18 Oct 2001 Legislative Assembly 3001

THURSDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2001

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

PETITION Malanda Ambulance Station; Mr L. Klein Mr Pitt from 108 petitioners, requesting the House to (a) immediately reinstate Ambulance Officer Lee Klein to the position of Officer in Charge, Malanda, (b) confiscate the full financial and general records of the LAC and financial records to be audited by KPMG Auditors and (c) direct the LAC to immediately set a date, giving 14 days notice of their AGM/BGM.

PAPER MINISTERIAL PAPER The following ministerial paper was tabled— Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services (Ms Spence)— Report of Trade Delegation to China and Vietnam

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Coal Industry Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.32 a.m.), by leave: The announcement of a major new coal opportunity in Central Queensland is the trifecta of positive news for the state's resources sector in recent weeks. Macarthur Coal Ltd announced yesterday that it is set to exploit another growth segment of the international coal market with the acquisition of the advanced Monto thermal project. The announcement outlines the intention to investigate the mine. Stage 1 involves a feasibility study for the development of a mine with a capacity of 500,000 tonnes to one million tonnes a year. Upon acceptance, production at Monto could start as early as 2002-03. Stage 2 is based on a longer-term plan to extend the mine to 10 million tonnes a year. This stage would require an upgrade of the railway line, which Macarthur intends to contract out or use infrastructure providers for. This is about jobs, investment and opportunity. I am delighted to see the coverage of this announcement in the Gladstone Observer of this morning. What a great headline: 'Coal Bonanza'. I table the article for the information of the House. While the resulting jobs will exist mainly in Central Queensland, the potential is there for all of the state to win from more export income. The mine is adjacent to the Monto township. The mine will produce an ultra-low nitrogen coal with a nitrogen content of 1.1 per cent. This makes it the lowest of any Australian coals on the export market. Of additional appeal is that the Monto coal has a comparatively low ash content. This makes it most appealing to power utilities, especially in Japan. It is good quality coal. This announcement sits well with the Australian Magnesium Corporation's release of a new public offer seeking to raise $525 million to help fund construction of the $1.3 billion Stanwell refinery. This is an exciting time for the export potential of Central Queensland and indeed all of Queensland. The first of the three positives for Central Queensland's resources sector came on Friday, 15 September, when Deputy Premier and Treasurer Terry Mackenroth and I detailed how a consortium led by international investment bank Babcock and Brown had successfully bid $630 million for the long-term lease of the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal. Dalrymple Bay, at Hay Point south of Mackay, is one of the largest terminals in the world, handling almost 25 per cent of the coal exported from Australia. The lease to the Babcock and Brown consortium will be for 50 years, with an option of extension for a further 49 years. The consortium made an up-front payment to the state government to secure the payment of lease rentals over the term of the lease. This is a win for the coal industry as well as for all Queenslanders. This is a sensible use of resource. On the one hand we receive a strong return for the state from this asset—the money raised can be used now in schools, hospitals and roads—while on the other hand we help to ensure the long-term efficiency of the coal supply chain and the sustained competitiveness of the 3002 Ministerial Statement 18 Oct 2001

Central Queensland coal industry. This is indeed smart thinking in the Smart State. Under the existing management of the government owned Ports Corporation of Queensland, the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal had achieved growth rates in excess of similar terminals elsewhere in the world. By leasing it, however, we free government capital tied up in the facility and foster private sector participation in Queensland infrastructure while retaining state ownership in the long term. Not surprisingly, when expressions of interest were sought for the lease the proposal attracted wide market interest from Australia and overseas. Mines currently supplying the terminal include Blair Athol, Goonyella, Riverside, German Creek, Oaky Creek, North Goonyella, Burton, Moranbah North, Foxleigh and Coppabella. The new $425 million Hail Creek mine and the Moorvale mine south of Coppabella will also export through the terminal. In order to meet this demand, the Ports Corporation of Queensland is currently undertaking stage 5 of an expansion to the terminal to increase the current capacity of approximately 40 million tonnes per year to around 44 million tonnes per year. Work has also commenced on stage 6 to expand the terminal to approximately 54 million tonnes per annum. This will be completed by the lessee by mid 2003. This expansion will make the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal the third-largest coal export terminal in the world and will make the port of Hay Point, which also includes the privately owned BHP facility, the largest in the world. Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal Pty Ltd, a consortium of six users, will continue to operate and maintain the terminal, while the Ports Corporation of Queensland will remain the port authority. Monto, AMC and Dalrymple are a genuine trifecta of success for the whole state. When the community cabinet meeting goes to Mackay in the next few weeks I will be visiting the facility at Dalrymple Bay. An opening will be performed at that time to show the government's commitment to this project. While I am talking about things happening in this can-do state by this can-do government, I tell the House that tomorrow Tony McGrady, the local member, and I will travel to Delta Downs property via Normanton to participate in an announcement of a training initiative for Aboriginal youth with Peter Holmes a Court and Noel Pearson. This is about ensuring jobs and opportunities for young indigenous Queenslanders.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Premier's Literary Awards Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.), by leave: Last night I had the privilege of presenting Australia's richest literary awards to some of the countries most talented writers. The occasion was the 2001 Queensland Premier's Literary Awards at Brisbane's Hilton Hotel. I presented a selection of Australia's finest professional and aspiring authors with awards worth almost $150,000 at the Brisbane Writers Festival Gala Dinner. The decision-making process was a difficult one for the judging committee, with the awards attracting almost 500 high-quality entries from across the country, 191 of those from Queensland writers. I started these awards to promote the Australian literary industry and offer support for Queensland's unpublished authors as part of my government's policy of recognising, supporting and enhancing the arts throughout the state and making Queensland the Smart State. I am proud to announce that the 2001 awards achieved that goal, with an extremely high calibre of Australian authors gaining recognition and receiving financial assistance to help in the production of their writing. Arts Minister Matt Foley demonstrated another facet of our support for writers by presenting the $15,000 Judith Wright Colanthe Award for Poetry to Brook Emery and the $15,000 Steele Rudd Award for Short Story Writing to Judith Clarke. The standard of entries in the Premier's Awards is clearly evident in the prize for the best fiction book, which was accepted from London by highly acclaimed author and winner of many international awards, including the Booker Prize—which he has just won—Peter Carey for True History of the Kelly Gang. I congratulate Peter for pulling off one of the most sought-after quinellas in the world of literature: the Queensland Premier's Award followed by the Booker Prize, which he was awarded this morning, Queensland time. This year's best emerging Queensland author winner, Deborah Carlyon, has not only won $20,000 but also the opportunity to have her book, Mama Kuma: One Woman, Two Cultures, published by the University of Queensland Press within a year. I extend my congratulations to the winners of the 2001 Queensland Premier's Literary Awards and to all those who entered the awards for their tremendous talents. The winners were: 18 Oct 2001 Ministerial Statement 3003

