Currently there are approximately 830 workers on site, with a further 100 working on the infrastructure external to the stadium. The contractor is in continuous consultation with the Department of Public Works project managers and the operator to ensure that critical works are completed in time for the first football match between the Brisbane Broncos and Newcastle on 1 June and, more importantly, the State of Origin on 11 June. Mr Speaker, the best gauge that the stadium is well on the way to completion is to simply drive past the site and take note of the work along Milton Road. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation. Mr SCHWARTEN: You can see the structure for the footbridge over Milton Road which was placed there during the Easter Weekend. The pedestrian walkways along Milton Road are well advanced. Landscaping and reconstituting the roads and footpaths around the stadium has commenced. Ground preparation work inside the stadium is complete, allowing the most significant milestone in the construction program, the laying of the turf, to take place this week. Seat installation is well advanced. Over 80 per cent of the seat frames supplied by Queensland steel and tube company Orrcon have been installed, together with 50 per cent of the seats which are being supplied by Sebel. Fifteen catering outlets on the main public level, level 3, have been approved by health authorities and have been handed over to the caterer to commence staff training. I table a project fact sheet for the benefit of honourable members to highlight the enormity of the task and the material involved. I have to report that all major contracts for the project have now been let. Members would be aware that through March/April work at the stadium was affected by a number of industrial disputes, mainly related to the lack of resolution to proposed enterprise bargaining agreements. It must be stressed that these disputes were industry wide, not just specific to this site. These agreements have now been resolved and I am advised that industrial harmony is expected through to the running of the first game on 1 June, and I want to thank the unions concerned for their consideration during that difficult time. Not a week goes by that I do not visit the Suncorp Stadium site and I am confident that all Queenslanders will be justifiably proud of this 52,500 seat world-class sporting facility. I speak with the workers on that site and they are all proud, as they should be, that their hard work and skill has yielded what will be the best football stadium in Australia. Let me finish by reiterating that this job is on time and on budget. It is a very complex project which has involved everything from archaeological digs to the installation of state-of-the-art communication systems. The finished product will boast the most user and environmentally friendly features possible, including a water recycling system which reuses rain and ground water. I also want to commend the officers of the Department of Public Works for their hard work and commitment in getting this project to this final stage and have every confidence in their ability to see it through to the first game.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Domestic Violence Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (10.17 a.m.): This government is committed to protecting all Queenslanders from the shocking consequences of domestic violence. To back up our new domestic and family violence laws, last week I approved more than $10.4 million in funding over the next three years to 39 new and enhanced counselling and support services across the state. These services will support Queenslanders covered by the new laws and ensure that they have access to information, 29 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1315 assistance through the court process, referrals to other appropriate agencies and advocacy and support. Next week is Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Week. The theme adopted for this year is 'Expect respect: there is no excuse for abuse'. This funding will make a difference in the lives of people who need protection and assistance as groups throughout the state use the week to highlight the devastation caused by domestic violence. There is also no excuse for the misleading claims that the Leader of the Opposition has been making around this state about increases in breaches of domestic violence orders. Just under two weeks ago in the context of a by-election he was running around expressing concern about the rises in breaches of domestic violence orders. There has been a 14 per cent increase from 1998 to 2001. What that reflects is that people are more willing to report breaches. They are more confident that police will deal with the issue and they are more confident about the legal protection offered to them. The Leader of the Opposition should understand that police currently have the power to apply for a domestic violence order, remove a perpetrator from the victim's home and detain them for a period of up to four hours. But let us look at the Leader of the Opposition's record on domestic violence. Two weeks ago his press release claimed— Domestic violence is repugnant in the extreme. It cannot be tolerated. And that means government's cannot turn their backs on it. We would agree with that and I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is now showing concern about women at risk, because that was not what he was saying when we debated the domestic violence legislation last year. Then his concern was whether men subject to domestic violence orders might be allowed to keep their firearms and whether or not a domestic violence order was being used as a legal tactic by women. Members will remember that the National Party opposed our legislation extending domestic violence protection to the elderly and the disabled. Perhaps the new coalition with the Liberals will help the Nationals get the rhetoric right, get their policies right and get some voting consistency in this House. I encourage all members to participate in Domestic Violence Prevention Week and support the organisations in their electorates in their endeavours to highlight this issue.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Tourism Crisis Management Plan Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (10.20 a.m.): Cabinet yesterday endorsed a tourism crisis management plan for Queensland. The plan will enable Queensland to reduce or respond more rapidly and effectively to industry shocks which can have devastating impacts on communities across the state. Shocks may include natural disasters, terrorist activities, military conflicts such as the Iraq conflict, public health issues such as SARS, economic downturns such as the Asian economic crisis and they can have short, medium or long-term consequences for individuals, communities, regions and countries. The plan has three levels of activation: level one, for short-term local or regional impacts; level two, where there has been a reduction in domestic and/or international travel to Queensland in the short, medium or long term; and level three, where there is significant long-term negative consequences for the industry. It is broken into four core stages: prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. It includes an action plan detailing proposed pre-shock and post-shock responses in four key theme areas: communication, research, marketing and business/industry development and assistance. Endorsement of the tourism crisis management plan is timely in light of the challenges presented by the Iraq conflict and the SARS epidemic. People across the globe are deferring their travel decisions, with SARS the main factor. Many of Australia's key international markets continue to experience softening of forward bookings of between 20 per cent to 300 per cent. Arrivals have declined dramatically from Asian markets into Brisbane. Bookings from China have seriously declined. Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan are also badly affected. Airlines have temporarily cut flights into Australia and Queensland. Australian Airlines has encouraged staff to take holidays after a 60 per cent reduction in bookings. Services to Hong Kong have been reduced, flights to Taipei have been suspended and Osaka and Fukuoka services amalgamated. There has been a 23 per cent reduction in Qantas seats for Hong Kong- 1316 Ministerial Statement 29 Apr 2003

Brisbane from mid-May to mid-June; an eight per cent reduction for Tokyo-Cairns; and a halving of seats on the Cairns-Narita route from 19 May to 13 July. Because there is limited scope for stimulating international consumers to travel, Tourism Queensland has put on hold all international marketing campaigns with the exception of those in New Zealand, where demand remains steady. The Australian Tourist Commission has done the same. However, the opposition has shamelessly sought to gain political mileage. They want an immediate multimillion-dollar boost to international marketing activities. To market now in Asia and elsewhere would be a waste of valuable resources. When the time is right we will apply our resources to recovery strategies that will bring benefits—and international tourists—to Queensland. Queensland is better placed than some other states to weather the storm. While the short- term consequences of SARS are of concern, the longer-term prospects are brighter. Many people are adopting a wait-and-see attitude and postponing travel rather than cancelling. Arrivals in the week to 20 April increased from New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Germany. Indonesians have not stopped travelling, but have switched their focus to domestic and down under travel. Two of the biggest Indian operators have started promoting Australia again and there is good interest from Thailand. South African bookings for Australia have not declined and Australia seems to be less affected in North America than European destinations. To insulate the industry from impacts outside our control, we are focusing on the domestic market. Between now and 30 June we will run cooperative marketing campaigns valued at around $4 million, taking the total domestic spend in the first half of the year to $8 million. Those campaigns are hitting the mark, with an upsurge in domestic travel and many regions reporting bumper Easter holiday periods and good forward bookings.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Innovation Start-Up Scheme Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (10.24 a.m.): Yesterday the Courier-Mail highlighted a Queensland government scheme that supports and promotes innovation—the Innovation Start-Up Scheme. As the story mentioned, getting high-tech start-up companies started means taking a risk, but the good news is this scheme is helping improve the odds. The state government has committed $3.2 million to four rounds of this scheme. The recipients have gone on to attract $13 million in funding from Commonwealth grants, private capital investment from business angels, large corporations and in venture capital. Of the 41 recipients funded, five have been terminated because they failed to meet certain milestones along the way. But the government is careful about how we allocate grants. ISUS participants do not get their cash up front; they get funding instalments when they reach certain stages. For the five companies that had their funding cut, only 36 per cent of the moneys were paid out before their involvement was terminated. We make no apologies that we make tough decisions when people do not meet the milestones. This ISUS funding up to $85,000 could be compared with Commonwealth schemes—the BFF fund, up to $250,000, and the COMET fund, up to $100,000 in slightly different areas. My department receives 60 to 100 applications per round of ISUS. So about 10 per round are funded, but all who apply are invited to be involved in commercialising skills education, networking and investment opportunities. ISUS is improving the odds. It has produced an 88 per cent survival rate, yet unassisted hi- tech start-ups generally have only a 20 per cent to 25 per cent survival rate in their first five years. Through ISUS, 41 per cent have reached the market and 25 per cent are achieving commercial success, yet just five per cent of unassisted innovations generally ever reach the market and only one per cent become a commercial success. ISUS success stories include more than 20 companies now in the commercialisation process, such as PolyOptics in global distribution, HeadStart Technologies at Sams Seafood, Bantix and Impedimed. Later this year I will be announcing the fifth round of ISUS and I am looking forward to applications from across the state. Already, 18 of the 41 companies funded are from the regions. I am proud of the Innovation Start-Up Scheme, as it is a way to provide support, advice and pre- seed funding to smart Queenslanders and it is helping us foster a culture of innovation and entrepreneurialism. If there was not an ISUS, people would complain that the government was 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1317 doing nothing to help them with their smart ideas. ISUS is helping us foster a culture of innovation. While the early stages carry risk, they also carry long-term gain and ISUS has had far more successes than failures.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Report Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert Digest No. 4, 2003. I also lay upon the table of the House the committee's report No. 28 on the Water Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003, which is subject to a disallowance motion. I also inform the House that the committee has decided not to table separate reports on two other regulations currently subject to disallowance motions, namely, the Food Production Safety Regulation 2002 and the Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2002. The committee has adopted this approach because it has already corresponded with the relevant minister about certain issues raised by those regulations. That correspondence, which adequately covers the nature of the committee's concerns and the minister's views on them, is incorporated in the committee's Alert Digest No. 4, 2003, tabled today.

PRIVATE MEMBER'S STATEMENT Army Worms Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (10.28 a.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the parliament the devastation being caused by army worms in crops and pasture throughout Queensland. These worms that I have here are known as the day feeding army worms and are in plague proportions throughout Queensland. A farmer has a problem if an infestation of three worms per square metre occurs. However, I have had reports of 500 worms per square metre in the Wallumbilla area. Army worms move in a front, which can be hundreds of metres wide, and they destroy the leaves of plants in their path. They destroy crops, native and buffel grasses, leaving nothing for livestock. The pasture will recover under suitable climatic conditions. However, this parliament should be aware of the heartbreak—to see life-saving pastures that have finally grown after one of the worst droughts being totally destroyed by this pest. I call on the government to establish a contingency fund to assist farmers to obtain chemicals as this plague continues and further threatens Queensland's winter wheat crop. The battle plan must also include the state government acting as a responsible land-holder and controlling plague outbreaks in national parks, stock routes and Crown land. I would also like to see the state government place entomologists into the army worm infested areas to study and monitor this current plague and establish if there is any way to stimulate biological control and other management techniques to combat this current plague and future plagues. The DPI has been very helpful. However, the officers of that department have been outnumbered by the extent of the plague and have been far too slow to respond to it. Farmers need to be advised immediately if an outbreak occurs, what species they are dealing with, which chemicals are used and at what rate, and how long the withholding period for livestock will be. I table for the interest of members a sample of the species of army worms that is causing havoc throughout Queensland. I have had reports of a land-holder putting cattle into a crop only to find out two days later that the crop was totally destroyed by army worms. To put it in perspective, the new Lang Park turf—whenever it is going to be laid—could be wiped out in hours by this pest. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Incitec Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My question is directed to the Minister for State Development. As the deadline for the government's five per cent unemployment target draws near—it is in 57 days, I believe—can the minister confirm that the head office of Incitec, one of the top five manufacturers based in Queensland, will soon be transferred to Melbourne, with the loss of at least 100 corporate positions for Queensland? 1318 Questions Without Notice 29 Apr 2003

Mr BARTON: Incitec is a major company that operates in this state. The bulk of its operations certainly are remaining here. Incitec has been going through an amalgamation and a corporate change. I understand that some of its head office functions will be removed. I think we have to balance this with the overall growth we are seeing in this state. We have certainly been attracting other head office operations to Queensland. We have been attracting significant other new investment to Queensland. In recent weeks we have seen Capral commit to consolidating its Australian operations here in Ipswich. Had that not occurred, there would have been a loss of the 96-odd jobs that are currently here with Capral. They would have been lost to wherever it consolidated its operations. From time to time, of course, commercial decisions will be taken by major companies that disadvantage Queensland. I guess that we cannot win them all. In an overall sense we are certainly fighting well above our weight and we are winning the great bulk of our share of jobs that are coming to this state.

Chevron Gas Pipeline Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is directed to the Minister for State Development, who heads the department which the Premier has called the 'department of grunt'. I refer the minister to the multibillion-dollar proposed Chevron gas pipeline. Can the minister inform the House of the status of that project? Mr BARTON: As I have consistently said to the House in the two and a bit years I have been Minister for State Development, the project is one that will proceed if commercial agreements with users of gas can be put in place. We are certainly maintaining very close contact with Mobil Exxon, which is the lead project manager in that project. There have been some changes in ownership. I understand that Chevron is totally withdrawing from the project. Late last year—I think it was November—I was in Papua New Guinea, at the Hides gas field and at Kutubu with Mobil Exxon and with Chevron, having a good look at the project. Some of the major proponents who are likely to use gas were with us as part of that trade mission because we were trying to give them confidence that there was no need to be worried about security measures and security of supply if that project did go ahead. At that time Mobil Exxon was saying to me that it had hoped to have the commitment to final engineering design by the end of March or it might need to shelve the project. We are now at the end of April. It has not shelved the project. It is still talking to the potential purchasers of gas at the volumes that are needed. I was informally advised by one of those major intended purchasers as late as late last week that they were in fact in very productive discussions about purchase of that gas. It was not finalised at that point, but they were very hopeful that they would be able to reach a commercial arrangement for the purchase of gas. Again, that project is one which cannot be made to operate if there is not sufficient volume taken up by users of commercial gas in this state. This state is still very committed to seeking to have that project occur. We certainly want it to come down the east coast—not go inland and then further down inland to Moomba and across to the Northern Territory, which was being looked at as an option at one time. Certainly we want it to run down the east coast to major users in Gladstone. It is they who have informally advised me that they are still in very productive discussions with the proponents of the PNG gas pipeline. We want that gas pipeline to be capable of being tapped for industry in Townsville as well. I would not like to predict whether it will get up or not. I stress that it very largely depends on whether there can be sufficient commercial suppliers found so that the project can be made a reality. The pipeline cannot be built if there are not sufficient commercial users.

Ethanol Mr MULHERIN: My question is directed to the Premier. This state has led the way in seeking to progress the ethanol industry in Australia by undertaking trials and having the government car fleet able to use an E10 ethanol blend. Can the Premier outline how the Commonwealth has responded to his repeated pleas to take up ethanol or a blend for trial purposes? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Mackay for his question. At best, the federal government's efforts with ethanol as a fuel additive have been tardy. In 2000 this government established a nation-leading ethanol industry task force. It was this government that convinced BP to establish an E10 trial in Queensland. It was this government that committed its 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1319 own fleet of vehicles in the south-east corner to undertaking an E10 trial. Why? In short, this was for two equally important reasons. We wanted to do something to support an industry battling difficult times—that is, the sugar industry—and we wanted to offer a break for the environment. They are two very good reasons. That trial was wiped out because of adverse media reporting—there was no limit, like E10—especially in southern markets, which is where the problem arose, and because of a fuel industry unwilling to get on board. It also suffered from a federal government lacking the political will and fibre to take up the issue with any vigour. That is what happened. Mr Wells interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection of the Minister for Environment. Sadly, BP dropped out of the trial and the industry's hopes were put a sad second. Then on 11 April the federal government made the bewildering statement that it will finally take up our suggestion and look at an ethanol fuel cap. Without an ethanol fuel cap this was never going to work. One did not need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. We have been arguing this consistently to support the sugar industry, and it refused to do it. Mr Schwarten: We put it in our cars. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, we put it in our cars. We put our fuel where our mouth is, so to speak. We welcome this announcement but, sadly, it is months or even half a year overdue. Hopefully it is not too late. The federal government's decision to put a 10 per cent limit on ethanol content is the right decision. It is a decision we have been calling for for months. On behalf of the state's sugar industry we have been repeatedly calling for this since October last year. It is sad that our nation-leading E10 trial had to be dropped because of negative criticisms. I hope that commonsense is now prevailing and that BP will reconsider its decision to withdraw. The E10 cap will mean greater surety for growers, ethanol producers, the motor industry and car owners. We will be looking to the May federal budget to get even greater drive from the federal government. I can today detail for the parliament that later this month another fuel company will take up our suggestion in another part of the state and run an ethanol trial. That is good news. As I said, at best the federal government has been tardy but there is still a chance for producers to have a win. For the benefit of Queenslanders and our environment, we look forward to our suggestion becoming reality. It really is appalling that the federal government took so long to come to this decision. It is now the right decision, the decision we supported, and I would urge all players to be supportive of the trial. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Robina, I refer to the tabling by the honourable member for Warrego of army worms. This is not a suitable matter for tabling, and I am directing the Clerk to ensure their proper disposal. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can assure honourable members it will not be at Lang Park.

Australian Magnesium Corporation Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Premier. I refer to the Premier's ministerial statement this morning regarding the Australian Magnesium Corporation, and I ask: when will he be in a position to make a further public statement about the intentions of the state government, particularly if further assistance options are being considered? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the deputy leader of the coalition for his question, and I highlight our position very clearly by saying this: here was an opportunity for both the Commonwealth and state governments to get behind a new industry, and that is exactly what we did. I have spelled out in some detail to the House this morning the assistance provided by the federal government and the assistance provided by the state government. Let me be really clear about this. If honourable members look at the statement, they will see the safeguards that the Commonwealth and the state put in place to protect the investment. If we look, for example, at the buyer specific infrastructure, particularly that pursuant to Stanwell Corporation Ltd's energy supply agreement and water supply agreement, the security is stated as follows— 1320 Questions Without Notice 29 Apr 2003

Construction of certain elements of the infrastructure has commenced. Stanwell has protected its interests through guarantees from banks and AMC. That is what they have done. Let us look at the $8 million Stanwell Corporation Ltd working capital facility. According to the statement, that facility has now been repaid by AMC. Every step of the way this was carefully examined. Let us look at the distribution support facility to a maximum of $28 million. The statement says— This facility has now been repaid to the state. If honourable members look at all the other measures contained in this statement, they will see that there are specific protection measures in place to protect the investment by the state. It states— Complex arrangements for the project are in place to protect the state's investment. These are specified in the various project agreements, including the individual agreements in respect of each of the facilities I have just outlined. The state subordinated loan and the Commonwealth guarantee are secured against the project's assets and rank equally, but behind the bank syndicate and Stanwell. Until the bank debt facilities are drawn down by AMC, the state and Commonwealth have priority call on the project's assets. That is prudent. In fact, not only is it prudent; it is a partnership with the Commonwealth. The deputy leader of the coalition comes in here and attacks us, but his federal colleagues supported us, and that was a sensible partnership. I want to make it very clear: I will not have the Prime Minister of this country, John Howard, attacked in this parliament for having the vision to agree with my government. I want the Prime Minister applauded for having the courage to stand with my government to support the future of central Queensland and Queensland. I notice in the Morning Bulletin today a quote by a local businessman—and I understand the member for Keppel knows the gentleman concerned—Dick MacNevin. He said this— Peter Beattie stuck his head out and deserves full credit. He is definitely for Queensland and for jobs. We need to be looking well into the future for these types of projects. Let me make this very clear. Let the deputy leader of the coalition go up to Rockhampton and say that he does not support AMC. Let the deputy leader of the coalition go around this state saying that he is prepared to destroy and oppose projects like AMC. I will stand for jobs anywhere, any time.

Capral Aluminium Extrusion Plant, Ipswich Ms NOLAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Jobs and job creation are vital issues for Ipswich. Can the Premier detail what job creating initiatives the government has undertaken to secure more jobs in the Ipswich region? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Ipswich for her question. In summary, the answer is you bet—and I will come to that. I am delighted to outline that, since we last gathered, an announcement regarding Ipswich will mean as many as 330 jobs for Queensland. Before I do that, I want to thank the Minister for State Development, Tom Barton, and the Department of State Development, which I am happy to refer to as the grunt department. This is another delivery by the grunt department that is delivering jobs. I put on record my appreciation for the work done by Tom's department and all his little grunters in the Department of State Development. Capral Australia's $120 million Ipswich expansion means more than 330 jobs for Queensland over four years—expansion and jobs, and that is what we like. Capral's plan is to build Australia's largest aluminium extrusion plant near Ipswich. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear this. How about this: Capral's plan is to build Australia's largest aluminium extrusion plant near Ipswich. The attraction of Capral is significant. Not only does it mark the creation of more than 200 new jobs over four years; it also ensures that a large number of workers at Capral's Eagle Farm facility in Brisbane will have jobs at the new plant on the Bremer industrial estate. If we had not done this, they would have lost their jobs. The company had originally proposed to develop new facilities in Sydney and had considered a South-East Asian option, but efforts by my government—in particular Tom and his department—and the Ipswich City Council have ensured that Capral grows in Queensland. 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1321

Capral's decision to expand in this state represents a benefit for the Ipswich area and, as I said, will also provide the opportunity for existing Brisbane Capral workers to retain their jobs. This announcement means that more than 80 per cent of the manufacturing capacity of Australia's aluminium fabricated products will be located in this state. That is what we are delivering. It means that Ipswich has a clear role in our Smart State development of the exciting light metals industry. The Capral plant will be a light manufacturing facility and will be similar to others in Brisbane making products from extruded aluminium. It must be stated that the government has offered incentives to Capral to ensure that this expansion happened in Queensland. Without discussing the quantum, they are not significant. The government has offered some payroll tax relief and limited support for relocation and training. Capral will continue to source aluminium from suppliers such as the Boyne Island smelter in Gladstone. This works. Not only is it good news for Ipswich; it is good news for Gladstone. That is the vision we have for Queensland. The difference between the opposition and the government is very stark. We have a vision. Yes, we have to go out and fight for that vision to deliver it. That is what we are doing. It is easy to knock; it is easy to whinge. The reality is that we work, they whinge. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the honourable member for Callide, could I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of the Mooloolaba State School in the electorate of Maroochydore.

Australian Magnesium Corporation Mr SEENEY: My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to media reports headed 'Beattie says no more AMC assistance'. I am sure the Treasurer saw those reports. I ask: is it not true that such a position will substantially increase the risk of losing the $100 million of taxpayers' money the government has already invested in the project to fund distributions on the distribution entitlement securities because that loan will only be paid back when the project proceeds? Mr MACKENROTH: I thought the honourable member had moved on from being a shadow Treasurer to bigger and brighter things like the shadow minister for everything outside of Brisbane. I was sitting here this morning looking at the new coalition, and it dawned on me that 20 per cent of the opposition have had a turn at being the shadow Treasurer this year and a third of them have had a turn at being the shadow Treasurer at some time in the past few years. The Premier, I think, has answered that question. The member indicated to me when the Premier was answering the question before that he was going to ask me that. I drew his attention to what the Premier was saying. He obviously did not listen. What the Premier said is that the state subordinated loan, which is $100 million, and the Commonwealth guarantee, which is $100 million, are secured against the project's assets and rank equally but behind the banking syndicate and Stanwell. Until the bank's debt facilities are drawn down by AMC, which they have not been, the state and Commonwealth have priority call on the project's assets, and that is where the money is secured.

Pan Pharmaceuticals Mr CHOI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Minister, will consumers or patients in Queensland be affected by the recall of products made by Pan Pharmaceuticals? Mrs EDMOND: The Therapeutic Goods Administration announced yesterday the immediate recall of 219 vitamin and nutritional supplements, pain relievers and other products made by Pan Pharmaceuticals. This company is the nation's largest maker of herbal and nutritional supplements and has an estimated 70 per cent of the natural remedy market. The TGA has accused the Sydney company of risking people's lives by substituting ingredients using substandard manufacturing processes and manipulating test results. Lists of the recalled products have been published in newspapers today and are included on the TGA web site. Further products may be recalled in the days ahead. The TGA has advised consumers that, until the TGA has identified all of the re-branded Pan products over the next couple of days, it may be best to avoid all vitamin and nutritional products. They also advise consumers that they can be confident with using well-known reputable brands of over-the-counter pain relievers and other medicines. It is worth noting that, to assist consumers, 1322 Questions Without Notice 29 Apr 2003 the TGA web site also includes an extensive list of brands that do not have involvement with Pan. The web site is at www.tga.health.gov.au. It is very important to note that this recall does not affect any prescription drugs and people should continue to take those prescription drugs. However, the recall is extremely serious and I advise all consumers, especially those using products intended for children or pregnant women, to avoid these products for the time being and to talk to their doctor if they have concerns. Queensland Health is closely liaising with the Commonwealth on this issue, and our Environmental Health Officers around the state are being fully briefed this morning.

Australian Magnesium Corporation Dr WATSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and Minister for Energy. I refer to the $70 million commitment to Stanwell Corporation to the Australian Magnesium Corporation to provide contingent cost overrun resources. Did Stanwell shareholding ministers approve entering this contingent liability and, if not, who did? Given the reported significant cost overrun being incurred by AMC, what is the current likelihood of this contingency being utilised? Mr LUCAS: I do not propose to discuss commercial negotiations that government owned corporations enter into at arms-length. We expect all government owned corporations to be run expeditiously to protect the interests of the states as shareholders of those corporations. It is not appropriate, in circumstances where a facility has not been called on in any case, for us to canvass those in this arena.

Queensland Investment Corporation Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the story in the Courier Mail last Wednesday relating to bonuses paid to staff in the Queensland Investment Corporation, which states— Record bonuses after record losses may look fundamentally wrong, but the scheme is here to stay. Beattie and Mackenroth have to get smarter on how they set the necessity. Has the Treasurer given any consideration as to how he could better explain the payment of these bonuses? Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, I did read the story in the Courier Mail last Wednesday and did give some consideration as to how one could explain it so that people could perhaps understand it. What I did was think about maybe comparing us to a public company. QIC has two shareholders—the Premier and me—and our shareholders are the electors. A public company has shareholders who buy shares and expect a return for the shares that they have. I thought I would do that. I thought the best company to have a look at would be News Corporation. I got their last annual report and had a look at that. Members would be aware that the operating deficit for the state last financial year was $894 million, something that is repeated and repeated. The net loss for News Corporation for ordinary activities after tax was $11.6 billion. I thought: how does News Corporation deal then with bonuses when they make a loss of $11.6 billion? I had a look at the bonuses they pay. The bonuses they paid totalled $44.2 million, and share options and other amounts were $32.1 million, making a total of $76.3 million. That compares with the QIC that paid $5.4 million to 176 people who work in the corporation. An executive director, Peter Chernin, received $US7 million in bonuses. That is more than the total for QIC. How do we further have a look at it? I went to shareholders and found that the 10th largest shareholder in News Corporation just happens to be the Queensland Investment Corporation, and the eight largest preferential shareholder just happens to be the Queensland investment Corporation. So my question to News Corporation is: how can you explain paying $76 million in bonuses when you have made a loss of over $11 billion? When we get that answer, the Premier and I will be in a better position to answer the question that has been asked of us. Because, after all, as the shareholders in QIC, we are ultimately the shareholders in News Corp. Then I had a look at the actual shareholdings and what that did to our investment. In the last financial year we lost $499 million on News Corporation shares. 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1323

Newspaper Ombudsman Mr FLYNN: My question is to the Premier. The freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and any practical restriction upon that freedom could be considered to be a direct attack upon the very institution which exists supposedly to keep governments honest and accountable to the people. Many of us, particularly in the recent by- election, might have reason to curse the eyes of the press yet, in the name of that freedom, generally we do not. It interests me therefore that the Premier has called, I believe, for a media ombudsman. A government member: Is there a question in this? Mr FLYNN: If you care to listen, I will ask it. I consider this idea as treading on very dangerous ground, and I ask: what powers would be envisaged for the ombudsman and what dangers would be presented to media freedom and who would ensure unbiased accountability in the reporting of issues to the public or would the press under review be prohibited from reporting their own issues? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable leader of One Nation for his question. Let me respond by saying this. The ombudsman that I am talking about, the Newspapers Ombudsman, is based on a model that already exists in the United States. I would not think that anyone would be terribly concerned about the freedom of the press in the United States because it is indeed, as Robert indicated, considered by some as one of the great democracies of the world. I think Australia and Queensland has the greatest, but it is considered as one. The Newspapers Ombudsman simply enables ordinary citizens to have an avenue of complaint. The person simply sits there—often they are a retired journalist or someone who has had a distinguished career in journalism—and they are able to take complaints from ordinary individuals and ensure that if they are legitimate complaints, based on a fair hearing of the facts and circumstances, they are able to get a retraction or an alternative article published. That is a good thing. What you have to remember is this. I know that there has been some sensitivity about my comments in certain media outlets. I am disappointed by that because I wanted to have a genuine debate about media and media freedom. There are many institutions in a democracy—this parliament is one. The freedom of the media is another. I strongly advocate and support freedom of the media. What happens of course when someone criticises the media is that they have an unbelievable sensitivity to criticism. They are quite happy to criticise us but when there is a legitimate request for a debate then it is very hard to get a fair or balanced debate. I have to say that that has been missing here. Let me come back to the point. You get used to media sensitivity to criticism. I am not particularly worried about it; I have moved on. The debate about a newspaper ombudsman is a debate that we should have because it enables individual citizens—it empowers them—to get a response or a right of reply. Members should remember this: some people in the media say to me that if one does not like what is said about them or it is defamatory they can sue. That is all very well, but how does an ordinary citizen sue? I am not talking about members of parliament. I am not talking about us. We have rights of response in here, but how does an ordinary citizen sue a media conglomerate or a huge organisation? How do they sue News Corp? They do not. Let me tell members that as a lawyer who practised in this area, even only for a short time, I know that the costs involved to the individual are horrendous and prohibitive. So the individual's rights in our free society are limited and restricted. The ordinary citizen does not have a right of reply to the extent necessary. That is why I believe a media ombudsman is important. We get treated— Mr Flynn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: No, but you do not. This is a practice that exists. This is one that the newspapers themselves in some parts of the US already operate. It is done internally. But I have no media sensitivity, because in this morning's Rockhampton Bulletin there is a comment in the editorial that— An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, but you are not the Speaker yet. It says that Premier Peter Beattie and federal Minister Nick Minchin saw the value in the investment—that is, in AMC—and gave some $350 million in joint infrastructure deals for AMC. This investing in our future should certainly not be criticised. 1324 Questions Without Notice 29 Apr 2003

Higher Education, University Places Ms STRUTHERS: I refer the Minister for Education to the fact that the number of Australians aspiring to go to university is on the rise but so too is the number of people being turned away, and I ask: can the minister advise members how many Australians who were eligible for a university place were denied a spot this year? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. The member for Algester shares the views of many in this House that young Australians ought to be given the chance to meet their potential, and university places are only one of those avenues. There is a very strong sense of deja vu as I see the latest report on higher education in Australia. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has recently done a survey of applicants for undergraduate higher education courses and it paints a very, very sombre picture. The total number of eligible applicants in 2003 was some 229,427, a three per cent increase on those seeking a place since last year. But unfortunately this year between 18,000 and 25,000 of those Australians, discounting double counting and rejection rates, missed out on a university place. That is a 25 per cent increase on the number of Australians who are eligible for a university place but who missed out in just 12 short months. It is even more stark when one looks at the various fields of study. In some key service delivery areas such as education there were 9,600 eligible students but about 41 per cent of them did not receive an offer. That is 1,800 disappointed potential teachers more than last year. In nursing 4,861 eligible students—that is about 37 per cent of all applicants—did not receive an offer. Mrs Edmond: And we need them. Ms BLIGH: Again, that is 1,900 more applicants than in 2002 being turned away at a time when we desperately need nursing graduates. What does all of this mean in Queensland? Some 24 per cent of all eligible applicants were Queenslanders. Between 6,800 and 7,100 of those Queenslanders did not get a place in 2003 with one of the highest turndown rates in the country. In 2003 it meant that between 12.3 per cent and 12.8 per cent of eligible applicants were not successful in getting a place. That compares to a national average of between eight per cent and 11 per cent of eligible applicants being turned away. What it means quite simply is that young Australians are not being granted access to a university place on the basis of merit but on the basis of geography. It is simply not good enough for the federal government to continue to turn its back on this growing problem. Some 18 months after being elevated to the ministry the federal minister has not allocated one extra university place anywhere in the country let alone in those high-growth areas like Queensland. It does not matter where one lives in Queensland. If they have the potential, it is very straight forward: they ought to have at least the same chance of getting a place as they would have if they lived in Tasmania, Melbourne, Sydney or Canberra. That is not the case, and it is increasingly not the case. I call on the federal minister to start making announcements to put those people who are running our universities in a position to start planning for growth next year. A government member: What are they doing about it? Ms BLIGH: It is doing nothing. It is silent.

Sugar Industry, Memorandum of Understanding Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to the fact that in September 2002 a memorandum of understanding was signed by federal National Party Minister Truss and state Labor ministers Barton and himself. I ask: in light of the announcement yesterday by Minister Barton, can the minister confirm that National Minister Truss and Labor ministers Barton and himself remain unanimous in their support for the MOU and especially clauses 8 and 9? Has National Party Minister John Anderson expressed to the minister any intention to withdraw from those parts of the MOU detrimental to growers? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. The very short answer to the honourable member's question in relation to the memorandum of understanding that was signed by Minister Truss, Minister Barton and myself in relation to whether that agreement exists is yes. The reason the answer is yes is this: the sugar industry in Queensland has undergone intense pressure for decades. There have been bandaid attempts to try to rescue the sugar industry. Unfortunately, those bandaid attempts have not worked. So what we have done now is sign an historic memorandum of understanding with the federal government, with Minister Truss, to ensure that we can implement those changes necessary to bring the sugar industry into the 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1325 future and to make sure it has a long-term viable future. If the sugar industry continues the way that it is going with bandaid solutions there is not a long-term future for the sugar industry. I am pleased to say that I am part of this historic memorandum of understanding that has been signed by the federal government and the state government. Mr Beattie: You should thank Warren Truss. Mr PALASZCZUK: As the Premier said, I also want to thank Warren Truss for his strong leadership in taking these changes through his cabinet, because those changes do have the imprimatur of his cabinet. Therefore, we now have our one and only shot to ensure that we can put together some changes to the sugar industry in a bipartisan manner which will give the sugar industry the opportunity to not only survive but also prosper in the future. I can talk about value adding, but our Premier has been so passionate about that that I am quite sure all members know what we mean when we talk about value adding to the sugar industry. But there are some practices that have been in place since 1915 and they are no longer relevant. Those practices have to be looked at very carefully. Our legislation in that regard is being looked at very carefully. As Minister for Primary Industries, if we bring in these changes standing shoulder to shoulder with the federal government and the industry leaders, I will be a very proud man to have done that.

Unemployment, Gold Coast Mrs REILLY: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth: what action has the government taken to assist unemployed people on the Gold Coast and in particular in the electorate of Robina? Can the minister describe which programs would be affected by the application of the coalition's employment policy? Mr FOLEY: Some 463 people from the Robina electorate have been assisted with jobs and other assistance with a total investment of over $1.3 million through the Beattie government's Breaking the Unemployment Cycle. In Mr Quinn's electorate there were projects funded like the Dales and North Shore parkland and revegetation project undertaken by Challenge Employment and Training and two youth projects run by New Zealand Link Australia Alliance Inc. Within the electorate of Robina 167 private employers and five group training organisations have received cash incentives for employing 143 additional apprentices and 82 extra trainees in crucial skill shortage industries. Those are programs delivered to Mr Quinn's constituents under a Labor government. What would happen under a coalition government? It has been strange that in the announcement of the coalition recently there has been a deathly silence as to their employment policies. Why is that? Because Mr Quinn is embarrassed by the Santoro legacy. Because that is what is in store for the residents of Robina and for the residents of Queensland. When last in power Mr Springborg and Mr Quinn were members of a government which abolished the jobs training and placement project, the local employment and enterprise facilitation project and the public sector traineeship program. These were the people who brought us 9.5 per cent unemployment. They regarded employment as so low on their list of priorities they even abolished the ministry of employment. That is why it would be good if Mr Quinn and Mr Springborg would come clean on their employment policies. Go and tell those 463 residents that they can forget about the sort of assistance that they would get under a Labor government. I thank the member for Mudgeeraba, who has taken a keen interest in the 100 long-term unemployed people who have received assistance through six Community Jobs Plan projects in her own electorate. The real question is this: why is it that the coalition has remained so silent about their new employment policy? Because it is the legacy of Santoro that Mr Quinn cannot shake off in this place and it will hang about their neck like an albatross.

Gynaecology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Health. I table leaked documents revealing Queensland Health's proposal to close the Princess Alexandra gynaecology department despite unanimous opposition from the hospital's senior specialist staff association. According to Queensland Health's latest figures, more than 700 Queensland gynaecological patients are overdue for surgery. Considering hospital elective surgery waiting lists are one of the biggest concerns of the Queensland people, I ask: will she ensure that the PA gynaecology department remains open? 1326 Questions Without Notice 29 Apr 2003

Mrs EDMOND: Following discussions with departmental officers, Queensland Health staff and gynie surgeons et cetera in the southern zone, the decision has been made that to improve the services for gynie patients they will focus those services on the Mater Hospital and the QE II Hospital. I say that for a very good reason. Many of the patients who are having surgery at PA Hospital were having that surgery cancelled because trauma et cetera would have to take precedence. This will provide an improved service for the people using those services. It is with the agreement of the majority of gynie surgeons and obstetricians in the area. PA ran a small service relative to the Mater Hospital and the QE II Hospital and it will also provide improved access and fewer cancellations. It is a good move for the people. I understand there are one or two people who may not be happy with it, but my understanding is also that the vast majority welcome the change and recognise it as an improved service. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Fitzroy, I welcome to the public gallery the Sunshine Coast Genealogy Group in the electorate of Nicklin.

Mobile Phone Coverage, Western Queensland Mr PEARCE: I refer the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy to the fact that he often criticises the federal government about the provision of mobile phone coverage on Queensland's western highways and the slow Internet needs in rural and isolated communities. What is the minister doing about these issues and can he tell us what has happened since the telecommunications trip he made to western Queensland in December last year? Mr LUCAS: I am delighted to answer the honourable member's question. People like the honourable member and the member for Charters Towers take a very great interest in what is happening in rural communities when it comes to telecommunications. They know that real people's lives, work, safety and other issues depend upon mobile telephony in particular. That is why they are very supportive of what the Queensland government is doing, which is in stark contrast to what the federal government is doing. Mr Hobbs: Come off it. You lot haven't spent a brass razoo. Mr LUCAS: I am glad the honourable member raised that, because in fact the federal government got $30 billion from the sale of half of Telstra. Does the member know how much they spent of it? Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! The question has been asked. Mr LUCAS: 0.6 per cent! The member for Warrego wants me to go to the Queensland taxpayer and say, 'Even though the federal government's responsibility is telecommunications, even though they have got $30 billion of your money, I will go and spend some more of it.' That rocket science is in fact what they did in Western Australia. The Liberal government in Western Australia, the previous one that got thrown out, no doubt in part for this reason, put $7 million in with the crocodile smiling federal government on telecommunications to put more mobile phone towers there. What happened next time? The federal government took the $7 million out. Out it came. So, in other words, the federal government took $7 million out. Mr Speaker, 49 per cent of the time when you are driving between Mount Isa and Townsville you do not get mobile telephone coverage. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will cease interjecting. Mr LUCAS: I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, when I was out there talking to people in western Queensland we had a lady who booked an airfare on the Internet nine times because she had had so many drop-outs. This is from the federal government that got $30 billion. People cannot download virus updates because it takes so long. 4.8 kilobits per second is incredibly slow. But that is what they have to put up with there. Tomorrow I will be going to the Senate inquiry into regional telecommunications and I will be putting the Queensland government case. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. That is my final warning. 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1327

Mr LUCAS: The member for Warrego thinks the way to sort out the problems is to get out the chequebook and spend it. Mr Speaker, I will tell you this: we spend $172 million a year on telecommunications in Queensland, and what the Queensland government does is aggregate demand. The member wants to know what we are going to do about mobile telephones in the bush. Just you wait and see, Mr Speaker. But we will not be getting our hands in the taxpayers' pockets to do it. We will not be getting $30 billion from Telstra. If I got $1 billion from Telstra I could solve the problem of mobile telephony in the bush, not spend 0.6 per cent of it. They get in there and they defend Alston, and the fact is that in Victoria there is 96 per cent coverage on its highways when it comes to mobile telephony and we get a raw deal in Queensland. Yet members opposite sit there and defend it time and time again. If they will not stand up for the people of rural Queensland, the people on this side of the House will.