Best fiction book—$25,000, Peter Carey for True History of the Kelly Gang (University of Queensland Press); Best emerging Queensland author—$20,000, Deborah Carlyon for Mama Kuma: One Woman, Two Cultures; Best non-fiction book—$15,000, Brian Matthews for A Fine and Private Place (Pan MacMillan); Best literary or media work advancing public debate—$25,000, Michael Gordon for Reconciliation: A Journey (UNSW Press); Peter Mares for Borderline: Australia's Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (UNSW Press); David Fagan & Dossier Team for Dossier Inside the ABC—they are from the Australian; Best children's book—$15,000, Margaret Wild and Ron Brooks for Fox (Allen & Unwin); Best history book—$15,000, Tim Bonyhady for The Colonial Earth (Melbourne University Press); Best drama (stage)—$15,000, Duong Le Quy for Meat Party (Playbox); and Best film or television script—$15,000, Christine Olsen for Rabbit-proof Fence. Mr Speaker, as you would have noticed, there were advertisements today in the Australian newspaper and a story in the Australian as well as in the Courier-Mail today to highlight those awards. I table a copy of the Australian advertisement for the information of the House. It would be great to see the Courier-Mail cover these awards. They are part of the Smart State education philosophy of my government, supported strongly—at least the education component—by Rupert Murdoch's recent speech on education. In conclusion on this matter, I want to do two things. I want to pay tribute to Dr Glyn Davis, who is the head of the Premier's Department and who will soon be leaving to become the vice- chancellor of Griffith University. Glyn and I worked together to create these awards when we came to office and took a considerable time planning them. As members can see, there is a suite of awards, not just one book. It was about developing an opportunity for emerging Queensland writers. It was about ensuring that there is Australian writing, not just American slang. And it was also part of the Smart State. Glyn was instrumental in helping me develop this whole package of incentives to encourage Queensland writers. And on the eve of his departure, which will be next month, I want to thank him for his contribution in helping to develop this whole suite of awards for the Premier's Literary Awards. But there is more happening in the arts. At lunchtime today Matt Foley, the Minister for the Arts, and I will be opening the Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary Art, which will be a nice incentive for and a considerable boost to the arts in this state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Smart State Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: When first elected, my government set priorities to achieve our vision for the people of Queensland. We have now refined those priorities to reflect the areas in which sustained commitment is required this term. The Queensland government priorities I am about to announce are the key directional statements of the government and provide the overarching framework for government activity. My government is committed to building the social, economic and environmental capacity that makes Queensland the Smart State—a place where new ideas are welcomed, where there is economic opportunity, high-quality education for our children, jobs which are rewarding and fulfilling, a place where our diversity and our environment are valued and which fosters a strong sense of fairness and community spirit. We will secure the state's place as a dynamic, tolerant and mature community that is optimistic about its future in the Australian, Asia-Pacific and world arenas. The government's top priority is employment creation and positioning Queensland as the Smart State. The government will deliver improved and integrated education, health, housing, family and other services and programs that improve people's quality of life. 3004 Ministerial Statement 18 Oct 2001

I move to incorporate the rest of my statement in Hansard to save time. I also table for the information of all members the new Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility. Leave granted. It will work in partnership with the community, strengthen citizenship and democracy, and engage the community more effectively in making decisions about our future. To achieve its vision the Government will lead by example through high standards of accountability, consultation and ethics. It will conduct its business in a fair and equitable manner, respecting human rights. It will manage Queensland's finances to maintain a State Budget surplus, low debt status and AAA credit rating. Our key priority areas are: ¥ More jobs—skills and innovation—the Smart State; ¥ Safer and more supportive communities; ¥ Community engagement and a better quality of life; ¥ Valuing the environment; and ¥ Building Queensland's regions. Our number one priority is More Jobs for Queensland—skills and innovation—the Smart State. To meet the demands of an information economy, the government will ensure Queensland has a highly educated, skilled and flexible workforce, and encourage life-long learning. We will support Queenslanders in gaining and maintaining employment through infrastructure provision to support investment and development, by encouraging an environment for business that allows firms to grow and diversify. Safer and more supportive communities recognises that all Queenslanders want to live in communities where they are protected from harm, where the differences between people are respected, and where everyone is treated with fairness and dignity. A community where we help those most in need. Through Community Engagement and a Better Quality of Life we will encourage all Queenslanders to take part in the rich cultural, social and economic life of our State and to support the democratic processes that underpin our way of life. The government is working to ensure equality of opportunity and equitable access to high standards of education, health, housing and family services and to achieve this through greater participation in choices made by Government. Valuing the Environment recognises that a healthy and sustainable environment is essential to our future. The government will protect Queensland's natural and cultural heritage for current and future generations, and manage the development of our natural resources in an ecologically sustainable way. Finally, Building Queensland's Regions acknowledges that Queensland is the most decentralised state in Australia. The government will ensure that Queensland's regions can capitalise on their unique assets and resources. These priorities form the foundation of the Government's Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility. The Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility outlines what the government wants to achieve in both the social and financial arenas. It provides a basis for the conduct of government and provides the means by which the government's achievements can be measured. This updated charter continues to recognise the government's strong commitment to meeting its financial responsibilities. The fiscal objectives of the government as set out in previous charters are unchanged. There is absolutely no weakening of the government's resolve to achieve its social objectives while managing the state's finances to maintain a state budget surplus, low debt status and AAA credit rating. I now table for the information of all members the new Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility. Mr Speaker, I would also like to inform the House of a new approach to public sector coordination that utilises the diverse skills and knowledge of the state's senior public servants. I have recently established five Chief Executive Officer Committees to drive implementation of the priorities across government. These committees will encourage whole-of-government coordination in the areas of employment, economic development and infrastructure, human services, law and justice, land and resources, and governance. They will focus initially on a small number of critical issues and I look forward to following their progress. Mr BEATTIE: There are two other things that I want to mention quickly. As part of our philosophy of ensuring that the government keeps its focus, there is going to be a caucus retreat for this Sunday afternoon and Monday at Mudjimba. It is part of our renewal process, it is part of the cabinet, and new members in particular getting together, as well as longer-serving backbenchers, to ensure that we continue to be focused. As I said, it is part of our renewal process. In addition, next week we will be announcing the regional events program. It will be announced on Tuesday in Toowoomba, on the way back from the Centenary of Federation flag- raising ceremony at Wallangarra. We are travelling there as part of that. There will be a train from Stanthorpe, as well. I will be launching the regional events strategy. Again, it is part of our priorities. While I am talking about priorities—in Cairns last month, at the 42nd community cabinet meeting, Dean Wells, the Environment Minister, and I jointly announced that the state government had taken further steps to meet the challenges for climate change. We jointly released Queensland's greenhouse policy framework—a climate of change—which I table for the information of the House. The framework demonstrates the state government's commitment to greenhouse and climate change action. This framework marks the beginning of further greenhouse and climate 18 Oct 2001 Ministerial Statement 3005 change policy development in Queensland. This is particularly challenging in an economy dependent on high-emission activities. Actions to make the world more capable of dealing with greenhouse issues cannot be taken by government alone. We need to work with industry and community to address greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change to achieve a sustainable future. This document will form the basis of consultation with industry and the community to develop a Queensland greenhouse response strategy. The framework builds on recent state government initiatives, such as the Queensland energy policy—a cleaner energy strategy and the vegetation management framework, which are already assisting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while delivering other environmental, social and economic benefits. The framework outlines a way forward for government action in the areas of knowledge and understanding, emissions reduction and carbon sequestration and adaptation to climate change. The EPA, mainly through its Sustainable Industries Division, is responsible for a number of initiatives that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the solar hot water rebate scheme; the working properties rebate scheme; the $1.5 million industry energy demand program; the $1.4 million cleaner production partnership program; and the sustainable energy innovation fund. A climate of change complements the extensive work already being done by the state government to respond to greenhouse issues and maintain Queensland's unique environment. This is all about environmental responsibility in a Smart State environment. Finally, I inform the House that on 20 September 2001, in accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the Constitution Act 1867 and the Officials in Parliament Act 1896, His Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council, approved Administrative Arrangements Order (No. 7) 2001. I lay upon the table of the House a copy of the relevant notification from the Queensland Government Gazette.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Honda Indy 300 Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.47 a.m.), by leave: Next week Queensland's premier motor racing event, the Honda Indy 300, takes place. The event, which will be held from 25 to 28 October on the Gold Coast, is the penultimate round of a 21-race series and captures worldwide attention. In July, I had the pleasure of waving the marshal flag to signal 100 days to go before the Gold Coast shifts into top gear. By then, planning had already hit overdrive and there was mounting anticipation that this year's Indy would achieve new heights. Now, with only a week to go, that anticipation has grown, with ticket sales higher than sales during this time last year. This is a tremendous achievement in light of recent crises both at home and abroad. I would like to congratulate the Indy organisers for overcoming these tough challenges to once again present a blue-ribbon event which has set a benchmark for sporting spectacles in Australia. The Beattie government has always been a strong supporter of the Honda Indy. We have pushed long and hard to help continue its phenomenal drawing power and further lift its status as an international icon event. The growing popularity of this international event is best reflected in attendance figures. When the Gold Coast first staged the race back in 1991, it attracted approximately 150,000 people. This figure nearly doubled when the Gold Coast Indy celebrated its 10th anniversary last year, with a record crowd of 269,890 people converging on the coast. Many from across Australia now make it an annual pilgrimage. Last year's Indy attracted 19,000 more spectators than did 1999 during the four days of racing. Needless to say, this period is highly valued by the tourism industry. In fact, regional tourism authorities rate this event second only to the Christmas/New Year period in terms of economic benefit to the Gold Coast region. We estimate that it generates more than 175,000 visitor nights in Queensland and has triggered economic benefits from $9.5 million in 1991 to more than $46 million in 2000. It also delivers an employment boost, creating more than 700 jobs across several industries. And with its tremendous scope for corporate opportunities, sponsors are always keen to make the most of the event. Last year's Indy drew support from more than 200 corporate sponsors, who injected more than $7.5 million in total. They brought with them approximately 7,500 guests. The exposure that Queensland, particularly the Gold Coast, enjoys over the four days is also enhanced through television. This year's Indy will be broadcast to a potential international 3006 Ministerial Statement 18 Oct 2001 audience of 700 million people in 195 countries. Images of Gold Coast beaches, the high- charged racing action and the party atmosphere are sure to raise the international profile of the Gold Coast and Queensland as an ideal tourist destination. I believe it is priceless overseas exposure for Queensland and offers enormous economic potential. The event also grows in popularity across Australia. Last year's Indy penetrated more households in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. More than two million viewers across Australia watched the race on television. I would also like to recognise the wonderful army of volunteers who make the Indy a success every year. Significantly, more than 1,300 volunteers donate their time to serve at the event. In this the International Year of the Volunteer, we will recognise their contributions through commemorative certificates. Encouraging sales figures so far mean we have a lot to look forward to and the 2001 program boasts a range of racing and entertainment packages. On track, there are five different categories including the V8's, Young Guns, Nations Cup and the V8 Brutes. Off track, there are more than 70 events planned. In July, the Indy was inducted into the Queensland Tourism Hall of Fame for its third successive win in the best festival or event category at the Queensland Tourism Awards. So as demonstrated, the Indy marks an important time of the year for the Sunshine State and I am sure once again this year it will prove to be a wonderful spectacle and an excellent promotion for Queensland. Finally, I add that there has been some speculation as to whether the race would go ahead this year. Might I say that the drivers start arriving at the international airport at 8.20 tomorrow morning.