Energex Call Centre Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and Energy and it relates to Energex's operation of its electricity connection call centre. I table two written complaints from Sunshine Coast electrical contractors where they detail unreasonable delays and difficulties they are experiencing with submitting requests for electricity connection, and I ask: what action will he take with Energex senior management in relation to claims by some small business operators from the Sunshine Coast that they have on occasions had to wait for up to six hours to submit by facsimile transmission a request for electricity connection and also experience ongoing lengthy delays and difficulties in accessing the electrical connection call centre? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. One thing the member for Nicklin would not do is be a dill like the member for Warrego and want to pay for a federal government responsibility. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. Mr LUCAS: I will withdraw that, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Nicklin for his question. The member for Nicklin is someone who has paid a lot of attention and interest in the issues of the energy supply in his electorate. I thank him for doing that and I thank him for the positive way in which he raises issues. I do not have those letters that he has tabled. Of course, I will have a look at them immediately to take them into account to see how we can better respond to those issues. Can I say, Mr Speaker, that one of the most important things that government owned corporations, and particularly Ergon and Energex, can do is be responsive to the community. That does not mean on every occasion they— Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hinchinbrook! The question has been asked. I call the minister. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hinchinbrook will cease interjecting. I call the minister. Mr LUCAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That does not mean that on every occasion they will be able to attend to a service item as quickly as people might like. They have 576,000 telegraph poles, for example, in their distribution area and about 50,000 kilometres of cable, so there is quite a lot of work involved when it comes to managing those assets. But, Mr Speaker, can I say that I expect them to be service oriented. I expect GOCs, just like the private sector, to have a commitment to their customers. I will raise those issues with them and undertake to get a response to the honourable member in order to get the best possible service that we can in all the circumstances.

Guide Dogs Queensland; International Guide Dog Day Ms BARRY: I direct a question to the Minister for Families and Minister for Disability Services. I ask: can the minister inform the House of how the Beattie government is supporting Guide Dogs Queensland and the people of Queensland who rely on their support and services? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for the question. It is appropriate that that question be asked today, because today is International Guide Dog Day—a day when people all over the world celebrate and recognise the enormous advances that guide-dogs have made to people 1328 Questions Without Notice 29 Apr 2003 who are blind or who have vision impairment. Last year, the member for Aspley accompanied me on a visit to the Guide Dog Queensland training and education centre, which is located in her electorate. I would encourage all members to pay a visit to that centre and find out about the breeding and training of guide-dogs in Queensland. This organisation has operated for 42 years in this state—or for 294 dog years—and certainly relies on public fundraising and bequests for support. In fact, it is an organisation that is worthy of our support. Ninety-seven per cent of its funding is raised from the community. Guide Dogs Queensland provide its services free of charge to over 7,000 Queenslanders who have visual impairment. In fact, there are 53,000 vision impaired Queenslanders and at this moment only 100 working guide-dogs. Obviously, this association wants to support and train more guide-dogs, but this is a costly process. Today is not about fundraising. Today, we are celebrating International Guide Dog Day at Parliament House with a very special launch at 12 o'clock. Today's theme is Celebrate Access Rights for Guide Dogs. Although the current legislation allows guide-dogs in all public places, that is shops, hotels, public transport—in fact, everywhere except certain parts of hospitals—people with guide-dogs are still discriminated against in our society. It is hard for us to imagine being denied access to a restaurant or to a shop or to public transport, but that is what is happening to many people in this state who have guide-dogs. So we are launching a new set of stickers. They are called Guide-Dogs Welcome. They are being produced in a number of different languages and we are encouraging all businesses to display these stickers and enhance public awareness of the importance of guide-dogs and the fact that, in this state, guide-dogs and their owners are welcome in all public places. The member for Bulimba has just sent me a note stating that the BLF has supported Guide Dogs Queensland for 25 years. I know that the CFMEU are also big supporters of this organisation. Mr Purcell: That's right. They levy themselves and have done so for years and continue to do so. Mr Schwarten: That is a side you never hear about. Ms SPENCE: That is terrific to hear. That is a side that we do not hear people talk about when talking about unions. I encourage all members to have a look at the guide-dog display here today. I understand that we are going to see demonstrations of dogs going through an obstacle course and there will also be puppies out there. I know that a number of members have already accepted the invitation. I wish to see all members out there.

Minister for Industrial Relations; Scott Volkers Mr Purcell: We are going to give you a guide-dog, son. Mr JOHNSON: I do not need a guide-dog. Mr Purcell: Blind in one eye and I cannot see out the other. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to the police investigation into Telstra CRR phone record searches, which reveal that calls were made by Mr Scott Volkers to an unlisted number for the Minister for Industrial Relations on the evening of the day after Mr Volkers was charged by police with criminal offences relating to the sexual abuse of children. I ask the minister: given that these phone records have been the subject of an internal briefing note to himself and the Police Commissioner, could he please explain to the House why police were barred from making any further inquiries into these records? What measures will the minister undertake to ensure that police are not hindered in their attempts to investigate this matter properly? Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for the question. I think that the implications of that question suggest that something untoward is happening in the Queensland Police Service. That is something that I am not prepared to accept. I am happy to take on board the question that the member has asked. But let me say this to the member: yesterday, I had the opportunity of informing the public of the integrity of the Police Commissioner. Mr Johnson: That is not the question. 29 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1329

Mr McGRADY: The member is questioning the integrity of the Queensland Police Service and the head of the Queensland Police Service is the Police Commissioner. I will take the member's question on board and I will get back to him.

Bush Nursing Association Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT: Before asking my question, I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition for the Minister for Transport from the people of Moranbah. Leave granted. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT: I direct a question to the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing. The Bush Nursing Association provides vital health services for people living in regional and remote communities across Queensland. I ask the minister: what action has his department taken to support the Bush Nursing Association? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for her question. Before I get to answer it, I wish to advise the member for Robina, the member for Moggill and the member for Callide that I will be putting their questions to the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, because I want all the people in Rockhampton to know that those members are undermining the AMC project. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I heard what the member for Warrego said about AMC across the chamber before. Mr Hobbs: Me? Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes. He is delighting in trying to run down that project. I will make sure that all of my constituents know, including those who support the National Party—the handful that there are—and the handful who support Liberal Party. The members opposite should just remember that they have the member for Keppel on hold. Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find the minister's words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SCHWARTEN: If the old thin-skinned poor soul over there finds it offensive, I will withdraw it. The reality is that the Bush Nursing Association is a very important project and one that was neglected by the opposite side of politics the whole time that it was ever in government. In Jericho, we have handed over a house to the Bush Nursing Association on request from that association, and the member for Charters Towers, who takes a keen interest. That area is now represented by a Labor member. Of course, the honourable member for Charters Towers takes seriously her responsibilities to the Bush Nursing Association. In the last election, the member for Mount Isa received McKinlay into his electorate. In that area, with the help of the Minister for Health, we have been able to spend $200,000 to upgrade their facilities. In early April, I was there with His Excellency, the Governor, to open the new facility. I lived in McKinlay in 1977 and 1978. At that time, there were four Labor votes in the town—four, including mine. The rest voted Tory—every single one of them. I want to show what arrogance and contempt the Tories had for those people. The Bush Nursing Association facility there was a hovel. It was then and it was up until the member for Mount Isa intervened and the Minister for Health and I actually got them some decent facilities. Recently, when we went up there, the Bush Nursing Association was running around with the begging bowl trying to get 20 grand. We were happy to kick in to help them with those facilities, because it is a remote community. Its only claim to fame is that it was the place where Crocodile Dundee was filmed and I was the head teacher of the school there. The reality is that conditions do not get more rural than bush nursing. It does not get any tougher than those people who have to stitch people up who have been gored by bulls and all the rest of it. What did the National Party do for them? Nothing! Not one thing! The Bush Nursing Association was located in a hovel, it was badly serviced, and it had to run around begging for money. This government sees it as its core responsibility to look after people in the bush—people whom the members opposite ignored. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Tablelands, I welcome to the public gallery a second group of students and teachers from Mooloolaba State School in the electorate of Maroochydore. 1330 Matters of Public Interest 29 Apr 2003

Sugar Industry Ms LEE LONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities. Cane farmers will be in a weakened position by the removal of cane production areas and statutory mill suppliers committees as is being proposed by the state and federal governments. The result will be a transfer of income from farmers to processors. How will this help cane farmers? Mr PALASZCZUK: I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave to the honourable member for Gladstone. I think I quite clearly indicated that the legislation that governs the sugar industry has been in place since 1915. This government and the federal government, standing shoulder to shoulder, intend to change that to ensure that we have a long-term, sustainable and viable sugar industry. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Job Creation Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): This morning in parliament I asked two questions of the Minister for State Development regarding important job creating projects for Queensland. One question related to a long-term company in this state which has contributed significantly to our economy—that is, Incitec—and the other question related to the PNG gas pipeline. I have been somewhat interested over the last couple of years to note the public relations exercise mounted by the state government in promoting what it has said it has been able to do in attracting major investment and head offices to Queensland. While we have supported the government's involvement in attracting head offices to Queensland, I believe it is fair to say that the government has taken its eye off the ball in some other very important areas. It is not only a matter of creating new jobs in Queensland and attracting new head offices to this state; it is also a matter of going a bit further and putting effort into ensuring that there is no net job loss. Mr BARTON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I make it very clear that that office has not been lost as yet. We are still working with Incitec following its amalgamation with Pivot. The member is misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! There is no point of order. Mr SPRINGBORG: Job creation and business attraction to Queensland is not only about getting new business and new opportunities for the state; it is also about making sure that there is no loss of what exists in the state. There should be no net loss of jobs and head offices in this state. That has been the concern of the coalition in Queensland. We will be happy to continue to support the government in any reasonable effort to attract head offices to Queensland—Virgin, Boeing or whatever—but we also want to make sure that the government is accountable and that the government pays a significant degree of attention to keeping what we have. Otherwise there is no net gain. We have to have net gain in job creation as a consequence of attracting head offices to Queensland. I think that is an extremely important point. This morning I asked the minister a question about Incitec and the corporate rejigging which may happen this week as a consequence of a shareholders meeting and about whether that would mean the head office would be lost from Queensland to Victoria or some other place. Interestingly, the minister did not deny that that was a very real probability. He actually said that it was being considered and it was likely that there would be some head office rearrangement. That means to me that there is a very real likelihood that we will lose many of those corporate positions in Incitec from Queensland to Victoria. I understood the minister to say that up to 96 jobs may go if Incitec takes this decision. We want to know what the minister for the 'grunt department', as the Premier calls it, is doing about ensuring that these jobs stay in Queensland. What is the minister doing about ensuring that Incitec will continue to base the head office operations that are a part of this new entity in Queensland? That is what we need to know. We are encouraging the government to ensure that those positions stay in Queensland because they are senior, well-paid positions. Importantly, a loss of those positions will undermine gains which have been made in Queensland over the last decade or so by consecutive administrations in attracting major head office investments to this state. 29 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1331

The other day in Brisbane I attended a boardroom luncheon. I was asked and encouraged by people attending that luncheon to ensure that we do all we possibly can, along with the government, to encourage head office investment in this state. We do not want to be known as a branch office state. We want to be recognised as a state which is good enough, smart enough and large enough to maintain head office operations. When I was at the biotech conference in Toronto last year, at the invitation of the Premier, it was made abundantly clear to me that many people were interested in investing in Queensland but they saw us as a branch office state. There was not necessarily the overall infrastructure which comes as a consequence of being a major head office state to encourage them to take the next step to invest, notwithstanding the best efforts of the government in terms of incentives and so on. The more head offices we can attract here and keep here, the more some of those other pieces of support and infrastructure which are necessary to attract others can be put in place. I am talking about direct flights from, say, here to the United States, which would be great to see. All of those sorts of things can come as we establish ourselves and become seen as a major place for investment as well as head offices. Dr Watson: Professional service firms and all the other kinds of businesses. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the member for Moggill says, professional service firms and all sorts of other things hang off being a proactive head office state and having some of those key offices here in Queensland. I was most concerned that the minister indicated this morning that at the very least there was likely to be some rejigging of those head office operations. There was no denial from him that we could lose up to 100 corporate jobs. I think that would be a major loss. Later the Premier talked about other operations he was attracting to Queensland. There is no point concentrating on what new offices we can attract if we are not concentrating on what we can keep, because we become a net loser. I refer to the PNG gas pipeline. The minister says that Chevron is out of it. Nothing in the minister's statement this morning encouraged me to believe that this project would necessarily go to the next stage. This is a major proposal which has been around for a long time. Certainly there have been some issues with regard to benchmarks for decisions to be made—it was the end of March and now it has gone into April—and with regard to the commercial commitment that is necessary for the volumes of gas which will be imported for that project to go ahead. We are hearing all of these sorts of things and we are hearing what is allegedly being done, but let us sit down and put it on the ledger and find out what is actually coming to pass. We also need to consider that against a number of other important factors. Queensland is heading for a third budget deficit in a row. That has never happened before. On the government's own figures there will be a deficit of $741 million this year. That is if its investments can return zero per cent for the year, not the minus five per cent they are currently returning. The government is broke. The government is not in a position to continue to properly administer this state. There has never ever been three budget deficits in a row in this state and there should not have been three budget deficits in a row. I note that the Treasurer and the Premier claim that this is as a consequence of world markets which have unfairly dealt this blow to the Queensland government. What I will say is this: when the Borbidge/Sheldon coalition government was in place in Queensland between 1986-88, we had the Asian economic crisis. During the Asian economic crisis we had a budget surplus; we did not have a budget deficit. So this government is not the only government in the history of Australia which has had problems with regards to international events which could potentially impact on its economy and its budget. If we look at the federal government, for example, it has the same sorts of issues with regards to investment and the impact of this overall global issue, but it is looking at bringing in a budget surplus, as I understand it, of around $2 billion. Why can this government not do similar things? We heard a lot from the Minister for Employment this morning on job creation. Our job creation rate as a percentage of the overall proportion of Australian jobs has decreased significantly since this government has been in office. If we look at what the Beattie government has to do in the next 57 days to achieve its five per cent target, it has to create 36,350 jobs. It is not going to do it. Time expired. 1332 Matters of Public Interest 29 Apr 2003

Mr J. Griffiths Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (11.41 a.m.): I rise to pay tribute to the passing of John Griffiths, better known to his mates as Griffo. Griffo was not only a constituent but also a valued member of Queensland's Emergency Services and the scouting movement. Griffo worked at the Cleveland Ambulance Station and was an ambulance officer for some 35 years. Sadly, his life was cut short by an aggressive brain tumour, but Griffo's legacy will long be remembered by the QAS and the people whose lives he has touched. He would have turned 57 on 19 April and is survived by his wife, Mary, and children, Gerard, Laura, Matthew and twins Kieran and Lachlan. Griffo began his professional life of dedication to serving his fellow man in 1968 by joining the seminary at Banyo to train as a priest. He devoted himself to this and enjoyed his time there, but almost two years later it was the seminary priests who decided that Griffo's chosen career was not his calling, since he had also developed a bit of a reputation as a larrikin. In 1968 he also joined the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade as an honorary bearer at the Nundah station and eventually applied for and was appointed driver bearer to the St George QATB ambulance centre in 1977. Griffo's outstanding career helping others and saving lives will never be forgotten. He was a paramedic receiving 10-, 20- and 30-year uniformed QAS service medals. He also received a national medal and two clasps signifying his long service. In keeping with his great community spirit, Griffo also joined the Raby Bay and later Victoria Point Air Sea Rescue, and he and his wife, Mary, became the crew's first aid officers for a number of years. Griffo's community work did not just stop at the Ambulance Service. He was also very well known and regarded in the scouting movement not only in the local area but in other places around Queensland where he served in various capacities. His scouting life started as a cub at Coorparoo, but most of his involvement was in the Redland shire. This year marks approximately 34 years of service to the scouting movement in Queensland, and I am quite sure anyone involved with the scouts or rovers in the Redland shire would certainly have heard of John Griffiths. In 1992 he was presented with a medal of merit, one of the highest accolades for exceptional service to scouting. He also attended five major jamboringals and put his talents to good use by organising and running the medical centre at the camps. By all accounts, Griffo was a brilliant man and right up to the end he was always thinking of his scouts and rovers. In speaking with his friends and work colleagues, he was widely described as gentle and caring and a wonderful teacher. His colleagues tell me of his special gift and capacity to care. He always took the time to build understanding, build trust and build relationships. He was a real community man with great compassion and a dedication to friendship. He was also a great inspiration to the many young people he was involved with, and his interest in the welfare of young people and their development was reflected in the way he led them as a mentor and a friend. His workmates tell me of the time when there was little or no formal training in the QATB, and Griff in true professional style sorted out his own professional development opportunities through the Princess Alexandra Hospital and local Redland's medicos. It was this commitment to learning that was put to great use in innovative and pioneering programs such as the Redland's pre-hospital defibrillation program—a first at that time in Queensland. He will be remembered as a man dedicated to his career, constantly furthering his broad skills and knowledge for the betterment of his patients. In 1982 Griffo entered the Institute of Ambulance Officers (Australia) National Competition and in his first year of competition won the national titles against very strong national opposition. Prior to this victory, Queensland ambulance officers were considered by some interstate officers as little more than highly qualified first aiders, but Griffo was part of a team that put Queensland on the map professionally and his contribution will not be forgotten. But where he shone was his ability to share his knowledge, his skills and his way of understanding patient care. Griffo shared his wealth of experience that no textbook could ever teach. One of my favourite stories about him is that Griff didn't attend to an 80-year-old with chest pain; he always attended 'Mrs Jones ... She is 80 years of age and has pain in her chest.' John Griffiths was a true leader and will be remembered with respect and fondness by all who knew him. My condolences go to Mary and the children. Griffo, you will not be forgotten. Thanks, mate. 29 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1333

Ipswich Drug Court Trials Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (11.45 a.m.): On 20 March this year I had an opportunity to attend a session of the Ipswich drug court. I was tremendously impressed with this important government initiative, and I feel that it needs to be brought to the attention of every responsible person within our community and our state. The philosophy of the drug court is primarily about breaking the cycle of drug dependence. We are all aware of the effects on the community from drug offenders repeatedly stealing and committing crimes in order to pay for their drug addictions. The drug courts give offenders an opportunity to get their lives in order, to kick their habit and to try to get back to a normal happy existence instead of going to jail and compounding their mistakes. It also gives the offenders' families some hope for the future that their troubled lives might possibly get back on track. It should be a matter of grave concern to everyone that statistics show that approximately 75 per cent of crimes in our community are drug related. Therefore, every successful rehabilitation through the drug court program will mean fewer crimes committed by drug addicted offenders. The introduction of the south-east Queensland drug court trial in June 2000 was welcomed as a positive step forward in crime prevention. Drug courts in Queensland are established under the Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000, which was enacted on 13 June 2000. The act permitted the prescribed pilot program courts to issue intensive drug rehabilitation orders to eligible offenders. These eligible offenders, who would otherwise be facing jail, are placed on an intensive drug rehabilitation order requiring them to take part in a designated treatment rehabilitation program. Any breach of the conditions of an intensive drug rehabilitation order results in the offender being sentenced for the original offence or offences and serving a prison sentence. Initially, pilot program courts were established at Beenleigh, Ipswich and Southport magistrates courts. It was an election commitment of the Beattie government to expand the drug court trial to regional Queensland. This commitment was fulfilled by establishing the new pilot program drug courts in Cairns and Townsville on 1 November last year. In the two and a half years of the south-east Queensland trial, 272 intensive drug rehabilitation orders have been issued. Of these, 50 offenders have graduated, 138 were unable to complete their intensive drug rehabilitation orders and 84 are still in the process of completing their rehabilitation. As the Member for Ipswich West, I have been aware for many years of the problems associated with drug related crime, not only in Ipswich but in many other areas. The first sitting day of the Ipswich drug court was on 16 June 2000. The court sat weekly until March 2002, after which it moved to fortnightly sittings. This has resulted in 100 sittings of the Ipswich Drug Court to date. During the Ipswich trial period, 49 intensive drug rehabilitation orders were made. Of these, 10 have graduated to date, 19 have been terminated, and the remaining 20 are continuing with their rehabilitation program. Of the 20 offenders still continuing the program, 10 are living in their own or family accommodation, and 10 are in supported accommodation. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the involvement and commitment of the Department of Housing and the Department of Families in this accommodation support program. The program operates through the cooperation of both these departments, which recognise that drug users have difficulty in securing and maintaining accommodation and have done something positive to assist. The Department of Housing provides funding for a community organisation in Ipswich to enter and manage leases on privately owned homes, and then provide them to drug court participants who do not have available accommodation and might otherwise be in jail. Additionally, the Department of Families, under another community organisation, employs accommodation support workers to provide additional assistance and programs to supported accommodation residents. This is indicative of the whole-of-government approach adopted by the Beattie government to address drug addiction and its negative social impact on our community. An evaluation of the south-east Queensland trial will be conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology later this year and will assist the government in deciding how to move forward with this important initiative. I congratulate everyone involved in the program on their foresight and commitment to breaking the cycle of crime and drug dependence, and I urge every member to support the drug court program in every way possible. 1334 Matters of Public Interest 29 Apr 2003

GST Revenue Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.52 a.m.): This morning I want to address very briefly the issue of the amount of GST funds that will flow to the state over the next five or so years. I do so because during the past week I have been disturbed by the fact that the Premier has been saying that in fact Queensland would not see any net benefit from the GST until 2006, and that the federal coalition had pulled off one of the greatest cons of all time on the Australian people by convincing people that the states are already better off. With that level of understanding and numbers, all I can say is that I am glad that the Premier is not the Treasurer himself, because an examination of other independent figures—and the figures I am going to quote come from the recent Ministerial Council for Commonwealth-State Financial Relations and the outcome of a Loan Council meeting held on 28 March 2003—clearly shows that Queensland will receive a total of $6.11 billion in GST revenue in the upcoming 2003- 04 financial year. The Ministerial Council for Commonwealth-State Financial Relations requires all state governments and the Commonwealth to sign off on it so they are all of the one mind in terms of the flow of GST funds to the states over that period of time. In fact, one can imagine that if those funds do not flow, all hell will break loose amongst the states and the Commonwealth. So these numbers do stand rigorous examination. They are a commitment by all levels of government in terms of the funding that will flow from the Commonwealth to the states over that period of time. What the document quite clearly shows is that there is $137.5 million more allocated to Queensland than it would have received under the old Commonwealth-state financial assistance grants. That figure grows to $266.4 million in terms of being better off in the 2004-05 financial year and a whopping $620.3 million by 2008-09. This is clear evidence that the state will in fact be better off from this coming financial year onwards, and quite clearly shows that the Premier's words do not hold a skerrick of truth. I just wonder how the Premier is able to keep a straight face whilst telling journalists that Queensland would be no better off under the new GST financial arrangements when he would be aware—as indeed all treasurers around Australia would be aware—of the arrangements. The Commonwealth government has just offered the states a new health care agreement that sees a maximum funding boost of $10 billion—17 per cent in real terms if the states commit to and meet the specified level of spending. Under this proposal Queensland stands to receive an extra $2 billion to spend on public hospitals if the Beattie government signs and honours the agreement, which will cover the period 1 July 2003 through to 30 June 2008. You would think that this would be something that the Beattie government would be knocking down people to sign, just the way the Premier knocked down people to sign the GST agreement, but no. Last week we had the Premier claiming that Queensland had no extra GST revenue and where would we find the money to put into hospitals? Just off the top of my head, I can think of $20 million that was lost in terms of the blow-out in the construction of the Goodwill Bridge last year. But let me get back to the Premier's claim that the state would not receive any GST growth revenue until 2006. On 5 March last year the Premier stated that Queensland would use growth funding from the GST to pay for its education and training reforms. Last year the Premier was saying that there would be growth in Queensland revenue under the GST, yet last week there was none. Even the Treasurer conceded that Queensland would be better off under the GST when he told a budget estimates committee last year that he expected Queensland to start receiving GST benefits in the 2003-04 financial year. When challenged by journalists in regard to his outrageous claims, the Premier said—despite having no fresh information on which to base the assumption—that he was sceptical that last year's state budget forecast of GST revenue in 2003-04 would prove true. He further claimed that— 'forecasts change and it depends on the circumstances. We've all had different assessments at different times about when the GST money will come in. Only time will tell who's right.' All I can say is that time is not on the Premier's side, because ever since the statement from the Ministerial Council for Commonwealth-State Financial Relations and the outcome of the Loan Council meeting held on 30 March 2001, figures have consistently shown that Queensland will receive a net benefit from the new GST based financial arrangements from 2003-04 onwards. It is about time the Premier and his government came clean with Queenslanders and admitted that the only reason the state's financial position is unhealthy is because of poor fiscal management in the general government sector. It is an ongoing ploy of this government to blame 29 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1335 the federal government for everything. On the issue of GST funding, what the Premier says is clearly not true. The independent figures— Time expired.

International Nurses Day Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (11.55 a.m.): International Nurses Day is once again close at hand. 12 May is acknowledged world wide to be the day that nurses celebrate the nursing profession and the diverse and unique nature of nursing work. It is also the day that we acknowledge and celebrate nurses as some very special people. Of course, 12 May is Florence Nightingale's birthday, and whilst there is some discussion about the woman herself in nursing circles with respect to the impact that she had on nursing, there is absolutely no doubt that Florence Nightingale ensured that nurses played a strategic role in campaigning to improve public health in our society. In fact, she was a tireless and successful campaigner to improve the conditions and the public health of soldiers in the Crimean War. Can I say that, like Florence Nightingale, nurses today are no less serious in their public health campaigning. They use International Nurses Day as a way of ensuring that the collective voice of nursing continues to be heard world wide. There is an underlying theme to International Nurses Day, and that is 'Nurses are always there for you'. As members are well aware, I am very proud to be a member of the nursing profession and I am still registered. It will be a very sad day for me when I do have to give up my registration some three years from now, but I hope that it will be because I am still serving the people of Aspley and continuing to be a voice for nurses in a Beattie Labor government, and I am sure that will happen. Aspley, of course, is home to over 370 nurses, and I take this opportunity to wish them and their nursing colleagues across the state a very happy International Nurses Day, and commend them for their commitment to the profession and their preparedness to speak to me on a regular basis about issues of concern to them. Can I suggest that if members have not already done so, they should get to know the nurses in their electorates because they can tell them what is at the heart of the concerns of many people in our communities. With International Nurses Day 2003 drawing near, I am concerned about probably the most pressing issue affecting nurses today, and that is the destruction of Medicare and the effect that this will have upon the long-term health of the people of our nation. It is disturbing to many nurses to witness the insidious erosion of our universal health care system, Medicare. After all, as any nurse will tell you, the very best of health care can only help if you can get access to it. They will also tell you that access to health care should, and must, only ever be on the basis of health care need and not on the capacity to pay. Moves to degrade Medicare came to the attention of nurses a long time ago. In fact, it was organisations such as the Australian Nursing Federation and the Queensland Nurses Union which foresaw many years ago the Howard government attacks on the foundations of Medicare as they began to emerge and predicted the impact that it would have on the capacity of people to see their local doctor. Now the rest of the community is beginning to wake up and realise that bulk-billing has all but disappeared, that doctor rebates have failed to keep up with the costs, forcing many doctors to abandon bulk-billing, that our universal health care system has had the rug pulled out from underneath it. It is only now that most Australians have seen the true nature of the plans that the Howard government has for how Australians will get access to health care, that is, by a two-tiered system, where you either have the money up front or you simply do not go to the doctor or, like many others, you wait in an emergency department clogged with emergency and non-urgent patients, all anxious and all needy. I talked to the nurses in Aspley who work in our busy accident and emergency departments, and they will tell you the impact on their workloads that they have seen as a result of the decline and destruction of Medicare. Nurses understand that the destruction of Medicare will have its greatest impact across young working families, and it is those people who make up the bulk of people in Aspley who will be in the worst position after John Howard has finished destroying Medicare. The tragedy and deliberate destruction of Medicare was foreseen by nurses and it will be fought by nurses who, in celebrating International Nurses Day through the theme 'Always There for You', understand and will ensure that universal and equitable access to health care is a 1336 Matters of Public Interest 29 Apr 2003 human right and it should always be there. Nurses will fight any plans to remove this human right and ensure that our communities are given the care that they deserve—the very best for all Australians, not just a few Australians. I also take this opportunity and acknowledge the 60th anniversary of the sinking of the hospital ship Centaur. On 14 May 1943 at four o'clock in the morning 38 kilometres off the coast of Queensland the hospital ship Centaur sunk with the loss of life of 268 people out of the 332 persons on board. Of the 12 nursing sisters on board, only one survived—Sister Ellen Savage, an Australian Army Nursing Service officer who was aboard the hospital ship Centaur. She was awarded with the George Medal for her bravery during the ordeal. I take the time to thank the Centaur Nurses Memorial Fund and its President and very good friend of mine, Mrs Joy Croker, for their commitment every year in acknowledging and commemorating the tragedy in which so many nurses, doctors and medical staff lost their lives. I will once again be part of that commemoration service on 14 May. I give my sincere thanks to the Centaur Nurses Memorial Fund and the RSL for their long-time dedication to commemorating the tragedy of the hospital ship Centaur.

Ipswich Women's Health Centre and Sexual Assault Service Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.00 p.m.): I bring to the attention of the House the plight of rural women serviced by the Ipswich Women's Health and Sexual Assault Centre. As members would be aware, the centre has received notice from Queensland Health of its intention to cease funding at the end of June. Queensland Health has provided no real explanation for this decision, although the department did however cite financial irregularities. Queensland Health audited the centre's books last year and I am told that all outgoing expenditure was accounted for and at no point did the centre receive any communication or correspondence suggesting that there were any problems. The response to the centre's communication with the minister's department to date has been— It is not the responsibility of the minister. It is a bureaucratic decision. I ask: who exactly is running the health portfolio? It is very questionable with this decision. This cessation of funding is not in the best interests of the people in those communities. Although the centre is specifically for women, the benefits are felt by families and the whole community. The centre services an area which has the second highest incidence of domestic violence in the state, high unemployment figures, low income, high incidences of sole parenting and disability and low service provisions. If this removal of funds occurs, there will be virtually no services at all. The centre covers a population of 145,000 people and an area of 7,000 square kilometres including Esk and Toogoolawah in the Nanango electorate. This government bureaucrat's decision is penalising all the communities in those areas who call on the services of this centre. Although this centre covers many areas which might theoretically be able to be accessed through city services, it covers an area that takes in many rural and remote areas which historically hesitate to use services when they need to travel to the city. This service is available for all women including those under 15 years of age. It supplies general counselling information, referrals, sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse counselling, 24-hour acute services and health promotion projects. It also holds courses and workshops relating to women's health, issues including relationships, grief and loss, depression, self-esteem and stress management. These courses and workshops are organised on a needs basis. Other service providers that would take up these clients if this service shuts down have allegedly been told that they must not take on any other long-term clients. If victims cannot go to them, then where the heck do they go? The current services are free, and without access to these free services many people in these areas will fail to access the services they need through a lack of finances. In this economically challenged area, any money people have goes to feed their families and pay essential bills. Private services are often outside their capacity to pay. One has to remember that many of these areas have absolutely no public transport to assist the people who live there to get into the city to access such services and many country people will not drive into the city. This centre was vulnerable because of staffing instability and possibly, as yet unproven, questions relating to some receipts. If individuals have behaved in an adverse way, they must be removed. But this refusal to continue to fund the centre, which has been in existence for 12 years and offered so much to rural women suffering difficult circumstances, is appalling. Innocent people are about to be penalised for perhaps the questionable actions of a few. This centre 29 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1337 worked with highly marginalised women—women who would never use government services, women with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities, women who self-harm and very young women as well as women from diverse backgrounds. It provides an invaluable service to women and families in the area, and from January to March 2003 provided services to 543 women. Some 192 related to sexual assault and/or rape, and out of those there were 32 presentations to the Acute Sexual Assault Service—that is, women who had been raped. These women received services fairly quickly, unlike the poor woman left to wait eight hours as was recently reported in the Courier-Mail. I ask the minister to please ensure that if this money is to be taken away from this centre it remains in the communities and does not disappear into the great abyss where so many funds seem to go. Tomorrow there will be a protest outside parliament just to show how much concern is felt out there in the community in the hope that the minister will take back control of this decision from her bureaucrats and begin to grasp the real growing concerns of rural women's health and reinstate funding to the centre. This service has become a very multicultural service in the true sense of the word and is the only service of its type in Queensland. The area it services contains people of over 100 different ethnic backgrounds. The defunding of this service is an indication of the contradiction in government policies which on one hand promote, at least in writing, community participation and cultural diversity and on the other hand seem to take very arbitrary decisions once that seems to have been achieved. Time expired.

Volatile Substance Misuse, Townsville-Thuringowa Ms PHILLIPS (Thuringowa—ALP) (12.06 p.m.): I bring to the attention of the House the very positive actions that are being taken in Townsville-Thuringowa by the state government and non- government agencies in an effort to address the insidious problem of volatile substance misuse in our communities. I have been particularly concerned about the incidence of this problem in special parts of my electorate for some time and have been working with individuals and groups to try to find some solutions. Members of relevant state government departments started meeting formally last year and as a result a wider Townsville-Thuringowa Practitioners Group has been formed, including non-government agencies. This group has been developed, facilitated and is chaired by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Townsville. As with similar complex problems, the solution lies in a multifaceted strategy and so we are now focusing on five specific outcomes. The first is to restrict the supply of volatile substances to minors. Some concerned residents have been collecting signatures for a petition prohibiting the sale of inhalants to minors which they intend to present shortly to parliament. However, while I agree that the supply of these substances must be restricted, I believe that developing a retailers code of best practice for the sale of such items is the better way to go. The Commission for Children and Young People, which held statewide forums earlier this year, and other states have recommended such a proposal, so the Townsville-Thuringowa Practitioners Group is currently working with the Brisbane City Council to develop such a protocol. The draft seems very likely to achieve the desired goal of prohibiting the sale of volatile substances to people who will misuse them. It is anticipated that it will be finalised in the next month or so. Secondly, we need to extend the authority for police to apprehend young people misusing substances. Concerns that criminalising volatile substance misuse will drive young people to act in secret must not override the need for police and authorities to be able to detain young people under the influence of volatile substances for their own good. At present, police cannot legally pick up children affected by substance misuse and take them to a safe place, even to home. Sometimes they are watched until they come down, often with violent outbursts. The police must be protected in picking up these kids. Legislation regimes in other states work well. Something similar needs to be adopted for Queensland police. I am pleased to say that discussions with the Police Service and the Department of Justice are progressing well in this regard. Our third focus is on urgently creating a safe place with access to health and medical services. We need this for young people who cannot be taken home or to a similar protective environment or when they are repeat offenders who have been taken home on several occasions. It is proposed that this safe place may be a unit attached to another residential facility in our region. The young person would be given medical and any other help and watched until they came down. The practitioner group has developed a safe place model from research and literature as well as input from experts in the local community. A submission for funding has been 1338 Matters of Public Interest 29 Apr 2003 made to the Queensland Drug Coordinating Committee. I strongly support this crucial part of the strategy. Fourthly, the young person who has been admitted to the safe place must be provided with an assessment in case management by a qualified and experienced professional within 24 hours of coming into the unit. This will allow a plan to counter future misuse to be immediately developed and implemented. A resident at the house should not leave until this is completed. Part of this plan would be deciding where the young person was going to live, because the safe place is not for a long-term stay. The best scenario would be to involve parents or extended family in the plan. If this is not possible, a foster placement or other supervised care through the Department of Families will need to be arranged. The final and most important part of the strategy is to be the development of a rehabilitation program which the young people who have been apprehended would be obliged to attend. It would assist the young person to deal with their issues and help them to kick the chroming habit. It needs to be a full-time day program at an intensive level lasting for several months and school work could be supervised or transition to work programs begun. Part of the program may involve a residential camp component especially for indigenous youth, who could return back to country. The Townsville/Thuringowa practitioners group are to be commended for developing this innovative and wide-ranging strategy. I strongly support their applications for funding to be able to implement the various aspects of this plan.

Surgical Waiting Lists, Queensland Health Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (12.11 p.m.): According to Queensland Health's own figures, less surgery per year took place under the Beattie government than during the reign of the Borbidge government. In the 1997-98 year, more than 600,000 surgical procedures took place, yet in 2002 this fell to 586,000. It is well documented that one of the major issues concerning the Queensland populace is lengthy surgical waiting lists. Latest Queensland Health figures indicate that 11,000 Queensland patients are overdue for elective surgery. 9,000 of those waited more than a year. This is clearly unacceptable. But Health Minister Wendy Edmond will not even admit there is a problem, despite having the gall to criticise the federal government which is actually trying to fix the problems within its realm of influence. Health is a problem in Queensland and the figures show that Queensland is going backwards. The state Health Minister's solution to bringing down waiting lists is to stop more people from going on the list. Many of Queensland's sick and elderly are waiting years for appointments with specialists. That is Queensland's hidden waiting list, which is much more extensive than what the Health Minister would have us believe. In the Health Smart State 2020 document it was suggested that there should be fewer specialist clinics because they encourage unrealistic expectations that patients would not receive treatment. This is where it is outrageous, because there are people who are waiting to get on a waiting list. The hidden problem with people being unable to get a timely appointment with a specialist means that they are being gate kept; in other words, they are being kept out of the official figures for surgery. If the media did not report on the numerous people who have had difficulty getting medical attention in the public system regardless of their condition the Beattie government would not bother doing anything to help them. The minister repeatedly criticises the opposition for making the issues public. In many of these cases these people—these patients—cannot wait a month for the Health Minister to return our letters. Like the Sunshine Coast lady who had a deadly aneurism on her brain, or the Rockhampton gentleman who had been told he could not be seen within the estimated time he had left to live, or the Mackay lady whose husband died while on a waiting list for angiogram. These people cannot wait. There are many other people who fall through the cracks. This is the human face of the Queensland Health crisis and yet the state Health Minister pretends that there is not a problem. The Queensland coalition recognises the problem and is developing a multifaceted policy to reduce elective surgery waiting lists. We are also looking at how we reduce the outpatient specialist wait times, because this is a critical factor to people receiving timely and appropriate treatment. Earlier, I tabled documents revealing the proposal by Queensland Health to close the Princess Alexandra Hospital Gynaecology Unit. More than 700 gynaecology patients in Queensland are already overdue for surgery. So what does the Health Minister do? She decides 29 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1339 to shut down another facility despite protests from the PA Hospital's senior specialist staff association. Mrs Edmond admits to a plan to actually exacerbate wait times rather than improve them. Right now the wait times must be improved. The state Health Minister must get serious about bringing down hospital wait times. If she is not prepared to do that, she should not be in the job. Not only does this state government seem unprepared to do anything, it is actually working to increase wait times. No longer will the coalition accuse the Beattie government of sitting on its hands; the Beattie government is actually working to make the public health system worse for Queenslanders. I know the role of Health Minister is a difficult one. It is an extremely important one which must be tackled head on. But this state Health Minister hides behind the director-general or district managers of hospitals every time something goes wrong. Today I issue a challenge to the state Health Minister to be the Health spokesperson for the Beattie government. If she is not willing to stop plans which increase the waiting times for elective surgery, she could at least be made to explain to the public why she is allowing wait times to spiral out of control even further. I implore her to perform her role and actually answer people's questions about elective surgery waiting times or emergency department waiting times. I issue that challenge to Mrs Edmond. It is really the very least she can do.