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary Arts Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.53 a.m.), by leave: Today the curtain goes up on the first phase of the Queensland government's $260 million Millennium Arts Project, the Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary Arts. This $15.25 million project is an Australian first, where seven contemporary arts organisations will work, practise and perform in the same premises. The seven groups are the Arterial group; Australian Film, Television and Radio School; Elision Contemporary Music Ensemble; Expressions Dance Company; the Institute of Modern Art; Kooemba Jdarra Indigenous Performing Arts; and Rock 'n' Roll Circus. It is one of Queensland's greatest cultural assets and is already causing much interest. The Queensland government purchased the Fortitude Valley site in December 1996, and I acknowledge the contribution of former arts minister Sheldon. Unfortunately, the coalition government made no funding provision for the redevelopment of the centre as a contemporary art space other than a fanciful assertion that an $8 million recoverable loan would somehow be paid off by the struggling arts company tenants. However, this government faced up to the challenge of turning the dream into a reality and allocated over $11 million to make it happen. Construction started in October 2000. A year later—today—its doors will officially open. Extensive consultation between Arts Queensland, the resident cultural organisations and the project's architects, Cox Rayner, has taken place to redesign the former Empire office furniture building to incorporate the individual needs of the resident groups. The design blends new and old. State-of-the-art facilities include a 200-seat theatre; four galleries; three artist's residences, one of which has been designed for people with disabilities; a screening room; administration and storage facilities; workshops and rehearsal spaces. Some of the facilities are available for hire and booking inquiries are already coming in for everything from Christmas parties to theatre performances. The Queensland government's nationally unmatched art built-in policy, which allocates two per cent of government capital works projects—and I thank the Honourable the Minister for Public Works for his strenuous support for that policy—worth more than $250,000 to public art, has indeed been incorporated into the foyer of the building. Called ghosting, it includes a multimedia projection wall and sense-around sound and was the collaborative effort of visual artists, musicians, the curator and the architects of the building. The Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary Arts project has created more than 7,400 person hours of employment, which equates to approximately 154 full-time jobs during the 12 months of 18 Oct 2001 Ministerial Statement 3007 construction and refurbishment. When we add this to the other projects which come under the millennium arts umbrella, it is easy to see that, when it is completed in 2005, the state's arts facilities will be among the best in Australia. The new centre in Brunswick Street has been named in honour of renowned poet, and dedicated campaigner for justice, the environment and for Aboriginal people, Judith Wright. Judith Wright lived in Queensland for more than 30 years and for a time in New Farm. When as a young woman Judith Wright wrote those famous words, 'South of my days circle, part of my blood's country,' she could not have known how her words would touch and inspire future generations of young artists. It will be my privilege later today, with the Premier, to unveil the Queensland government's latest cultural asset, as we seek to position Brisbane as a leading cultural destination both nationally and internationally.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Residential Aged Care Facilities Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.57 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to announce that all 21 state government residential aged care facilities have met the Commonwealth government's accreditation standards, and in meeting these standards the facilities will continue to receive Commonwealth funding for a further three years. To gain accreditation each facility had to undergo a comprehensive audit by Commonwealth quality assessment teams. What that audit demonstrated is that the care delivered to residents in state government facilities is consistent with nationally set benchmarks. The audit showed that Queensland state government residential aged care facilities offer services which adequately reflect the needs of residents, relatives and staff; plan and document processes and outcomes appropriately; provide staff development; address cultural issues; strive to continuously improve quality through regular review and feedback mechanisms; and operate holistic rather than as an ad hoc service. Much of the credit for the results of the audit is due to the quality of the staff. These fantastic results are only possible because of the dedication and commitment the staff have shown in providing quality care to residents. Despite the ongoing underfunding of aged care by the Commonwealth government, with the Productivity Commission report showing Queensland aged-care providers are short-changed by the Commonwealth to the tune of some $50 million in aged care subsidies, the Beattie government has a clear commitment to the long-term delivery of quality residential aged care. This is demonstrated by an allocation of $120 million over the next five years, which will fund an extensive capital works program thereby ensuring care in an environment that places the residents' needs as the primary focus of care.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Police Resources Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.58 a.m.), by leave: I report to the House today on what the Beattie government is doing to fulfil its commitment to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. As members may be aware, the Beattie government takes a whole-of-government approach to crime and crime prevention. We need to have strong enforcement, but we also need to have programs at the grassroots level to attack the causes of crime in our communities. From an enforcement point of view, we are committed to increasing the number of police officers on the ground. We are doing this by funding a net growth of about 300 police officers each year. In the eight months since 1 February this year, the Beattie government increased police numbers by approximately 220 officers. In fact, I can report to the House today that as at 1 October this year, we had 7,861 sworn police officers serving the Queensland community. By way of comparison, as at 1 July 1998, under the previous coalition government, Queensland had 6,833 officers. I will repeat those figures: under the Labor government there are 7,861 police officers; under the previous coalition government there were 6,833 officers. That means police numbers have actually been increased by a total of 1,028 officers since the days of the last coalition government. This year we also delivered an $870 million police operational budget—the largest in Queensland history. However, 3008 Ministerial Statement 18 Oct 2001 members opposite and their agents are often quick to criticise this government for not providing enough funding to the police. To assist our colleagues opposite, last night when I was listening to some of the nonsense and the drivel I did a bit of doodling. I have produced this graph. The two blue columns here, which I understand are very difficult to see, represent the amount of money that was spent during the coalition years, and then from 1988 upwards each year to the current year. This year we are spending a record $870 million. I wish that the opposition would understand and appreciate the growth in expenditure under the Labor government. I think all backbenchers would do well to examine this graph. It shows spending in the coalition years and in the Labor years.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Protecting Seniors Against Mail Fraud Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (10.02 a.m.), by leave: Queensland seniors will be armed against shonky mail scams thanks to an innovative pilot project run by the state government. The Protecting Seniors Against Mail Fraud project helps seniors identify mail scams and thereby helps reduce the number of victims of these schemes. Mail fraud is a serious problem and we are working to stop criminals who prey on the elderly and vulnerable in our community. With the assistance of Toowoomba and Sunshine Coast seniors, the Office of Fair Trading has devised strategies to stop the crooks in their tracks. Scammers use sophisticated computer databases to select older people as targets. They then hit their targets with a range of scams such as requests for donations to bogus charities, bogus lotteries, selling goods of little or no value at inflated prices and/or chain letters and pyramid schemes. The scams are illegal. They often ask for quick payment by credit card. If you reply, your name is added to a mailing list— known in the industry as a 'sucker' list—and you will probably receive more bogus mail scams. I know of one man in North Queensland who has received more than 1,000 such letters. International research shows that up to 60 per cent of all people targeted in scams are over 60 years of age. The road to success is awareness, and we are stepping up our campaign to spread the message. The Office of Fair Trading has produced a brochure warning of common mail scams, identifying proactive measures to be taken to avoid falling victim and highlighting the role of carers and family members. The brochure explains consumer rights and how they can reduce the risk of being conned. We are running a television and radio advertising campaign in the pilot areas—Toowoomba and the Sunshine Coast—and we are looking at producing a workbook to train carers of seniors. People should remember this simple message: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If people receive a letter they are unsure of, they should return it to the sender, or do not reply. Better still, they should throw it in the bin where it belongs. If scammers phone, hang up. Do not respond to suspicious emails. If a person has any concerns, they should contact the nearest Office of Fair Trading for advice. We want to stop these criminals. Earlier this year, we consulted with seniors in Toowoomba and the Sunshine Coast to determine how to tackle the problem. Workshops raised good ideas on how to deal with mail fraud, the messages needed to reach older people and the best platforms for getting the message across. We have received an enormous amount of help and support from community groups, government agencies and local government, including the Toowoomba City Council and Maroochydore and Noosa Shire Councils. I would particularly like to thank the Toowoomba and Sunshine Coast seniors who have provided valuable feedback. This feedback will be invaluable in arming seniors against scams.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fire Detection Website Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: With ongoing dry conditions making much of the state tinderbox dry, Queensland faces what potentially could be the worst bushfire season in a decade. My Department of Natural Resources and Mines has recently developed a new fire detection website that will further bolster the capability of Queensland's fire and emergency services to respond to this worsening bushfire situation. The website will assist Queensland's rural fire service to quickly 18 Oct 2001 Ministerial Statement 3009 locate and track active fires throughout the state. It will also be used by land-holders, natural resource managers and the Australian Defence Force. Information on the website is generated by NR&M's satellite-receiving station at Indooroopilly in Brisbane, which processes images acquired from three United States satellites that pass over Queensland up to 12 times a day. The satellite information is very accurate and, during trials of the system last year, false alarms were rare and only a few very small fires went undetected. Developed by the NR&M and DPI Queensland Centre for Climate Applications, the website allows users to overlay additional information such as shire boundaries, major roads and towns which will assist in pinpointing fires more quickly and with greater accuracy. The department also offers subscribers a free automated email service that will alert them to fires within their nominated geographical area of interest. The email message includes a 'shape' file that allows subscribers with GIS software to overlay property boundaries, roads and infrastructure. Describing the website as a strategic rather than a tactical fire-fighting tool, the commissioner for rural operations of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority, Dave Luxton, says that the website will be particularly useful in dealing with fires in remote areas. Commissioner Luxton says that the existence of 'hot spots' can be relayed quickly to district fire inspectors who will be able to alert affected land-holders to fires they would otherwise be unaware of. The website will help to protect not only property but also biodiversity. Fire helps maintain the ecological health of much of Queensland's vegetation resources. However, out-of-control wildfires are highly destructive. The website will also be used to monitor the effectiveness of strategic aerial burning as part of a Natural Heritage Trust-funded project in the Cape York Peninsula aimed at controlling late dry season wildfires. This satellite mapping system is another example of this government utilising Smart State technology to assist our emergency services respond to the scourge of bushfire that threatens our state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Financial Assistance Grants Hon. J. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.08 a.m.), by leave: In July, as part of the Estimates Committee debates, I was able to advise that, after a period of negotiation, my federal colleague Senator Ian Macdonald agreed to my proposal for the allocation of this year's financial assistance grants to Queensland councils. The basis of my proposal was that no Queensland council should receive a lower grant this year than last year. After initially refusing to agree to my proposal, Senator Macdonald did sign off on the arrangement, on condition that the federal government is consulted on, and agrees with, the terms of reference and the process that the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission proposes to use in a review of our methodology for distributing the financial assistance grants to Queensland councils. As members would be aware, this government has given a commitment to review the methodology used by the Queensland Grants Commission in a bid to ensure that it is more transparent to our councils. In addition, a crucial element of the review is to ensure that councils have more certainty about their allocations, putting an end to the situation where councils may not find out the amount of their grant until well after they have delivered their budgets. I wish to advise the House that the terms of all five current members of the Queensland Grants Commission expire on 31 October 2001 and work has begun on the process of appointing the new commission. Traditionally, the Local Government Association of Queensland has provided nominations for three of these positions, while the chairperson and deputy chair are chosen by the minister. The LGAQ has already provided me with its nominations. At this time, I would like to place on the record my regard for and appreciation of the work done by the current commission members. It is no easy task to make recommendations on the disbursement of the Financial Assistance Grant. Members of the new commission face two major challenges. Firstly, they will be required to implement any changes to their methodology that the federal government may decide to impose on the states as a result of the Commonwealth's review of its act. Secondly, while the current commission has begun work on reviewing our methodology, the new commission will have to come to terms with how to complete this review to bring about a clearer methodology and one that is understood by the councils. The current commission has advised me it has begun that review but has decided not to announce any of the details, including the terms of reference, because it does not want to 3010 Ministerial Statement 18 Oct 2001 impede the incoming commission. But as soon as the new commissioner has decided on how to progress the review, I will arrange for the details to be given to the federal government. Finally, in line with the Local Government Act 1993, I table the Queensland Local Government Grants Commission 25th Report, 2001, on the Financial Assistance for Local Government, which lists how this $258 million in financial assistance was distributed between the state's councils for the 2001-02 year, and provides explanations on the methodology used to calculate this grant.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT CPR Training Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.11 a.m.), by leave: Today the Department of Emergency Services is issuing a challenge to all government agencies to increase the number of staff trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR, skills. And I am pleased to report that on 19 September the Department of Emergency Services kicked off the challenge with myself and 300 departmental officers rolling up our sleeves as part of a mass CPR training session. Held on the oval at the Kedron Park Emergency Services Complex, the day assisted in my department's aim to have more than 95 per cent of DES staff trained in CPR. The session was being held as part of the Queensland Ambulance Service's CPR2000 campaign. I am aware that my colleagues sitting in front of me will be two of the keenest ministers to challenge my department. Currently, my department supports staff attendance at 90-minute CPR training sessions, which are conducted monthly at the Department of Emergency Services complex. Two Queensland Ambulance Service Administration Officers who have been trained as CPR2000 Peer Trainers conduct these training sessions. CPR is a valuable tool for any person to learn. Our research shows that 76 per cent of cardiac arrests occur in the home. The most likely witness is a spouse or family member. The big question facing many of us in the community is: if your partner suffered a cardiac arrest would you know what to do? The truth is that only 1 in 10 Queenslanders have current CPR skills. Clearly, that is not enough to save lives! CPR2000 is a community based strategy that contributes to initiatives that will lead to significant improvements in survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The program is specifically designed to deliver single operator adult CPR training to people over the age of 40 and those who live with people over the age of 40. CPR2000 uses a peer training model of CPR education. Peer training involves giving members of community groups the knowledge, skills and confidence to teach their fellow members how to perform single operator adult CPR. This training model encourages regular practice of CPR skills, allowing training to be updated on a six-monthly or yearly basis, as monitored by the Peer Trainer/s. CPR2000 is an initiative of the Australian Resuscitation Council, and is coordinated by the Queensland Ambulance Service and supported by Queensland Health. This worthwhile program has the potential to help save the lives of up to 190 people in Queensland each year who would otherwise die from sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Research suggests that survival from a cardiac arrest increases when at least 25 per cent of the population is trained in CPR and when training is specifically targeted to those most likely to witness an arrest. To achieve this goal CPR2000 requires the help of the community. Today, as Minister for Emergency Services, I throw down the challenge to other ministers—a number of whom I know are keen to take up this challenge for their officers and departments; and I challenge members opposite as well—to enrol in a CPR course today and help save Queensland lives.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT WorkCover Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: I am pleased to report that WorkCover Queensland has had yet another successful year, with improved services to workers, the lowest employer premiums in the country, and at the same time continuing its strong financial position. WorkCover has recorded an operating surplus of 18 Oct 2001 Ministerial Statement 3011