Tourism Brochure, Bribie Island Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (12.16 p.m.): Late last year I was approached by the Bribie Island State Primary School to see if there was an appropriate state government tourism certificate to award grades 4HIP for a tourism brochure the young students had designed and produced to promote Bribie Island. The brochure basically looked at Bribie Island through the eyes of kids, which is a marvellous concept. If we think about it, especially as parents, who does actually often influence us as to where we go on holidays? In my family it certainly is our children. The brochure portrays those things that particularly interested the grade 4 students. It was produced professionally so it could be used by interested groups in the community. I contacted the office of the Tourism Minister, Merri Rose, and her staff immediately sent an appropriately framed tourism certificate signed by Minister Rose. Merri commented on how well the students had done to link the school with the community in such a unique way. She also asked me to present a tourism badge to each student who participated in the designing, editing and production of the brochure. I was invited to the school at the beginning of this year to present the certificates and badges and I was delighted to pass on the minister's comments and add my congratulations to the students. I made sure every student in 4HIP received a photocopy of the certificate to keep as well as their badge. The Bribie Island Aquatic Centre was also acknowledged at the presentation. It was the first popular tourism site mentioned in the brochure, and one of the students accepted a plaque as a small thankyou for promoting their business in their brochure. I am pleased to say that we are now looking at ways to produce more brochures, as they were very popular and still in demand. I have made sure the minister has her own copy. Friends of my husband, Jon, and myself who were visiting New South Wales recently insisted on taking some of the brochures to their southern friends to show them what a wonderful place Bribie Island is and that it is worth a visit. I wish to thank the Minister, Merri Rose, and her staff for the quick response to the school's request. As I was leaving, the deputy principal, Angela Bell, was looking for a prominent place to proudly display the students' framed certificate. I must also thank one of the island's newspaper reporters, Mrs Amber Hartley, who has taken a personal interest in the students' work and given them some worthy local coverage. While on the topic of tourism on Bribie Island, I would like to pay tribute to a group of local businesspeople who meet regularly to discuss tourism ideas and how to promote Bribie Island's natural resources. Members of the group, including Annette and Arthur Kinchela, Matthew Heaton and Ted Banaszczyk, are becoming increasingly aware of Bribie Island's assets and the need to promote and share them. Recently, the members visited Poverty Creek camping ground, which has been closed for a couple of years for renovations. The work was carried out by a number of National Parks and Wildlife trainees under the supervision of Ranger Don Cameron. They have created a cattle ranch style theme, since this area was leased to the Turnbull brothers, who ran cattle there some years ago. 1340 Matters of Public Interest 29 Apr 2003

Poverty Creek will be open as soon as the toilet facilities are built and the area will become a great attraction to campers. Last month I was delighted to represent the Environment Minister, the Hon. Dean Wells, and present all trainees with their certificates in environmental land management. I congratulate all trainees on the work that they have done and I am pleased to see that some of them have already been successful in gaining full-time employment. I wish them all job success in the future. Members of the tourism group have also visited the bora ring at Bestmann Road west with our dear friend Minnie Mays, who acted as a guide and described the history and importance of it. This is a unique and interesting place, and as it forms part of Australian history its significance needs to be shared. Mr Zel Goldman, who is the State Development manager from the Caboolture office, has expressed an interest in coming to meetings to see if the Department of State Development can play a role in promoting the ideas of the group. Already he has indicated that, when the members visit the Abbey Museum, he would like to be invited. I support the members of the tourism group and hope that together we can come up with ways to promote Bribie Island for what it really is. I refer to the words of Pat Comben, who most members will remember fondly as one of our former environment ministers, who said that Bribie Island is the closest natural backdrop to Brisbane.

Public-Private Partnerships Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.21 p.m.): Today I want to speak about public-private partnerships. The public-private partnership that is now out to tender for the redevelopment of the Southbank TAFE is the first attempt at a PPP under the guidance material that was drawn up by the Beattie government last year. So this is an appropriate time to highlight the sorry history of such arrangements and warn again against following this course. The only argument for PPPs is a financial one—so that private funds can pay for the provision of government services. But those private funds are made available only if the private financiers can make a profit on the deal. That can happen only by charging the users, that is, the people of Queensland. We all know that this government dips deep into the public's pockets to provide lavish salaries and abundant bonuses to senior staff, supposedly to get the best people. If that is true, then our departments should be performing as well as or better than private enterprise. That being so, there is no reason to think that a public-private partnership, which demands that a profit be made, will be any better economically than having the government carry out the project. In his covering letter to me accompanying a copy of the guidance material, the Minister for State Development referred to a process providing transparency and probity, generating confidence within the industry and among the general public. Transparency would definitely be a change from the Beattie government's normal, pervasive secrecy. It was only a few weeks ago that the Premier was talking about secret deals—sorry, I think that he used the phrase 'exclusive mandates', but it is the same thing—and wanting to avoid the tender process for some projects. Of course, one should know better: nothing happens in the Beattie government—not even transparency—if it is not what the Premier wants. The Premier's unwillingness to let the people of Queensland know what kind of deals this government makes appears to have extended to the public-private partnerships. Under the guidelines, there is some preparatory work by the government, a call for expressions of interest, a bidding process—I think what used to be called a Dutch auction—and finally the formalisation of the project agreement. Nowhere is there provision for public input. There is an allowance for the government to do a public interest assessment, but that is it. Also in those guidelines are exclusive mandates. These are the very things that the Premier was saying recently that he wanted. Clearly, he already has them right here in these guidelines—ironically enough, under the value for money framework. They are outlined in appendix 1, exclusive mandates, on page 28 of the value for money framework in the PPP guidance material. In summary, that page tells us that a private company which brings a proposal to the government can get exclusive rights to develop that proposal and that the government will not even consider any similar proposals made by anyone else while the mandate is in effect. But I think that the real problem lies in the very next page. Despite that claim on page 28, on page 29 is this dot point— 29 Apr 2003 Matters of Public Interest 1341

If either of the above conditions are not satisfied, the Private Sector party satisfies Government that it enjoys such demonstrable commercial advantage over other Proponents that calling for Expressions of Interest could not be reasonably expected to generate a better value for money outcome. That boils down to a free ride for the big end of town. Even if a small Queensland company gets smart and comes up with an innovative proposal and brings it to this government, it has no protection from the big end of town exercising its demonstrable commercial advantage and steamrolling it out of existence. How transparent is that process when, in the face of a competing proposal, it argues against the fairly mild public exposure of a call for expressions of interest. Even the usual PPP system is hidden away behind the protection of cabinet. There are six steps involved in developing a PPP: service identification, preliminary assessment, PPP business case development, expressions of interest, bidding process and management of the project agreement. In those six steps, cabinet or a cabinet committee is involved four times, and we are all well aware of how this government uses cabinet to hide away its dirty deals. One of the most consistent problems with public-private partnerships world wide is that the public does not get to know what the deal is or whether they are better or worse off as a result. For example, in December last year, the UK Institute of Public Policy Research examined PPP performances and found that of some 378 such projects in the UK, only six per cent had even been audited. Closer to home, the collapse of the privatised public transport deal in Victoria is costing the Bracks ALP government an additional $1 billion. Recent history tells us that PPPs are duds. It is no wonder that this government wants to keep its involvement in this discredited process so secret.

Medicare Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (12.26 p.m.): Under the Howard government, Medicare has become 'credit care'. Our Medicare cards will be of little use and the majority of Australians will be pulling out their credit card to pay for health care. Each week many families in my area speak to me because they are very worried about the cost of health care. They are paying up-front fees to GPs. Many of them are paying $1,200 or more a year for private health insurance. Many are paying gap fees when they have hospital treatments of hundreds or thousands of dollars and, as well, many of them are already paying for health care through the Medicare levy. Many people who speak to me are paying this on their credit card already. What does the Howard government offer? John Howard is offering insurance for the gap fees. He is looking at more private ways of responding to something that should be a public response. As well in my area, even working families in suburbs such as Parkinson, Forest Lake and others, who could be regarded as more affluent than people in other areas around Acacia Ridge, are struggling to pay the cost of health care. It seems to me that John Howard and his colleagues have no real idea of what it is like for people after they have paid the costs of housing, food, electricity, school fees and so on. Some of them have $20 to $50 a week left for incidentals such as entertainment and all the other costs of life. John Howard has no understanding of how limited the budget is for lots of families. A government member: He doesn't care. Ms STRUTHERS: He does not really care at all. That is a very clear difference between Labor and the conservative parties. It is very evident in the work that we do on health policy. In 1973—a great year—Bill Hayden introduced the white paper on the Australian health insurance program that later became Medibank and then formed into Medicare. That is tremendous policy. It is the sort of stuff that people in Australia can be proud of. It is the sort of policy that Labor members are very proud of, and it is why I am in the Labor Party and I am not sitting on the other side of this parliament. Two principles were enshrined in that initial Medibank scheme. One of them was that the Australian government believed that all people, irrespective of their means, should have access to a high standard of health care. A further principle was that an individual's contribution to the cost of health services should be based on his or her capacity to pay. Hence that government introduced a system where people paid, through their tax, on their taxable income. These were important principles. They are the sorts of principles that we are now seeing the Howard government savage. It was a simple, fair, affordable, quality system, and it has been for many, many years. Every Australian paid a Medicare levy and, in return, received free access to their GP and other essential health care services. 1342 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 29 Apr 2003

Medicare has become, in a way, an Australian icon. As I said, people are very proud of the Medicare system. It was built on Australian concepts of giving everybody a fair go. The scheme itself is one that Labor is absolutely committed to. We introduced it and we are absolutely committed to restoring bulkbilling. It is one of our single biggest priorities in health. Bulkbilling is part of our lives, but John Howard has never believed in it. What did he say on Radio 2GB in June 1987? He said— We will be proposing changes to Medicare which amount to its de facto dismantling ... we'll pull it right apart. He said that in 1987. He has been trying to do it since then. Now he has a clear run to do it. Now that more doctors are dropping out of bulkbilling, John Howard is beginning to achieve what he said in 1987 he would do. Today he has introduced a package of reforms which do not go anywhere near offering any fairness. He is cloaking them under the guise of fairness. There is nothing fair about what has been introduced today. People will have to rack up more bills on their credit cards. This is not a system Labor supports. We will be doing everything we can to fight it. I commend the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants League, which hosted a forum in City Hall yesterday to save Medicare. I commend the Medicare Alliance and all of the other groups that are working hard to save Medicare. What is the opposition doing about Medicare? Nothing! Have we heard anything from opposition members in this parliament on Medicare and bulkbilling? No. No-one in Queensland can put their faith in the opposition parties to do anything to improve public access to health care in this state. They have not said a word about Medicare. John Howard will go down in history as the man who took from the poor and gave to the rich. He will go down in history as one of the most mean-spirited leaders this country has ever had. It is a damned shame.

SUGAR INDUSTRY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (12.31 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Sugar Industry Act 1999, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (12.32 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is an important one. It implements real regulatory reform needed if the Queensland sugar industry is to survive and prosper. The sugar industry is a significant contributor to the Queensland economy, and indeed to the national economy. It is the cornerstone of many regional communities and provides employment and a livelihood for many thousands of Queensland families from Beenleigh in the south to Mossman and Mareeba in the north. Sugar is the second largest agricultural industry in Queensland after beef and normally contributes more than $1 billion to the state's economy annually. It is a significant export industry. Indeed, Queensland exports 85 per cent of its raw sugar production and is the fourth largest exporter of raw sugar in the world, with major customers in Asia, the Middle East and North America. The export focus and the relatively small domestic market means that the industry has no choice but to be globally competitive. If it is, it will survive. If it is not, it will not. Over the past few years, the industry's export position and competitiveness have come under significant pressure because of a number of developments, which include— ¥ its share of world sugar trade dropping from 22 per cent in 1993 to 15 per cent in 2001; ¥ the oversupply of the world market for raw sugar; ¥ the rise of Brazil to grab a major share of the world market, with a lower cost of production than Queensland; 29 Apr 2003 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1343

¥ the long-term average price of sugar trending downwards; and ¥ fluctuations in industry earnings. We cannot eliminate Brazil. We cannot reform the international market on our own. We cannot change the weather. But we can and will change the regulatory environment. Together with a sensible program of change management, this will facilitate the necessary change in the culture of the industry. On 25 September last year the federal government and the Queensland government signed a historic memorandum of understanding on the sugar industry. This memorandum committed both governments to provide $150 million in support to the industry over four years. This funding was not unconditional. It was and is conditional upon fundamental change in the way the industry operates. Both governments have recognised what many in the industry have long recognised: unless there is fundamental change there will not be a sugar industry, or at least not a viable one, in five or 10 years time. The memorandum of understanding signed with the federal government outlined a joint approach to regulatory reform. Firstly, the federal government and the Queensland government recognised that, while the regulatory environment of the industry is under state jurisdiction via the Sugar Industry Act 1999, both governments share an interest in ensuring that it does not impede increased competitiveness of the industry or the development of a more commercial culture. Secondly, both governments agreed that the following three areas appear to impede increased competitiveness and efficiency and are detrimental to cultural change and innovation, that is— ¥ the cane production area system; ¥ the statutory bargaining system; and ¥ the compulsory acquisition of raw sugar for marketing and selling within the domestic market. Thirdly, both governments agreed that there should be a joint approach to identify what legislative changes are required to remove these impediments, and it was agreed that Queensland would undertake an impact analysis of the required legislative changes. Fourthly, it was agreed that once all necessary changes are identified there would be a joint position on this issue. Fifthly—and this is very important—the federal government and the Queensland government agreed that the operation of the single desk for exports of raw sugar should be retained pending the scheduled review in 2006. Today the Queensland government presents a package of regulatory reforms for the sugar industry. This package is a result of both extensive review and consultation. As I am sure honourable members are aware, over the past 12 months several significant studies have been delivered regarding the impact of the Sugar Industry Act 1999 on the industry's competitiveness, productivity and future viability. In this regard, I draw the attention of the House to— ¥ the Independent Assessment of the Sugar Industry, usually known as the Hildebrand report, commissioned by the Commonwealth government; ¥ Cleaning up the act: The impact of changes to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 by the Centre for International Economics, usually called the CIE report, commissioned by the Queensland government; and ¥ Review of constraints on industry competitiveness and innovation by the Boston Consulting Group, commissioned by the Canegrowers organisation, which I will call the Boston report. All of these important reviews are on the public record and very widely circulated and discussed within the industry and within government. In addition, the Queensland government undertook extensive public consultation on regulatory change using the CIE report to promote discussion. Over 1,500 individual submissions were received, along with submissions from the main industry peak bodies—Canegrowers, the Australian Sugar Milling Council, the Australian Cane Farmers Association, Queensland Sugar Limited and a number of milling companies. In addition, Queensland government representatives held a large number of meetings with industry stakeholders to discuss the issues raised in these reports. The Queensland government has carefully considered and weighted all of this information in reaching a decision on its approach to regulatory change. The government has been engaged in a careful process of looking, learning, listening and then making a decision. One thing that was a consistent message from the Hildebrand, CIE and Boston reports is that the sugar industry must achieve significant productivity increases if it is to be viable in the 1344 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 29 Apr 2003 long term and that opportunities for such productivity improvements definitely exist. However, an equally consistent message from Hildebrand, CIE and Boston reports is that the present legislation supports and enables a culture in which any change that may adversely impact upon the less efficient can be and is blocked, holding the whole industry back. The CIE report was particularly strong on this point. CIE had no hesitation in stating that the main explanation for the industry's failure to fully take up productivity gains is what CIE term the 'adverse effects principle'. This principle is embodied in both legislation and culture, but it is perpetuated by the present legislative structure. What is of particular concern is that, by allowing the present regulatory system to have continued for so long, successive governments may have unwittingly contributed to the industry's ability to make essential productivity gains. Productivity gains will benefit all parts of the industry. A failure to make these gains will hurt millers far more than growers, but all will suffer. The message is clear: retaining the existing regulatory structure will impede essential productivity gains and put the whole future of the industry at risk. The Queensland government is certainly not about to just sit back and let that happen, and neither will the federal government. We have, through the memorandum of understanding, maintained close cooperation with the federal government to ensure a joint approach to the sugar industry. The package of reforms that this bill initiates has been discussed extensively with the federal government. Negotiations have occurred with both the Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss MP, and other senior ministers. These negotiations focused on the need to deliver reforms that benefited the industry as a whole. The federal government has stated in writing that the reform package in this bill is within the scope of the memorandum of understanding. This package flows out of our joint approach on regulatory change. The reform package is a superior product as a result of the negotiations arising from our joint approach. I want to take this opportunity to praise the strong leadership shown by Minister Truss. He very clearly understands the need for positive change in the industry, and he has worked closely with the Queensland government to deliver a $150 million joint package and significant reform. There has been a lot of doom and gloom in the sugar industry over the past few years. Even people in the industry have been predicting its demise. Let me say that the Queensland government does not accept this doom and gloom message. We believe that this industry, with change, has a bright future and will still be here in another hundred years. The doom and gloom merchants are underestimating the capacity of growers, millers, harvesters and the communities that depend on them to change and to grow if given the chance. This bill puts an end to the doomsayers, to the people who try to tell us the industry cannot compete, who try to tell us that our industry has no future on the global stage. The bill will empower those individuals in the industry who have new ideas, who want to do things differently. This bill will give them the chance to shine, to move the industry forward. I turn now to the major provisions of the bill, and in so doing I also table this policy statement by the Queensland government entitled 'Sugar: the Way Forward', which sets out in detail all the relevant matters considered by the government and the reasoning for its decisions on the matters addressed in this bill. It should be compulsory reading for all who have an interest in the future of the sugar industry. The changes to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 are in three principal areas. Firstly, the regulated cane supply arrangements are to be discontinued as from 1 January 2004, which will mean that individual cane production areas, or CPAs, will be abolished. Second, the existing compulsory bargaining system will be replaced by voluntary collective bargaining with access to a dispute resolution system. Third, a system of case by case exemptions from compulsory vesting will be established for sugar intended for domestic uses. I stress again that the export single desk of Queensland Sugar Ltd will not be touched in this bill. I would like to make some brief comments on each of these matters. First, I will address real reform of the Cane Production Area system. Cane Production Areas, or CPAs, are, in effect, a licence allowing a grower to grow cane and supply a particular mill to which the grower is 'assigned'. A CPA operates to tie growers and millers together in two ways— ¥ the mill must take for crushing all cane grown on a CPA—this limits the mill's ability to raise quality standards and impose effective sanctions on growers with poor practices; and ¥ the grower can only provide this cane to the mill to which the CPA refers; a restriction on 'transferability'. Transfer of CPA is only possible where the mill suppliers' committee and mills of each mill area agree. 29 Apr 2003 Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1345

CIE identified that this system was used to prevent expansion of season length and the entrance of new growers where this would operate to the detriment of existing growers. Removal of CPA, in combination with voluntary collective bargaining, will allow better decision making in these areas. In the absence of statutory CPAs, it is expected that similar but contractual arrangements will emerge. These contractual arrangements will assume whatever value previously existed in relation to CPA. Second, I will address real reform of the statutory bargaining system. The key problems with the current system are— ¥ it is compulsory for a grower to belong to the collective; ¥ there is only one collective; and ¥ one group of growers can veto an agreement another grower has with the mill. The government has decided to retain the positive aspects of the current system—the ability of growers to bargain collectively—whilst removing the problem aspects. In addition, growers and millers will have access to a dispute resolution system involving both mediation and arbitration through the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990. The choice will be theirs. However, the current final offer arbitration system is inconsistent with the Commercial Arbitration Act and has been roundly criticised as reinforcing the status quo. Its use is specifically forbidden. Finally, I will address real reform of the marketing of raw sugar for the domestic market. The Queensland government considered a number of options that would achieve domestic deregulation while leaving the export single desk intact. These options are considered in chapter 4 of the policy statement. After careful consideration, the option chosen for implementation is to implement a domestic exemption regime. Exemptions from compulsory vesting will be available on a case by case basis from the Sugar Authority. Exemptions can be sought for raw sugar intended for sale on the domestic market, for use in alternative products such as ethanol or bioplastics, or for export in bags for direct human consumption. If applicants show that they have a domestic use within the meaning of the legislation and that they are able to deal with the sugar, they will be given an exemption. There is no wide discretionary power given to the authority to refuse applications. This is intended to promote confidence in the process in industry. A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the authority on his or her application will be able to seek judicial review of the decision. This bill will also provide protection for the effective operation of the export single desk by Queensland Sugar Ltd. If sugar that is the subject of an exemption is dealt with in a different way to what is permitted under the certificate of exemption without the holder of the exemption having sought a variation from the authority, the exemption will automatically be revoked and the sugar will vest back in QSL. For example, if a person obtained a certificate of exemption for a domestic sale and then delivered the sugar to a port facility in an attempt to illegally export it, the exemption will be void and that sugar will become QSL's property. However, if a holder of an exemption certificate finds that his intended domestic market does not eventuate, then he or she will able to negotiate with QSL for the sale of that sugar to QSL, but this will be on a commercial basis and QSL will not be obliged to take that sugar into the pool. To avoid disadvantaging QSL in organising its forward export marketing program, there will need to be a cut-off date for exemption applications. It is proposed that this be set by the authority in consultation with QSL. This process will give QSL a reasonable indication of what proportion of the following year's crop it will be selling and what proportion will be sold outside of QSL. This is essential to avoid disrupting the export single desk. Any attempt to handle vested sugar in a manner contrary to the provisions of the act will be an illegal activity, for which there are substantial penalties. In addition to which, QSL would be able to take civil action to sue for wrongful conversion of its property. Finally, on the subject of marketing, the existing ministerial direction in regard to the price at which sugar is sold on the domestic market will be revoked. The pricing direction was only relevant in a regulated domestic market and quite obviously has no place in a deregulated one. As the act in future will be mainly about marketing matters, it is appropriate that it be renamed the Sugar Marketing Act, and the bill also does this. In conclusion, the Queensland sugar industry has long been, and is still today, the most regulated agricultural industry in this state and, indeed, in Australia. An elaborate regulatory structure was introduced nearly 90 years ago at a time when commercial realities were very 1346 Financial Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 different to today. While extensive regulation has been removed from most other industries in Queensland, with positive results, most business decisions in the sugar industry occur in a highly legislated structure. The act was introduced to help the industry. Now it has been shown to be hindering it. It is time for real reform. The CIE report demonstrated that the regulatory structure has created a set of formal and informal rules—the principle of 'adverse effects'—which blocks productivity gains. Those adversely affected by change—generally the inefficient—are able to use the legislation to block that change. This principle helps to explain the negative aspects of the industry's culture identified by Hildebrand. On the marketing side, innovation is stifled and there is a perception that new avenues for the use of sugar cannot be explored. This situation cannot continue. The future of the sugar industry is important to Queensland and to the Queensland government. For 12 months, an intensive process of examination of the industry's future has been undertaken. The consistent message that emerges from this process is that the industry must change if it is to survive. The Queensland government and the federal government have examined the effects on the industry of removing the impediments in the legislative framework. The positive aspects of this framework will be duplicated by contractual relationships and competition law. In addition, the Queensland government is convinced that the interdependent relationship between growers and millers will lead to commercial outcomes beneficial to both parties. The evidence before the government is that both growers and millers will be better off with regulatory change. Neither party will benefit at the expense of the other. On balance, the risks of not changing the regulatory system far outweigh the risks of reforming the system. Given this risk assessment, the Queensland government must act to change the industry's regulatory structure. If the government did not act, given the weight of evidence available, and bowed to the pressure of a vocal minority, it would be condemning the thousands of Queenslanders who directly and indirectly depend on the sugar industry to a future of contraction and increasingly rapid decline. I will not be the minister that takes that road. Both the federal and state governments have recognised that the interests of the sugar industry are important enough to put aside party politics. Both governments have cooperated across the partisan divide to deliver real reform. I do hope that this bipartisan spirit is reflected in the debate in this House. Of course, regulatory change on its own will not solve all the industry's problems. This change is only a means to an end. Change management is essential to help the industry prosper in a more commercial environment. The Queensland government will join with the federal government, with industry peak and research bodies, and with other relevant organisations, to deliver a range of programs that will facilitate the improvements in skills and practices needed by industry. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Rowell, adjourned.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (12.52 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (12.52 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. 29 Apr 2003 Financial Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1347

The purpose of the bill is to make a number of minor operational and editorial amendments to acts administered by Treasury. The bill includes amendments to the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977, the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 and the Casino Control Act 1982. The Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977, the FA&A Act, provides the framework of governance and accountability within which the government's financial activities operate. The act is continually being reviewed to ensure the efficient and effective management of the state's financial activities, without compromising essential governance and accountability mechanisms. A number of minor amendments are proposed in the bill to further improve operational flexibility and/or clarify existing legislative requirements. The Bill also brings forward amendments to other legislation related to the government's finance functions. I shall go through each one in turn. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. A key amendment to the FA&A Act is a relaxation of the current requirement under section 40C of the Act that prohibits departments from making an investment in, or lending to, another entity. This prohibition is resulting in operational impediments in instances where departments for various sound reasons wish to invest, or increase their investments, in subsidiaries or to lend moneys to pursue their operational objectives. To improve flexibility, I propose to amend the FA&A Act to permit departments to undertake such transactions, but with the safeguard that the Treasurer's approval must first be obtained. This will ensure that any such applications are properly assessed as to their value to the Government and their budgetary impact. A further operational amendment relates to the way in which departments and statutory bodies produce and publish their annual reports. Under current legislative requirements, agencies may publish only their annual financial statements in electronic form (eg. by way of a CD-Rom). The proposed amendments to sections 39 and 46J of the FA&A Act will enable departments and statutory bodies to produce and publish their entire annual and short form (annual) reports in electronic form, including their annual financial statements, provided that paper copies are held for users requiring this format. This will result in improved efficiency and facilitate better community access to agency reports. It is a practice adopted by a number of private sector bodies. Mr Speaker, the Bill also introduces a number of other minor amendments to clarify financial accountability and other issues. The Bill proposes to clarify that a corporation established under the Commonwealth Corporations Act is not a department, or part of a department, for the purposes of the FA&A Act. The present definition of a department in section 4A of the FA&A Act captures certain corporations established under the Corporations Act that are controlled by departments. In some instances, this results in differing financial reporting and other governance requirements under the respective legislation. Companies established under the Corporations Act are subject to the governance and financial reporting requirements of that Act. It is desired that only the provisions of the Corporations Act apply to companies established by Queensland departments. This is consistent with company model Government owned corporations established under the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993. Under existing section 43D of the FA&A Act, departments are currently required to provide reports on derivative transactions to the appropriate Minister. Derivatives are financial contracts, such as 'futures' contracts, that derive their value from an underlying asset, commodity, liability or index. To improve the monitoring of derivatives entered into by public sector bodies, the Bill provides that monthly reports on such transactions must in future be provided to the Treasurer as well as to the appropriate Minister. The amendment to section 69 of the FA&A Act relating to the appointment of an auditor to perform the audit of the Queensland Audit Office is a minor one to provide legislative support to the current appointment process. It enables the Governor in Council to appoint an auditor for a period of up to five years at an annual fee determined by the Governor in Council, in lieu of the current annual appointment/fee setting process. To better reflect the independence of the appointed auditor, the amendment also provides that the audit report on the Queensland Audit Office must be provided direct to the Premier, with a copy to the Treasurer and to the Auditor- General. The Auditor-General is in agreement with these changes. The amendment proposed to section 92 of the FA&A Act relating to the confidentiality of information clarifies that such confidentiality requirements also extend to non-audit personnel engaged by the Auditor-General. The amendment to section 109 of the FA&A Act relating to the delegation of the Treasurer's power to vary Queensland's banking arrangements to another person within Queensland Treasury is required for operational flexibility. In relation to the proposed amendments to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 ("the MAI Act"), a key initiative of the October 2000 amendments to the MAI Act was the introduction of an 'affordability index'. This index focuses on the overall cost of compulsory third party insurance to motor vehicle owners relative to a selected index of household income—average weekly earnings. 1348 Privilege 29 Apr 2003

The affordability index is triggered when the highest class 1 (sedans and station wagons) premium filed by insurers exceeds 45% of average weekly earnings in Queensland. Once triggered, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission is required to make recommendations to the Minister, including possible changes in the scheme in respect of benefits and/or scheme delivery costs. The highest filed premium, effective 1 April 2003, is $355.50 and incorporates levies of $34.50. These levies include a $5 component in the Nominal Defendant levy. Honourable Members will recall that this levy was introduced in October 2001 to help meet the cost of claims arising from the collapse of the HIH Insurance Group. As the $5 increase in the Nominal Defendant levy relates to the liabilities of an insolvent insurer, this component of the Nominal Defendant levy is generally considered as being outside the basic third party insurance premium. This impost should therefore be deducted from the premium before deciding whether or not there has been any breach of the affordability index. The proposed amendments are required to prevent any potential distortion of the 'affordability index' by factors external to the scheme. Also included in the Schedule to the Bill are some minor amendments to the Casino Control Act 1982. These are of an editorial nature only and are required for consistency with current drafting protocols. Mr Speaker, the amendments to the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 proposed in this Bill do not fundamentally alter the financial management and governance of the State Public Sector. What they represent are minor, incremental enhancements which will improve operational flexibility and/or clarify existing legislative requirements. The amendments to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 are also of an operational nature and do not affect the substance of the present funding of compulsory third party insurance in this State. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Dr Watson, adjourned.

PRIVILEGE Minister for Industrial Relations; Scott Volkers Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (12.55 p.m.): Earlier today, the member for Gregory asked me a question about an alleged telephone call made by Mr Scott Volkers to the Minister for Industrial Relations, the member for Sandgate. I preface my remarks by saying that I am deeply concerned by a prevailing tendency for sensitive information about police investigations to be leaked to public sources. This is a disgrace because it only serves to compromise the integrity of police investigations in Queensland. In this instance the information put forward by the member for Gregory is wrong. I have spoken with the commissioner today. He informs me that he has never received any information about an alleged call made by Mr Volkers to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Furthermore, a check of my ministerial briefing notes reveals that I have never been advised of an alleged phone call by Mr Volkers to this minister. The only information the Police Department has on record is a report to the Assistant Commissioner, State Crime Operations Command, from one of his subordinates. I am advised the report indicates that Mr Volkers may have been in contact with Minister Nuttall at some time after the charges had been laid. The assistant commissioner concluded that, on the facts, the information is totally irrelevant to the allegation. He did not inform the commissioner. I have spoken with Minister Nuttall and he has advised me that he phoned Mr Volkers during this period in his capacity as his local member. The opposition has yet again come into this place with half-baked stories intended to grab headlines without any regard for the truth. It is a sad indictment on the judgment of the member of Gregory and his leader, Mr Springborg. I demand that the member for Gregory immediately seek an appointment with the Chairman of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Mr Brendan Butler, to pass on the details of the information and its source. I have immediately referred his question to the CMC today. As the opposition should be aware, the CMC has already investigated opposition claims of political interference in this investigation. It concluded— Detective Senior Constable Shepherd and Detective Sergeant Marsh said that they were never contacted by anyone, from within the QPS or outside, who tried to influence their investigation improperly. Both police and ODDP officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of Mr Volkers were categorical in their assertions that no undue influence was brought to bear on them by any person over the Volkers case. 29 Apr 2003 Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1349

This is what the independent umpire, the CMC, has found. As I said earlier, if the member for Gregory has any new information which he feels it should consider, I demand that he come forward and provide it to the CMC immediately. In conclusion, I repeat that both the Police Commissioner and I have never been advised, either verbally or in writing, of this matter. This morning I have written to chairman of the CMC. The letter states— Dear Mr Butler This morning in the Legislative Assembly I was asked a question without notice by the Member for Gregory, which made reference to allegations that Mr Scott Volkers made a phone call to the Hon. Gordon Nuttall MP on the day that Mr Volkers was charged by police with criminal offences. Furthermore, in the question the Member for Gregory alleged that phone records of this information have been the subject of a briefing note to the Police Commissioner and myself, and further, that police were 'barred from making any further inquiries into these records'. I have no recollection or any record of having received such a brief. In addition I have spoken to the Police Commissioner who confirmed not only that he had not ever briefed me, but also that he himself had never previously received such advice. However, given the gravity of the allegations, I have enclosed a copy of the question as asked for your consideration. I will in due course call on the Member for Gregory to provide whatever information he has in his knowledge or possession to you in its entirety, so that this matter can be properly investigated. Yours sincerely Tony McGrady Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

QUEENSLAND HERITAGE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (2.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (2.30 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to the Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. When the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 came into operation just over 10 years ago, it was at the cutting edge of cultural heritage protection in this nation. These amendments will improve the operation of the legislation. Our cultural heritage places are essential components of the attributes of that special part of the world we call Queensland. Cultural heritage places help us to understand how people dealt with the challenges and opportunities of the Queensland environment, and how the Queensland environment impacted on them and on their activities. These special cultural heritage places include humble cottages and grand mansions, bridges, railway stations and historic mines, pastoral properties and landmark landscapes, commercial buildings, historical streetscapes, war memorials and country halls. Cultural heritage places contribute to that essential sense of place—the recognition that this is 'our place'. It is particularly gratifying that, since the Act came into operation, heritage tourism has become an important industry, particularly in outback Queensland. The Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 will improve the way in which our cultural heritage is protected. South-East Queensland has the fastest growing population in Australia and whilst this increase in population is of great benefit to the State, the development that accompanies it can impact on our cultural heritage places. This Bill clarifies that streetscapes and precincts are an important part of Queensland's cultural heritage and are protected by the Heritage Act. The Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 will enhance the operation of the Heritage Act for the convenience of the owners of heritage places and businesses based on heritage tourism. The Government recognises that the owners of cultural heritage places and the owners and promoters of heritage businesses play a critical role in maintaining the unique nature of Queensland. This is smart legislation for the smart State. 1350 Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

The Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 is an important step in implementing the Government's policy to continue the programme of consequential amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997. This Bill brings certain development approval processes in the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 into the Integrated Development Assessment System ('IDAS') under the Integrated Planning Act. It will streamline and integrate development approval processes, while maintaining the protection for heritage places already provided by the Heritage Act. In support of the Government's commitment to Queensland's cultural heritage, this Bill, in addition to streamlining development approval processes, includes a number of amendments which improve the clarity and transparency of the Heritage Act provisions, and enhance its procedural fairness. This Bill has been developed in consultation with Government Departments, the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Queensland Heritage Council, major religious organisations, the National Trust of Queensland, and bodies representing the interests of property owners and managers. All stakeholders have indicated their support for these amendments. I turn firstly to the amendments to the development approval processes in Part 5 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992. The new Part 5 of the Act sets out the way in which development to heritage registered places will be processed under the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The Heritage Act already provides that applications for development for privately-owned places entered in the Queensland Heritage Register are made to the local government in which the place is situated. The local government then forwards the application to the Queensland Heritage Council for determination. These amendments maintain the essence of that procedure. The amendments also maintain the critical test which the Heritage Act requires the Queensland Heritage Council to apply in considering a development proposal. This test is whether or not the effect of carrying out the development will be to destroy or substantially reduce the cultural heritage significance of the place. If the cultural heritage significance will not be destroyed or substantially reduced, the application is approved, with or without conditions; if the effect of carrying out the development will destroy or substantially reduce the cultural heritage significance, the application is refused. Under these amendments, the local government, in most cases, will be the Integrated Planning Act assessment manager, and the Queensland Heritage Council will be a concurrence agency. If the Queensland Heritage Council finds that the effect of carrying out the development will be to destroy or substantially reduce the cultural heritage significance of the place, it must instruct the assessment manager to refuse the application, and the assessment manager must comply with this instruction. Thus the level of protection for privately-owned cultural heritage places is maintained. The Heritage Act has always provided a number of exclusions or exemptions from its development approval processes. Provisions for excluded work such as emergency work, minor work, and maintenance work are set out in detail in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 1992. The exemption for work genuinely required for liturgical purposes is set out in the Act itself. These amendments improve the clarity of the existing exclusions or exemptions by bringing them together in one section of the Act, which provides for a certificate of exemption. The amended Heritage Act will provide that the Queensland Heritage Council may grant an exemption certificate for excluded work, work genuinely required for a place of worship for liturgical purposes, work permitted under a heritage agreement, and work which would have no impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place. The Queensland Heritage Council will be able to grant to the owner an exemption certificate, setting out the development permitted on that place, without the owner having first to make an application for a certificate. For instance, owners of houses entered in the Heritage Register are frequently concerned that heritage registration will impede their ability to repaint their houses, or update their kitchens and bathrooms. In future, the Queensland Heritage Council will be able to provide an exemption certificate for certain works at the time the place is entered in the Heritage Register. Owners of places already entered in the Heritage Register will be able to apply, free of charge, for their certificates of exemption. The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 distinguishes between the process applying to the development of privately- owned heritage places, and that applying to development proposed by the State. This distinction is maintained by these amendments, which provide a process for State development outside the Integrated Planning Act 1997. I now turn to the amendments which improve the administration of the Heritage Act generally. These fall broadly into three main groups—amendments which improve the clarity of the legislation, amendments which improve the effectiveness of the legislation, and amendments which improve procedural fairness, reflecting current legislative drafting standards. Experience in the operation of the Heritage Act has shown that there are aspects of the legislation requiring clarification and improved transparency. The definition of 'place' has always provided that a heritage registered place can include land in multiple ownership and can include land comprised in more than one land title. This means that precincts have always been encompassed within the definition of place. There are many such places already entered in the Heritage Register. Castle Hill in Townsville, Julius Street in New Farm, Brisbane and Captain Cook's Landing Place at the Town of 1770 are but three examples. Streetscapes and precincts make an extremely important contribution to a sense of place, and a sense of 'neighbourhood'. A streetscape may be a group of houses or commercial buildings. To ensure that it is transparent that streetscapes may be included in the Heritage Register, this Bill amends the criteria for entry in the Heritage Register. It states explicitly that a place may be entered in the Heritage Register if part of a place does not fully satisfy a criterion for entry for the Heritage Register but it forms part of a streetscape that satisfies a criterion entry or is adjacent to a registered place and exhibits the characteristics of the registered place and failure to enter the place would reduce the overall cultural heritage significance of the streetscape or the registered place. Captain Cook's Landing Place is a case in point. 29 Apr 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 1351

Part 7 of the Heritage Act applies to the protection of 'cultural relics' and areas of land or Queensland's territorial waters in which they are situated. As part of the modernisation of the language of the Act, the amendments replace the term 'cultural relic' with 'protected object' and supply a definition of 'protected object'. More importantly, these amendments incorporate the protection of objects situated on land with those situated in Queensland's territorial waters in one section of the Heritage Act, replacing the current separation into two separate sections. The Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 also applies to cultural heritage objects which draw their significance from the period since Europeans settled in Queensland. This situation where two Acts apply to historical cultural heritage objects and protected areas will be discontinued by these amendments. A consequential amendment will remove the application of the Cultural Record (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 to historical objects and areas. A valuable provision of the Cultural Record Act is brought into the Heritage Act by these amendments. Provision is made for studies, or surveys, which identify objects and areas of cultural heritage significance. Such studies add valuable knowledge of Queensland's historical cultural heritage. The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 is intended to be part of Queensland's suite of environmental protection legislation. Its provisions are fair and reasonable to all affected people. However, enforcement is an important aspect of protective legislation. Substantial penalties for non-compliance have always been provided in the Heritage Act. These amendments update the enforcement provisions of the legislation. As well as fulfilling the Government's commitment to streamline development approval processes for the convenience of applicants and business, this Bill makes improvements to the legislation which a decade of experience has demonstrated are necessary. Mr Speaker, all Queenslanders have every reason to be very proud of Queensland's history and heritage and to be gratified that it fascinates visitors to our State. We congratulate the owners of cultural heritage places for their efforts to ensure that these precious parts of Queensland will remain to explain to future generations what the experience of living in Queensland has meant to the generations who have preceded them. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY POWERS AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (2.33 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Public Safety Preservation Act 1986 in relation to powers for dealing with chemical, biological or radiological emergencies, and for related purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr McGrady, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (2.33 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker During the last two years every citizen of Australia has, directly or indirectly, been affected by incidents which prior to September 11 seemed so foreign to the people of our great nation. We all watched with sadness the devastating affects of the attack against the World Trade Centre, and the subsequent loss of thousands of lives. I am sure all members felt appalled, as I did, at the callous disregard for life shown by the perpetrators of this senseless attack. Closer to home, the reality of modern terrorism was never more evident than when terrorist bombs ripped through a tourist strip in Bali in October 2002. So many young lives, many of them Australian, were stolen by this criminal act. I am certain that all members of this House will agree that there is no room for complacency when it comes to ensuring we are well prepared to deal with any potential acts of terrorism. Indeed, it has become the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government and States and Territories to take reasonable, balanced and responsible action to protect our citizens from the effects of terrorism or other critical incidents. I can assure the House that the Beattie Government remains committed to fulfilling its responsibilities in this regard. 1352 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

The Government is currently actively reviewing the Queensland statute book to ensure that our legislation is sufficiently strong from a counter-terrorism perspective. This may require legislative change later this year, delivering on the Premier's commitment at COAG. Mr Speaker, terrorism comes in many forms. It is not always precipitated by the explosion of a bomb in a vehicle or from a hijacked aircraft deviated from its course. It can come from the release of a chemical, biological or radiological agent, each of which has the potential to cause as much or even more devastation to Australian families than a single bomb. The Bill I introduce today results from our desire to ensure that all members of our community are protected from the effects of chemical, biological or radiological incidents. History has taught us that vigilance is far better than complacency. The Beattie Government has worked tirelessly at identifying shortcomings in existing legislation so that the Government is better placed to deal with and overcome major incidents that may arise. As a result, the State of Queensland Multi-Agency Response Plan to Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Incidents was developed in 2000. It provided that the Commissioner of Police would, in the normal course of events, control the emergency services response to critical incidents occurring within the State. During the development of that plan and since, we discovered ways in which we can build on current legislative provisions. One of the primary pieces of legislation dealing with public safety is the Public Safety Preservation Act that was passed by Parliament in 1986. It is an Act that fundamentally provides our police with emergency powers in certain critical incidents. At the time the then Parliament passed it, issues dealing with concentrated chemical, biological and radiological attacks or accidents were unheard of. Regrettably, times have changed. Mr Speaker, the Bill before the House deals with Chemical, Biological or Radiological substance-based threats and powers to deal with them. For brevity, I will refer to them as CBR emergencies and powers. The Bill contains three fundamental powers that do not exist in the Public Safety Preservation Act. These three powers are aimed solely at the preservation of life. They are— 1. The limited detention of a person or people affected by a CBR substance until such time as they may be decontaminated; 2. The detention of a person or people exposed to a CBR substance so that they may be medically assessed, treated, and if necessary, isolated from other members of the community to prevent the substance from spreading within the broader community; and 3. The destruction of property that may be contaminated to ensure that all members of the community are protected from the spread of any CBR substance through contact with that property. Safeguards will apply to the seizure and destruction of property. These are aimed at preserving life but measures will be put in place to ensure that members of the public will be able to apply for compensation for financial loss. The decontamination of a person exposed to a CBR substance, e.g. a chemical substance, can normally be undertaken by simply having that person walk through a shower system set up by the Fire Service. Any person who might have come into contact with a chemical substance during a CBR emergency would surely welcome treatment to have the substance removed so that they can quickly rejoin their families and go about their lives. Where the CBR substance is a potentially fatal and communicable biological substance, to prevent widespread infection of the Queensland population, it may, unfortunately, be necessary to detain and even isolate a number of people who have been exposed to the substance. Obviously any decision to take such action would be a measure of last resort. Should this legislation need to be invoked, all necessary medical resources will be made available to overcome the problem and treat those affected. While this legislation is clearly in the public interest, there will be clear checks and balances to protect against the powers being abused. I will now address the specifics of the legislation. The description of how a CBR emergency may be declared and by whom, is contained within the new section 12 of the Bill. Only a police officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner or above, (the CBRE coordinator), may declare a CBR emergency. The intended effect is to demonstrate the serious nature of the CBR emergency powers and that only police officers of a very high rank are entitled to trigger them. Additionally, a CBR emergency may only be declared if the five criteria stipulated in the legislation have been met. These criteria are— First, something has happened in which a CBR substance is involved. Second, the CBR substance must pose a "serious" risk to the life or health of individuals. This criterion is intended to demonstrate that minor risks to health are not sufficient to trigger use of the powers. Third, the CBR substance may spread if not contained. This criterion is extremely important, and is intended to ensure that the CBR emergency powers will only be available to contain a CBR substance which if allowed to spread, would pose a serious risk to the life or health of people not already affected by the substance. Fourth, a significant coordinated effort by emergency responders is necessary to adequately respond to the incident. Fifth, using powers available under existing laws would not enable emergency responders to effectively deal with the incident. The intended effect is to make it patently clear that the CBR emergency powers are powers of last resort. 29 Apr 2003 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 1353

When a CBR emergency is declared, certain powers will be available subject to strict safeguards. Those powers are: ¥ power to detain; ¥ power to give person directions to remain in, go to, or stay out of an area; ¥ power to decontaminate; ¥ power to medically examine and treat; ¥ power to seize property; ¥ power to destroy seized property; and ¥ power to require name and address. Upon declaring a CBR emergency, the CBRE coordinator has the power to authorise emergency responders, other than health officers, to exercise these CBR emergency powers as appropriate for each type of officer—police, fire, ambulance and veterinary. The CBRE coordinator may also delegate this "power to authorise", to the high level departmental emergency responders of these officers namely, the fire controller, ambulance controller and chief veterinary officer. The medical controller as the Queensland Health high level departmental emergency responder is the only person who may authorise health officers to exercise appropriate CBR emergency powers. The Bill clearly stipulates the conditions under which and the purposes for which, the each CBR emergency power may be exercised. For example, if the CBR substance is a biological or radiological substance, a CBR emergency fire officer may only decontaminate a person if the medical controller approves. As soon as the CBRE coordinator declares a CBR emergency, he or she must promptly inform me of that declaration. The Bill provides that if I am not readily contactable, then the CBR emergency coordinator must inform the Premier, or next most senior Minister who is available. The Bill provides that a CBR emergency automatically expires after 24 hours unless it is ended sooner or extended in a joint decision by the Premier and myself. The Premier and I may extend the CBR emergency beyond the first 24 hours up to a period of seven days from the time the emergency was first declared by the CBR emergency coordinator. The CBR emergency automatically expires after seven days unless the emergency is ended sooner or is extended by regulation. Beyond the first 7 days, a CBR emergency may only be extended by regulation of up to 14 days at a time. This ensures the process is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. Importantly though, the Bill requires that the CBR emergency must be ended as soon as the person or persons who extended the period of the emergency, such as the Premier and I, are satisfied that it is no longer necessary for emergency responders to continue exercising the CBR emergency powers because a serious risk is no longer posed. The overall management and control of the response to a CBR emergency is the responsibility of the CBR emergency coordinator. Accordingly, the CBR emergency coordinator may give directions about the circumstances in which powers available to emergency responders in this Bill may be exercised. The exercise of these CBR emergency powers is considered essential in order to effectively respond to a CBR emergency and to protect the safety of the public at large. Nevertheless, as I indicated from the outset, there are rigorous safeguards and accountability measures built into this legislation. Those measures include: ¥ the high threshold for declaring a CBR emergency; ¥ the requirement to end the emergency if satisfied that exercise of the CBR emergency powers is no longer necessary to protect life or health at serious risk because of the CBR substance involved (new section 15); ¥ use of CBR emergency powers are subject to the advice of appropriate high level departmental emergency responders, such as the medical controller in the case of the treatment power. ¥ the right of an individual to refuse to undergo medical treatment may be overridden and the person treated, only if the person poses a serious risk to the life or health of others because of the CBR substance. ¥ the CBR powers may only be used by suitable i.e. appropriately qualified officers, such as a health officer or an ambulance officer in the case of the treatment power. ¥ a written record must be kept of seized property; ¥ any person detained may apply through a representative to a Supreme Court judge for release from detention; ¥ the Commissioner of the Police Service must apply to a judge of the Supreme Court to lawfully detain persons beyond the first 48 hours of a CBR emergency; ¥ the Public Interest Monitor may appear at an application by the Commissioner of the police in relation to continued exercise of the detention power, and may make submissions on the appropriateness in the public interest of granting the application; ¥ decisions made in the course of dealing with a CBR emergency are administrative decisions for the purposes of the Judicial Review Act 1991; ¥ the Minister for Police must report to Parliament on any CBR emergency; ¥ the Crime and Misconduct Commission retains it normal powers to investigate misconduct by police officers and other departmental responders during a CBR emergency. 1354 Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Additionally, new section 9 of the Bill includes a statement of "Parliament's intention", which makes it clear the circumstances in which, and for how long, the CBR emergency powers may be used. Specifically, in relation to the exercise of the power to detain, the power to decontaminate, the power to medically examine and treat, and the power to seize and if necessary destroy property, there are extensive safeguards. Power to detain and power to give directions restricting movement Only police officers may physically restrain a person. Other emergency responders only have the power to direct a person to remain at, go to, or stay out of an area, and where non-compliance without a reasonable excuse is an offence. It is only lawful to detain persons in a CBR emergency for more than the first 48 hours of the emergency if judicial sanction has been obtained. The Commissioner of Police must make an application to a Supreme Court judge before the first 48 hours of the CBR emergency has expired, in order to lawfully detain people beyond that time. The Commissioner must also immediately notify the Public Interest Monitor under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 or Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 of the application. The Supreme Court judge may approve the application only if satisfied that the continued use of the detention power is reasonably necessary to prevent a serious risk to the life or health of individuals. The decision of the Supreme Court judge may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Where the decision appealed against is a refusal by the judge to approve continued use of the detention power, the decision is stayed upon the filing of the appeal until the Court of Appeal decides the issue. Any person who is detained because of a CBR emergency may also apply to a Supreme Court judge through a nominated representative for release. The application may be made any time after a person is detained, and regardless of whether a Supreme Court judge has approved continued detention on application by the Commissioner of Police. Also, the Court may not order an applicant to pay the costs of the State. When a person is detained because of a CBR emergency, the Bill also places certain obligations on the CBR emergency coordinator. These include notifying the person of their right to apply for release and how to apply, of the person's right to consult a lawyer, and that detention beyond the first 48 hours requires the approval of a Supreme Court judge. The person's next of kin or someone else nominated by the person must also be notified of the person's detention, the person's rights, how to obtain information about the person and who to can contact for this information. The Bill also requires the CBR emergency coordinator to make arrangements in the interest of the person's welfare, subject to any directions given by the medical controller or a health officer. Power to decontaminate If a person or property other than an animal is required to be decontaminated, only appropriate officers may carry out the decontamination. For likely biological or radiological substances, only a health officer or a fire officer, with the medical controller's approval, may decontaminate the person or property. For likely chemical substances, only a fire officer may decontaminate the person or property. Where animals are involved, veterinary officers perform the decontamination. Power to medically examine and treat A person may not refuse to be medically examined to ascertain whether they have been affected by the CBR substance. However, a person may refuse medical treatment provided the medical controller is satisfied that allowing the person to leave without medical treatment will not pose a serious risk to the life or health of individuals because of the CBR substance. Power to seize property The Bill requires the CBR emergency coordinator to keep written records of all property seized under part 3 of the Bill and details what information must be recorded. The intended effect of this section is to ensure that property is able to be tracked in order to account for its disposal, to facilitate its return if possible and to assist with any ex gratia applications which enables the provision of compensation for use of, damage to, or destruction of property. Also, the Bill describes the process by which property seized under part 3 of the Bill must be made available for return to the person lawfully entitled to possess it as soon as practicable. Property not claimed within 60 days after the CBR emergency has ended is forfeited to the State. The intended effect of this subsection is to enable police to dispose of unclaimed property in accordance with established procedures set out in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Power to destroy property The Bill permits seized property to be destroyed because it has been affected by the CBR substance involved in the emergency. However, the Bill provides that property may only be destroyed if it cannot reasonably be decontaminated. This safeguard is designed to ensure that property is not unnecessarily or recklessly destroyed. The Bill also amends some other Acts. Importantly, the Bill amends the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 by inserting a new section 60A to clarify that an authorised fire officer may request a person who is suspected of having been affected by a chemical substance to undergo decontamination. A person so requested may refuse the request. Mr Speaker, this Bill is fair to all people. I seek bipartisan support from the House in the passage of this Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation drafted in the interests of the safety of the people of Queensland, both today and into the future. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. 29 Apr 2003 Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 1355

BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION BILL Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (2.33 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the registration of births, deaths and marriages, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Welford, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (2.34 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I have pleasure in introducing the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2003. This bill is a significant step towards modernising Queensland's law for the registration of births, deaths and marriages. The current act, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962, has been operating for almost 40 years. The act is complex and in need of updating to keep pace with modern community standards. This bill modernises and simplifies the law for the registration of births, deaths and marriages. It is based on the model law which was endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General—that is, the Attorneys of all the states and the Commonwealth. All other states have now enacted legislation broadly consistent with the model law, although with some minor variations to suit their local conditions. One of the key features of the bill is the introduction of a change of name register. This will provide a much more convenient way for people to change names and trace family histories. The new register will also be a useful tool for law enforcement and other authorities who wish to detect any change of a person's name. Currently, the only formal way in which a person can legally change their name is by deed poll in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not have any cross-referencing of change of names across the court registries. There is no easy way for authorities to trace people through Supreme Court records without knowing the particular court registry, court file number or previous name. The change of name register will record changes of name for people born in Queensland and people born overseas but resident in Queensland in a central register. Unless a person is changing their name back to their birth name or was born overseas, any change will be recorded against the person's birth entry. This will ensure there is a simple audit trail for authorities. The change of name register will not generally be accessible by the public. This is to ensure that people's change of name remains private. Change of name provisions generally There are also significant changes in relation to naming children. Disputes by registered parents over naming of children will be able to be referred to the Magistrate's Court. The bill also addresses the inequity in the present act between parents of nuptial and ex-nuptial children as far as naming of their children is concerned. The provisions of this bill will operate so that mothers of ex-nuptial children will no longer be able to change their child's name unilaterally without the registered father's consent. Parental disputes over the changing of a child's name without the registered father's consent may be referred to the court. The bill provides that information may be prescribed in regulations to assist the court in naming children. This prescribed information will likely include— ¥ the number of previous changes to the child's name; ¥ the views of both of the child's parents; ¥ the views of the child; ¥ the child's cultural, indigenous or ethnic background and whether the proposed name change is likely to impact on the child's sense of cultural identity. The bill sets out the circumstances in which changes of both first names and surnames can be registered. Under the bill the given names of a child can be changed on the birth register once within 12 months of the child's birth. After 12 months of age, the first names of a child should not be changed any more than once before the child reaches 18 years of age. The consent of the 1356 Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 29 Apr 2003 child is required if the child is 12 years of age or more. The bill provides that adults can apply for a change of first or surnames once in any one year unless a court orders otherwise. A similar limitation applies to children's surnames. Name of parent on birth registration A matter which has caused concern under the present act is that mothers of ex-nuptial children can refuse to have the father's details recorded on his child's birth registration. Presently, the mother needs to agree to have the father's details entered into the register. If she refuses, there is no other recourse available to the father. Under the new act it is the responsibility of both parents to register the birth of a child, regardless of whether they are married or not. If the father of a child is not married to the mother, he may apply to have the birth of the child registered. If the registrar-general is satisfied that he is the child's father, the registrar-general may register him as the child's father on the birth certificate. There is no need for the mother to agree. If the mother disputes that he is the child's father and the registrar-general has doubts about whether he is the child's father, the father may apply to a court for a finding that he is the father. The registrar-general will then be able to register him as the father upon production of the court's determination. Assistance with research The bill will also provide greater scope for the registrar-general to assist organisations or government authorities involved in research in the public interest. The present act is very restrictive about the types of services that can be provided by the registrar-general in providing information for these purposes. The bill will allow the registrar-general to enter into arrangements with organisations to enable them to supply database lists to the registrar-general for cross- checking. Some examples of its use would include— ¥ data matching for the Department of Families that would allow the name of deceased persons to be culled from the register of Seniors Card holders; ¥ work for various shire councils and local family history associations in identifying previously unidentified lone graves in country Queensland. This new power may also allow the registrar-general to release demographic information to a university researching causes of death in a certain community or region over a number of years. However, the registrar-general has a paramount obligation in section 46 of the bill to protect the privacy of people to whom information relates. Accordingly, the registrar-general may impose strict conditions when giving someone information or access to information. Death certification The bill contains new provisions in relation to cause of death certificates. The purpose of the issue of a medical certificate of cause of death is to allow the death and its cause to be registered by the registrar-general. Additionally, under the coroners legislation a body cannot be disposed of without the certificate or, in the absence of a certificate, a coroner's order allowing for disposal of the body. This bill clarifies the obligations of doctors when issuing a cause of death certificate. Section 30 of the bill provides clear parameters about what a doctor must do before a certificate is issued and reminds doctors when a death must be reported to the coroner. Under the current act these obligations and the process requirements before issuing a cause of death certificate are not specified. Section 30 obliges doctors to issue certificates only when they are able to form an opinion as to the probable cause of death. If not, they must report it to the coroner. Doctors can form that opinion by— 1. having attended the deceased person when the person was alive; or 2. examining the body; or 3. indeed considering information about the person's medical history and the circumstances of the death. The bill clearly footnotes the prohibition in this Coroners Act that a doctor cannot issue a certificate if the death is a reportable death. The new cause of death certificate, like the current certificate, will alert doctors to this prohibition. Unlike the current act, which is silent about doctors' obligations, the new bill will ensure that doctors clearly understand their obligations to undertake a meaningful assessment of the probable cause of death so that suspicious deaths do not evade detection and routine deaths are not needlessly reported to the coroner. The bill also makes it an offence to issue a cause of death certificate for a person if the doctor or the doctor's spouse may receive a benefit because of the person's death. This is 29 Apr 2003 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Bill 1357 consistent with similar prohibitions which have always been in the existing cremations legislation. Under the current act, different certificates are issued depending on whether the deceased was a stillborn child, a child who died within 28 days, or a person over the age of 28 days. The bill provides for one cause of death certificate to cover all these situations. However, the new form will reflect the various categories of deceased persons. Recording of de facto status on death certificates Finally, the bill provides for the status of a de facto in a parental relationship to be recorded on a death certificate. Whilst it is not necessary to reflect this in the bill, a new death certificate will be designed for the new legislation, which will allow the marital status of the deceased person to be shown on a death certificate. This will enable the certificate to show that the deceased was in a de facto relationship at the time of death. The certificate will also record the relationship of the informant to the deceased person. Therefore, if the informant to the death specifies that he or she was the deceased's de facto spouse, the death certificate will show this. This is consistent with our government's policy of ensuring that de factos are recognised appropriately by our laws and government agencies. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER TRIBUNAL BILL Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (2.44 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to establish the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, and for other matters. Motion agreed to. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips) read a message from the Acting Governor recommending the necessary appropriation.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Ms Rose, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (2.45 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill establishes the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal, CCT. The CCT will amalgamate a number of tribunals in my portfolio as well as hear matters from other portfolios. The tribunals to be amalgamated are the Queensland Building Tribunal, the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal, the Retirement Villages Tribunal and the Liquor Appeals Tribunal. In 2001, my department reviewed portfolio tribunals to identify potential benefits that could accrue from rationalisation, consolidation or other appropriate reform. The review recommended a three-stage reform process which has been accepted by the government: ¥ stage 1—to centralise the registry services and rationalise the accommodation for the tribunals within the portfolio; ¥ stage 2—to combine the position of chairperson of three of its tribunals and establish a role for a judicial registrar; and ¥ stage 3—the establishment of a legal framework for an amalgamated tribunal. Stage 1 has been completed. Stage 2 was completed with the passing by this House of the Tribunals Provisions Amendment Act 2002 in late 2002. This bill implements stage 3. The CCT will provide a simple and accessible system to review administrative decision making, resolve disputes, and conduct disciplinary cases involving breaches of legislation by licensees under various acts. For the first time, this will include cases from other portfolio jurisdictions, including architects, engineers, building certifiers, plumbers and drainers, and residential services. This will allow the extensive expertise built up by the tribunal in handling disputes, disciplinary matters and reviews of administrative decisions to be deployed elsewhere in the public sector. 1358 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Bill 29 Apr 2003

This bill will establish how the CCT, its members and registry will operate. Other acts will provide for the types of matters and orders to be made by the CCT. The CCT is based upon a number of key principles, including: ¥ natural justice; ¥ fairness; ¥ accessibility; ¥ timeliness; ¥ informality, to be achieved through parties representing themselves wherever possible; and ¥ an emphasis on early dispute resolution, such as mediation. The bill establishes that members are to appointed for a maximum five-year term. Members must either be a lawyer of at least five years experience or someone with substantial knowledge of an area of tribunal jurisdiction. This will allow for a mix of legally qualified and lay members to sit on the CCT. To ensure that members will be accountable to the public purse, the bill establishes that members are required to enter into performance agreements with the chairperson. Under the bill, the chairperson will have a role in not only managing the professional development of members but also directing the overall business of the CCT. The bill continues the reforms made by the Tribunals Provisions Amendment Act in relation to making members accountable for their performance. Members' appointments can be terminated on the grounds of carelessness, incompetence or inefficiency. The current chairperson of three of the tribunals to be amalgamated, Ms Julie-Anne Schafer, was appointed to the role in June 2002 to lead the tribunals through the amalgamation. The bill establishes that Ms Schafer will carry on as chairperson of the CCT on its commencement. The other full-time member of the Queensland Building Tribunal will also carry over to the CCT. All other current member appointments will end on commencement of the CCT, including the full-time deputy chairperson of the Queensland Building Tribunal. Expressions of interest have recently been called for sessional membership of the CCT, providing a varied and flexible base for the CCT's operations across a number of acts and jurisdictions. I expect to be recommending to cabinet a number of potential appointees in the near future. The bill will continue the position of presiding case manager established in the Tribunals Provisions Amendment Act 2002. The presiding case manager will undertake a number of lower- level directions matters that are currently handled by members, leaving members to concentrate on hearing evidence and deciding cases. Reflecting the quasijudicial decision making of the position, the presiding case manager will be a lawyer of at least five years standing. The bill will give the chairperson discretion on how to convene the CCT for each case, with one, two or three members able to be selected. It is expected that, in most cases, a legally qualified member sitting alone will constitute the CCT. This will be a change for a number of stakeholders who are used to a three-member panel. To guide the chairperson in convening tribunals, the bill establishes a number of criteria which the chairperson must consider, including complexity and public interest in a matter. These criteria will ensure that, in cases of significant interest to the public, the CCT will still have a panel of members, enabling it to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of lay members to contribute to an informed decision. To further assist the CCT in informed decision making, the bill establishes that the CCT will be able to call upon experts to provide technical advice. The bill establishes a number of processes that the CCT can use to resolve cases speedily and within the framework of natural justice and fairness. One of these processes is mediation. Mediation is currently used by most tribunals as a successful tool in resolving a majority of disputes. Mediation is also effective in reducing the time and cost involved in conducting a formal hearing and can be a less stressful process for parties than an adversarial hearing process. The bill establishes that parties should, wherever possible, represent themselves. This will ensure that parties do not have to incur substantial legal costs and that the CCT remains informal. However, the bill recognises that in some classes of matters representation should be a right, for example, in disciplinary proceedings and public examinations. Legal representation can also be approved by the CCT if the parties agree and neither party is disadvantaged, or may be ordered by the CCT on its own discretion such as where justice or speedy resolution require it. 29 Apr 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1359

In exceptional circumstances, a party can also be represented by someone other than a lawyer. For example, in retirement village disputes, an elderly resident with an issue against a village operator may not have the confidence to represent themselves. It is appropriate in such cases that they have a friend or associate to assist them present their case. The bill establishes that financially disadvantaged parties may be able to have application fees waived in cases of genuine financial hardship. This will ensure the CCT remains accessible to those parties who most need its help. The decision to waive fees will not be taken lightly but will be considered on merit. The bill establishes that appeals of decisions of the CCT may be made to the District Court only on a question of law and then only with leave of the court. This narrows the current appeal rights for some jurisdictions. However, I believe it is essential that parties should be given some certainty about the CCT's outcomes, which can be achieved by restricting appeal to questions of law. Moreover, there have been few appeals of tribunal decisions made in recent times, with even fewer successful appeals. Parties will still be able to seek judicial review of decisions. A further feature of the bill is that it allows for the CCT to deal with a class action from a group of affected persons. This will be a particularly effective tool in the retirement village jurisdiction where a number of residents are often affected by the same issue or dispute and where individuals may be unwilling to shoulder the entire burden of mounting a case. This reform will promote justice and help redress perceived inequalities between residents and operators. In addition to the major matters outlined above, a range of miscellaneous amendments are included which have the effect of giving power to the CCT to hear the various matters from each jurisdiction. The bill also repeals the Queensland Building Tribunal Act 2000. In summary, this bill will establish an accessible, informal tribunal that conducts itself fairly and ensures that consumers and industry have access to efficient and effective redress in an informal and non-intimidating environment. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

WATER AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (2.56 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Water Act 2000, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Robertson, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (2.57 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. It is now almost two and a half years since assent was given to the Water Act in September 2000. This act provides for the first time a sustainable management framework for the planning, allocation and use of our most precious resource—water. Importantly, the act sets out a process for water licences to be separated from land and converted to water allocations. Water allocations will be recorded on a register similar to that used for land and will be able to be traded, mortgaged and leased. The Water Act and the associated Council of Australian Governments water resource policy have fundamentally changed the way water is managed and the matters to be considered in developing new infrastructure. The amendments before the House today do not fundamentally change the structure of the act or the policy that underpins it. The implementation of the act over the last couple of years, including the development of water resource plans and resource operations plans, shows that the fundamentals underpinning the act are very strong. The water allocations register, for example, is held up across the country as a model of how water entitlements should be registered. 1360 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Although they will not fundamentally alter the Beattie government's approach to water reform, these amendments are nonetheless necessary. As honourable members would be aware, the Beattie government some time ago announced proposals to move to develop water infrastructure in the Burnett Basin. The proponent for these developments is Burnett Water Pty Ltd, which is currently undertaking the only major water infrastructure development in the country. A number of issues have arisen in the development, which are dealt with in this bill. This includes bringing forward the commencement of some of the amendments to the Integrated Planning Act to remove the need for landowners' consent for the development on land that has been the subject of a community infrastructure designation. The amendment will be transitional in nature, because the House has already passed amendments to the Integrated Planning Act to remove the provision for landowners' consent, but the changes have not yet commenced. Another matter that has arisen during the course of these infrastructure developments is that, during the course of negotiations with land-holders at the tailwaters, it has been found that one in 100-year floods will result in small areas of land being inundated. The result of this consultation and negotiation with the public is that both Burnett Water and the land-holders have expressed a preference for easements to store the water on the land, rather than through purchase of the land. The Land Title Act was amended some years ago to allow for such public utility easements where there are small break-outs for weirs. However, they did not extend to the circumstances that have arisen in the Burnett. This bill will allow for these land-holders to be covered by the provisions of the Land Title Act. The Coordinator-General will be amending guidelines prepared under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1974 to outline in greater detail the circumstances where the different tools available to proponents—acquisition, agreements and public utility easements—should be used. The bill also provides for the final resource operations plan for the Burnett to make an allocation of about 4,250 megalitres of water for Barlil Weir—a volume that was identified as part of the public review of environmental factors for the weir. The volume is consistent with the objectives of the Burnett Water Resource Plan. The bill also allows for the making of moratorium notices on the taking of additional water or the grant of further licences where the grant of those licences would affect existing people's entitlements or have negative impacts for the environment. In a nutshell, new licences will not be granted if it is going to have an adverse effect on someone who already has a water entitlement or if it is going to cause environmental harm. Currently, these moratoriums can only be put in place at the time a water resource planning process has commenced. In practice, there are a number of water sources around the state which are reaching their limits, and to protect both the environment and the interests of existing entitlement holders we need to have the capacity to stop the taking of further water immediately. This does not mean that all development will be stopped in these circumstances forever. Rather, the act provides that these moratorium notices will need to be reviewed annually to ensure that these decisions are responsible and publicly accountable. The amendments also provide us with more flexibility to deal with other issues that have arisen in the last couple of years, including a power to suspend people's entitlements to take water if they do not pay fees and charges owed to the state. This power is similar to that used by local governments or electricity utilities when people do not pay their bills. This power to suspend people's entitlement to take the water gives us an opportunity for another means of recovering debt, beyond having to cancel licences. On the subject of compliance issues, the bill also allows infringement notices to be issued to people who take more than their entitlement. This again gives us another means of dealing with circumstances in which people are breaching terms of their licence, but not to such a degree that it warrants taking prosecutions to cancel licences. Other amendments relate to the implementation of the resource operations plan in the Fitzroy and Burnett basins. These plans provide for the first time a means by which water can be separated from land and made tradeable. As a result of consultation with banks, lawyers, accountants, other stakeholders and the Queensland Resource Registry, a number of minor amendments must be made to facilitate this enormous change. These include a provision to displace operation of the Corporations Law so that the Water Allocations Register—like the Land Title Register—is the only place where security interests can be registered against water allocations. 29 Apr 2003 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 1361

The amendments provide for the continuing progress of the Beattie government's water reform agenda and deal with practical implementation issues that have arisen as part of that process. They will help Queensland to fulfil its COAG obligations as far as water reform is concerned. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION BILL Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.03 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to establish a workers' compensation scheme for Queensland, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips) read a message from the Acting Governor.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Nuttall, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.04 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. When the Queensland Labor government came to office in 1998, it committed to restoring balance and equity to Queensland's workers compensation scheme. Since 1999 the government has enacted a series of reforms which continue to deliver on this promise. Firstly, we removed the unfair restrictions on workers' access to compensation by amending the definition of injury to allow compensation where work is a significant contributing factor to injury. The right to compensation was also returned to workers employed on contract of service arrangements regardless of their taxation status, and at the same time employers' premiums were reduced. In 2001 under the WorkCover Queensland: Leading Australia policy, Labor continued to build upon those reforms by improving workers compensation entitlements, and in 2002 further improvements including changes to bring certainty to cross-border compensation arrangements were made. Further, since coming to office the Queensland Labor government has delivered successive reductions in premium rates and maintained the lowest average premium rate for employers in any Australian state for the last three successive years. This enviable position has been reached in an environment of sensible and sound reforms, where we have sought to introduce changes in measured stages to maintain the balance between improving worker entitlements and maintaining the stability of scheme finances. As further testament to this government's sound management of the workers compensation scheme, I recently announced that the current premium rate of $1.55 per $100 of wages paid—still the lowest of any Australian state—will continue to apply to premiums for the 2003-04 financial year. The contribution of the WorkCover Board and management team to this outcome must be acknowledged, as this result has been achieved in a very difficult business and investment environment. In comparison with other state schemes, it is stating the obvious to say that Queensland employers and workers continue to enjoy the best and fairest workers compensation system in Australia. The measured approach to change continues with the introduction of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 2003. This bill has been developed following a full review of the policy, regulation and delivery mechanisms of the workers compensation scheme. This review incorporated a public benefit test as part of an assessment of national competition policy implications of the present arrangements. The review identified that, while the self-insurance provisions and single insurer monopoly of WorkCover do not facilitate a fully competitive market, the success of the Queensland scheme in containing the costs of insurance and providing high benefit levels outweighs any gains possible through privatisation of the market. 1362 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Bill 29 Apr 2003

The review did, however, identify that the combined roles of WorkCover in service delivery and regulation of the scheme through its Q-COMP Division do constitute a conflict with competition principles and should be separated. The government accepted these recommendations, and the bill before the House gives effect to that separation. The inclusion of the words 'workers compensation and rehabilitation' in the title of the bill reflects the objective of the proposed legislation, which is to provide a scheme of arrangements for the regulation and delivery of optimal workers compensation and rehabilitation services to Queensland workers and employers. The change in title from the WorkCover Queensland Act marks the separation of the insurance and regulatory functions, with the inclusion of rehabilitation in the title reflecting this government's belief in the fundamental importance of rehabilitation in meeting the overall objectives of the scheme. In order to ensure that injured workers do in fact have early access to appropriate rehabilitation treatment, the Queensland Labor government committed to the development of industry based rehabilitation arrangements at the time of the last election. As the responsible minister, I am pleased to advise the House that WorkCover, in cooperation with industry stakeholders and officers of my department, has finalised and is implementing industry based and supported rehabilitation models across a range of high-risk industry sectors. While the bill when enacted will repeal the existing WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, the essential characteristics of Queensland's workers compensation scheme have been retained. The Workcover Queensland Authority is retained as a candidate government owned corporation, with a focus on premium setting and funds management rather than on regulation of the scheme. Workcover will continue to deliver insurance underwriting and service delivery functions through its metropolitan and regional office network. There will be a smaller board consisting of seven directors, reflective of WorkCover's more focused role, and all current corporate governance requirements will continue to apply. The bill creates the Workers Compensation Regulatory Authority, which is charged with the regulation of those elements of the scheme previously administered by WorkCover through its Regulatory Division, Q-COMP. These include the licensing of self-insurers, operation of the review and appeals processes, the oversight and administration of medical assessment tribunals and ensuring employers' and insurers' compliance with rehabilitation provision and other legislated requirements. The authority will continue to operate under the name of Q-COMP, as this name is widely identified and accepted amongst stakeholders. As with WorkCover, the authority will have a board of seven directors including a chair. A chief executive officer will be appointed under provisions of the bill and staff of the authority will be appointed under the Public Service Act 1996. WorkCover staff currently working in the regulatory division will be transferred to the authority, and the bill contains transitional provisions preserving all their terms and conditions of employment, including long service leave and superannuation entitlements. With the realignment of functions within the scheme as delivered by the bill, matters of workers compensation policy and scheme design are now centralised within my department. Officers of the department will continue to work closely with both WorkCover and the authority as well as other stakeholders in the further development of the scheme. To ensure that, as the responsible minister, I remain fully informed on issues impacting service delivery and regulation of the scheme, the bill provides for the establishment of workers compensation advisory committees. When constituted at the request of the minister, these committees will provide consultation and advisory forums and may be directed to address any matter relevant to the scheme. Committees will comprise representatives of workers, employers, government, self-insurers, WorkCover and Q-COMP, and persons who have other experience or expertise the minister considers appropriate to the issue under consideration. This composition will ensure that all stakeholders have adequate opportunity for input and to have their views considered. The bill also contains new provisions regarding medical practitioners' liability when participating as members of the medical assessment tribunals. They provide for the protection of medical practitioners from civil liability arising from an act or omission made in good faith in the discharge of their role on the tribunals. Medical assessment tribunals are an integral part of the workers compensation scheme in Queensland and the indemnity is provided in the interests of 29 Apr 2003 Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1363 ensuring certainty and the continued participation of appropriately skilled practitioners. Any liability arising will attach to the authority rather than to the members of the individual tribunals. In other respects, the majority of the remaining provisions of the bill replicate the existing arrangements provided for in the current WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, with only changes or new provisions complimentary to the separation of functions being added. All amendments previously made to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 which were due to commence from 1 July 2003 are contained in the bill. Finally, a matter not related to workers' compensation, though equally important to Queensland employers and workers, is also addressed in the bill. I refer to amendments proposed to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 as they relate to the Queensland minimum wage. The proposed amendments are technical in nature and are not considered in any way contentious. They merely clarify issues of compliance and enforcement in regard to the Queensland minimum wage, which came into operation on 1 April 2003. The minimum wage applies to both award and non-award workers and provides for the first time a safety net for workers who fall outside the award system. This bill continues the well-planned and structured process of reforming Queensland's workers compensation system and in doing so continues the Queensland government's commitment to ensuring that Queenslanders are working under the best and fairest workers compensation system in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

ELECTRICITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT Bill Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (3.16 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Electricity Act 1994, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and the Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Lucas, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (3.16 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003. The Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 has been drafted following a national competition policy review of the Electricity Act 1994 and the Electricity Regulation 1994. The Office of Energy appointed external consultants to conduct a public benefit test on sections of the Electricity Act and Electricity Regulation identified as potentially restricting competition. The public benefit test was to consider four primary review principles— (i) whether the section was restrictive; (ii) who was restricted; (iii) what was the impact of the restriction; and (iv) was there a public benefit in retaining the restriction. I am pleased to inform the House that the public benefit test report found this state's Electricity Act and regulation to be fundamentally pro-competition. This finding came out of a lengthy public consultation undertaken by the external consultants as part of the public benefit test. Honourable members, this comes as no surprise. Queensland has one of the most efficient electricity sectors in the country. Prices have always been among the lowest and the industry has never been burdened by excessive debt, unlike other states. Our ability to provide low cost power 1364 Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 is a major factor in our capability to attract energy-intensive projects, particularly in central Queensland, such as the $1.4 billion Comalco refinery project. Our efficient electricity industry is responsible for creating jobs, particularly in our regional areas. However, being an industry leader was never accomplished by standing still. The public benefit test report on the Electricity Act and Electricity Regulation identified some elements of the legislation which can be improved through a number of minor amendments to finetune the legislation. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Seven key policy issues are amended and incorporated in the Bill. 1. Exemptions Currently the exemptions in the Regulation allow certain persons not to be licensed, for example, operators of stand-by generating plant connected to a supply network solely for testing, operators of caravan parks, apartment buildings and shopping centres who on-supply and on-sell to their tenants, and Queensland Rail who on-supplies and on-sells electricity to Airtrain Citylink Limited for the Brisbane Airport Rail Link. The Public Benefit Test report found that exemptions granted by regulation could potentially be used in an anti- competitive or discriminatory way. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee had similar concerns and strongly argued that exemptions should be contained in the Act itself, rather than in a regulation. This amendment removes the exemptions from the Regulation and places them in the Act. The amendment also provides that any future exemptions from parts of the Act can only be granted by regulation in emergencies or other extraordinary circumstances, and will always be subject to a sunset clause. The amendment also widens the existing exemption that relates to Queensland Rail's entitlement to supply and sell electricity. The amendment will permit Queensland Rail to supply and sell electricity to any party who is entitled to use part of its rail network, without the need to hold an electricity distribution and retail licence. In the present legislation, this supply and sale of electricity is confined to Airtrain Citylink Limited for the Brisbane Airport Rail Link. The new wider exemption will facilitate third-party access to Queensland Rail's network in line with its obligations under the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997. 2. Removal of limitations on buying and selling electricity The second amendment deals with the removal of an existing limitation on operators of unregulated transmission grids which prevented them from buying and selling electricity. At the time the existing legislation was made, all transmission grids were regulated (that is, the business of operating the transmission grid is subject to a regulated rate of return set by an economic regulator such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission). The original intent of the limitation was to prevent regulated transmission grid operators from entering the competitive segments of the electricity industry, such as retail and generation. The intent reflected the importance of non- discriminatory access to the transmission network to the development of the competitive electricity market, and the potential for abuse of monopoly power should regulated transmission operators enter that market. However, unregulated transmission grids such as Directlink in northern New South Wales now operate competitively within other sections of the National Electricity Market. The consultants preparing the Public Benefit Test report, found this limitation in the Queensland legislation impeded competition because it effectively prevents unregulated transmission grids from operating in this State. The Bill removes this limitation for unregulated transmission grids. 3. Price setting delegation to Queensland Competition Authority The third amendment deals with providing a greater role for the independent economic regulator (i.e. the Queensland Competition Authority) in the regulation of retail prices for non-contestable (or franchise) customers. The Bill gives me, as Minister with responsibility for energy, the power to delegate to the Queensland Competition Authority (this State's economic regulator), all or part of my powers to set retail electricity prices for customers who cannot choose their retailer. These non-contestable customers are the residential and small business customers of ENERGEX and Ergon Energy. This change will allow me to, for instance, delegate specific research powers to the QCA who will then provide me with detailed reports. I would then use these reports to assist me in setting appropriate retail prices. The Bill also requires the electricity retailers to provide all necessary information for this price setting function. Pricing is a specific area of concern to me, and I want to ensure that is correctly done. I have a responsibility to the consumers throughout Queensland and I take that seriously. By including the Queensland Competition Authority in the price setting process, this amendment lays to rest any perception that there is a conflict of interest in relation to the setting of retail prices to be charged by the government-owned electricity retailers, ENERGEX and Ergon Energy. But Mr Speaker, I want to make the position of the Queensland Government clear, we will not introduce competition reforms for the sake of it and this applies to issues such as full retail competition (FRC). Analysis has shown that customers in remote areas would pay significantly more for their annual electricity bill under FRC with the removal of the Uniform Tariff. Queensland Government analysis has shown for remote areas of North Queensland a typical annual bill would be $2,472 compared to the $740 an ordinary family may currently pay. In South Australia, for example, ordinary families were slugged with an average 24% increase in their power bills after the introduction of FRC. Nevertheless, the Queensland Government will review its decision on FRC at the end of 2004 however it will not be introduced unless there are net benefits for Queenslanders. 4. Land acquisition criteria The fourth amendment addresses the sensitive issue of land acquisition. 29 Apr 2003 Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1365

The Public Benefit Test report suggested the existing provisions could be seen as restricting competition by providing an advantage to State-owned transmission and distribution entities (ENERGEX, Ergon Energy and Powerlink Queensland) over private sector electricity entities. The Electricity Act 1994 currently allows me to authorise any electricity entity to act as a constructing authority for the purpose of acquiring land for a particular project, subject to my discretion and any conditions or restrictions imposed by me. A specific provision in the Act gave ENERGEX, Ergon Energy and Powerlink Queensland this status by virtue they were State transmission and distribution entities. Under the Bill, ENERGEX, Ergon Energy and Powerlink Queensland will be given this status immediately. This is not because they are government-owned, but because these entities have already demonstrated their abilities in this area, so they meet the specified criteria. The Bill makes it clear that only electricity entities who meet specified criteria will be authorised to act as constructing authorities for the purposes of acquiring land for their works under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. There is no favouritism. Electricity entities must meet specified criteria regardless of whether they are State-owned or private. The existing provisions, which allow other electricity companies who meet stipulated criteria to be authorised to acquire land for their works, will remain in place. Minor consequential amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to address a legal technicality are also incorporated in this Bill. 5. Licences The fifth amendment requires the Regulator, who is the Director-General of the Department of Innovation and Information Economy, Sport and Recreation Queensland, to take into account the stated objectives of the Electricity Act 1994 when considering an application for an authority (ie a licence) to generate, transmit, distribute or sell electricity. Under the Bill, the Regulator will be required to undertake the same considerations when there is an application to amend a licence. This amendment aims to further limit the scope for any possible discrimination in issuing or amending licences. 6. Transfer of licences The sixth amendment includes a process to allow for the transfer of authorities or special approvals for existing generating plant, transmission grids or distribution networks if the Regulator is satisfied the transferee is suitable to hold the authority or special approval. Under the current law authorities and special approvals are not transferable. This means, for example, that when a power station is sold the new owner must apply for a new generation authority for the power station and satisfy all the specified criteria (including technical and environmental matters about the power station). In practice, for an existing power station, the Regulator is only interested in the suitability of the new owner to hold the generation authority. There is no need to reconsider the detailed technical and environmental matters concerning the power station. This amendment will provide greater certainty to electricity industry participants and at the same time reduce "red- tape" and compliance costs. Security of the electricity network will continue to be maintained and customers will continue to be adequately protected, as the Regulator will not authorise the transfer of an authority unless he is satisfied that the new owner is suitable to hold the authority. 7. Special licence approvals The seventh amendment deals with clarifying the process for the issue of special approvals. A special approval is a licence issued by the Regulator to authorise, in special circumstances, activities which would normally be covered by a generation, transmission, distribution or retail authority. For example, a number of island resorts operate distribution networks and sell electricity to third parties within the resort, which they are authorised to do through a special approval as these activities are incidental to their main business. The legislation currently specifies the matters the Regulator must consider before issuing a generation, transmission, distribution or retail authority, such as the suitability of the applicant and technical matters about the plant. However, under the current legislation, for the issue of a special approval, the Regulator need only consider "the matters the Regulator considers appropriate". The Bill will require the Regulator to take into account the same matters he is required to consider when issuing a specific authority, to the extent that those matters are relevant. This is what the Regulator does in practice under the current legislation, so the amendment will not result in any additional regulatory or administrative burdens being imposed on either applicants or the Regulator. However, the amendment provides a clear statement about the processes to be used in the issue of special approvals. Other Non-National Competition Policy related amendments The Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 also incorporates several other amendments which are not National Competition Policy related. The first of these additional amendments reinstates in the Electricity Act 1994 powers of investigation which were removed as a consequence of the development of the new stand-alone electrical safety legislation (namely the Electrical Safety Act 2002). As there is still an ongoing need to investigate non-safety related offences under the Electricity Act 1994, the Bill reinstates these powers. These non-safety related offences include the unlawful taking of electricity, breaches of energy efficiency labelling requirements, unauthorised supply of electricity and interference with electricity supply and electricity assets. 1366 Gas Supply Bill 29 Apr 2003

The Queensland electricity industry estimates that electricity theft costs up to $20 million per annum, which equates to a 2% revenue loss each year. This cost is ultimately born by all electricity customers. Accordingly, the reinstatement of these investigative powers is seen as critical in assisting to reduce this loss. The Bill provides that these reinstated investigation powers will be exercised by properly qualified inspection officers appointed by the Regulator (the Director-General of the Department of Innovation and Information Economy, Sport and Recreation Queensland). Consistent with past practice, these inspection officers may include appropriately qualified employees of electricity entities and officers of the public service. Under the provisions being reinstated in the Electricity Act 1994, inspection officers will have no greater powers than they previously had. A high level of theft of electricity also occurs through interfering with meter wiring and meter connections. To counteract this, the second of these additional amendments makes it clear that electricity officers, when entering a place to check an electricity meter, will also be permitted to check meter wiring and connections at the meter position. Conclusion Following the National Competition Policy review, the Queensland Government has responded decisively and positively to the recommendations contained in the Public Benefit Test report. The Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 provides both clarity of process and decision making, and so further enhances competition. The Bill fulfils Queensland's National Competition Policy obligations. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Dr Watson, adjourned.