$191.9 million for the financial year to 30 June, increasing the scheme's equity position from $519.4 million last year to almost $600 million this year. It is the only scheme in Australia that is well into the black. During the year, WorkCover was in a position to repay $50 million of outstanding debt to the government, and made provision for a further $61.5 million to be repaid this year. In fact, I have been advised by the board just this morning that WorkCover Queensland will seek to repay its full debt to the Queensland government this financial year. As many members will be aware, average employer premiums were cut this year to the lowest in the country. It was the third successive rate cut under the Beattie Labor government, representing an estimated saving to employers of more than $120 million. More importantly, under this government, WorkCover has balanced the lowest premiums in Australia with some of the highest benefits payable to injured workers in this country. Those amendments to further benefit Queensland workers are currently before this House. I am pleased to say there were fewer common law claims in 2000-01 and subsequently common law payments were down almost six per cent on the year before. In addition this year, a national competition policy review of Queensland's workers compensation insurance arrangements found that WorkCover Queensland should remain the state's major insurer and stay in public hands. The findings confirm WorkCover Queensland's reputation as the best performing workers compensation scheme in the country. While employers in Tasmania and Western Australia pick up the pieces of the HIH collapse, the findings of this review will reassure Queenslanders that publicly operated schemes clearly provide the greatest safety and stability for both workers and employers. WorkCover Queensland was Australia's first publicly owned workers compensation scheme 85 years ago. Now it is Australia's only publicly owned and managed scheme and it will stay that way. I would like to thank the Chairman of WorkCover, Mr Ian Brusasco, his board of directors and WorkCover staff, who have helped achieve for Queensland the best performing workers compensation scheme in the country—for both workers and employers. It gives me great pleasure to table the WorkCover Queensland 2000-01 Annual Report.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Asian Trade Delegation Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (10.18 a.m.), by leave: On Tuesday I returned from an eight-day trade delegation to Asia. The main purpose of my visit was to take up an invitation from the Mayor of Shenzhen in Southern China to address a business forum at the Third Hi-Tech Trade Fair. This was the third such trade fair, which annually attracts tens of thousands of delegates from across China and around the world. Shenzhen, as many members will know, is Brisbane's Sister City, and the trade fair was a perfect venue to showcase Queensland. Representatives from several of Queensland's innovative information and communication technology companies also travelled with me as part of a business delegation, whilst six Queensland based organisations exhibited in the Queensland Pavilion, including e-Global, Pyrozone and Education Queensland. Queensland and Western Australia were the only two Australian states to have an official presence at the trade fair and I was pleased to be asked to open our pavilion. The Queensland delegation also visited Singapore and Hong Kong, with the main aim of increasing awareness in these regions of the world class capabilities and innovations that we have in our Queensland ICT and biotechnology industries. We toured factories and industrial sites, met with high ranking officials from a number of government agencies and private firms and with academics at research institutions and university campuses. I am pleased to report strong interest amongst overseas firms and governments in what the Smart State is doing in the fields of innovation, ICT and biotechnology. Many of those we met will be visiting Queensland in the near future to explore joint trade and investment opportunities in these emerging technologies. Whilst in Hong Kong, I also witnessed the signing of a lucrative five-year contract between the Sunshine Coast company Becker Helicopters, East Asia Airlines and Helicopters Hong Kong. Becker, which won this contract by beating companies from Canada and the United States, will provide commercial helicopter training for cadet pilots from East Asia Airlines and Helicopters 3012 Overseas Visit 18 Oct 2001