GAS SUPPLY BILL Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (3.20 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act about the transport and supply of fuel gas, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Lucas, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (3.20 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Gas Supply Bill. This bill delivers on key energy reform commitments of this government and paves the way for greater gas market competition. But it is not about 'competition for competition's sake'. It is about encouraging growth and protecting small consumers at the same time. It is about addressing reliability of supply through proper risk management and contingency planning. But before I talk more about the Gas Supply Bill, it is important to understand the background and context. The gas supply industry is currently administered by two pieces of legislation—the Petroleum Act 1923 and the Gas Act 1965. The Petroleum Act covers upstream operations (exploration, production and transmission) that bring the gas to market. The Gas Act covers downstream operations (distribution and retailing) that distribute the gas within the market. The Petroleum Act essentially falls under Minister Robertson's portfolio. Safety and technical regulation of the upstream and downstream industry also falls within my colleague's portfolio. The Gas Act (franchising, fuel gas supply, and sufficiency of supply) falls within my portfolio. Both acts have undergone fundamental review to produce two bills—the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill and the Gas Supply Bill. Together these bills reform a significant industry; a significant part of the Queensland economy. I turn now to the key features of the Gas Supply Bill. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Reform of gas franchises The Gas Supply Bill repeals the fuel gas franchise systems under the Gas Act 1965. A franchise is a geographic monopoly. It gives the franchise holder what, in practice, is the sole and exclusive right to lay pipes and serve customers in a particular area. The franchise holder is the pipeline owner, the operator and supplier. Depending on the franchise, the pipes might deliver natural gas or LPG. The small customer has no supply option other than the franchise holder. 29 Apr 2003 Gas Supply Bill 1367

The Gas Supply Bill replaces the gas franchises with a new licensing regime. An entity carrying out the gas distribution function (ie. transporting gas) will require a distribution authority. An entity carrying out the gas retail function (ie. selling gas) will require a retail authority. For natural gas, the same entity will not be able to hold an authority for both operations. What does this do? Very simply, it stimulates efficiency. It breaks up the existing monopoly gas supply business. It encourages companies to become more efficient. It encourages companies to refocus on the way they do business. It encourages companies to separately consider the costs of obtaining the gas, transporting the gas and selling the gas to customers. In a nutshell, it encourages companies to focus on the customer, something missing under the existing franchising system. Customer protection The Gas Supply Bill addresses customer protection in a number of ways. First and foremost, it retains price control. This is not something the Queensland government wants to do. It is something that the government must do. To understand why this is so, you need to understand a bit more about the Queensland gas distribution market. The overwhelming majority of Queensland gas customers use a relatively small volume of gas. These customers are also non-contestable. They will still be tied to the distribution authority holder and the retail authority holder for the area. They will not be able to choose another distributor or retailer. These are the customers subject to price control provisions. Under the current Gas Act, it is my responsibility to set gas supply tariffs for these customers. And under the Gas Supply Bill, it remains my responsibility. The government has yet to fully consider the recent report on the costs and benefits of full retail contestability. This is a decision that other states have already taken—they have introduced full retail contestability and created an open and free gas supply market. But sadly, this decision has often been to the detriment of small customers—the mums and dads, the suburban takeaway. You have read the papers, heard the news reports on how gas and electricity prices in other states have increased for small customers—the very customers who can least afford an increase. Any decision affecting Queenslanders is a decision the Queensland government will not make lightly. We want to know the facts, the implications for each type of customer. We will not be hurried by the Commonwealth government beating its national competition policy drum or waving its energy reform banner. We will maintain price control for our small volume customers until we have fully considered full retail contestability. That is what the Gas Supply Bill is about—protecting customers. But we have not ignored industry. Equitable and efficient price control comes from understanding all the issues, and all the impacts on suppliers and consumers. This is why the Gas Supply Bill specifically requires the minister, in setting prices, to consider the interests of gas industry participants and gas industry customers. This is a role I will not take lightly. The Gas Supply Bill also gives small gas customers full access to the Energy Consumer Protection Office, or ECPO as it is commonly known, which is the primary dispute resolution service for Queensland energy customers. It provides free, fair, independent and confidential dispute resolution services to Queensland energy customers who have been unable to resolve an issue with their energy supplier. You would know that ECPO already looks after electricity complaints. It now will consider gas complaints as well. This is important as many energy suppliers are just that. They supply both electricity and gas. Consultation Industry and relevant stakeholders have had significant input on this legislation, with substantial consultation undertaken. Two consultation drafts of the bills were released for comment by industry participants, peak bodies, commercial organisations, local governments and other interested parties. Individual meetings were also held with relevant stakeholders. I thank all those parties who were involved in these consultation processes for their contribution. Implementation Changes take time and should be given time. The bill provides a transitional period of up to one year to assist industry in moving across to the new arrangements. The government understands the gas industry and the gas customers also need time to grasp the changes in gas law, the implications and impacts of these changes on the gas market. Changes need to be explained clearly, and stakeholders deserve clear explanations. For this reason, the Office of Energy website will explain the concepts, the policies and the impacts of, and the processes within, the new legislation. The website will provide contact details of officers able to help further. The Office of Energy will also produce information and facts sheets over the coming months. I cannot stress enough just how important it is to give stakeholders all the information and explanation they need and I will be overseeing this task closely. Conclusion The Gas Supply Bill is good, solid legislation. It is clear in process and decision-making. It provides the flexibility to respond to changing community energy needs. The Government through its Office of Energy has consulted widely and at length on the bill. Mr Speaker, this bill introduces gas reforms in a fair and balanced manner. I am pleased to say that it focuses equally on the needs of industry and consumers. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Dr Watson, adjourned. 1368 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROBINA CENTRAL PLANNING AGREEMENT) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 11 March (see p. 386). Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (3.23 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to speak today to the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003. Robina is a master planned community on the Gold Coast comprising a major regional business and employment centre providing retailing, business entertainment, recreational, residential and community facilities. A huge amount of development has taken place in that region. It is obviously a magnificent planning proposal. As was to be expected, some changes have taken place, and there has been a need to put in place legislative arrangements to accommodate society's changing ways and the growth and development that has occurred in that particular region. The two objectives of the legislation are basically to include a series of changes to the planning intentions for the Robina central planning area in the Robina Central Planning Agreement that had been proposed by the Gold Coast City Council, the Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties, and also to replace the Robina Central Planning Agreement amendment process and the Local Government Act with the Integrated Planning Act 1997, schedule 1, processes for making or amending planning schemes. The Robina Central Planning Agreement was made in 1992 between the parties to enable development of the Robina central planning area at a time when the legislative framework did not accommodate complex infrastructure and master planning, that is, prior to the introduction of the IPA. A lot of us have done a lot of work in relation to the IPA, and I do not doubt that a lot of the original planning was done under the original Robina act. They would not have even contemplated the changes that are occurring there now. I have to say that the Robina act was probably ahead of the game at that time, and that is the reason why this legislation came in as a separate entity, as an integrated development, rather than going with the local government planning scheme at the time. The Robina Central Planning Agreement provides a substitute development assessment framework for the Robina central planning area and is the principal document for planning and development, including the provision of infrastructure and project commitments. The planning intentions for the Robina central planning area require amendment from time to time to reflect contemporary planning principles and to respond to those market forces that I mentioned. The Robina Central Planning Agreement is scheduled to the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act and forms part of that act. It is a bit complicated, but that is the way it is. Accordingly, the Robina Central Planning Agreement can be amended only by amending the other act as well. So the bill also replaces current amendment processes in the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act with the schedule 1 processes for making or amending planning schemes. The bill also removes a Henry VIII clause in that act which purported to allow amendment of the Robina Central Planning Agreement contained in primary legislation by regulation. In other words, in future the legislation will have to come before the House rather than be amended by way of regulation. The House does not scrutinise that legislation as closely as it should do, so I think that is quite good. I noticed that in his second reading speech the minister—and the minister and I have spoken about this before—was interested to see if there was some way that Robina and other integrated resort developments could be rolled into one or perhaps come under the IPA. I can see the reasoning or the thinking behind that. However, I do not believe we can do that, certainly not at this stage. It is simply because of the conditions that were put in place when those original developments were proposed. The consultation process is very important for those people, and I do not know whether we can really change that until those developments get to a stage where they are fully developed. Will they ever get to the stage where they are fully developed? There will always be big changes. I guess we may think they are fully developed but perhaps buildings will be pulled down and started again. So it is going to be a difficult one, but the main thing that I think we have to do is provide some development certainty. We have to ensure that the appropriate consultation processes are firmly in place, and I note that there is—and I have spoken to the minister about this before—another similar one down at Royal Pines at present. It would appear to me, on the surface, that there has not been adequate consultation with the community within that resort development for these plans to go ahead. It will be very interesting to see how that develops. I 29 Apr 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 1369 understand that recently—since Easter—the Gold Coast City Council has approved some of those changes to Royal Pines. I am not sure whether the council has consulted adequately, whether it even has to in this instance, or whether it was even aware of the complications as foreseen by the owners of that development. Although this bill is a reasonably big bill, it is fairly straightforward and it really just talks about notifications of amending agreements from the various acts that were passed over the years and, generally speaking, it seems to me in the main to be quite reasonable. I do not intend to go into each particular part in relation to the different schedules and the adjustment in the land. We have to assume that that has been done. However, if it has not there will obviously be complications down the track. From what I can see, this legislation is reasonable and the opposition supports it. Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (3.30 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill. As a Gold Coast resident, I have seen the necessity to have strong legislation to stop the appalling development that has happened in the past. The old Albert Shire Council should hang its head in shame for allowing for the decentralisation of the Nerang township. Bad planning allowed for no apparent town centre, ripping the heart out of the beautiful town by allowing developers to build two shopping centres on the outskirts of the town. They are almost opposite each other but do not face one other and do not integrate with each other and only take away business from each other. This has left an empty main street of Nerang. Thousands of cars travel through the centre daily, all going somewhere else. Thankfully, this government has seen fit to put up almost $3 million for streetscaping and beautifying the CBD. By the way, it is starting to look great. I have noticed a return of business to the once empty buildings in Price Street and the local enthusiasm is at an all-time high. This is why we need to support the Robina Central Planning Agreement. The objectives are twofold: to include a number of changes to the planning intentions of the Robina Central Planning Agreement, or the RCPA, proposed by the Gold Coast City Council, Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties, the parties; and to replace a RCPA amendment process in the Local Government Act 1992 with schedule 1 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, or IPA, dealing with processes for making or amending planning schemes. The legislation aims to facilitate changes to the RCPA and provide the legal framework for the Robina Central Planning agreement. The reviewing of the act was made in response to the local community needs as the 1992 RCPA failed to accommodate complex infrastructure and master planning prior to the Integrated Planning Act. The current amending act provides a substitute development framework for the Robina central planning area. It also becomes a principal document for planning and development, including the provisions of infrastructure and other project commitments. I believe this legislation will continue facilitating the ongoing development and I certainly support it. I commend the minister on her forethought and vision for Robina. I commend the bill to the House. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (3.32 p.m.): In rising to support the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003, I will focus my comments on how the provisions of the bill support the implementations of the South-East Queensland Regional Framework for Growth Management. The Gold Coast is the fastest growing region in the fastest growing state in all of Australia. For example, over the last 12 to 18 months in my electorate of Albert the Coomera district has experienced an unprecedented 23 per cent residential growth. With this growth it is absolutely essential that it is planned and managed, whether the growth is residential, industrial or commercial. Without planning and management, the growth will be ad hoc and chaotic. The South-East Queensland Regional Framework for Growth Management 2000 is the primary regional planning strategy for south-east Queensland. It was developed through a coordinated and cooperative approach between all levels of government. Robina is identified in this framework as one of the two key regional centres on the Gold Coast, the other being Southport. Accordingly, it is third in the centre's hierarchy behind only the Brisbane central business district and key metropolitan centres such as Beenleigh and Coomera. Those who have visited Robina would be aware that this area is a master planned community on the Gold Coast. It comprises a major regional business and employment centre providing retailing, business, entertainment, recreation, residential and community facilities. I certainly agree that it is a fine centre indeed. 1370 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

The framework provides that key regional centres such as Robina should be given priority in relation to the planning, promotional and resource allocation activities of governments. The framework also clearly provides for the provision and support of public transport services and interchanges in key regional centres to improve access to employment and to minimise air pollution from vehicle travel and congestion. The inclusion of amendments in the Robina Central Planning Agreement which facilitate the establishment of commercial development closer to the Robina railway station will support the function of this important state infrastructure. This is something that the Beenleigh area is also facing as one of the key metropolitan centres on the Gold Coast, given that we are looking at a CBD revision at the present time. The provision of higher density residential development closer to the railway station and within Robina Central is also consistent with the SEQ Regional Framework for Growth Management 2000 by providing opportunities for people to live within walking distance of employment and a range of commercial and community facilities. Indeed, it is extremely important when families move to an area where recreation and sporting facilities are available nearby. The amendments will also facilitate the transfer of part of the northern flood plain to the Gold Coast City Council for playing fields and public open space which will significantly enhance opportunities for community recreation in the Robina key regional centre, something which will be welcomed by the families in the area. I support the bill because it achieves outcomes which are consistent with the SEQ regional framework. It demonstrates ongoing state commitment to infrastructure, employment and community facilities in the key regional centres on the Gold Coast. I commend the minister and thank her and her department for her continued support of the Gold Coast and its growth areas. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (3.37 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to support the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill. My electorate of Burleigh includes part of Robina and I am well aware of how the development of Robina affects this community and the southern Gold Coast. Robina offers a great deal of opportunity for local people. It is the technological hub of the Gold Coast—perhaps even Queensland—and provides significant job prospects and opportunities for community life to many Gold Coast residents. Robina is significant in that it is a master planned community specially designed to be practical and aesthetically pleasing. The concept of a community planned on such a scale was a rarity to the extent that when it was first conceived this very act had to be developed in order to provide a proper legislative framework. The Integrated Planning Act which now covers such projects was not in existence and an act of parliament had to be passed to allow for the development. This act provides a legal framework for the operation of the Robina Central Planning Agreement. The basis for this act is an agreement first reached between the key stakeholders in 1992. The act provides a development assessment framework for the Robina central planning area and is the principal document for planning and development, including the provision of infrastructure and other project commitments. The development of Robina Central has followed a master planning approach to the development of local and state infrastructure. This approach has enabled the developers, Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties Pty Ltd, and the Gold Coast City Council to plan for basic infrastructure such as roads, drainage and water supply to coincide with orderly development of the area in logical sequence. It has also enabled the state government to plan for the provision of its infrastructure such as schools and state controlled roads in a much more efficient way than is normally possible where a number of different developers are involved. Although the act remains true to its original spirit, it is occasionally necessary to update it in order to keep up with current developments. Substantial consultation has gone into these amendments and agreement has been reached with Robina Land Corporation, Robina Properties, the Queensland Investment Corporation and the Gold Coast City Council. Recently there was consideration given to integrating the RCPA into the IPA legislative framework. This was deemed to be impractical. The overriding concern was that it was difficult to integrate without significantly affecting existing use rights and infrastructure. Due to the complexity and nature of the Robina Central planning agreement, it is preferable to preserve the effect of the Local Government (RCPA) Act until the majority of the proposed infrastructure is provided and land is developed at Robina. I thank both Darrell Irwin and Tony Tippett from Robina Land Corporation for ensuring that I am kept up to date with changes affecting Robina. I am confident that these amendments will contribute substantially to the further development of Robina and I commend the bill to the House. 29 Apr 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 1371

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (3.40 p.m.): It should come as no surprise that the electorate of Robina covers most of the large-scale development now known as Robina. Some 10 years ago I was present in the House when the initial act setting up the Robina legislation passed through this chamber. Robina has been one of the great success stories of the Gold Coast—indeed, probably one of the great success stories of large-scale suburban development in Queensland. When this project was first mooted and established in Queensland, nothing like it had ever been attempted before on the Gold Coast. That is saying something given the huge growth that the Gold Coast had seen to that point in time, when Arthur Earle and Robin Loh formed a consortium to buy the large-scale broadacre farms and pine forests and so on behind the Gold Coast on the vision of Robyn Loh, who at that stage was a Singaporean. It was of a scale unimaginable in Queensland. To put in place a master plan developed over the best part of 20 years now that has seen farms, dairy farms, scrub blocks and other pieces of land developed into a large-scale high-quality suburban business recreational area such as we have on the Gold Coast I think is a credit to the foresight of both those gentlemen, one of whom, sadly, has passed on. It is no coincidence that because of the magnitude and scale of the project it became a key regional centre in the strategic planning put forward by the state government some years ago, and with just cause because of the foresight of the Robina group in terms of planning for large- scale infrastructure that was needed to support the establishment of many thousands or tens of thousands of people who moved into the suburban areas as a result of the land and house marketing schemes. It was no coincidence that on that Robina site we have the Robina Railway Station, the Robina Hospital, the Robina High School and the Robina Fire Station—all within that government precinct on the western side of Robina; it was master planned to be that way. When the developers themselves put in Robina Town Centre, it was an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars at that stage, which from my point of view was about five years before its time. But with the passage of time we can see the development occurring around the town centre. Given the fact that the original act was some 10 years ago, it is quite appropriate that we should be here looking at whether or not the act has achieved its purposes, whether or not the land use that was envisaged under the act at that time has in fact made for a great community. It is to Robina Land Corporation's credit that it has reviewed the act, looked at its master plan and indicated to the government and to council that there could be some better uses of the land around the town centre, around the key pieces of infrastructure that have been provided there over the past 10 years. That is what the bill is about today. It is about updating the land use designations so that Robina Land Corporation can complete the master plan in a more contemporary fashion; that whatever land uses were allocated under the original document have not, for a whole variety of reasons, been possible to achieve. So Robina Land Corporation has now looked at what is possible for those particular parcels of land and said, 'Because we were tied under the original act we need to change the act.' The government has acquiesced to that and, of course, I am supporting what they are putting forward today. I think when people go to the Gold Coast, whether it be via the inland highway, they pass the Robina Town Centre. If we are fortunate enough to take the detour into that part of the Gold Coast, we will find a fully master planned community, as I said, of a scale and of such quality that I think it has been a leader in terms of development in Queensland. I think it is to Robina's credit that it always master planned it as an environmentally sensitive area; that it was aware of the need to make sure that trees were preserved, additional trees planted; the lake system was preserved; where possible, rivers, creeks and so on were preserved—all to making a high-quality environment in which people can live, work and play. And they have certainly achieved their outcomes. As I said, I am going to support the piece of legislation. It is one that simply brings legislation up to date, allows for a more realistic land use. I would think over the next 10 years, as Robina Land Corporation moves to the final phase of its development plan, or the plan that we are passing here today, we will see a continuation of the high-quality development that Robina has been renowned for. That will be to the benefit of the entire community. Those people who live at Robina think it is the best suburb on the Gold Coast because of the close proximity to the universities, the schools, public transport, shopping facilities, parks and gardens. I know the member for Gaven, who is a strong advocate, even though he represents an electorate three or four electorates away, still lives in the Robina electorate—the best part of the Gold Coast. Mrs Reilly: I shop there. 1372 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Mr QUINN: Half the Gold Coast shops at Robina. With those few words, I conclude my remarks, support the legislation and congratulate the minister for bringing forward the legislation at the request of Robina Land Corporation and the Gold Coast City Council. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.46 p.m.): I rise briefly to support the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003. This bill will include changes to the planning intentions for the Robina Central planning areas and these changes have been proposed by the Gold Coast City Council, the Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties. It will also replace the Robina Central planning agreements amendment process and the Local Government Act 1992 with the Integrated Planning Act 1997. It is my intention today just to speak briefly about the Integrated Planning Act and some planning issues generally. I have spoken in the House before about the concerns of a number of residents of mine, particularly in suburbs like Chelmer, Graceville, Sherwood and parts of Indooroopilly, where people have moved into a street where there have been a lot of houses built across two blocks. As the area has become more desirable for people to live in and as property values increase, it has become financially worth while for people to divide their properties which are based on two blocks into two separate properties with two separate houses built upon them. It is perfectly legal. It is their right to do that, because they own two titles. But a concern that many people have is the effect that this is having on the streetscape. These are not issues that I want to debate today, but I want to say this. I attended a public meeting recently in Chelmer where these issues were raised and where views were put to me and others quite forcefully. The meeting was also attended by the Liberal Party's lord mayoral candidate, Campbell Newman, who on numerous occasions allowed himself to be referred to as Brisbane's next Lord Mayor. He is of course mistaken in that regard, I believe. But I wanted to raise this particular issue in the House. It is simply that Campbell made a number of statements at the meeting. In not one of them—and not once—did he actually commit to doing anything productive for people who have a concern about damage to their streetscape by blocks being divided into two. At no point did he give people any indication that he would do anything positive. It is my great concern that what would happen is that people would feel that, in the absence of any policy substance, Campbell's bombast and hot air amounts to something positive for their local community. I want to make it very clear to the House today—and to anyone else, particularly the residents in my electorate, who have a concern about planning issues and issues related to the Integrated Planning Act—that they ought to read very carefully the fine print when political candidates make statements about all of the many, many, many things that they are going to do. It was pointed out to me that, at that particular meeting when I issued a challenge to Campbell to actually make some commitments as to what he would do, he did not answer a single challenge that was given to him. It is with those words that I would like to commend this bill to the House. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (3.50 p.m.): I rise to support the bill. I was interested to hear the comments of the member for Indooroopilly about town planning. There are two key features of this Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003, and they are, firstly, a series of changes in the planning intentions for the Robina central planning area in the Robina central planning agreement, or RCPA, which I am going to refer to a bit in my speech and that have been proposed by the Gold Coast City Council, the Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties; and, secondly, the replacement of the RCPA amendment processes in the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act 1992, or the LGRCPA Act, with the Integrated Planning Act 1997, or IPA, schedule 1 process for making or amending planning schemes. The LGRCPA Act provides the legal framework for the operation of the RCPA. The RCPA is an agreement made in 1992 between the Gold Coast City Council and the Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties to enable the development of the Robina central planning area at a time when the legislative framework did not accommodate complex infrastructure and master planning, that is, prior to the introduction of the IPA. The RCPA is the key planning and development assessment instrument for the Robina central planning area and it also includes an infrastructure agreement. The RCPA is a schedule to the LGRCPA Act and forms part of that act. Therefore, it can be changed only by legislative amendment. The RCPA uses terminology from the repealed Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990—or P and E Act—and relies on at least one planning process under the P and E Act. As the terminology and planning processes in the RCPA are inconsistent with the integrated development assessment system—or IDAS—process under the IPA, the IPA provided 29 Apr 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 1373 for the P and E Act to continue to apply to the RCPA until 30 March 2003. This sunset provision was omitted from 21 February 2003 by section 216 of the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002. Due to the complexity and nature of the RCPA, it is preferable to preserve the effect of the LGRCPA Act until the majority of the proposed infrastructure is provided and land is developed at Robina. The RCPA is difficult to integrate into the draft Gold Coast City Council IPA planning scheme without significantly affecting existing use rights and infrastructure arrangements. The current arrangements provide development certainty and have successfully facilitated major economic development of the Robina central planning area, which is identified—and I have heard members call it such—as a key Gold Coast regional centre under the south-east Queensland regional framework for growth management. Ms Keech: And Beenleigh and Coomera are key metropolitan centres for the Gold Coast. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: I thank the member for Albert. During her speech I heard the member make comment about the considerable growth in the area. We in Caboolture—and I note the presence of the member for Glass House in the chamber—are experiencing similar considerable growth. Obviously, planning is of utmost importance. The Gold Coast City Council provided written notice of proposed RCPA policy amendments, requested by the Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties, to the Department of Local Government and Planning on 2 March 2002. The community was consulted about the policy amendments by public advertisement from 21 April 2001 to 22 June 2001 in accordance with the process for amendment of the RCPA, pursuant to section 2.18(7) of the P and E Act. The Gold Coast City Council gave consideration to five public submissions received during the notification period. The Department of Local Government and Planning has assessed the amendments and consulted with various state agencies to verify the validity of the processes undertaken and any impact on state interests. The proposed policy amendments to the RCPA are intended to achieve several planning outcomes. These include the following: to ensure a total of 98 hectares of land in Robina central is preserved for commercial development; to zone the land adjacent to the railway station as special business to make it consistent with the adjoining land in the RCPA; and to ensure that the flood plain will no longer be developed for a golf course, but will be used in part for playing fields and public open space to be transferred to the council and in part for an eco- tourist resort—and there is also excavation and filling on the flood plain associated with this. This is all about building a community. Further outcomes are to establish commercial and higher density residential development closer to the railway station in a mixed use form; to amend the planning and development intents for each precinct to more accurately reflect current planning and market demands for land in Robina; and, finally, to make various amendments to different clauses to remove anomalies and zone land not zoned due to road closure. The P and E Act process for amending the RCPA will be replaced with a schedule 1 process for making or amending planning schemes in the IPA. The bill also removes a Henry VIII clause, which purported to allow amendment of the RCPA contained in primary legislation by regulation, that is, subordinate legislation. Therefore, in future the amendment of the RCPA will involve two processes: firstly, the standard amendment process provided by the IPA; and, secondly, subsequent legislative amendment. It was intended to integrate the application process under the RCPA into the integrated development assessment system—or IDAS—to streamline existing development assessment processes in the Robina central planning area. However, to do that would be complex and potentially more confusing. Accordingly, in the circumstances it is considered that the continuation of the current arrangements, including the use of the consent P and E Act process, will result in a more efficient use of resources. This means keeping the present transitional arrangements in place to allow the current application processes under the LGRCPA Act to continue. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister and her diligent staff for keeping the local government committee up to date with all bills that go before the House. I commend— Ms Keech: She does a good job. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: She does an excellent job. I commend this bill to the House. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (3.57 p.m.): I will be supporting the legislation before the House this afternoon, the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003. I certainly will not make any attempt to go over the many positive issues in this bill that members who have already spoken have raised. 1374 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

However, I would like to take the opportunity, if I can, to speak for a few minutes about the performance of local government and its relationship with the community and also, I believe, with state members and federal members. As state members, we get many inquiries from constituents who are concerned about the way in which their local council is treating them with respect to issues that cause them a great deal of grief. I want to say that the comments that I will make are not directed at any one council, councillor or staff member, but there is a need for local authorities to take seriously the need to develop a more friendly environment so that ratepayers can raise concerns, know that those concerns will be heard and that they will get the appropriate responses. I have four full authorities located in my electorate and five part-shires. I have a great deal of respect for all of them and I work very, very closely with them. I have to say that, personally, I believe that I have an excellent working relationship with them. I see councils doing good things for their area; I see councillors who are committed to giving solid representation to the ratepayers whom they serve; I see councillors who communicate with staff who are focused and who go out of their way to help a ratepayer—staff who are compassionate and understanding of the need to communicate with the people who live in the shire. I also see and hear about the bad feeling generated in the community by councillors and council staff who get carried away with the duties required of them and the positions they hold. It is a shame to see the good work done by councillors themselves, in the decision making process they go through, and the council staff, in carrying out the expectations of the councillors—those who are doing the right thing and putting an effort into it—discredited by the attitude and actions of one of two within that structure. People come to me and raise issues on a regular basis about any one of the local authorities in my area. It just amazes me that people within the organisation will say certain things to local residents. They say, 'Your expectations of council are too high,' or, 'You choose to live on a dirt road.' If we want to get somebody angry we only have to tell them that it is their choice to live where they do or that it is their choice to suffer the consequences of what council is doing. They say, 'You have to pay the rates and the taxes. We give you what we can,' and, 'Not enough people live on that road so we are not responsible for it.' It may be just a throwaway line, but it hurts people. People do not appreciate it and they do not like it coming from the people who are supposed to represent them. They say, 'There is no point contacting councillors as they have no authority. All decisions are made by the mayor and salaried staff of the council.' It is pretty depressing if staff members are saying that to their ratepayers, because councillors are elected to do a job. They have a responsibility and they should respond to the needs of the community. Local councillors have an obligation to treat the people of their locality with respect and courtesy, to promote accountability, to be seen to be accountable by being committed to integrity at all levels, to be accessible to their ratepayers and to make decisions based on fact and credible data. Councillors need to be alert to the impact of staff personalities on the public. As I said before, over the years I have seen councils doing good work and very positive things, but all the positive aspects of the hard work they have done is lost because of arrogance and the unprofessional approach of highly paid staff. The government of the day expects local authorities to be efficient and accountable and aware of their obligation to respond to community needs and expectations. I think every member in this place would agree with that. We expect that they have high standards of public administration, with a focus on ongoing improvement and the achievement of best practice. There is also a need for local authorities to recognise and foster a cooperative working relationship with respective members of state and federal parliaments. I have been around the state and I have heard some stories of local governments, because of the politics involved, not showing any respect at all for their local members. I see local members deliberately left out and not invited to functions, simply because of the politics of a local authority. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: I can give you some good examples of that. Mr PEARCE: I have plenty of examples of my own. I have been able to get around that in my area. I must say that they do take me into consideration on every occasion. When going around the state I have heard some pretty sad stories of the way local authorities treat their local elected members, whether they are state or federal. It should not be tolerated simply because of politics. At the same time, it should not stop us as elected representatives, whether we be local councillors or local members of state or federal parliament, from speaking up on issues if one of 29 Apr 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 1375 the parties is not doing the right thing by the people who elected us to do a job. The best way to get the respect of the community is to be seen to be working together at the different levels with a focus on achieving the best outcomes for the people we represent. The sooner some of these people in local government get that into their brains, the better off we will be. I have some real concerns about the way some of the CEOs are handling the power they have. I am not suggesting that we should put them in a position where they can discredit themselves or the council, but I have learnt over the years that just about every issue can be solved if you have the ability and the expertise to sit down with people and discuss it with them and if the stakeholders are willing to take some steps forward and some steps back to achieve the best outcome for the community. Let us get back to looking after the community—representing those people who have given us the job we should be doing. I wanted to raise an issue relating to a recent planning decision of the Fitzroy Shire Council but, given that the process is still being gone through, it probably would be inappropriate for me to comment on the way it has been handled. I think a bad decision has been passed on and the people in the community who are aggrieved by the decision will be forced to fork out thousands of dollars to defend themselves against the actions of the council. We probably could have avoided this situation if we went back to the point I have been trying to make. That is, if there had been proper consultation, a right attitude and a commitment to do the best thing for the community, we would not be in this position. Instead, people within the council decided they wanted to stick by the confines of the act they have to work under and found themselves with such a short period of time left that they could not conduct proper consultation with the community. That is wrong. It is irresponsible. It leaves that community in a situation where people will have to fork out thousands of dollars to defend their position. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I feel very strongly about the good work local councils are doing. At the same time, I think the good work is being brought undone simply by the poor attitude of some people within the organisation, whether they are councillors or staff members, and the arrogance that some of these people display because of the position they hold. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (4.07 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003. I am sure that all members would be aware that Robina, like Kawana on the Sunshine Coast, is a master planned community comprising business and employment centres with retailing, entertainment, recreation, residential and community facilities. I commend and thank the minister and her department for working towards achieving a more accountable and open system of local government that we all realise comes under state government legislation. It would be remiss of me if I did not put on the public record my community's sincere gratitude for the minister's valuable assistance in quickly addressing an oversight recently made by the Caloundra City Council that had the potential to negatively impact on future job creation opportunities within our community. Earlier this year Caloundra City Council advised of a failure on council's behalf to properly advertise requirements in respect of the Kawana Waters Business Village. I acknowledge that council has also sought to rectify the resultant position. The department's help in rectifying this council mistake, in consultation with the council, was needed. I thank the minister. I am very pleased with the positive outcome that is to be delivered not only for the residents of Caloundra and Kawana but also for the Sunshine Coast. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech, which outlines the positives that come with a master planned community such as Robina and Kawana, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Kawana is the hub of vibrant community, a community that I am extremely proud to represent. Prior to being elected to Queensland State Parliament I was heavily involved in the Kawana Waters Development Control Plan as a Caloundra City Councillor. The Kawana Waters DCP should ensure that when the developer finishes in the area we have a master planned community that we know we should be pleased with due to good forward planning. Local job growth Kawana is continuing to develop as a community for all lifestyles with a central commercial hub designed to support both small and large business ventures, creating jobs. This thriving commercial community continues to grow further encouraging new and long term job creation and a positive environment in which to do business. It is expected that Kawana will offer enormous opportunities for employment in the associated industries of Health, Hospitality, Tourism, Governance and Administration. 1376 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Existing and planned infrastructure along with a growing community ensures continued job creation and business development in this region. A Business Commercial Centre is proposed for Kawana utilising Information Technology (IT) and "Smart Business", with integrated Education, Training and Employment opportunities. Kawana waters master planned community. The Kawana Waters Development Control Plan integrates the new and existing communities in Kawana and covers an area of over 2300 hectares between the Mooloolah River and the Pacific Ocean. Approximately 40% of the project will be open space for recreation and conservation. Along with 160 hectares of water ways including a 2000 metre rowing and canoe course, ocean access channel and a range of smaller lakes, waterways and creeks that will compliment the Kawana Waters lifestyle. A town centre will be built in addition to the existing Kawana Waters shopping centre featuring shops, offices, restaurants, community facilities, residential housing and plazas. The 2000 metre rowing and canoe course that is well under construction will neighbour the existing sports complex which is planned for upgrades and expansion. East Bank Recently I met with Mayor Don Aldous, Deputy Mayor Cr Don Smith, relevant staff from Council and developers of the Lensworth Kawana Waters area to discuss how future infrastructure in and around the new Kawana Rowing/Canoeing course, will be best delivered. This will be a major regional facility with a very people friendly and beautiful area to be developed it will be known as East Bank. I have been assured that the Caloundra Chorale will be a major part of the East Bank community facilities. They need a new home and I know that East Bank is the ideal location for them. Caloundra Chorale is a non-profit organisation that puts back into entertainment. It is a great community service and the Chorale members are a vibrant part of our society. I was very proud to initiate talks between the developers many years ago, various State government organisations including Education Queensland, Main Roads and Transport, State Development and others to ensure things like parking and other great community facilities around East Bank will be delivered with the best outcome, for all residents to share. Car parking in and around East Bank must be well thought through and planned. There will be some car parking be on the Education Department's land and Kawana Waters State High School and the Bokarina Primary School where students and teachers and staff will obviously be using the car park during school hours and the community outside those hours. These carparks are all but completed. East Bank and the Kawana Rowing/Canoeing Course will be a great community and sporting asset for all. The Bokarina School Hall will hopefully also be a shared community facility between the school and the rest of our local community. I trust that Caloundra City Council keeps to its funding commitments for this project that seems to have been delayed over the past two years. The present Kawana Hall in Nanyima Street, Buddina is very well used and again, during my days in Council, I was very proud to be able to achieve some major improvements to that facility. It is always very well utilised by residents in and around our area. With our community continuing to grow Governments at all levels must ensure proper facilities for our residents. Our environment The Caloundra Council is also working well with the State Government in achieving higher standards of effluent control coming from the Kawana Waters Sewage Treatment Plant. While the fight was fought (and lost) well over a decade ago where the vast majority of us did not want to see a treatment plant that pumps millions of litres of treated effluent into the ocean, I still hope that the State Government working with the Council, will utilise the effluent pipeline that was build between Kawana and Landsborough by Caloundra Councils commercial water and sewerage provider, Calaqua. At present, Landsborough Sewage treatment Plant pumps treated effluent to Kawana and out through Kawana Ocean outfall. I believe that the piping of effluent through this pipeline may one day be reversed and hopefully the treated effluent from both Kawana and Landsborough will be able to be utilised hopefully, if and when the Caloundra South (or Caloundra Downs 2) project goes ahead. Various Government agencies are working with the land holders on the Future use of what are now presently exotic pine forests to the south of Caloundra. If Caloundra South (or Caloundra Downs 2) is in the future developed for job creation and possibly community and residential activities I would hope that all levels of Government work to attract clean green industries, creating real jobs in areas which may utilise this quality treated effluent. In my opinion millions of litres of treated effluent should be used in a positive way, not simply pumped into the Ocean off Kawana. Treated sewage—not for drinking Many residents will remember the proposed experiment to put this treated effluent (wastewater) into the Ewen Maddock Dam was halted by a notified motion from Councillor (now Deputy Mayor) Don Smith and myself. It ensured subsequent decisions to ensure that no treated effluent would be used directly or indirectly for drinking water (or for potable uses). More than $70 million for major road projects Consistent with the Beattie Government's efforts to assist construction and the major projects Main Roads is continually contributing to regional gains. This is evidenced at the Sunshine Coast through: 29 Apr 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 1377

$19.1 million for a new road link between the Sunshine Motorway and Warana often referred to as the Kawana Arterial Road. $3.7 million for an upgrade of the Sunshine Motorway between Wise's Farm Underpass and the Maroochy River. 31 extra Sunshine Coast teachers above growth projection numbers The Beattie Government's commitment to Education can never be questioned. This is evidenced by 31 additional teachers over and above growth for the North Coast Cluster of schools (Mooloolaba and Nambour Districts). Just some Education funding achievements for the Sunshine Coast region include: $15 million set aside for the new Chancellor Park State High School $1.1 million for four General Learning areas and toilets at Currimundi Special School $1.4 million in Triple R (Repainting, re-Roofing and water Reticulation) Program at 14 schools on the Sunshine Coast. $260,000 in Capital Assistance to upgrade facilities at Sienna Catholic Primary School. More than $650,000 in Capital Assistance to upgrade facilities at Pacific Lutheran College, within the recently developed Kawana Waters area. The Coast's Smart potential has been identified through State Development offering a $500,000 grant to the Innovation Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast for operational funding to assist in the establishment of a technology incubation facility at Sippy Downs, and $580,000 for the Nambour Arts incubator to provide a home for performing arts, visual arts and craft groups on the Sunshine Coast. New multi $million TAFE facilities opened Ensuring that our region is a part of the Smart State the Queensland Premier Peter Beattie recently opened a major new Multi Million Dollar TAFE facility at Mountain Creek. This state of the art, new facility will provide quality vocational education and training delivery in the core areas of information technology, tourism and hospitality and community health education. Other training areas include personal services, language studies, pre-tertiary studies, marine studies and coastal recreation. Support facilities incorporated into the design are a high technology learning resource centre, lecture theatre, conference facilities, information and enrolment centre, counselling and staff facilities. Bolstering our Government's commitment to easing unemployment ensuring the right training and creating real jobs locally. Significant Local Government projects that outline how the Beattie Government is allocating substantial funding locally include: $12.3 million subsidy to the Caloundra-Maroochy Water Supply Board to help provide capital infrastructure for works related to water and sewage services—Landers Shute Project $133,000 to Caloundra City Council to install ALERT Flood Warning Systems for local waterways including the Mooloolah River and Currimundi Creek floodplain. Funding Programs during 2001 and 2002 have 30 organisations on the Sunshine Coast provided a total of $985—170 under the Minor Facilities Program and eight organisations were approved a total of $2,948,290 under the Major Facilities Program. During 2001 and 2002 the Club Development Program provided 183 Sunshine Coast organisations a total of $472,052. The Queensland State department of Natural Resources has also played a role by contributing $1.6 million in funding to help improve the health of rivers and waterways in our area through the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership. The Beattie Government through the Families Department has established a youth justice community conferencing program on the Sunshine Coast to give young offenders the chance to meet with victims of their crimes and other affected parties, to repair damage caused and make amends. It is part of a state-wide rollout of the program over the next two years. More than $133,985 is available to provide infrastructure upgrades for Sunshine Coast outside school hours care facilities as part of a three-year, $4 million commitment by the Beattie Government to upgrade existing Outside School Hours Care services across the State. The Beattie Government's support for those in needs extends to funding of $750,000 over three years for the establishment of the Suncoast Cooloola Outreach Prevention and Education Service (SCOPE) to help men, women and children experiencing domestic and family violence in the Sunshine Coast and Cooloola areas, including Noosa, Maroochy, Caloundra and Cooloola shires. The opening of this regional service fulfils a Beattie Government election commitment to build safer communities. More than $370,000 funding has been made available for a new service, as well as four additional Department of Families staff, to conduct 12-month trials in the Sunshine Coast Over 50 extra Police for the Sunshine Coast The Beattie Government's achievements with police are evidenced on the Sunshine Coast. Police numbers have been increased with the allocation to the Sunshine Coast Police District up by 46 since February 2001. Our Government has introduced new anti-hooning laws, aimed to help improve community safety in our area. The State Government has also established a 14 officer Tactical Crime Squad on the Sunshine Coast. We have also provided a $459,000 state-of-the-art Water Police vessel for the Sunshine Coast Water Police launched in October last year, which compliments the doubling of Water Police numbers based at Kawana. 1378 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

More than $40 million for major Sunshine Coast Health improvements Our Government's increasing support for Health facilities on the Sunshine Coast was further evidenced with the official opening in November 2002 of a new Clinical Services facility and refurbishment of clinical and support areas as part of the $26 million Nambour Hospital redevelopment. Bolstering this, $3.1 million was allocated to Nambour Hospital in the 2002-03 State Government Budget as part of a $5.8 million boost to Sunshine Coast Health Services. This $3.1 million includes $1.6 million for an additional 30 inpatient beds in the financial year and $780,000 to intensive care services at the hospital. The $14.73 million redevelopment of the Caloundra Hospital was officially opened in April 2001. As well, the number of doctors was doubled for Caloundra Hospital's Emergency Department from four to eight. Also was the establishment of a 17-bed rehabilitation unit at Caloundra Hospital, staffed by 3 doctors, 18 nurses, 2 physiotherapists, 2 occupational therapists, a speech pathologist and a dietitian. The Beattie Government allocated an amount of just over $2.5 million on new and upgraded equipment in the Sunshine Coast Health Service District. More than $1.9 million of this was allocated to the Nambour Hospital to purchase hospital equipment and Caloundra Hospital received $650,000 for staff and infrastructure enhancements in the emergency medicine department, specialist outpatient services, and inpatient services. The Beattie Government's commitment to Emergency Services provision on the Sunshine Coast includes: ¥ $879,000 for the QAS Communications centre at North Buderim ¥ $583,000 for a replacement ambulance station at Buderim ¥ $595,000 for a replacement ambulance station at Nambour ¥ $558,000 for a replacement ambulance station at Tewantin ¥ $320,000 for a fire truck for Kawana, ¥ $540,000 for a fire truck for Maroochydore. ¥ $540,000 for a fire truck for Noosa ¥ $305,000 for land and the construction of a new Mooloolah Fire Station. Sustaining the Beattie Government's Smart State drive Innovation has been encouraging the take-up of ICT in our communities. Sunshine Coast assistance examples are: the University of the Sunshine Coast, $10,000; $14, 984; and, Cooloola Sunshine Coast TAFE ,$10,000. The Beattie Government's Smart State support for Innovation in the State has a clear regional component as evidenced by the Government using its buying muscle to facilitate the construction of the Reef Network—a $117.5m competitive broadband fibre running between Brisbane and Cairns. This has not only has it cut wholesale broadband costs by two thirds, but it didn't cost taxpayers a cent, the Beattie Government is working with various Sunshine Coast Councils to lobby the Federal Government to assist in ensuring all Coastal residents have improved access sooner rather than later. Kawana rates I must at this point commend the working relationship that I've continued to enjoy with Mayor Don Aldous of Caloundra City Council and Deputy Mayor Don Smith and the majority of Caloundra City Councillors. While we differ on some issues, and that is the normal democratic process, I do believe that the financial position of Caloundra City Council should be commended but that they should be very wary of any major rate rises that they will burden on their rate payers across Caloundra City. Kawana should never be the milking cow for Caloundra City Council. With the recent boom in property prices, Caloundra City Councillors must work to ensure that Council budgets do not force people out of their homes by an inability to meet Local Government Rates and Charges. Local Government rates and charges do not have to increase in direction proportion to people's property valuations. Councils have the ability to leave rates at an affordable level and this should be strongly encouraged. The market (or Real Estate) value of many Kawana properties, has continued to significantly rise in the last year or two. Along with this real estate boom has come an increase on the unimproved capital value, or UCV of many properties. Local Councils need to ensure that all residents share the burden imposed on them by Local Government services. Some residents seriously fear that they may be forced from their family properties, unless the Council works in a very proactive and positive way to maintain rates at an affordable level. Many residents fear they will be forced out of their homes because an increase in rates is not commensurate with an increase in people's incomes. I am very proud to have been part of Caloundra City Council for close to four years and Caloundra prided itself on being a very affordable, well-run council that delivers some very good services. Councils need to be very aware of 'empire building' and bureaucratic duplication. Local Governments should always keep their eye on the basics and deliver the basics well. Once they deliver the basics well, they should, if the majority of constituents want them to provide extra services, provide those services only where necessary, achievable and affordable. Establishing Sunshine Coast Airport as key aviation hub By supporting the establishment of Virgin Airlines in Queensland tourism support for the Sunshine Coast has been enhanced by the Beattie Government—especially in their establishment of direct Sydney flights. 29 Apr 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 1379

The Beattie Government's support for the establishment of Singapore Airlines flight training centre at the Sunshine Coast has added an exciting new dimension with potential for other carriers to take up pilot training in an excellent environment. I commend the bill to the house. Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (4.09 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 2003. As honourable members are aware, the bill seeks to make a series of changes to the planning intentions in the Robina Central Planning Agreement that have been proposed by the Gold Coast City Council, the Robina Land Corporation and Robina Properties. The Robina Central Planning Agreement is a schedule to the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act 1992 and forms part of the act and, therefore, it can be changed only by legislative amendment. The proposed policy amendments more accurately reflect the current planning and market demands for land in Robina Central, and in particular facilitate the establishment of commercial and high-density residential development closer to the railway station to support the function of this state infrastructure. Importantly, the amendments also ensure sufficient land in Robina Central is preserved for commercial development to maintain and consolidate the status of Robina as a key regional centre. These proposed changes were open to public comment prior to being approved by the Gold Coast City Council. This bill also proposes to replace the repealed Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 process for amending the Robina Central Planning Agreement with the schedule 1 process for making or amending planning schemes in the IPA. In doing so, the bill removes the so-called Henry VIII clause in the Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Act, which purported to allow amendment of the planning agreement contained in primary legislation by regulation. Due to the complexity and nature of the Robina Central Planning Agreement, it is preferable to preserve the effect of that act until the majority of the proposed infrastructure is provided and land is developed at Robina. The current arrangements provide development certainty and have successfully facilitated major economic development of that Robina Central planning area. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has not identified any issues with the bill within the committee's terms of reference and, in summary, the bill will facilitate the efficient, ongoing development of Robina Central consistent with contemporary land use and development practices. Turning to the matters raised by the members during the debate, I thank the member for Warrego and the member for Robina for their support and I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. The shadow minister mentioned in his speech a different development, that of Royal Pines. I share his concerns that there may have been a lack of consultation among the council, the developer and the residents, and I will be looking closely at that before I make any decision on that issue. The member for Fitzroy raised concerns about local government, and I agree that it is a shame that the very good work of councils across Queensland is sometimes undermined by the attitude of a few. I have heard similar concerns from members on both sides of this House. I thank the members for Warrego and Robina and the members for Albert, Pumicestone, Indooroopilly, Gaven, Burleigh, Kawana and Fitzroy for their contributions to this debate. I also thank my staff and my departmental staff for their efficient attention to detail in bringing this bill into the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr HOBBS (4.14 p.m.): I think I am right in saying that the third schedule of the Robina Central second amending agreement is actually under clause 10. What I want to talk to is clause 26, although I presume that is on page 11. I presume that is still under clause 10. What clause 26 says is that— 1380 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Upon application to Council for its consent under this clause, Council may impose as a condition of its consent conditions of subdivision— that is on page 11— which it might otherwise lawfully have imposed on the application for subdivision creating the management lot, but for its being a management lot. What could these conditions of subdivision be? Could the minister give some examples? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: I did not correctly hear what the member said. I would ask him to repeat it if he would. Mr HOBBS: Page 11 of the bill, clause 26, says under 'Insert'— Upon application to Council for its consent under this clause, Council may impose as a condition of its consent conditions of subdivision. What I would like to know is: what could these conditions of subdivision be? Does the minister know of any examples? I would like to get an idea as to what sort of authority the council would still have in this particular instance. Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: It is normal conditions that go with a subdivision roadworks: minimum frontage and lot sizes, infrastructure conditions—all of those conditions that go along with any other type of development. Mr HOBBS: On page 17 of the bill under the second schedule, after the words 'Delete Clause 14' and halfway down that paragraph, it says— Robina must to the extent possible, take into account Council's reasonable and relevant requirements. What happens if Robina does not meet those reasonable and relevant requirements? What recourse does the council have? Is that similar to the minister's previous answer? If this is taken out of the hands of the council to a certain degree yet it says that Robina must, to the extent possible, take into account council's reasonable and relevant requirements, what happens if they do not? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: I would suggest they would have exactly the same grounds they normally would have when they make an agreement with somebody. The agreement is between the council and Robina that they adhere to those conditions, and that is a condition of agreement. Mr HOBBS: I presume that the council could, in fact, refuse the application and have recourse to all the normal authorities the council has. My other question is in relation to page 18 of the bill, and it is an interesting one. Whilst I have agreed with the legislation as a whole, I note that the council has identified that Robina Central must provide approximately 12,500 to 15,000 employment opportunities when the Gold Coast reaches a population of 700,000. This is significantly smaller in equivalent person terms than that provided for in the original of this agreement in 1992. Previously, it was 18,000. In other words, they are meant to have 18,000 employment opportunities and they are back to between 12,500 and 15,000. The area of land needed to provide these employment opportunities included in approved plans of development at June 1999 is 94.67 hectares, which is some 54 hectares less than the land originally set aside for commercial purposes which, had it not been so set aside, would otherwise have been developed for residential purposes. I guess the question I have is: has the minister's department adequately examined this reduction of 3,000 to 5,500 employment opportunities and a reduction of 54 hectares? Is the minister satisfied that these employment reductions are necessary and appropriate, or will the extra land obtained—that is 54 hectares—be an appropriate level of land considering the original plan? Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: Those agreements were made between the Robina Corporation and the council. They have all been the subject of public consultation. It has all been agreed on. There was a change in the usage of that land between residential and retail. There was an exchange there. We have looked at closely at it. We are confident that that was what the corporation was wanting and also what the council was agreeing to. Public consultation was conducted on that, and it has all been resolved. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1381

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

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 3 April (see p. 1294). Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.23 p.m.): In rising to speak to this bill I, along with all members of this House, support the obligation placed on employers to provide a safe workplace for those who put their trust in them as employers. There has developed in the workplace an ethos that workmates have a responsibility to ensure the safety of one another. Many of the more dangerous workplaces have a system where the workers work in pairs. Concerns have been expressed not only to me but also, I am sure, to others that under the Workplace Health and Safety legislation there is an onerous obligation on many employers to provide not only a healthy and safe workplace—none of them argue with that—but also a significant amount of paperwork, some of which is relevant and referred to on a regular basis, and others that employers feel are required to be generated but really are never referred to once it has been created. So there is a bit of a frustration, not in terms of an employer not wanting to provide a safe employment area, but just in the area of the amount of paperwork that is required to be generated. I bring that to the minister's attention and ask him to give it consideration. Although the bill provides for a number of amendments, I wish to comment on only a couple of them. The bill introduces a significant number of increased penalties when it comes to incidents in the workplace. We have debated a number of bills in this chamber that have imposed significant fines and obligations on people who breach the legislation. I believe in this instance the increases in those fines—and they are significant increases—are warranted and justified. There is nothing that this parliament can do that would ever be able to replace a loved one who was killed or seriously injured to the point where they had an ongoing disability or to the point where their ability to provide for the family, whether they are the mother or the father, is impeded for a long period of time and that loved one experiences significant pain and discomfort. However, I believe that the fines that have been increased in this legislation indicate clearly to not only employers and those who hold responsible positions in the workplace but also the judiciary that breaches of this legislation—those of the kind listed in the amendment to section 24—are viewed very seriously not only by this parliament but by the community at large. The penalties are to be increased where a person on whom a workplace health and safety obligation is imposed discharges it either inappropriately or is in any other way at fault. If the breach causes death or grievous bodily harm, the increase is from 800 penalty units, or two years imprisonment, to 2,000 penalty units or three years imprisonment. If the breach involved exposure to a substance that is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, it is increased from 500 penalty units to 1,000, and possible imprisonment from one year to two years. I believe that is an important increase because in a lot of workplaces the worker is not fully apprised of the damage that substances can cause. In some smaller workplaces workers may be asked to deal with substances about which they have little information, even though there may be an obligation for paperwork to be provided. The increased penalty is a very solemn reminder to the employer, or to the person giving directions to the worker, to be sure that the worker understands the risks and dangers that they may encounter in handling the substance. It also reinforces the cost that will be incurred if the material is handled inappropriately and causes death or grievous bodily harm. If the breach causes bodily harm, the penalty increases from 500 to 750 penalty units; otherwise, 400 penalty units to 750 penalty units, with the increase in potential prison sentences from six months to one year; otherwise, an extra category of 500 penalty units, or six months imprisonment. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee rightly pointed out that these are significant increases in penalties, and it raised in its notes to this parliament the question of whether the increased penalties are justified. I believe that they are justified, and very much so. This bill also empowers an inspector, if he or she becomes aware or reasonably suspects that a workplace incident has occurred, to inquire into that suspected incident. I would like to think that the need to act on a suspicion, as opposed to a definitive report, would be a lesser occurrence rather than a common occurrence. I would rather like to think that employers are 1382 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 responsible, and where there has been an incident they face that incident objectively and openly, report the matter to the Workplace Health and Safety Division, and have a very clear and open investigation take place. The reality is that there will be a small percentage of employers and workplaces where an incident may occur and that incident is kept under wraps as much as possible. This allows for an inspector who may become aware of such an incident through a number of possible channels to instigate an investigation on the basis of that concern. I believe that is important for the safety of workers. I would, however, seek a clarification from the minister as to whether there will be a follow-up on the introduction of this additional clause to ensure that it is not abused. It can potentially be used to intimidate an employer or to otherwise disadvantage an employer and has repercussions in terms of insurance. I seek from the minister any clarification he may wish to give if there is a suspicion that an inspector is administering this new section of the act officiously and if the minister will investigate any concerns in that area and take appropriate action. I also welcome the changes in the definition to serious bodily injury. The explanatory notes rightly state that the treatment of injuries has changed over a period of time. Even in rural and regional Queensland where health services are a matter of great concern, there is a very clear leaning towards day surgery. There is also a very clear change in the way injuries, particularly workplace injuries, are treated. A worker may be injured but they are treated and sent home and come back for dressings or for check-ups for a number of days or weeks. They do not remain in hospital but are treated as outpatients even if the injury is serious and quite debilitating. The changes that are proposed are appropriate in our modern medical management. The explanatory notes state— The existing definition of serious bodily injury does not take into account modern treatment methods, especially as there is a movement away from hospital admissions to day surgery and community-based care. Many serious injuries occur that do not require subsequent admission to hospital as an inpatient. In addition, there are currently separate notification requirements for workers' compensation and workplace health and safety legislation. This change in the legislation takes into account more common procedures as far as workplace injury is concerned in today's world. The other issue I want to commend the minister for is changes to section 196, and they relate to the possibility of discrimination or victimisation after a worker has made a complaint about an issue. Again, this is something that I would prefer to think did not occur, but human nature being what it is it is possible, particularly in some of the more risky environments, for workers to be exposed to potential risk and for the inevitability of an accident, often quite a serious accident, to be foremost in their minds. The ability for a worker to report that risk is important. The freedom of that worker to report that risk is important. I remember a number of years ago there was a serious underground mine accident. A number of workers in the mine escaped and a number of other workers did not, and they are permanently entombed in the mine. It was subsequently sealed as their final resting place. Those workers were aware of some of the problems that that workplace was presenting and they did not feel free or at liberty to report their concerns to people senior enough to intervene and to stop the production of the mine until the risks were properly managed. It is important that this clause not be used maliciously or vexatiously but in those genuine circumstances where an employer is not providing a safe workplace or is not prepared to intervene and correct a problem in a timely manner. The employee must be able to make a complaint to an agency or an individual who can make a difference and they should not subsequently have to face the risk of demotion, transfer or dismissal. Whilst there have been provisions for a number of years in the antidiscrimination legislation in terms of unjust dismissal, this adds extra weight to the situation where a worker genuinely has a concern about the workplace and does the right thing not only for himself or herself but the other employees who may be disadvantaged or physically affected. This gives them an additional layer of protection. I welcome it particularly in those areas where there is a high risk. My electorate contains a number of major employees and they are very responsible, but their businesses do involve chemical agents and processes that are potentially dangerous. Workers must be able to feel confident that they are working in a safe environment. If they are not, they must be able to do something about it. Again, I reiterate that to this point in time employers in my electorate have a very good safety record and I look forward to that continuing. I also believe that it is important—in fact, critical—that workers know that they have the right to express those concerns and have reasonable protection in the aftermath of their complaint. I thank the minister for these amendments and look forward to the implementation of the bill. 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1383

Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (4.35 p.m.): I am pleased to rise in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill. One of the most important issues facing Australian work force health and safety regulators is the changing composition of the Australian labour market, which has altered significantly over the past two decades. In pursuit of more flexible working arrangements, many organisations have resorted to management decentralisation, subcontracting, outsourcing, franchising and downsizing. This has led to more casual, part-time and contingent forms of work, self-employment and small businesses. In Queensland there has been a steady emergence of non-traditional working arrangements, including temporary and marginal workers such as casual and part-time employees, subcontractors and labour hire companies. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in the early 1990s self-employed workers made up more than 17 per cent of the work force. The second Australian workplace industrial relations survey reported that the number of agency workers, contractors, outworkers and volunteers had increased by almost 40 per cent in the previous five years. The survey found that a third of private firms surveyed engaged contractors to perform services and more than 50 per cent of public sector organisations outsourced some of their operations. Permanent full-time employment has been in decline with a corresponding increase in casual or temporary employment, particularly among young workers. Evidence exists supporting the theory that subcontracting and self-employment are linked to a high incidence of serious injury and death in the workplace. Considering that I spent most of my time being self-employed, whether in the building industry or transport, I can vouch for that—that is, people working for themselves seem to do it harder and faster. United States data for 1993 reveals that the self-employed were more than twice as likely to be killed at work than wage and salary earners. A comparison of United Kingdom fatality rates over five years from 1994 shows that the self-employed consistently recorded higher fatality rates than employees. This is increasing evidence that labour market changes and new forms of work organisations are affecting the health and safety of workers. The competitive pressures that induce businesses to turn to outsourcing also encourage subcontractors to cut costs by underbidding on contracts, using cheaper or inadequately maintained equipment, reducing staffing levels, and speeding up production or longer working hours. Organisations relying on subcontracting—not always but most of the time—create fractured, complex and disorganised work processes, weaker chains of responsibility and risk passing and lack of specific job knowledge, including knowledge about health and safety among workers moving from job to job. Changes in the labour market and particularly the growth of contingent workers have dramatically affected the nature of the key relationships at work and have placed considerable pressure on the definitions and responsibilities of obligation holders under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. The anticipated growth in contingent workers, that is, those workers employed in unstable work, and the complexity of the legal relationships has required an examination of the current provisions to ensure that the legislative framework reflects an obligation chain that delivers optimum health and safety outcomes. The traditional focus on the employer as the primary person with legal obligations for health and safety has become increasingly problematic due to these new labour market and contracting arrangements. The current provisions tend to rely too heavily upon the traditional employer-employee relationship and do not adequately reflect changes to work arrangements and the complexities of the modern work force. In addition, the traditional concept of a workplace with an employer who directly employs workers for wages is being increasingly replaced by new and contingent work arrangements, such as dependent contracting and labour hire and greater involvement by people in unpaid work-type activities. To address these issues a new section 29A is proposed for introduction into the Workplace Health and Safety Act. The purpose of this provision is to clarify that anyone who conducts a business or undertaking has an obligation to ensure the workplace health and safety of each person who does work for that business or undertaking. This provision will apply whether or not the person conducts the business or undertaking as an employer or as a self-employed person, whether or not the business or undertaking is conducted for gain or reward and whether or not a person who performs a work activity for the purposes of the business or undertaking works on a volunteer basis. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the traditional concept of a workplace with an employer who directly employs workers for wages is being increasingly replaced by new and contingent work arrangements. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that people who conduct a business or undertaking have an obligation to ensure the workplace health and safety 1384 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 of each person who performs a work activity for the purposes of the business or undertaking. In this way the host employer of a labour hire worker, for example, has the same obligation to that worker as the employer's own workers if he or she were to have any. The allocation of responsibility to the party that generates the risk associated with the business or undertaking contributes significantly to removing a large part of the ambiguity and overlap existing under current provisions. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (4.42 p.m.): I rise in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill and the improved safety this bill will bring for Queensland workers. This government makes no apologies for renewing a greater focus on compliance with the law. As is well known, the Beattie government released the first workplace health and safety enforcement framework in 1999. The purpose of this policy framework was to highlight a shift towards more robust enforcement strategies aimed at increasing compliance with the legislation. One of the critical factors in designing a system that delivers maximum compliance is the balance between education, persuasion and penalties. The persuasion focus concentrates on information products, guidance material, advice, seminars, safety blitzes and proactive inspections. This is supported by a commitment to assist employers and others with legal obligations under the act in meeting their legislative duty. The penalty focus uses various sanctions, ranging from improved notices, prohibition notices, infringement notices—of course, that is on-the-spot fines—and prosecution. This focus identifies and rectifies breaches to require compliance with the act and attempts to prevent incidents from occurring. While this emphasis has been more about persuasion, the overall effectiveness of this approach has come under increasing scrutiny in terms of delivering optimum health and safety outcomes. The update and release of the new workplace health and safety enforcement framework 2001 and the inclusion of a new investigation and prosecution policy further reinforces the shift towards a more robust enforcement strategy. While a key focus for workplace health and safety must be prevention, enforcement activity has a direct link with the level of compliance with workplace health and safety standards and, of course, the incidence of injury and illness at work. Designing an appropriate regime that secures optimum compliance requires consideration of penalties, incentives and the tools available to inspectors to adequately perform their role. In order to meet contemporary regulatory needs, the bill brings enforcement mechanisms in line with other legislation designed to ensure health and safety. Appropriate penalties act as a deterrent to obligation holders in deciding whether to comply with legal obligations. I guess when we go down the highway and we know it is going to cost us more if we speed and we run the risk of losing our licence, we understand there is a deterrent effect of penalties. The level and scope of the penalty regime reflects the seriousness of the offence and community expectations. The government recently considered the appropriate levels of fines for offences under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 and the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001. It is important that penalties under the Workplace Health and Safety Act mirror other legislation designed to ensure health and safety. The amendments before the House today will increase the penalty for a breach resulting in death from $300,000 to $375,000, ancillary increases for offences resulting in bodily harm or exposure to substances that may result in death or bodily harm. In addition, the amendment will introduce a new penalty for multiple deaths, up to a maximum of $750,000 for a corporation consistent with the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001. The changes are significant because it will signal to the community and the courts the seriousness of offences under the act and the consistency of penalties for offences under the general workplace health and safety legislation. The existing penalty regime provides for a narrow set of enforcement options, ultimately relying on lengthy, expensive and time-consuming prosecutions. Currently, the sanction available for breaches of the act do not extend beyond requiring correction of the problem, which means the improvement and prohibition notices, and the imposition of monetary penalties, such as on-the-spot fines, as well as prosecution. Enforcement undertakings are an alternative to prosecution and have the potential to create sustainable improvements in workplace health and safety. They are legally binding commitments made by people considered to have breached their legal obligation under the act. Enforceable undertakings can be made to stop certain behaviour, to take specific action to redress parties negatively affected by breaches of the legislation, to implement specified actions or programs to prevent future breaches and can be made to implement educational programs to assist other obligation holders improve safety performance. The advantages of enforceable 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1385 undertakings are as follows: they reduce the cost to government of prosecution, they can be publicised in the community and used to improve the safety of other obligation holders, and outcomes of undertakings can be practical and broader in range than monetary penalties. For example, outcomes can include requirements to review the company's workplace health and safety performance, requirements to develop and implement an appropriate WHS management system, to conduct or fund research into a workplace health and safety issue relevant to the industry, and to produce information products for dissemination throughout the industry or sector, to implement specified projects, such as special training programs, to address specific needs for workers, supervisors and management. The changing nature of the labour market not only reflects the contractual basis upon which labour services are provided but also reflects changing workplace arrangements. Outworking, mobile work, agency hire workers, franchising, self-employment, working from home and casual work are not conducted in traditional workplaces. Inspectors therefore need to have appropriate levels of access to places where they reasonably suspect work is being performed. I get very concerned when I hear about outworkers in the clothing industry being paid $2 to $5 per hour to make fashion garments. Ultimately, five per cent and six per cent of the price of those garments is labour. Sometimes those outworkers do not get paid by the subcontractor or they are not covered if they get injured because they are not deemed to be workers because of some shoddy contract arrangement. I think it is disgraceful that people in the garment industry behave in such an atrocious manner—not paying their workers, not having them covered, or paying them paltry amounts. We hear of workers having to work 115 hours a week to make a paltry amount of money so that they can survive. I think that is absolutely frightening. Inspectors also need access to places where specified high-risk equipment is situated, such as lifts. In addition, inspectors need to be able to inquire into the circumstances and probable cause of workplace accidents. These amendments ensure that all of those requirements are adequately provided for—and it is about time. It is hoped that these amendments will improve the deterrent effect of available enforcement measures and better reflect the community's expectations for companies to be more compliant with the law. I have always believed that the law is necessary, because if people are going to be asked to comply, they need to know that they are breaking the law. I think that in many cases people want to be law abiding and do not want to be seen to be breaking the law. So it is important that we have these legislative models so that people can understand their legal responsibilities as employers. In addition, these laws provide alternative mechanisms by which to achieve better workplace health and safety outcomes and, therefore, reduce the unacceptable number of deaths that occur in Queensland workplaces every year. This bill also contains amendments to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Ever since the Kennedy inquiry into workers compensation handed down its findings about premium avoidance and under-declaration in the building and construction industry, governments have attempted to address this problem by various means. Not surprisingly, the 1996 coalition government attempted to solve the compliance problem by reducing coverage. That was cute. Their way was, 'We have a problem here, so let us just remove the problem.' This was done by way of a PAYE tax-paying test to exclude non-PAYE employees from the workers compensation scheme. Unfortunately, the PAYE tax-paying test provided coverage for only one category of worker, which meant that a lot of workers no longer had workers compensation protection. For example, those paying tax under the prescribed payment system in the building industry were no longer covered. I know that in the past the member for Bulimba spoke about this issue with some passion, and so he should. People are entitled to speak passionately in this House about the rights of workers. This limited test meant that employers also were not indemnified against common law claims by their employees, even if they were working under a contract of service. The Queensland Labor government removed the PAYE test from 1 July 2000 so that coverage was extended to any person working under a contract of service, providing greater protection for both employers and workers. The building and construction industry is one of many industries that has moved towards a blurring of the traditional employment relationship. This blurring of the employment relationship has been evidenced by the multitude of disguised employment relationships that began to appear in the building and construction industry—and other industries—over the past 10 years to 15 years. As I have said before, outworkers in the clothing industry are given these shonky contracts and made to be contractors. They do not have any cover at all. It is disgraceful that that is happening. The reasons for disguising a true employment relationship are simple: an employer 1386 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 can escape honouring the range of obligations that go with being an employer, for example, providing leave and superannuation, paying payroll tax, withholding income tax, and, of course, paying workers compensation premiums. However, these arrangements can also have a downside for employers and workers. Employers may genuinely believe that they have engaged an independent contractor, only to find that WorkCover are pursuing them for failing to hold an insurance policy when that person is injured at work. A worker may find himself or herself denied the basic protection of the employment relationship even if that person is working for another person under their direct control and is providing no more than his or her personal labour. This is no new phenomenon. It was considered by the 1998 Labor government as part of a review of industrial relations legislation in Queensland. One of the outcomes of that review was to enable these types of situations to be recognised by the Industrial Relations Commission, thereby allowing the commission to deem a class of persons as employees. If those persons worked for all intents and purposes as employees then, of course, they should be regarded as such and entitled to the protection of industrial laws and entitlements. Of course, in the building and construction industry—and other industries—there are people who truly wish to be in business for themselves and to be recognised as such. We are not denying them that right. There is no doubt that many individuals choose to become independent contractors for the various benefits that contract work entails. Those benefits also have associated risks, for example, the freedom to choose where and when to work and the right to determine how the work is to be done. Many individuals gain a great deal of personal pride in that fact. Then, of course, there are the tax benefits that are available to those who run their own businesses. The amendment that the minister has introduced in this bill does not seek to deny those people their chosen course in life. However, it seeks to define more clearly the line that separates a truly independent contractor from someone who is simply providing their labour in return for a wage. As I indicated, I think that this amendment is good news for both workers and employers. I am pleased to commend both of these amendments to the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the WorkCover Act to the House. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (4.56 p.m.): It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill. I wish to focus my comments specifically on the amendments in the bill that relate to the change of definition of 'worker'. The change in the definition is a sensible way of responding to the increasing levels of subcontracting used as a way of getting around the traditional employment relationship. It is ridiculous to have a situation in which a worker, who is working under the direction of another and providing no more than their own labour, can be regarded as a contractor in business for themselves. The Commonwealth government has already introduced measures to address the impact that disguised employment arrangements were having on public revenue. The alienation of personal services income measures that were introduced following the Ralph review of business taxation have reduced confusion and provided greater certainty regarding the status of employees and independent contractors. The changes to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 seek to emulate this success by mirroring the taxation tests for determining a personal service business. Workers compensation legislation is beneficial legislation and covers more people than just those working in a traditional employment relationship. Schedule 2 of the act specifies certain persons who are workers and those who are not workers. The schedule deems certain classes of persons as workers despite the fact that they may or may not be working under a contract of service. These include sharefarmers, commission-only salespersons and labour-only subcontractors. The amendment to the definition of 'worker' specifies that a person who works for another person under the contract is a worker unless the results test can be met or it can be shown that the person has a personal service business determined under the Income Tax Assessment Act. In the majority of cases, the employment status of subcontractors and employees is clear. People are clearly on one side of the fence or the other. However, there are an increasing number of people performing work whose status falls within the grey area that lies between the two definitions. The fact is that in any single situation a person is either a subcontractor or an employee. It is not possible to be both. The proposed results test will make clear on which side of the fence those people sit. The amendments will take away the grey area and provide more 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1387 certainty to both workers and employers and, in particular, labour-only subcontractors. The changes will affect only those persons who work under a contract for labour only or substantially for labour only. However, for the purposes of the test, it does not matter whether the contract is a contract of service, a contract for services, or any other type of contract. A contract which is substantially for providing the use of an asset may involve some degree of labour which is incidental to the main purpose of the contract. A person might run a business hiring out cement mixers, which involves delivering the cement mixer and loading it off and on the truck. The provision of labour would not be the substantial intent of the contract, and the results test would not apply because the contract does not substantially concern one person working for another person. These amendments have application to clarify situations in a number of industries, including security, cleaning, traffic controlling and even tour guiding. As members of this House know, since I have been elected I have worked to highlight and improve the inequitable working conditions for tour guides on the Gold Coast and throughout the rest of Queensland. This legislation will complement the reforms currently being explored to address the problems of the tour guiding industry. I commend the minister and his staff for bringing to this House these amendments that I strongly believe will go a long way to improving the working conditions and indeed the lives of many Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.00 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill, which amends the Workplace Health and Safety Act. I will also make some comments about the amendments circulated by the minister which seek to amend the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. As my predecessor in the role of shadow minister, the Hon. Vince Lester, pointed out in his contribution to this debate, the opposition will be supporting the bill before the House. I think it is safe to say that the issue of maintaining safety at work and safety in the workplace has the support of every member of this House. Indeed, it should have the support of every employer and employee. It has been the subject of remarkable change over a period of years. People have recognised how important maintaining safe standards is, not just to the welfare of individual employees. That should not be underestimated by any means. It is critically important that employees have the right to work in a safe workplace. I think there has been a recognition right throughout the corporate world of the importance of a safe workplace to the success of a business. It is certainly a characteristic of successful businesses that they are able to attain and maintain high levels of safety at work and high standards of safety in the workplace. That makes for a successful business from the point of view of both the business operator and the employees. It is in everybody's interests that we have these types of bills that continually improve workplace health and safety. I expect that so long as those bills continue to strive to achieve those high levels of workplace health and safety they will have the support of most members of this House. Having said that, I think some parallels can be drawn between the area of workplace health and safety and another area that has often been the subject of debate in this House—that is, public liability insurance. I know that the government has wrestled with that issue and has tried to achieve a balance between the rights of people who are injured and the rights of people who are held to be somehow responsible for those injuries. Some parallels can be drawn with workplace health and safety. I reinforce my earlier comment that it is in everyone's interests to make workplaces as safe as possible. There are particular workplaces in which it is incumbent on everyone in the workplace to act reasonably. Some of the more recent legislation relating to public liability requires people to act reasonably and to take account of risks that cannot entirely be avoided. There are inherent risks in certain activities. If the work of which that activity is a part is going to continue, then that inherent risk has to be managed. People have to realise that everyone has a responsibility to act reasonably, to be aware of inherent risks and to manage them as well as possible to avoid any injury. I am not suggesting that any injury is acceptable—it certainly is not—but there are particular workplaces in which the management of risk relies upon employees exercising what many people would consider to be commonsense and what has often been described in legislation as acting reasonably or taking reasonable precautions. The objectives of the bill are outlined in the explanatory notes. The first objective is improving the balance of legal obligations at the workplace. It is particularly important that there is a balance 1388 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 of legal and moral obligations in the workplace in terms of what is reasonably expected of each party in the workplace. This bill seeks to better define the balance of legal obligations. I guess it comes back to the reasonableness of both employers and employees in dealing with how they exercise those obligations in the workplace. The second objective of the bill is stated to be strengthening the consultative arrangements between employers and employees. I think it is particularly important that communication lines between employers and employees are not just maintained but also strengthened and expanded at every opportunity. Communication in the work force can in many cases prevent situations that can lead to injury arising. The member for Gladstone referred to the mining accident at Moura. In the general area that both the member for Gladstone and I come from that is an issue that is often spoken of as an example of what can happen when communication within the work force is stymied for whatever reason—communication between the people who in this case were literally at the coalface and the people who had administrative roles. When communication breaks down or is restricted in any workplace, there is potential for these types of situations to arise and for injuries to occur. That is a circumstance which everyone would seek to avoid. That whole area of communication between employers and employees and the strengthening of communication channels is something that would receive our support. It is good to see that it is listed here as the second objective of this bill. The third objective of the bill relates to providing greater consistency with other safety legislation and streamlining reporting requirements for employers. That is also something that would undoubtedly receive support. Consistency across various pieces of legislation and various administrative instruments is certainly an important issue for employers and those who have to work within legislation understanding and knowing their obligations and avoiding any confusion in that regard. Equally, the reporting requirements for employers are something that employers often complain about. Anyone who has a reporting requirement understands that it can be tiresome. Paperwork itself, no matter what form it takes, is something I am sure that we have all had reason to grumble about at times. So it is important that those essential reporting mechanisms are streamlined as much as possible. In so doing, it will increase the compliance with those requirements. So it is in everyone's interests that they are streamlined and those compliance rates are as good as can be achieved. The second part of debate on this bill concerns the amendments that will be moved in the committee stage by the minister. It is unusual and it has certainly been cause for some comment by the member for Keppel that quite extensive amendment has been introduced as part of this bill, but this particular amendment applies to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 and deals with something that had nothing to do with the original bill in that it sets out to provide certainty for the coverage and premium payment obligations across industries in terms of WorkCover and workers compensation. In particular, the explanatory notes point out that it is in relation to the building and construction industry. As other speakers have outlined, these amendments are about better defining or redefining or more closely defining the definition of 'workers' and closing off opportunities for people who have sought to not be part of the workers compensation scheme by being employed as independent contractors. I acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by the member for Ashgrove and other speakers earlier in this debate about situations where, unfortunately, people are required for whatever reason to work in dodgy situations where the only explanation for the dodgy situation is that the employer is trying to avoid his or her obligation to ensure that the workers are insured and the workplace is safe. I certainly do not and never would support that type of activity, and I have no doubt that it probably still occurs, given human nature being what it is. I certainly believe it occurs a lot less frequently now than it did in years past. However, there is another group of people in the community who seek to take these responsibilities on themselves and who make a conscious and informed decision that they want to work as a contractor. They have the capacity to make an informed decision that they prefer, for whatever reason, to work as a contractor and in so doing they assume the responsibility for paying their income tax and insuring themselves against injury. They have the capacity to assume for themselves the responsibilities that are traditionally taken on by employers in most employer- employee situations. The caution that I would raise in considering our response to the amendments that the minister has moved in this regard is whether or not it is going to be possible for anybody to do 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1389 that. Should we not turn our minds to whether or not people should be allowed to do that? If they have the capacity to make that decision, if they have the information available to them to make that decision and they choose to make that decision, is this legislation effectively taking away the right that they currently have to make that decision in a particular circumstance? Having said that, I certainly accept the logic that has been put forward in the explanatory notes about consistency between the state legislation in terms of WorkCover responsibilities and the definitions that are used by the federal jurisdiction in terms of income tax. I think there needs to be some consistency, and I know that until now in particular circumstances a person has been able to work as a contractor under one definition but be an employee under another definition. I would acknowledge that that is not a good situation. I am somewhat swayed by the argument contained within the explanatory notes that that test about whether or not a person is an employee or a contractor has to have some sort of consistency across those different jurisdictions. What the minister is putting forward here is a results test which is in addition to the other criteria contained in the state legislation about who should be regarded as a worker. The results test is set out in three elements and a person must meet each of those elements. The elements of the test are that, firstly, a person is paid to achieve a specified result or outcome—and that is probably a reasonable basis for deciding whether anyone is a contractor; that there is a contract for a specified result or outcome—and, secondly, a person has to supply the plant and equipment or tools of trade needed to perform the work. I understand that has been a requirement under the taxation laws for quite some time. As an employer, that is a test that I have quite often used when deciding whether a person is an employee or an employer. Mr Purcell: Can I give an example in the building industry? Say you have a builder's labourer who is working with a gang of brickies and he has all the tools that he needs, he does the scaffolding and supplies the bricks for the brickie. You cannot make him a subcontractor. He is an employee every day of the week, but some people want to say he is a subbie, which is absolute rubbish. Mr SEENEY: That is a pretty long interjection. I think if the member reads the propositions being put forward by the minister, there are three elements which have to be met before the test is satisfied. The third element of that test is that a person is or would be liable for the cost of rectifying any defect in the work performed. The question that I would put to the member, given that his knowledge of the situation is much more intimate than mine, is would the person in that particular situation be liable for the cost of fixing up the job if it was not done properly? Mr Purcell: Brickies are doing that. If the brickie is stuffing up, you have him to blame. Mr SEENEY: So the brickies have to fix it up, do they not? Mr Purcell: That is right. Mr SEENEY: I think the important point that the member illustrates is that there is such a wide range of circumstances in any industry. Mr Purcell: As wide as it is long. Mr SEENEY: Exactly. I guess no matter what efforts the minister makes to narrowly define these particular categories there is always going to be a situation which tests that definition. It is important, as I mentioned before, that there is some consistency between what definition is used in the income tax act at the federal level and what definition is used in pieces of legislation such as this. I will be interested to hear the minister's comments, but I think that is the overriding argument in considering this particular amendment that is being put forward. As I see it, this is achieving that consistency. I go back to the caution I raised before. I am a great believer in the fact that we live in a free country, and we should always be mindful of protecting those freedoms. Where people have the capacity, and it is important that people have the capacity to make informed decisions about their own particular situation, they should have the freedom to choose. That does not mean—and I say it again for emphasis because I know someone will attack me about it—that under any circumstances I would condone the imposition of these dodgy type contracts on anyone. But where someone has the capacity to make a choice, who are we to deny those people that choice? So there is a balancing act there that I appreciate is difficult. Mr Purcell interjected. 1390 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Mr SEENEY: That is a decision for them, and this is where the member and I differ. This is where he throws away the whole concept of personal freedom. It is up to them to decide whether they are better off. Mr Purcell interjected. Mr SEENEY: It is not for you, old mate, to make a decision about whether they are better off or not. I will have more to say at the committee stage. Time expired. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (5.22 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. I am sure that every member of this House would agree with me there is nothing more important than the health and safety of workers in their workplace. According to statistics, unfortunately each year in his this country alone 500 workers—and that is 500 too many—die while they are at work, and a further 50,000 are injured or become ill. The human costs cannot be calculated, and the cost to the economy, from my information, is about $20 billion a year. Queensland accounts for, on average, about a fifth of that $20 billion. To put things into perspective, that is about $4 billion a year, and that is 25 per cent of the annual state budget. That is almost 100 per cent of our health budget, 100 per cent of our education budget and four times the budget for our Queensland police. The concerns are not just the immediate effects of workplace injuries but the long-term suffering of workers, their families and society at large. Quite a few years ago the plumber who built my house unfortunately fell from a rooftop of another job and died. To this day I know that his family are suffering continuously as a consequence of his death. Back in 1989, Queensland introduced workplace health and safety legislation using the Robens model based on performance based regulations, focusing on safety outcomes rather than prescriptive procedures, and I have always supported that change. I have always believed that workplace health and safety legislation must also focus on prevention as preventive measures are always better than any other outcomes. This is done through knowledge sharing, awareness of risk and strategies for the minimising of those risks. This bill will further enhance the existing legislation by specifying key elements of the legal obligation to ensure a safe environment is achieved. For example, I am pleased to be informed that suppliers of equipment, not just the manufacturers or designers, will now be required to ensure equipment is safe when provided to the buyer or user. Last year at Christmas time I hired a Gerni from a hiring place. Upon delivery of the equipment and on close examination I found that a wire was exposed and that the hose was leaking. I immediately returned the equipment to the plant hire place. But not everybody understands equipment to the extent that some of us do, and I was appalled that they would supply any equipment that was not in good working order or equipment that was quite dangerous and should not be used at all. I am also pleased to be inform members that building owners, or people in control of a building, will now have new obligations to ensure a building and adjacent areas, such as a carpark or landscaped area, meets the safety standard as well. In addition, building designers, such as architects and draftspersons, will now be held responsible for ensuring that a building design allows for the safe use and maintenance of that building. This bill will amend the current 1995 act to achieve three aims: to improve the balance of legal obligation at the work place; to strength the consultative arrangements between employers and employees; and to provide greater consistency with other safety legislation and streamline reporting requirements for employers. It is my belief that this bill has achieved this aim, and I commend it to the House. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (5.25 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. Today's debate is timely since just yesterday was the eighth International Day of Mourning to commemorate those who have died at work. With around 2,700 workers in Australia dying each year in workplace accidents or from work related diseases, the day was a timely reminder of the importance of workplace health and safety. To commemorate, 158 black balloons—one for every Queenslander who died in a workplace accident last financial year—were released during a memorial church service. 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1391