Hong Kong. The contract is proving our innovative worth to the world and is just one example of the benefits to be gained from developing closer trade links between China, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Smart State. As I told those we met, Queensland's geographic proximity to the Asia-Pacific region and our similar time zone make it easy and affordable for Asia to do business with us. There is also great opportunity for Queensland firms in Southern China because China's economy is continuing to grow strongly as well as the fact that we have in the specific Smart State niche capabilities such as our information security, multimedia, e-learning, e-business, knowledge management, call centre technology and business applications in the building, mining and financial services sector. Three Queensland companies which accompanied me provided case studies in many of these capabilities. They were Regional Business Technologies from Toowoomba and two Brisbane based companies, Global Banking and Securities Transactions and Braintree Communications. I look forward to providing more information on the delegation's visit and its flow-on benefits for Queensland when I table my written report to the House in the near future.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Report Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Annual Report 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, and I move that it be printed. Ordered to be printed.

MEMBERS' ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Report Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee's Report No. 47 Annual Report 2000-01 and the committee's audit of discharge of responsibilities for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. I commend the report to the House and move that it be printed. Ordered to be printed.

OVERSEAS VISIT Report Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (10.21 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House a report of my visit to Singapore and Vietnam from 10 to 20 August this year. I wish to thank the officers from the Trade Division of the Premier's Department, especially the highly professional work undertaken by Mrs Bichthuy Nguyen. One of the visits organised was a visit to the Truong Vuong School in Hanoi. The teachers and principal claimed that Vietnamese students have a high standard of literacy for a very poor country, a fact confirmed to me in an edition of the magazine Asia Week, which highlighted a literacy rate for Vietnam of 91.9 per cent, with a per capita GDP of only $1,705. The only other comparable country with a GDP at that level was India, with a literacy rate of only 52.1 per cent. The school principal indicated that the school was in urgent need of reading books and curriculum materials for their children. I have mentioned this to the community, service clubs and schools in my electorate and have had a magnificent response. I know that large Queensland service clubs cater for this, and I will be approaching them for help. Vietnam is a growing economy and one with good links to Queensland. It is important that we establish our people-to-people links as well as our trade links. Overseas students studying in Australia earn $1 billion a year for this nation, of which Vietnam contributes $80 million. Whilst this earns income and creates jobs in Australia and pours money into our education system, it also gives us those important people-to-people links when graduates return to their country and take up positions in the public or private sector. For these reasons I believe we should be promoting closer educational ties when and where we can. I commend the report to the House. 18 Oct 2001 Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 3013