This number of deaths is clearly unacceptable. Sadly, in Queensland alone last financial year 89 workers were killed in industrial accidents, with a further 69 dying from asbestos related disease. I am advised that the average age of these fatalities is just 45, with the youngest being a 19-year-old child care worker. Incidentally, the most common cause of death is work related vehicle accidents, with the road freight industry being marked as the most dangerous industry with nine fatalities—again, an unacceptable figure. These figures surely highlight why workplace health and safety should be an issue for all Queenslanders. It should also be a timely reminder of why workplace health and safety issues must remain in the minds of both employers and employees, wherever they work. This bill ensures that Queensland's workplace health and safety provides for an effective, modern regulatory regime which meets the needs associated with the changing nature of the labour market. It also makes consequential amendments to the Electrical Safety Act 2002. This bill aims to ensure that community standards for workplace conditions are relevant. Hopefully, these legislative changes will encourage employers and employees to continue to be aware and vigilant to protect the health and safety of everyone in the workplace. Workplace health and safety applies to every industry from construction to retail to transport. I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (5.28 p.m.): I rise to support the changes for greater workplace health and safety which are contained in this bill. There are many parts of this bill I would love to speak to, as they are all important to workers in Queensland. But with time constraints I will focus on workplace health and safety officers and representatives only. Queensland's Robens-style occupational health and safety legislation, introduced in 1989, moved away from prescriptive legislation to encourage industry self-regulation. But to introduce self-regulating programs industry must have a workplace adequately trained in occupational health and safety. To support this, the Queensland government has placed strong emphasis on training and education in occupational health and safety, and as a former graduate student of occupational health and safety I know what the necessary training involves. The government has placed a strong emphasis on industry consultation, particularly as it recognises the necessity of considering the needs of industry in developing the legislative framework. The Workplace Health and Safety Act involves industry in the development of legislative standards and information products through the Workplace Health and Safety Board, and workplace health and safety industry sector standing committees. This consultative framework allows industry and the community to participate in setting the strategic direction of the workplace health and safety program. The process emphasises the cooperation and partnership between the government, employers, workers and the community in achieving practical solutions to workplace health and safety issues. In addition, the legislation provides for the appointment of workplace health and safety officers and workplace health and safety representatives within organisations and businesses. Some employers and other obligation holders simply do not have the knowledge, expertise or capacity to develop health and safety management schemes. Once again, with my background in workplace health and safety and my studies, I certainly know that developing safety systems is not an easy task. It is very complex and at the end of the day if it is not done correctly it can lead to tragic circumstances. The current provisions for the appointment of the workplace health and safety officers and workplace health and safety representatives and the committees have gone some way in helping to provide information, knowledge and training to ensure the health and safety of workers at work. Currently, a WHSO must be appointed by an employer where 30 or more people are employed at a workplace or by a principal contractor if a principal contractor built at least 30 domestic premises in the previous year. WHSOs have specified functions under the act but no mandatory tasks. They are trained to identify health and safety hazards, help implement risk assessments in the workplace and provide expert advice to their employers to help them meet their obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. The role of these officers has come under scrutiny because, although their primary responsibility is to report health and safety matters to the employer or principal contractor, it is not currently clear how such matters should be reported, when they must be advised or how to ensure actions are taken and acted upon. These new amendments before the House today require WHSOs to conduct at least one workplace health and safety assessment each year using criteria developed by either the Division of Workplace Health and Safety or agreed to by the workplace's health and safety committee. 1392 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

The officer must record the results of the assessment and submit them to the employer along with any recommendations to rectify identified unsafe workplace health and safety conditions and practices. The employer will be required to ensure that the WHSO conducts the inspection, provides appropriate resources to do so and takes appropriate action to rectify any identified unsafe conditions and practices. An initiative to improve the sharing of knowledge and information has been examined as part of the role of the workplace health and safety representative. Under the government's broader legislative commitment to consultation, workplace health and safety representatives play a key role in fostering cooperation and resolving health and safety issues at the workplace. While it is not mandatory for every workplace to have an elected representative, an employer must permit the election of a representative if requested by workers. Employers are only required to have one workplace health and safety representative but may allow for more through negotiation with workers. The current absence of any training entitlement restricts workplace health and safety representatives from performing their role effectively. A survey of workplace health and safety representatives who have received training has found that just over half indicated that the most valuable part of the training course was gaining an understanding of the legislation and their duties and responsibilities as a workplace health and safety representative. Unless training is a mandatory right, then workplace health and safety representatives will be disadvantaged in their ability to effectively perform their health and safety roles within the workplace. The building and construction industry workplace health and safety task force 2000 recommended that formal accredited training be provided to help elected workplace health and safety representatives to be more effective in understanding their role and exercising their responsibilities. The Commonwealth, ACT, South Australian, Western Australian and Victorian legislation all contain provisions allowing workplace health and safety representatives time off with no loss of pay or entitlements to undertake appropriate training. The amendment will not extend the powers of workplace health and safety representatives but will provide for their training on request. Because workplace health and safety representatives need training to perform their functions more effectively, it is reasonable that they should not lose pay while being trained. This is an extremely important role that they play. It is a legitimate work task and therefore should be remunerated accordingly. I have seen articles in which small businesses claim that the cost of these changes is too high. What is too high is the number of workplace injuries. That is what is too high. Saving a person from pain and suffering, perhaps even death, is not a cost. It is the cost of having injured workers that is too high. The ability to have health and safety issues raised and resolved in a spirit of consultation and cooperation is a fundamental premise of this act. The building and construction industry workplace health and safety task force 2000 recommended that worker antivictimisation provisions be inserted into the act to provide statutory protection for workers who raise health and safety concerns with those responsible for ensuring health and safety in workplaces. All other jurisdictions make specific provisions in their occupational health and safety legislation to protect an employee from discrimination by an employer for an occupational health and safety related issue. Most jurisdictions have provisions that prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee because the employee is or performs a function as a workplace health and safety representative or a member of a safety committee, makes an OH&S complaint and assists or gives information to an inspector, workplace health and safety representative or safety committee. It is time that Queensland also introduced antivictimisation provisions to ensure that workers can raise genuine health and safety issues secure in the knowledge that they will be protected from retribution. The key to prevention of workplace injuries and illness lies in the development of adequate safety management systems. When accidents occur they come at an enormous cost to the worker, to the employer and to the community. Every year we are outraged by the number of deaths on our roads, and we should be. But we should also be outraged by the number of deaths of innocent people who leave for work and do not come home not because of a road accident but because they were performing their job. Some 440 deaths occur in this country from workplace injuries. Over 2,300 deaths occur due to a related workplace disease or asbestos related disease. I have said in this House on many occasions and I will continue to say it because I do not believe the message is getting across: we should all be outraged by these tragedies and these statistics. 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1393

I notice that while the Beattie government has been working on legislation to improve workplace health and safety the Howard federal government has been spending dollars on the Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry, which has been nothing more than a union bashing exercise. While the inquiry was taking place the unions being vilified were out there ensuring the safety of their members. I have publications here from both the CFMEU and the BLF that look at workplace health and safety issues. The CFMEU has a publication that looks at the causes and solutions to reduce hazards on Australian construction sites. For the last 10 years there has been an average of 50 deaths per year or one death per week on constructions sites. This publication tells of many other tragedies that have occurred to people just doing their job. The BLF journal tells of a tragic accident here in Brisbane where a young man working as a scaffolder fell to his death. The floor of the swinging stage that he was working on broke in the middle like a trapdoor—a tragedy that should never have happened. These unions are out there trying to resolve workplace health and safety issues before they become tragedies. The Howard government spent million of dollars on the Cole royal commission. Even though the report does give some workplace health and safety recommendations, all I can say is that the federal government was severely overcharged. It could have asked any construction worker and they would have told it what it needed to know about health and safety on a construction site and it would have been given a practical and workable solution. I want to acknowledge the work done by the minister's staff. I would especially like to thank Cameron Milliner and Rosalie Feldt for listening to my concerns and answering my questions on workplace health and safety issues. I also want to add my gratitude to departmental staff. Protecting workers from injury and illness in the workplace is very important to all Queenslanders and I am pleased to see that they recognise this. I congratulate the minister on bringing the bill to the House. As I said before, we must ensure that we have legislation which ensures that workers are working in a safe environment and this bill will go a long way towards doing that. Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (5.37 p.m.): We love the word 'balance', and this bill seeks to balance the legal obligations of employers with others who exercise greater control of risks at the workplace. This includes suppliers of equipment and machinery, suppliers of substances, building designers, persons in control of buildings used as workplaces and persons who conduct businesses or other undertakings that involve some form of work activity. The amendments will strengthen the obligation chain to ensure that the person who controls the risk is the person who holds the obligation under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. A recent review of the act identified a legislative gap in that suppliers of equipment do not currently have an obligation to ensure that what they supply is safe. There have been situations where faulty equipment which posed serious risk to workers and members of the public was supplied from overseas markets for use here in Queensland. This equipment ranged from cranes used at construction sites to gas cylinders used at backyard barbeques. Under these proposals, suppliers of equipment will be required to ensure that the equipment they supply is safe and is accompanied by safety information, and this is in accordance with all other jurisdictions in Australia. Such an amendment is designed to reduce the possibility of unsafe equipment being supplied to Queensland workplaces or supplied in Queensland to be transported to other states. It is unfair to require just employers, especially small employers, to be wholly responsible for ensuring that equipment is safe. The amendments provide a solution for these employers by requiring suppliers to ensure the equipment they supply is safe. Employers and members of the public will be able to purchase equipment confident that checks have been made to ensure it has been safely manufactured or tested in the country or place of origin and that the safety information is provided. The review also identified a legislative loophole that means suppliers of substances for use at a workplace do not have the same obligation to supply safe substances as do manufacturers and importers. This amendment is designed to ensure that suppliers have the same obligation as the manufacturers and as the importers. The review also found that there is no current requirement on suppliers to provide appropriate safe usage information on the supplied substances. This amendment will mean suppliers, including importers and manufacturers, must supply such information with the product—which seems pretty logical to me. A gap identified in the legislation by the building and construction industry task force report related to the lack of any expressed obligation on behalf of architects, engineers or designers to ensure the safety of those who use and maintain a building. The National Occupational Health 1394 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 and Safety Commission's Safe Design Project report noted a failure by the legislation to adequately address the duties and responsibilities of people involved in designing buildings and structures. The proposed amendment seeks to impose an obligation on those involved in the design of buildings to ensure that they are designed so that they can used, repaired and maintained in a safe manner. This may include designing something as simple as anchor points in a building so a platform can be used to safely clean the windows. The obligation will be restricted to the design of the building and not its subsequent use or alteration. It will also be restricted to those matters that a designer has direct control over, taking into account other parties who might take part in the design of a building, such as the owners and developers. Transitional provisions are provided to ensure that this will apply to new designs only, and the provision will exclude residential premises. Risk associated with the structural integrity, condition or reasonable use of a building is not explicitly covered by the act even though the building itself may be a workplace as defined by the act. This lack of an obligation creates a gap in the obligation chain under the act which results in unrealistic obligations being imposed on employers. This situation may occur where the employer is leasing the workplace premises and therefore has limited or no control over the building structure or premises in which the workplace is located. Leases may provide for a variety of uses and, in some cases, may allow tenants to alter fittings and fixtures with or without the landlord's consent. A provision is needed to require a person in control of a building or of the fixtures and fittings to ensure they meet legal requirements. This issue is well illustrated when looking at the problems associated with provisions for workplace amenities. Workplace health and safety legislation places the obligation on the employer to ensure that the required amenities meet certain standards. Employers are required to provide amenities even in situations where they do not have control over the amenities—airconditioning systems, electrical systems and so on—in leased or shared tenancy situations, such as shopping complexes and large office buildings. That is especially so with airconditioning units. I have come across that a lot. The employer in this situation is often reliant on the person in control of the building and all the fixtures and fittings in order to comply with his or her legal obligation. The imposition of an obligation on people in control of buildings and people in control of fixtures and fittings will serve to fill an identified gap in the obligation chain to allow a more equitable distribution of responsibility for health and safety based upon the creation and control of risks. These provisions strengthen and balance the obligation chain more equitably by placing workplace health and safety obligations on the respective persons who are best able to manage and control the workplace risks. I commend this bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.43 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. I note in the minister's explanatory notes that reference is made to extensive consultation that he had undertaken with major industry bodies, unions and also people who expressed an interest in relation to submissions to the issues paper in October 2002. I also note that further consultation was had with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Queensland Treasury, the Department of Justice and the Attorney-General, the Department of Employment and Training, the Businesses Regulatory Review Units, the Education Department, the Building Services Authority and the Department of Public Works only to mention a few. My question to the minister is: what will be the staffing implications in the department as a result of this bill becoming law in Queensland? And in particular I ask the minister how many enforcement officers are currently operating on the Sunshine Coast region and how many additional staff will be appointed to the Sunshine Coast office as a result of this bill becoming law? At the moment we see significant building work taking place on the Sunshine Coast and all the expectations are that this significant work will continue. I also recall many instances which have occurred recently where there have been a number of serious injuries and fatalities on building sites on the Sunshine Coast. The other issue I wish to raise with the minister is the issue of penalties. I note in this bill there have been significant increases in the proposed range of penalties under this bill. My question to the minister is: during his consultation with the Attorney-General—I note the Attorney- General is present in the House at the moment—did he canvass what preferred course of action would be undertaken if the Director of Public Prosecutions or the prosecution officers failed to 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1395 make submissions in the courts consistent or in accordance with his preferred toughening of sentences contained in this bill? In other words, if the Director of Public Prosecutions for whatever reason is not prepared to make submissions to the court for heavy penalties and sentences consistent with his intent, what will be the government's view and what will be the government's position? I also note that clause 17 inserts a new part 5 which provides for enforceable undertakings which are alternative to prosecutions and are legally binding. I commend the minister on this initiative. Again, my question to the minister is: how will he ensure that department staff working in this enforcement section of his department will be suitably qualified for this demanding and challenging role which they have in the work force? The last thing I believe we want to see is officers go power mad with the new powers that they are entrusted with. I want to ensure that the enforcement officers exercise their powers with commonsense, compassion and responsibility at all times. In this regard, I refer members to section 96A of the proposed bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (5.46 p.m.): I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate with respect to this amendment bill. Workplace health and safety is an issue of immense importance not only to the health and welfare of the workers of Queensland but necessarily also with respect to the manner in which it reflects on the productivity and economic benefit of the state as a whole. As a member of the minister's backbench committee, that is, the Industrial Relations Minister's legislative committee, I have been privileged to be able to pursue an interest which was the subject of my everyday work some years ago when I practised law and acted for many injured workers in the WorkCover or workers compensation area. The need for legislative measures in this area has long been recognised and the Labor Party has a very proud record over the last 100 years of bringing into legislation provisions which were sorely needed from time to time. However, I was interested to read in the Bulletin magazine of 25 February this year reference to the fact that several centuries ago—in fact in the 1770s—some of the then leading British industrialists such as Boulton and Wedgwood were not totally ignorant of the need for their workers to be looked after. It would appear that these gentlemen and others were most advanced for their times. These men built quite remarkable factories but also surrounded them with housing for workers and indeed implemented a basic health scheme. Employees paid a premium and were eligible for payouts in the event of ill health or injury except for drunkenness or fighting. We see here the forerunner of the workers compensation scheme and even perhaps the forerunner of the medical benefits system. It was certainly more affordable to the working man of those days than is the current John Howard version of a medical benefits scheme. It was said of Wedgwood— Although he was sometimes at strife with his men, he always behaved towards them as an enlightened and liberal- minded man. Like Boulton at Soho, he set up a sick club at Etruria. He opened a library there and contributed largely to the cost of establishing schools in the district. He never forgot that he too had worked with his hands. These sick clubs for workmen were also associated with dispensaries as well as schools. Of Boulton, it was said with respect to the employment he provided— Yet the work was fairly secure and the Soho Insurance Club, which seems to have been started in the early 1770s, was one of the first schemes created by manufacturers to provide benefits in case of accident, sickness and death. (Wedgwood hired three apothecaries and a male midwife to look after his workers). It was further said of Boulton that he was 'a benevolent autocrat, he was loved by his work people for his frank and simple ways and for his fair dealings... he started a sick club, each man subscribing from a halfpenny to four pence a week, according to his wage'. Whilst one might consider that Wedgwood and Boulton were the forebears of modern assembly line or conveyor belt type manufacturing, such as McDonald's, in terms of the specialisation of tasks, they clearly saw the benefit of looking after workers not only from the point of view of encouraging them to specialise in one particular task but also from the point of view of looking after them in the event of sickness or injury—bearing in mind, no doubt, the cost of retraining an alternative person. Whether or not these men were motivated by enlightened moral or religious beliefs or simply from an advanced good business practice and profit motive, I do not know, but the end result was that they were approximately 150 years to 200 years ahead of much of the rest of the English speaking world. In relation to this legislation, I would like to make the observation that things have come a long way in a fairly short time. I recall that when I began to practise in earnest in this field—that is the workers compensation or common law field—in the early 1990s, although there was 1396 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 legislation dealing with workplace health and safety issues in place, nothing much else was happening in terms of the collation of data or the prevention of injuries, let alone the prosecution of offenders. My recollection is that at about that time there were recorded in Queensland on a yearly basis about 80,000 to 100,000 injuries per year of all types. In about 1993 or 1994 the number of prosecutions was able to be counted on one hand. As I recall, the successful convictions numbered only one. That was not indicative of the fact that workers were entirely responsible for all of the injuries that occurred out of that 80,000 or 100,000; it was more likely to be indicative of the fact that insufficient resources had been allocated by successive governments for the proper investigation of workplace accidents, let alone for the proper prosecution of those responsible for unsafe systems of work. I understand that, in terms of the allocation of resources by the minister to that wing of his department, matters have changed drastically in that area and I am very pleased about that. It may be that the minister could provide some general statistics indicating the current situation in terms of prosecutions and convictions. The prevention of future accidents is most important. During the last sittings, the honourable member for Mudgeeraba, during her most informative and effective speech in this debate, was able to give from personal experience her views in relation to this matter. I would like to draw the parallel between the work done in the area by the Workplace Health and Safety Division with the work that I hope will be done by the newly created State Coroner with respect to fatal injuries. A major plank of the existence of that entity is for the purpose of collating the reasons why accidents occurred with a view to putting together material to ensure that similar accidents do not occur in the future. I think that a lot more has to be done in this area, but I congratulate the minister and his department on the significant advances that they have been able to make, as I said, from the position that operated as little as 10 years ago. A government member: It could only happen under a Labor government. Mr SHINE: I take that interjection. Much has been said about the impact of the proposed 'worker' definition in the building and construction industry. However, there are a number of other industries where the changes have application and bring greater certainty for workers and employers. The explanatory notes to the amendments provide some useful examples where the results test can be applied in non-building and construction situations. For example, a cleaner contracted to clean a child-care centre is paid to achieve a specified result, that is, to clean the centre to the standard required. If a section is left uncleaned, that person would have to stay back in their own time to rectify the oversight. The cleaner may supply all of his or her equipment, but may be required to use the cleaning chemicals provided by the child-care centre if the centre must use certain chemicals that enable the centre to achieve a standard required by statute. In this case, the cleaner would still be supplying the equipment actually needed to perform the work and part 2 of the results test would be satisfied. The test will also provide greater certainty in the security industry. In a situation where a security company provides the uniform, torch, walkie-talkie, firearm and all the other equipment that is needed by a security guard to perform his or her job, the guard would automatically fail the second part of the results test and would be defined as a worker. That would also help overcome situations where unlicensed security providers are engaged by businesses and given all the equipment needed, yet are regarded as contractors simply because they put in an invoice for the work they performed. The transport industry is another example. A large number of owner-drivers and couriers contract for services in the industry. The results test will prove once and for all whether those people are covered for workers compensation or not. In just about all cases, genuine contractors in the transport and trucking industry will be unaffected by the changes, because, firstly, they are paid to achieve a specified result, that is, to deliver the load or parcel; secondly, they also have to provide their own equipment, namely their vehicle; and thirdly, they are liable for any faults or defects in their work, for example, if they deliver the load or parcel to the wrong address. The catering industry is another industry that will benefit from the new definition. There are many workers who are engaged as contractors in industrial service establishments, such as staff canteens, staff cafeterias, dining rooms, eating establishments and staff accommodation. The common arrangement in these establishments is for a husband and wife team to run the kitchen and servery under a contract for services. Although these people would be paid to achieve a specified result, that is, the feeding of the staff, and rectify any defects in their work, all the 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1397 equipment necessary to perform the work, such as ovens, stoves and washing apparatus, is provided to the persons and they are not expected to supply any of it. People in this situation are really providing no more than their labour, personal efforts and skills. Under the results test, these people would be regarded as what they actually are, that is, workers. It should be noted that the Australian Taxation Office already uses these tests to distinguish between genuine operators and labour-only contractors to determine income tax requirements. Regardless of the examples that I gave earlier, if a person already has a personal services business determination from the tax office, that person is automatically excluded from the workers compensation coverage and must look after his or her own insurance. I commend these amendments to the House and hope that they do, in fact, go some way towards clarifying the uncertainties. For the purposes of completeness, I might in some general terms refer to what the legislation seeks to achieve. Firstly, might I say that I am very impressed by the amount of consultation that has occurred. This process commenced with an issues paper being released for public consultation in December 2002. The paper raised a number of potentially contentious issues, created a great deal of discussion and even disagreement, and attracted about 66 written submissions. This was followed by a reference group comprising two employer representatives, two employee representatives, and an independent academic adviser, Professor Richard Johnstone, to assist the legislative review team. Following this was an internal reference group consisting of staff of the department. Policy position papers were subsequently developed and considered by the workplace health and safety board. Then further consultation was undertaken, this time with the major industry bodies, unions and those persons who had expressed an interest by making a submission to the issues paper. This consultation was again followed by further discussions with key stakeholders on the actual proposed amendments to the act in November 2002. As well as this, a wide range of government departments, including Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, Justice and Attorney-General, Public Works, Queensland Health, Education Queensland and Disability Services Queensland, were involved, as was the Office of Rural Communities, the Department of Employment and Training, the Business Regulatory Review Unit, the Department of Emergency Services and the Building Services Authority. I am particularly pleased that the areas covered by the act are reflective of what is happening in the work force, particularly with new work arrangements that are very prevalent in the 21st century. I am also particularly pleased to see that the act provides for annual inspections of workplaces by workplace health and safety officers. I commend the legislation to the House. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (6.00 p.m.): I am pleased to support the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. As others before me have said, unfortunately in Queensland we have every year the loss of too many lives in the workplace. Roughly 100 Queensland lives are lost each year. Of course, very many more people are injured at work. In fact, the estimation is that some 50,000 are injured around Australia each year. Sure, some of these injuries may not be so very serious and it may take only a short time for the person to recover and to recover full ability to work and enjoy their lives. Nonetheless, some of them are quite significant and debilitating injuries that require long absences from work. Some even result in permanent levels of disability. Of course it is our government's job—it is the job of every government—to do the best we can to minimise the risk to employees and others in the workplace. The other sad statistic we in this House have to face is that figures from the International Labour Organisation indicate that Australia has a comparatively poor international record, with an overall fatal injury rate three times as high as that of Britain, Sweden and Japan and double that of the United States. That is not good enough, and that is why the department and the minister have been working hard for some years towards modernising this legislation that is really of course the thrust of this amendment bill before the House tonight. Yes, it is also true that if we save lives, if we protect workers against injury, then we will also save ourselves a lot of money. The estimates are amazing. In terms of the total cost of work related fatalities, each year it costs the Queensland gross domestic product some $3.5 billion. Were we to have any of that money in cash in our coffers, many honourable members in this House would be able to suggest ways in which it could be productively spent. In passing this amendment bill, as I hope we will tonight or tomorrow, it is relevant to recognise that the work that has been done on the bill goes back to the Goss government years. 1398 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

In 1989 Queensland introduced workplace health and safety legislation that was in line with the initiative already taken in the United Kingdom. Since then, in 1995 and again in 1997, there have been changes made to the legislation. A further independent review was conducted, and it underlined the extensive consultation that has occurred since 2001 in order to produce the bill that is now before the House. There are some core changes in attitude and in the very structure of workplace health and safety that I wish to particularly draw to the attention of honourable members. One of these changes relates to the extended focus there will be on increasing knowledge and awareness of risks to health and safety in workplaces. We all know and from time to time have used the saying 'forewarned is forearmed'. We know that that is so. There is a strong educational ring to the bill. We also recognise, however—I do so more and more, as my years as a member of parliament bring me greater experience—that enforcement activity must parallel increasing knowledge, educational activities and awareness activities. Prevention only goes so far. Unless enforcement activity is seriously undertaken and is linked directly with the level of compliance then the bill is not effective. I compliment the minister on his recognition of the need for increased activity in the Cairns area. In recognising that, he has in recent years increased the staff in the departmental office in Cairns. That has allowed considerably more inspection and involvement with compliance. I am pleased to hear that, by and large, employer bodies are supporting this amendment bill. That is indeed a good sign and reflects that there are within the bill some very welcome changes from the small business point of view. Traditionally, of course, the employer has been focused on as the primary person with legal obligations. While on the surface of it that is so, that has not taken reasonable account of some knowledge that sometimes is not within the employer's ambit or of some controls that are not necessarily the sole responsibility of the employer. Particularly in light of the changing labour market conditions and contracting arrangements, it is important to not overburden the employer with responsibilities that are not entirely his or hers. The current legislation requires employers to ensure a safe workplace, yet it does not specify how exactly that is to be done. This amendment bill specifies the key elements of the legal obligation to ensure a safe work environment. It specifies, therefore, that the legal obligation to ensure a safe workplace includes providing safe systems of work, equipment, substances and training. In examining these more closely, it means that the amendments within the bill seek to balance the legal obligations of employers with others who exercise greater control of risks at the workplace. These include suppliers, persons in control of buildings used as workplaces and persons who conduct undertakings that may affect the workplace. This sharing of responsibility is right and appropriate and, of course, is welcomed by employers. Another of the core changes within the bill is through the recommendation of the building and construction task force, which is that an obligation be placed on designers, engineers and architects to ensure that the design of a building or structure used as a workplace does not pose a risk to the health and safety of those involved in the use, repair and maintenance of the building or structure from the design. While it may not be entirely welcomed by some professionals in those fields, in recognising that their obligation is greater in law than it may have been before, it is nonetheless surely appropriate that they do stand by their professional competence in terms of the aesthetics or workability of the design and that the appropriate workplace health and safety provisions have been taken into account in the very design. These amendments address the current imbalance of legal obligations in the act, which have been unfairly weighted against employers, especially small to medium sized employers. I particularly want to speak to these changes to the act and recognise how very important they are in a city such as Cairns, where the great majority of employers are very small employers. I know that our federal government sometimes defines a small business as one employing between 20 and 50 people. In cities such as Cairns our employers scoff at such definitions. The great majority of businesses in Cairns, some 10,000 or so, employ fewer than five employees. It is therefore a great burden upon those businesses when governments of whatever level or kind decide to increase accountability provisions or legal responsibilities. A government doing something that will somewhat relieve the burden on small business employers will indeed be welcomed, not least in the city of Cairns. I welcome the efforts that have been made over some years by unions and by employer organisations, in submissions and discussions with the department and with consultants along the way, in the development of this bill. I do recognise that it is particularly difficult for employers as it means time out of their business for which they are not paid. I recognise, too, that many 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1399 individuals who have been touched by workplace health and safety issues in the past also contributed. I thank them for their efforts. I recognise all of the fine staff who have worked on this bill and I acknowledge the minister. It has taken some time for this bill to come to the House, but that is because it has been so well put together, with all points of view taken into account. I do indeed support this bill before the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (6.10 p.m.): In speaking to the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002, I will address just the first part of the bill. In introducing these amendments to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, the Beattie government said that it proposed to balance the legal obligations of the workplace, strengthen employer-employee consultation and bring in more consistent safety legislation and reporting requirements similar to that of the Electrical Safety Act 2002. In doing so, it aims to assign legal responsibility to those who they say can best control the risk, such as employers, persons who conduct work undertakings, designers of buildings, architects, engineers and those who control buildings used as workplaces. Also included are manufacturers and suppliers of equipment who will have an obligation to supply safety information and equipment and/or substances supplied by them, and it will be up to them to ensure that it has been tested or checked to be safe. Where an employer employs 30 or more people, a workplace health and safety officer is required to be appointed and an assessment conducted each year. The employer is required to fund any training required by such workplace health and safety officers and also required to implement any recommendations made as a result of the annual inspections. Such officers clearly will have great power. However, I note that nowhere in this legislation is there any responsibility attached to this power. I do not think it unreasonable to suggest a properly trained person who not only carries out annual inspections but is also present as an employee all year should bear at least some responsibility for the level of safety in that workplace. I also note that there is no provision in this bill for any recognition of an individual worker's obligations to exercise proper responsibility for their own safety while in the workplace. These amendments propose to significantly increase existing penalties for breach by a corporation resulting in death from $300,000 to $375,000 and similar increases for lesser offences resulting in bodily harm or exposure to substances that may result in death or bodily harm. Additionally, penalties for multiple deaths will attract a maximum of 2,000 penalty units or $150,000 or three years imprisonment, or for a corporation a maximum of a hefty $750,000. Penalty units for four other categories will rise from 800 to 1,000, 500 to 750 on two occasions and 400 to 500 penalty units. The average number of work related fatalities occurring in Queensland stands at approximately 100 per year. In his second reading speech, the minister noted two things. One was that according to International Labour Organisation figures, Australia and therefore Queensland has a comparatively poor record, with an overall fatality rate three times higher than Britain, among other countries. The second is that since 1989 for more than a decade Queensland has been operating workplace health and safety legislation in line with the United Kingdom system called the Robens model. What I would be interested to hear is an explanation of why, if Queensland is using the UK model, we are not getting UK equivalent results. The majority of the changes we are talking about today are definitional in character. However, I am concerned that it will bump up potential prosecutions and create even more onerous costs on business, especially small business. In my electorate I am aware of small businesses which have already experienced huge hikes in their WorkCover premiums for nothing more than simple, unavoidable accidents. For example, in loading a truck if someone accidentally fails to shift their hand quickly enough, an injury could occur. There will always be circumstances where there is nothing an employer can do to prevent an injury. Yet under the previous legislation they face punitive premium increases. This new legislation does nothing to address the grave problems this poses for small business. While it is important for employers and other responsible people to provide safe conditions, I think we do need to recognise that it is also incumbent on every worker to be responsible for his own safety as well. Mr RODGERS (Burdekin—ALP) (6.13 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. This bill aims to ensure that the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 continues to meet the needs associated with the 1400 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 changing nature of the labour market and ensure that appropriate health and safety outcomes are achieved through the workplace. Over the years workplace health and safety has been a major issue in a large number of workplaces that I have worked in. I have been on workplace health and safety committees. I have noticed the changes that have occurred since the days when I was a union representative at various building sites and in workshops. Back then people would come to their union representatives with workplace health and safety issues on the workshop floor, for example, and we would go to the employer and he would say, 'Well, they are the conditions you have to work under today.' We would then take action to try to do something about that. We would have meetings, and most times to improve workplace health and safety we would have to take industrial action, which at that time meant the loss of pay for people but it meant improving working conditions for them in the future. I think that still occurs, but employers today realise that to have good relationships with their work force they have to work together. In workplace health and safety committees now the cooperation between employers and employees helps to resolve a lot of the issues that years ago would have taken industrial action in order to better conditions. Today, as I said earlier, we get better conditions and improved workplace health and safety through cooperation with employers, and the need to maintain that is important. We now have a large number of workplace health and safety officers. A lot of people in the work force over the years have undertaken courses to achieve that position. I think these people should be used a lot more by employers than they are today. These people have the skills. They have gained the knowledge needed to deal with workplace issues and how to help try to resolve issues and make workplaces safer. I have also been in small business and I have seen the other side, the employer's side. I have to make sure that my staff have the best conditions possible in order to do their jobs. Workplace health and safety is important, and in my contract cleaning business it is essential that those people know what sorts of chemicals they are using, and the data sheets are available for them to do that. I think employers and employees working together achieve a lot which in the past has not occurred. The bill that is before the House tonight goes a long way to resolving a lot of the issues that occurred over the years to help make better workplaces and safer workplaces for employees. I commend the minister and his staff for the work that they have put in to bring this bill before the House today. I am sure that, while I see it as going a long way to improving conditions in the workplace and making it a safer workplace, over the years people will come up with more changes and the bill will be changed down the track. I think that improving this legislation will go a long way towards stopping some workplace injuries that have happened over the years. I believe it makes a significant change to workplace conditions for workers and also for employers. I would like to congratulate the minister on bringing the bill before the House and his staff, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (6.18 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure this evening to rise to speak to the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. The cost to Queensland of workplace injuries is horrific both in financial terms and in human terms—the pain and suffering that is caused to injured workers as well as the families and loved ones of those workers. For a period of time I worked as a rehabilitation counsellor with the Workers Compensation Board. In that role I dealt daily with the effects of some very horrific workplace injuries on the workers and their families. I got to see the long-term physical and psychological hardships caused by these injuries, and I believe that governments at all levels have a requirement to continually revisit the legislation to see what can be done to try to minimise the level of workplace injuries. As the minister said in his second reading speech, the focus should always be on prevention, that is, education. Let us try to educate and encourage workers to find ways to avoid injuries and encourage employers to structure their workplaces in a better and safer manner. Whilst the focus should always be on prevention, it is important to acknowledge that we also need penalties, and stiff penalties, to encourage compliance. In the last few days we have seen a very, very grotesque example of capitalism gone crazy. We have seen the Pan Pharmaceutical company prepared to risk the life—the health and safety—of many Australians and many people around the world for base economic gain. What was going on in that company that allowed this to occur? At this stage I am not in a position to 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1401 answer that. I do not think many people are in a position to answer what actually went wrong inside that company. But for systems to collapse as they did in Pan Pharmaceuticals, for the regulator to take its eye off the ball yet again, is a very, very strong reminder that, despite what we hear occasionally, businesses do not inherently have the best interests of society in some cases or their employees at heart. Some companies are so driven by the almighty dollar that they are prepared to risk human life to maximise profits—not all. In fact, I would say that the majority of businesses do have a good social conscience. However, this Pan Pharmaceuticals outrage is a very, very good reminder to us that there are some businesses out there that do not give a damn about people's health and safety or, in some cases, even their life as long as they get the almighty dollar at the end of it. One of the amendments contained in this bill—which I must admit I was personally surprised to see because I assumed that it was the status quo but certainly the minister has brought it to the House's attention—will require suppliers to supply plant that is safe and to provide information about the equipment that they issue. To me it is very, very commonsense that if I supply a piece of equipment for someone to use that piece of equipment should be safe. The fact that we have to legislate for it is really of concern to me, but I understand that we need to do it because, unfortunately, not all businesses operate in the best interests of people. There is a further amendment in this legislation that will put an onus on designers of buildings to design safe buildings. Again, that is something that I would have assumed was commonsense, and the fact that we have to legislate for it just reminds us what kind of society we live in. The Workplace Health and Safety Act creates the position of workplace health and safety representative, yet it does not allow for any specific task for the workplace health and safety officer to undertake. These amendments will require employers to enable the workplace health and safety officer to conduct at least one workplace health and safety assessment each year. As other members have said, we have these highly trained people in workplaces and yet quite often the employer, just by merely not encouraging them or not asking them to undertake duties, can try to lower the safety standards in that workplace. This is a very, very good amendment which puts the onus back on the employer to encourage and allow the workplace health and safety officer to go out and do his job. I certainly commend the minister for that. The definition of serious bodily injury will be amended to take into account modern medical practices. When workplace health and safety was first being discussed it did not take too big an injury to be put in hospital for one night. However, with modern medical practices and with the great Queensland health system, a lot of surgery is now carried out as day surgery. So there are some serious injuries that can occur and yet not require a person to be kept in hospital overnight. I think the change in definition certainly reflects modern medical practice. Without further ado I would like to compliment the minister and his staff for bringing this bill before the House. It shows the Beattie government's ongoing commitment to protecting workers and workers' rights. I would like to congratulate all unions on their ongoing role in advocating for workers' rights, and in particular the CPU and the eligible trade unions within the CPU for their ongoing battle to defend their workers. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (6.25 p.m.): I rise in support of this bill to amend the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. These amendments will ensure that the act continues to provide an effective regulatory system, meeting the needs of the workers while ensuring their health and safety in the workplace. The bill also amends the Electrical Safety Act 2002. The bill gives effect to the recommendations of an independent review of the act over the past two years, as it reflects labour market changes and meets contemporary regulatory needs and considers the adequacy of current enforcement mechanisms and penalties. An issues paper was released for public consultation in December 2001 which canvassed a range of matters and raised a number of potentially contentious issues that generated much discussion. The Workplace Health and Safety Board appointed two employer representatives and two employee representatives as well as an independent academic adviser to assist the legislative review team. The reference group provided guidance and feedback on the critical issues and views of the representative parties. Consultation continued through to October and November 2002 with major industry bodies, unions and other interested persons. These key stakeholders in government departments agreed on the thrust of the proposed amendments to the act, and I believe that agencies including the Department of Public Works, Queensland Health, Disability Services Queensland, the Department 1402 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003 of Employment and Training, the Business Regulatory Review Unit and the Building Services Authority are enthusiastic in their support for these reforms. The bill aims to improve the balance of legal obligations at the workplace, strengthen the consultative arrangements between employers and employees, provide better consistency with other safety legislation and also aims to streamline reporting requirements for employers. At the workplace it is appropriate that legal responsibility for health and safety be apportioned to employers as they control the health and safety risk. This is important with new work arrangements being introduced on a regular basis. These responsibilities cover gaps in the obligation chain and allocate the responsibility for controlling and managing exposure to risk to those people who create the risk and are better able to control and manage it. The changes place requirements on people who conduct work undertakings, building designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment, manufacturers and suppliers of substances and people in control of buildings used at workplaces. These people have an obligation to ensure that the building is safe for its intended use, to provide safety information with the equipment or substance supplied and to ensure that it is tested or checked. The changes to the act require workplace health and safety officers to conduct an annual inspection at the workplace to identify health and safety risks. These workplace health and safety officers will be able to access accredited training prior to conducting the inspection, and employers are prohibited from victimising any worker who reports anything believed to be unsafe at their workplace. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission will be available to resolve any disputes over issues related to the training of workplace representatives. The bill also seeks to align reporting requirements with WorkCover Queensland provisions so that employers will not have to report the same accident twice. It would be nice if there were no accidents and therefore eliminating the need to report an accident once. The changes will bring the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 into line with the recent Electrical Safety Act 2002 and the introduction of enforceable undertakings as an alternative to prosecution and will align penalties with that act and the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2000. Investigation powers into possible breaches are also clarified. The bill clarifies the obligations of people at the workplace and increases the existing penalties to that generally consistent with other legislation, in particular the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001 and the Electrical Safety Act 2002. A breach of the act by a company causing death or grievous bodily harm will attract a penalty of $375,000. The bill also introduces a new offence for a breach of the act causing multiple deaths and the maximum penalty imposed may be as high as $750,000 and jail for three years. While these penalties reflect changing social standards, they will of themselves not assist the widows and orphans left behind from too many industrial accidents. I do hope, however, that they will cause cost-cutting employers to think twice before risking their employees' health and prosperity. The increased penalties reflect the government's concern and are a result of the seriousness with which we regard the health and safety of workers. I congratulate the minister and his staff and commend the bill to the House. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (6.30 p.m.): It is my great pleasure to stand tonight in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill. I congratulate the minister and his ministerial and departmental staff on the production of this legislation and more particularly for all of the work that has been done in advance of this legislation that has enabled this legislation to be brought before the House. I refer to the work over many months with the workplace consultative committees and the other consultative processes that have been undertaken by the government to produce this legislation. I congratulate the employer organisations that have participated in that process and the Queensland Council of Unions and unions generally, particularly the union which I am proud to say that I once worked for and continue to remain associated with, and that is the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. Mr Pearce: A great union. Mr WILSON: A great union as my colleague the member for Fitzroy well and truly knows after having come from the mining industry and the mining division of the CFMEU. Despite appearances to the contrary, most people do not have a real choice about their employment status when they go to work. That employment status is largely determined either directly by the particular employer that they work for or, more often than not, indirectly by the labour market in the particular industry or the geographical area of Queensland in which they happen to work. There are obviously people who intentionally choose to be independent 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1403 contractors and intentionally choose to work casually or part time, and that very much suits their particular circumstances. But overall if one looks at all people employed in different industries across the state the facts are that their employment status is principally determined by the person they work for rather than themselves. That situation puts a lot of pressure on two issues: firstly, the safety of the workplace into which they go to work; and, secondly, the entitlements to compensation and rehabilitation that working people have if indeed they are injured or regrettably suffer death in the workplace. We also need to take into account that most working people do in fact need to work to support themselves and support their families. They cannot draw upon their ownership of land and the income they might get from land, they cannot draw upon the income they might get from investments in shares and they are not the beneficiaries of large estates that have been handed down to them. Most people have nothing but their labour to sell, and that puts them in a relatively disadvantaged position in the labour market. If few things are more important than a person being entitled to return home at night without the risk of serious injury or death having intervened and if few things are more important than the compensation and rehabilitation of injured workers, then one can see the fundamental importance of this legislation. In relation to the Workplace Health and Safety Act amendments, speaking generally, those amendments are designed to enlarge the number of people who have an obligation in the workplace to make the workplace safe. In relation to the WorkCover changes, overall those changes are directed towards enlarging the pool of working people who, if injury or death befalls them, are entitled to a statutory insurance benefit called workers compensation and in the event that they are only injured then the subsequent rehabilitation opportunities that come to them. That is why this legislation is so important. I want to underline in another way the importance of this legislation. In the very first page of the minister's second reading speech—and I commend his speech to every member—he directs our attention to the human and economic cost of failed safety in the workplace. The estimated cost to the Queensland economy each year from workplace death and injury—wait for it—is $3.5 billion. Can members conceive of that figure? The annual budget for the state of Queensland is $20 billion. So $3.5 billion is probably just a fraction under the education budget allocation. The budget for the Department of Main Roads and Transport is about $5 billion. So measured against that standard, members can see the enormous economic cost of failed safety in the workplace. It is $3.5 billion not just every now and again but every year. Further, the minister draws our attention to the figures from the ILO that indicate that Australia has a comparatively poor international record. I might say that this is very tame language from the minister, because he goes on to say that overall Australia's fatal injury rate is three times as high as that of Great Britain, one of the most industrialised countries in the world, and Sweden and Japan. Even in terms of the laissez-faire economy of the United States, our fatal injury rate is double that of the United States. I really do not think that the Australian community or governments generally have any idea of the enormity of that situation not only in economic costs but human costs. After the Easter break and the Anzac Day long weekend we were all rightly concerned about the number of deaths on the roads in Queensland. It is very good that we are becoming more rightly concerned about that, but what a fraction that is of the cost of workplace injury and death. I draw the House's attention to some other figures that I think we ought to be more aware of week by week as members of the government and members of parliament. The Parliamentary Library has been good enough to produce some figures for the 2000-01 financial year for all industries in Queensland and I think they are worth reciting into the Hansard record. There were 70 fatalities and 35,072 compensated workplace injuries. Some 10.7 per cent of these injuries were classified as severe—that is, 3,770. This is per year. These are the figures from the 2000-01 financial year. There were 2.5 injuries per 100 employees. Some 822,570 work days were lost due to work injuries. Everyone gets upset about lost time through industrial disputes. In some circumstances that may be justifiably so, ignoring for the moment the particular circumstances involved in any individual dispute. But I ask how many employer organisations jump up and down each year over 800,000 working days lost through workplace injuries. I rarely hear it, if ever do I hear it. Mr Pearce interjected. Mr WILSON: I take that interjection from the member for Fitzroy. It is 58.3 working days absent per 100 employees. Labourers and related workers sustained 30.1 per cent of all injuries—total compensation of $137,834,000 paid to 35,000 injured persons. 1404 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

Time does not permit me to go through the figures for the building and construction industry in particular. The ones I have just read are from the all industry survey. But can I just draw the attention of honourable members to one figure out of the building industry figures. The average compensation payment per employee in the construction and utility supply industry was $174—77.6 per cent above the all industry figure. That makes the point that generally, if we had time to go to the individual figures for the construction industry, the rate of fatality, death and injury in the construction industry is noticeably higher than the all industries area. As I said earlier, the workplace health and safety amendments are directed towards enlarging the number of persons bearing an obligation to ensure safety in the workplace. In particular, it is directed towards suppliers of equipment, not just the manufacturers and designers. Secondly, it is directed towards building owners and people in control of buildings. Thirdly, it is directed towards building designers having obligations towards the workplace as well. In relation to the WorkCover amendments, principally they are directed, as I say, to enlarging the pool of working people, irrespective of their employment status, who are entitled to insurance protection under the statutory scheme and, by corollary, impose an obligation on their employer to actually take out workers compensation. The way in which that is done is by expanding the definition of 'worker' to in effect set up a results test and provide that a person will not be considered to be a worker unless it can be shown that that person meets all elements of the results test. The three elements of that results test are that the person is paid to achieve specified results or an outcome; secondly, the person has to supply the plant and equipment or tools of trade needed to perform the work; thirdly, the person is or would be liable for the cost of rectifying any defect in the work performed. I want to conclude my short contribution in support of this bill with this observation: that change to the definition of 'worker' under the WorkCover Act is one of the best amendments that this government, whether in the previous term or this term, has introduced. Why? Because it rolls back the Santo Santoro Liberal Party-National Party attack on workers introduced by the WorkCover Act 1996. In that act, without any shame whatsoever, the then coalition government decided that it would artificially contract the pool of working people who could get the benefit of a statutory workers compensation system by restricting the definition of 'worker' back to the classical legal definition that there must be a contract of employment, notwithstanding the fact that over the last 10 to 15 years prior to that point the whole nature of employment, particularly in the building and construction industry, had changed radically because of the introduction of many more independent contractors, many more dependent contractors, part-time work, casual work and a whole range of other employment situations. But in reality the real position for most working people, irrespective of their employment status, was that their work was no different to a worker coming under the classical definition of a 'worker'. I commend the minister and I commend the Beattie government for rolling back the Santo amendments. I will conclude on this point: we have to be wary of a coalition government in Queensland. It has said nothing since 1996 that indicates it has abandoned this narrow Right Wing ideological agenda directed to attacking workers and reducing their entitlements under the WorkCover system. That is what it will do if it is in government in Queensland. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (6.45 p.m.): I am pleased to support this bill for a number of reasons, but significantly because it makes changes to the way in which we deal with occupational health and safety, particularly by giving more opportunities for employees to actively engage with employers in dealing with occupational health and safety issues at the workplace level. As with other speakers, I want to thank the unions, employer associations and the department for the work that has been done in putting this bill together. I have a particular interest in occupational health and safety due to my former employment with the trade union movement as an occupational health and safety trainer but also, as with the previous speaker, through my role as an official with the Electrical Trades Union. Mr Wilson: And a good official you were, too. Mr NEIL ROBERTS: I think it is fair to say—and I am confident in saying this—that the trade union movement has been at the forefront of improving occupational health and safety outcomes for both its members and industry generally in this state and across Australia. Many years ago the approach to occupational health and safety was effectively to blame workers for their injuries. Those of us who have been involved in this industry for some time will remember the many posters produced by government departments and other groups which in effect laid the fault of many injuries at the foot of workers rather than seeking to identify what the real causation factors were. In recent years there has been a significant change in approach in dealing with 29 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1405 occupational health and safety matters from simply blaming individuals for their injuries to seeking to identify the causes of injuries, giving workers more information about the hazards and issues that they have to confront in a workplace and, more importantly, as I indicated earlier, actively involving workers/employees in the processes to identify and deal with workplace health and safety issues in their workplace. The most significant factor which changed the approach to workplace health and safety was the Robens report, which the minister refers to in his second reading speech. Lord Robens was commissioned by the British government in the early 1970s to study extensively the hotchpotch of legislation that existed in Britain at the time on occupational health and safety issues and which was replicated here in Australia. The 1972 Robens report was the most significant report that I believe has ever been undertaken in terms of this issue and in effect became the benchmark for the establishment of legislation in this field both in Britain and in Australia. The Robens approach was based on two key principles. The first one was to unify and integrate the vast number of pieces of legislation and regulation under the umbrella of a single act and, secondly, to do what Robens referred to, namely, putting in place a 'more effectively self- regulating system' of occupational health and safety. The self-regulation that Robens referred to should not be confused with deregulation. Robens meant that there should be a statutory duty on every employer to consult with employees or their representatives at their workplace on measures for promoting safety and health at work and to provide for the participation of employees in the development of such measures. So the most important aspect of the Robens report and the most important principle that has changed the approach to occupational health and safety both in Britain and in this country was that principle of actively engaging with workers and empowering them at the local workplace level in the processes of identifying and dealing with occupational health and safety hazards and other issues at the workplace. In effect, the importance of it was not just that workers were actively involved but that they had to be actively involved with their employers in dealing with these issues, and I will say a little bit more about that in a moment. It was not until the mid-1980s that Robens style legislation was enacted in this country—initially in some of the southern states. Various jurisdictions implemented Robens style legislation, including Queensland, to replace the older style factories and shops type of legislation that existed at the time. In many cases, the old approach in the Factories and Shops Act—along with some of the regulations that hung off it—was simply to specify particular hazards and also in some detail specify what employers were required to do to deal with it. In many respects, it was a lot easier for employers in those days to know what they had to do. Also, the effect of it was that it was a lot easier to enforce, because we had a regulation that said what was required. If people did not do that, they could be prosecuted. The disadvantage of that approach was that it was virtually impossible to cover all of the hazards or potential hazards that existed in a workplace. As a consequence, as time went by, it led to a proliferation of specific regulations and specific pieces of legislation which, in the end, became unworkable. The important point to make also about the old approach was that it did not encourage the proactive involvement of workers with their employers in identifying and eliminating hazards at the workplace level. As I have indicated, the active participation of workers and their unions was one of the more successful strategies promoted by the Robens reforms. Some of the initiatives that arose out of that were the appointment of health and safety representatives and also workplace health and safety officers, who are covered by our current act; the establishment of joint committees at the workplace level to deal with workplace health and safety matters, which again are provided for in the current act; and regular inspections which, as a result of this bill, are now to be a part of the duties of an occupational health and safety officer. One of the other initiatives arising out of the Robens approach was the establishment of occupational health and safety agreements between unions and employers. It is in that initiative that the trade union movement proactively involved itself in changing the nature and approach of workplace health and safety across the states in Australia. As I have indicated, many states have implemented the Robens reforms to different degrees. Probably the most far-reaching Robens style legislation was enacted in Victoria in the mid-1980s. The Victorian legislation went further than any other legislation in Australia, specifically in the powers and responsibilities given to workplace health and safety representatives. 1406 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 29 Apr 2003

One of the more controversial aspects of the powers given to workplace health and safety representatives in Victoria was the power to stop the job—the power to direct workers to cease work in an employment situation. When that power was introduced, there were all sorts of concerns and fears raised about the anarchy that would exist in workplaces as a result of this legislative power being given to elected union representatives on the job. I know from my active involvement in this sector in the late 1980s and early 1990s that that did not happen. In fact, the power that was given to workers was exercised very responsibly. I cannot recall there being a significant incident where it was abused. I think that demonstrates that, in terms of these issues, which are so significant to the wellbeing of people in their workplaces, if we actively involve people, if we genuinely give them empowerment at the workplace level, then we can achieve great outcomes. The right to stop the job has not been adopted in legislation by any other state, including Queensland. It is, in fact, a common law right of all workers to cease employment when they believe that their health and safety is endangered. Victoria took that bold step of legislating that power to elected representatives. We have not done that and neither has any other state. Personally, I think it is a power that would be exercised responsibly by people here and in other parts of the country. I base that on the fact that I took part in negotiations in the late 1980s with Queensland Rail. We negotiated a workplace health and safety agreement—and this was a decade ago now—and the power to stop the job within Queensland Rail was granted to workers. From my recollection, there has never been any abuse of that particular power. The need for an effective strategy to deal with occupational health and safety issues in the workplace has been highlighted by a number of speakers, and particularly in the minister's second reading speech, which the previous speaker outlined, and that was the number of workers who are killed annually as a result of workplace accidents. The cost in human terms is just immeasurable. The sad fact is that a large number of these deaths—in fact, I would say the majority—are preventable through sensible approaches implemented at the workplace level. This bill proposes a number of improvements. I am not going to go through them in any detail. Again, for me, the most significant step forward arising out of this bill—and I acknowledge the definition of 'worker' relating to the WorkCover situation—in terms of the approach to workplace health and safety is giving workplace representatives and occupational health and safety officers more active involvement in identifying and dealing with health and safety issues at the workplace level. There are a number of other measures in the bill. In particular, I want to mention the new compliance measures, particularly the enforceable undertakings. I think that is a good move. That initiative is also included in the Electrical Safety Act. Rather than a prosecution, which in some cases will have to be the first option, the department or the chief executive of the department can enter into an agreement with an employer or an individual to rectify breaches of legislation in their particular workplace. If they are not complied with, they are enforceable. I think that is a sensible step forward. It provides the inspectorate and the department with an additional tool to deal with this very significant issue in our workplaces. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (6.57 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to support the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill, which makes some minor amendments to ensure that policy objectives will be met. These amendments will improve workplace legal obligations, consultation between employers and employees will now be more consistent with other safety legislation, and reporting requirements will be streamlined. Basically, workers' safety is at the heart of this legislation, reflecting the realities of the modern workplace. Employer obligations will have to be met and it will not be easy for shonky employers to escape their legal responsibilities. I am sure that all of us in this House know of unsafe work practices being carried out in our electorates where unscrupulous subcontractors have put their employers at great risk. Suppliers to small business will also have to ensure that plant and equipment will be safe and they will have to provide adequate information to make sure that it is used safely. This progressive legislation will go some way towards preventing the hundreds of work related deaths and thousands of workplace injuries that have already occurred in Queensland. Every worker should feel that their work environment will ensure their safe return home at the end of the day. I agree with the comments made by the member for Mudgeeraba during the last parliamentary sitting. There are very few accidents. Every such accident can and should be avoided, because there is always a cause that could have been prevented. That prevention could 29 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1407 occur through training, through supervision, through safety guidelines, through codes of practice and so on. Accidents just should not happen. Those industries that do not buy a site but lease one to cut overheads will also face stricter safety regulations which meet all of the legal requirements. With huge growth in self-employment comes implications for workers compensation, industrial relations, workplace training and so on. I am very happy to be able to support this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Ms Nelson-Carr, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.00 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Standby Suicide Bereavement Response Service Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—ONP) (7.00 p.m.): I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the marvellous work being carried out by the Standby Suicide Bereavement Response Service throughout the Cooloola and Sunshine Coast regions. The Cooloola and Sunshine Coast regions comprise diverse communities and include rural residents in the isolated hinterland areas and residents in the more populated coastal areas. The region's population continues to be highly transient, with a wide range of people seeking to relocate to the area. The Standby bereavement service is a coordinated community crisis response service for the families, friends and associates of people who have committed suicide. The service was set up to address an area of need which was sadly lacking in adequate services. This wonderful service provides support and assistance to people by providing a skilled intervention team which is accessible 24 hours a day. The Standby service provides local links to social and personal support services such as counsellors, GPs, allied health workers and indigenous and multicultural services. Some of the team have experienced the devastating effects of losing someone to suicide and are able to offer an understanding and compassionate ear to those who need it. These volunteers appreciate and understand the feelings of shock and trauma which can be associated with grief and loss and can also provide an insight into the process which sometimes includes interviews by police which can, quite understandably, be a daunting task when facing such a traumatic event. Not only does the Standby team assist those touched personally by suicide; it has developed a community awareness program, which is a training program designed to assist other organisations, groups and supporters who wish to have a better understanding of and insight into suicide and the many and various effects it has upon a community as well as how to implement the appropriate support and coping mechanisms. For those who have been touched by suicide, the help offered by the Standby service has been invaluable. In the words of one woman who was assisted by this organisation, 'They helped make an unbearable situation bearable.' So far the Standby organisation has received very much appreciated funding from both the local and federal governments. I urge the Health Minister to join these other tiers of government by providing financial assistance to this most exemplary and vital community organisation so that it can continue in its valuable contribution to our community.

Brisbane Turf Club; Optigrass Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (7.03 p.m.): The Brisbane Turf Club, which is situated in the electorate of Clayfield, has partnered with Biosecurity Ltd to implement an Optigrass facility at Doomben racecourse. Ms Nelson-Carr: What a great idea! Ms LIDDY CLARK: A fabulous idea—and at Doomben, and in Clayfield. Biosecurity Ltd, a Queensland owned and managed company, owns the worldwide rights to Opti Grow, a highly developed industrial system for the accelerated growth of commercial quantities of high value plant products such as wheat grass and barley grass in a totally controlled environment. The club has secured a deal that will see it be the producer and distributor of Optigrass to the equine 1408 Adjournment 29 Apr 2003 industry in south-east Queensland. The system is unique in both the consistent high quality of plant products produced and its control of biological contamination, essential for plant products for human consumption. Importantly, at a time of great drought in mainland Australia this technology is capable of producing significant daily quantities of fresh plant product, regardless of external environmental conditions and with limited water consumption. It also accelerates germination and growth. For example, barley grass can be grown from seed to a height of approximately 15 centimetres in five days. Traditional growing practices would require an estimated 35 hectares of land to produce a similar load of feed. Water consumption under traditional growing methods would require 350,000 litres per day, and 85 per cent of all watering is lost in run-off and evaporation. The Optigrass technology is housed in a controlled growing chamber the size of a suburban house and garage. It requires 1,000 litres per day, of which 80 per cent is absorbed in the growing process. The remaining 20 per cent is recycled to maintain the racecourse. The unique Opti Grow process is establishing a significant position in the lucrative and rapidly growing human function food market, as well as in the fresh feed market for high value animals. A functional food is food product for human consumption, having particular health promoting benefits or disease preventing properties that are additional to its normal nutritional value. Brisbane Turf Club Executive Officer, Sean Kelk, is excited by the technology and the prospect of producing nutritious, high-quality feed for the thoroughbred racing industry. It is complementary to its business and will generate an additional revenue stream for the club. The technology will also be able to provide product to be processed for human consumption, such as juices that are currently being sold in juice outlets. The club will investigate with Biosecurity the possibility of extending the plant to provide product for human consumption in the metropolitan area. I congratulate both organisations on this smart and environmentally sustainable partnership that will benefit our thoroughbred racing industry. Congratulations to all.

Power Outages Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (7.06 p.m.): On 18 April close to my home in Ingham a power outage occurred at 10.20 p.m. The power was restored at about midnight. This was caused by a tree falling into another tree, which subsequently fell into the 11,000 volt conductors, putting out 55 Ergon suppliers in the distribution system. There had also been outages in the Palmerston Range area, and defects in the underground cable needed to be rectified. On 21 April power was cut in the area north of Babinda. An outage occurred from 1.34 p.m. to a sector of the Babinda region and the Graham Range. On 22 April 1,000 homes and businesses went without power for almost five hours as a result of the 66,000 volt powerline going out on Cook's Lane, Ingham. I understand that a cross-arm failure was the cause of the disruption. On 23 April a lengthy break from 7.30 a.m. occurred as a result of a tree falling on the transmission line at Dinner Creek, north of Innisfail. In Innisfail on 24 April from 8.10 a.m. to 10.06 a.m. a failure occurred with the transmission system. Other outages have occurred which may not have lasted long but which were sufficient to disrupt electronic time clocks. It was not as if north Queensland was experiencing a cyclone. Certainly there was wet weather and windy conditions which in some instances causes trees close to transmission lines to fall over. It has been frustrating for industry to contend with these outages. One local radio station has lost valuable air time on four separate occasions. Most of this was in prime time for radio—in the morning. The station experienced four outages in four days. The station manager said that if there was an outage which caused someone not to be able to read a newspaper they could go back to it when the power came back on but that with radio the information may not be repeated again and the station loses touch with a segment of its consumers. Faults with the transmission system have to be repaired, and these repairs often take place under adverse conditions. The work can at the least be difficult and often be dangerous for repair crews, who do an excellent job in restoring supply. There is no doubt that GOCs such as Ergon must have been under pressure, as was the case with the former boards, to come up with the 95 per cent of their operating profit to feed the government's insatiable appetite for cash. It is now becoming apparent that this has impacted on the distribution system in north Queensland Time expired. 29 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1409

Anzac Day Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (7.09 p.m.): Every year on 25 April communities across our country and in some other countries gather to pay tribute to Australian diggers who have fought in all conflicts and to remember those who did not return home. This year, however, for the first time residents gathered at the newly erected memorial in Runaway Bay for the Runaway Bay RSL sub- branch inaugural Anzac Day ceremonies. Close to 200 local residents and veterans gathered at the cenotaph for the dawn service during which rosemary was handed out and local Labrador Primary School student Kieran Lewerissa impressed all those who gathered with his fine contribution to the service as the bugler. Following the dawn service, everyone met for the traditional gunfire breakfast at the Runaway Bay Junior Leagues Club. At 9.15 those marching in the march assembled at the leagues club, and the excitement that the march was generating could be felt where I was standing nearly 300 metres away. It was my great honour and privilege to have been invited to receive the salute alongside our local senior sergeant Murray Underwood. As we stood on the dais watching the march move towards us from around the corner, I could never have anticipated the feeling of pride I was experiencing. As 91-year-old Eric Snow, who was leading the parade, called 'eyes left', I could then see the feeling of pride in the eyes of those veterans marching in front of me. To see, though, marching alongside of them their families, community representatives and organisations, schoolchildren and supporters, the overwhelming feeling was of community and Anzac spirit. As we gathered together in somewhat inclement weather, we were reminded through prayers and the laying of wreaths of the sacrifices our brave Australian diggers have made in our many conflicts and of peacekeeping missions Australian troops are currently committed to around the globe. I wish to commend the Runaway Bay sub-branch for its hard work undertaken in organising the ceremonies. I would like to thank the Runaway Bay police and Ambulance Service for their support and assistance. I would also like to thank Padre Major Kelvin Alley for his address at the dawn service, Kieran Lewerissa and the Salvation Army band. The Runaway Bay Leagues Club and Gold Coast City Council have provided ongoing support to the sub-branch, and I know the club is greatly appreciative of this. The Runaway Bay sub-branch has filled a void in our local area. With nearly 60 new members, I am confident that this new club will continue to grow. And every year on 25 April the community will gather at the memorial that stands next to the library on Lae Drive to stand and march alongside our veterans and to ensure that our servicemen and women are never forgotten.

Mount Perry Race Club Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (7.12 p.m.): This Saturday there will be racing at Mount Perry. It will be the last race meeting at Mount Perry because of the inexcusable assault by this Labor government on country racing. Tonight I want to extend an invitation to the Minister for Racing, Merri Rose, to come with me to Mount Perry next Saturday and explain to the 1,500 or 2,000 people who will be there why after well over 100 years the Mount Perry Race Club is being shut down by this government decision. There is no excuse imaginable for this valuable social event to be shut down in the way that this state government is endeavouring to do. By any test, the Mount Perry races are a success. There have been in the last two meetings over 1,500 people attend the races at Mount Perry. It is a very successful club that manages to attract a good field of starters in all of its races and has done for many years. More importantly, it has attracted a good crowd to the races every time they have been held, and they have been held twice a year for quite some years now. In the assault on country racing that this minister has overseen, the Mount Perry Race Club has not been allocated any race meetings at all in the future and inevitably this will be the last meeting. It is inexcusable for this to happen without some sort of an explanation to the people who have been long-time patrons of the Mount Perry club, and it is inexcusable for this to happen to the people who have given their time voluntarily in a lot of roles to build the Mount Perry Race Club to the standard that it is today. It is a great spot. It is a historic course and a very scenic place. It is a day that many people have enjoyed for many years. Even though Mount Perry is in my electorate, many regular attendees at the Mount Perry races come from the electorates of the members for Burnett and Bundaberg. The member for Bundaberg, in the minister's absence, should take the time to come out to Mount Perry next Saturday. In fact, I extend an invitation to the member for Bundaberg as a minister in the cabinet 1410 Adjournment 29 Apr 2003 that made this decision to close down the Mount Perry races to come out with me next Saturday and explain to the great many people who will be there, many of whom will be her constituents, why this government is pursuing this inexcusable course of action and this inexcusable assault on country racing. This is a very successful country race club that has been destroyed by a cynical decision of an arrogant and uncaring government. Time expired.

Coolum Boardwalk Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (7.15 p.m.): I had the very great honour to represent Minister Matt Foley at the launch of the Coolum boardwalk stage 2 on 11 April 2003 just near the fabulous Coolum Surf Life Saving Club. The boardwalk has been a joint initiative of the Coolum Beach Progress and Ratepayers Association, the Coolum Boardwalk Committee, Maroochy Council, Mr Dave Simons aided and abetted by his lovely wife, Val, the Coolum community, and the Department of Employment and Training. I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Dave and Val of the progress association, Peter Brown, Lyn Morris, Mark Kitchener, John Fuller and all those community groups and individuals who played a role in bringing this dream to a reality. The project received $320,180 of Community Jobs Plan funding from the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. Namtec Welding and Metal Community Assistance Program also received $35,540. Thanks to them for their assistance to the unemployed participants and especially to Dr Anne Winning, who I know goes beyond the call of duty when it comes to executing her responsibilities. The boardwalk stands as a testimony to their drive and passion as a whole community to make Coolum a better place to live for us as a community and for our visitors who already enjoy the oceanic views in a very different way. The architect and his associates, Dragi Majstorovic, truly deserve accolades for the vision, beauty, design and positioning of this beautiful new facility, the first of its kind on the Sunshine Coast with wheelchair access. It was my very great pleasure to give the participants their well- earned certificates for gaining skills that will hopefully set them up for future employment. Some of these participants have already secured employment. They are John Christie, Eyre Jessop, Linda Bartell, Sonja Hall, Levi Missen, Adam Smith, Daniel Sleep, Darrel Press, Craig Sheringham, Mark Philtrip, Brent Hildebrand, Steve Downs, Gerry Crotty, Geoff Garrat and Violet Spicer. For me as the local sitting member of this fantastic community, I was filled with pride, proud of my community and their achievement and especially of those people who shook my hand and received their awards. The boardwalk is a testimony to their hope, their work and their aspirations and those of us all. Many local businesses have contributed financially and in kind, and I thank them on behalf of the Noosa electorate. All in all, I think this has been a thoroughly well-organised project that is a tribute to the multitudes of people involved in it.

Community Housing Group, Hervey Bay Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (7.17 p.m.): I believe it is imperative that the government urgently intervene in the present debacle involving the Hervey Bay crisis and community housing group. This group controlled many houses and dwellings and a seven- bedroom men's hostel, and therefore it was a very important asset to the community and provided a service which was extremely beneficial to the whole Hervey Bay area. Following compliance reports by both the Department of Housing and the Department of Families, it appears that both these government departments have deserted the organisation and seem to be searching for another organisation to provide the valuable service. There is no doubt that the local member of parliament and the relevant ministers have been unable to resolve the concerns of all parties, and so we find some vicious allegations being made by all parties concerned and many people being hurt both financially and personally. I now have letters making allegations that the Department of Families had not informed the new committee that a new deal has been made and questioning why this committee would want to regain control of an association that was more than likely in the red. Therefore, I ask: were the ministers and local member aware of facts that the association is not aware of? There are allegations that deals have been struck with previous administrators and some members have now been sacked. Clearly this leads to vicious allegations, especially when I have in my possession vicious letters making statements that government representatives have threatened people and that none of this would have occurred if all members of the committee were required 29 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1411 to undertake and provide a full police check and bankruptcy check to the Office of Fair Trading when registering before persons are allowed to hold any position, whether voluntary or not. Another letter states— It is my belief that some employees of the Department of Families and Department of Housing may be complicit in the covering up of the crimes that may have been committed by the staff and the management committee members of the Hervey Bay Crisis and Community Housing Association. That letter continues— The actions taken by the staff members of the government departments involved has not allowed due process to occur and as a result no audit has been undertaken to establish the true financial position of the association at the point of time that the irregularities were identified. The actions of governmental staff members has more than likely allowed the assets of the association to be depleted to an extent that some creditors are likely to lose money. The assets available should have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who is going to be accountable for these debts, the government or are the unwitting creditors to lose out again ... Then finally from the association itself, which says— ... It was necessary to resign and release the auspice of the organisation back to the funding/governing body's disposal... All staffing positions within the Administration will be vacant by the end of April, as the organisation will cease to continue... The Association owns approximately half of the Men's hostel and legal advice is now being sought. These allegations, which are only some of the ones that I have received in these letters, are extremely vicious. They are against government departments, or they are against both of those two departments, and I ask the minister to intervene. Time expired.

Special Education Unit, Miami High School Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (7.21 p.m.): Last week I was proud to officially open stage 1 of the newly refurbished special education unit at Miami High School. These are improvements which were long overdue, and I would like to thank the Minister for Education for her efforts on behalf of the unit. Before the upgrade, all of the unit's 47 students attended lessons together in one large classroom. The students have a variety of vision, hearing and/or speech and language impairment, and their existing accommodation was not conducive to maximising concentration or learning. There was also a serious lack of special facilities. Special kids need special facilities. Now there is a range of facilities, including a maths and science room, language room, office, sick bay, therapy room and a responsible thinking room. Perhaps we should have one of those! The complex was completed at cost of $236,000 and has been brilliantly planned and built. The new unit comprises a number of facilities especially designed for the hearing and visually impaired. These students now have access to vision impaired adaptive technology, and the rooms are sound proofed which means that loud Braille machines can be used without disturbing other students. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the staff of the special education unit on their dedication and hard work. Caroline Eggins has been with the unit since its inception 16 years ago and is a gifted teacher and an excellent administrator. Also included in the unit is the commercial kitchen furnished with $5,000 of white goods generously donated by Harvey Norman. This will enable students in the unit to get a head start on traineeships and to learn valuable vocational and life skills. Helen Scown, whose daughter Cassie is a student in the special education unit, has been a tireless advocate for the improvements. Her efforts have been acknowledged by having the kitchen named in her honour. I can testify personally that Helen's G block turns out a great morning tea. The most wonderful thing about the improvements is the utter delight of the students who are thrilled to bits with their new classroom and facilities. I was proudly escorted to every part of the new unit and shown every nook and cranny. The students now have an obvious pride in the school and that can only increase their achievements. Although the improvements to the unit are terrific, there is more work yet to be done. Stage 2 of the project will provide a storeroom for outdoor education equipment, a staff room and allow the horticulture sheds to be moved providing a garden for the students. While the funding has not yet been allocated for this stage, I know that the Minister for Education, Anna Bligh, as a former student of Miami High has it high on her list of priorities. I cannot wait to see it finished. 1412 Adjournment 29 Apr 2003

Deinstitutionalisation Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (7.24 p.m.): Tonight, if I may, I would like to talk briefly about the issue of mental health. I think it is a statewide issue, but I approach it from the point of view of the Lockyer electorate. Mental health is a very difficult issue to address. Society itself has difficulty in understanding what is normal and what is not normal. To that extent, a great number of members of society have difficulty in identifying themselves with a community, whether it be a community of a family, a community of a locality or a community of a town. What does seem to be clear is that the present government—and I very much support its initiative in doing this—embarked some time ago upon a process of deinstitutionalisation; that it does not want people who should or could fit into normal society being locked up and the key thrown away. I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, there are some people in society who in fact do belong in a care facility, not from the point of view of being locked up and the key thrown away but because it makes them feel more comfortable to identify with people who have issues similar to their own. It makes them feel comfortable that they are looked after on a 24-hour basis, and on top of that it relieves society, families and the public purse of the weight of responsibility which they cannot bear. There are families who cannot bear the responsibility, either financially or from a practical point of view, of looking after people who are suffering very severe and acute mental disabilities, and I think that we do need to address the issue that there are some people in our society who do need to be looked after in a care facility situation. Ipswich City Hospital has a 250,000 client base, a lot of whom fall within my electorate. They used to have 37 beds for acute cases. It went down to six and now has come to 10. The number of workers allocated to deal with the issues in mental health cannot cope with the number of client bases, and although we believe in putting people in the community whenever possible, I think we need to identify where it would be beneficial to the client, to the patient, if you like, and beneficial to the public and the government to have institutions. We need to establish where we can place these people so that they can be looked after on a very close, one-to-one basis, which would cost less money than paying people in the community to look after those who quite clearly cannot look after themselves. I ask the government to please look at the issue. Time expired.

Anzac Day Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (7.27 p.m.): I rise to inform honourable members of the remembrance services that I was privileged to attend as part of the Anzac Day commemorations of the electorate of Albert. The dawn service, as well as the morning service, at the Beenleigh War Memorial was as moving and as poignant as ever I have attended. To the Beenleigh RSL sub-branch, especially President Tom Childs and coordinator Daphne Brydon: thank you for reminding us of the spirit of the Anzac and for yours and your committee's generous efforts in the professional organisation of the services. Thankyou to all the schoolchildren who came along proudly in their uniforms to pay tribute to those brave young Australians who died in foreign lands defending the freedoms of other countries. Thank you also to Joshua Farmbrough from Rivermount College, who for the first time played the Last Post and Reveille with much skill and passion. To Steve Cavanagh: your poem was an inspiration to us all. Later in the day I was privileged to attend the Pimpama-Ormeau service. Here the students from Pimpama State School, Ormeau State School and Rivermount College came together with the Catafalque Party and Colour Party from TS Walrus, piper John Simpson and a large number of local residents keen to keep the Anzac spirit alive and well in Albert. Many thanks to the Pimpama-Ormeau War Memorial Committee, including chairman Bevan Love, Beverley Gordon, Trevor Miles, Roy Aaskov, Judy Hendrikx and Councillor David Power from the Gold Coast City Council. Reverend Bob Griffith's thoughtful prayer added to the significance of the service. The hard work by the committee and their dedication to the Anzac spirit ensures the sacrifice of local servicemen and women will always be recognised and remembered. I also attended the Rotary Club of Coomera Valley's service for the march from Upper Coomera to the service at the war memorial. This service grows larger every year, and once again was very well attended. Many thanks to Robert Heggie and the committee for their organisation of this very moving tribute. Special thanks to students, principals and teachers from Upper Coomera 29 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1413

State College, Coomera State School, St Stephans and Coomera Anglican College who were in large numbers despite the rain. Thankfully, students who attended these services have never known the horrors of war and the destruction that conflict brings to ordinary lives. On Anzac Day children have a chance to stop and think of how lucky they are to live in a free and democratic country. It is a sad day for many Australians but one that must live on to remind us of the human cost of war and also how proud we can all be to call ourselves Australians. Lest we forget. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.