OVERSEAS VISIT Report Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (10.23 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the report of my visit to Singapore and Vietnam between 10 and 20 August 2001. It was a full and diverse itinerary during which I was able to ascertain and advance opportunities for business for Cairns and Far North Queensland. These include live cattle exports, value added food exports and professional services in tropical agriculture, tourism, environmental infrastructure, tertiary education, tropical public health and ICT. However, most moving was my visit, along with other Australians, on the 35th anniversary to the memorial to the Battle of Long Tan outside Vung Tau. Eighteen Australian soldiers were killed in this prolonged and courageous battle. Visiting the site was a powerful reminder of how difficult the conditions were, how far our men were from home and how tragic their loss was.

ELECTORAL (FRAUDULENT ACTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (10.24 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Electoral Act 1992. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) ( 10.24 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The opposition is introducing this bill to the House to address the fact that many people who do acts with the intent to influence or cheat election outcomes are not punished for their actions. The purpose of the Electoral (Fraudulent Actions) Amendment Bill 2001 is to impose a catch-all provision into the Electoral Act that ensures any act done by a person with the intent to fraudulently influence the outcome of an election held pursuant to the Electoral Act is punished for their actions. These are general provisions, ones which the Queensland parliament has power—plenary and ample—for which to legislate under section 107 of the Commonwealth Constitution. There will be no issue arising under section 109 of the Constitution as this provision is not one for which the Commonwealth already specifically legislates. This amendment to the Electoral Act will see those who commit offences with the intent to unlawfully influence or actually unlawfully influence the outcome of a state election punished for their offence. These provisions do not include any statute bar or time limitation as such a person can be punished for an offence whenever committed. Commissioner Tom Shepherdson noted when handing down his findings into the Australian Labor Party vote rorting affair that the statute of limitations of 12 months which existed in effect tied his hands in making recommendations for prosecutions for many of the matters which came before him even though the evidence was strong. The bill also contains a provision which sets a maximum three year penalty for acts committed in contravention of this bill. Importantly, there is a three month minimum mandatory jail sentence for those who seek to falsely enrol themselves or others. We know that this bill will have the support of the Beattie Labor government. The Premier himself has said on numerous occasions, including in this House on 17 October and 9 November 2000 and on ABC radio on 15 June 2001, that there should be no statute of limitations barring prosecutions and that the electoral cheats should go to jail or, to quote the Premier in parliament on 17 October last year, 'jail, jail, jail, jail, jail and jail.' The opposition believes that these provisions are clearly in the interests of democracy within this state. There can be no greater affront to democracy than to attempt to cheat the democratic process, whether that be at a preselection or a general election. Such an action strikes at the very 3014 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2001 heart of the democratic process. The parliament must take decisive action to prevent such an affront to democracy. This bill does that. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Welford, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Department of Families Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (10.28 a.m.): There is yet another issue of great concern emanating from the Department of Families. The department is currently in the process of abolishing the compulsory basic four-week centralised training block in child protection and youth justice undertaken in Brisbane by every Families officer on gaining employment with the department. This face-to-face essential basic training for new officers is likely to be replaced with online training, with the expectation that officers will complete this training in an unsupervised environment and in their own time. I find this astounding when there is already a public perception that the Department of Families staff are inexperienced, underresourced and understaffed due to this government's refusal to increase funding. This move to remove the only centralised, basic, compulsory training these officers currently receive will serve only to exacerbate this perception and create greater unrest within the department itself. How anyone could realistically expect these new officers to complete their training online in their offices is beyond me. Officers statewide are already forced to manage case loads to deal with an overloaded schedule, prioritise cases according to who is in the most danger of harm and write off hundreds of cases that to this day remain unassessed. This government expects its Families officers to carry an unrealistic burden, placing both the staff and their clients under unacceptable stress and, most importantly, at untenable risk. Last month the Forde inquiry monitoring committee told state parliament that the Families Department was underfunded by $171 million and operated in 'constant crisis'. The minister's response to this was to remove the only basic, centralised training that these Families officers receive—the only training that they currently undertake. It is not in where the tea and coffee are kept or how to log on in the morning; this is four weeks of training in child protection and youth justice, the primary responsibility of this department. This is an area of employment where getting it right can literally mean the difference between life and death. The Family Services officers know that, but apparently the minister has not yet grasped it. Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Release of Alleged Murderer from Psychiatric Ward Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Minister for Health to the tragic deaths of two young children in Rockhampton and reports that the person charged with their murders recently walked out of the psychiatric ward at the Toowoomba General Hospital. I ask: can the minister confirm or deny that he was allowed to leave the hospital after becoming agitated and demanding to be let out? What immediate investigations and procedures will be put in place to increase security procedures at psychiatric wards? Mrs EDMOND: I understand that this is a matter under current police investigation and I do not think it is appropriate for us to discuss it in this House. However, I can say that I have been assured that all standards were met and that what the member has asserted is incorrect.

Ergon Energy Mr HORAN: I refer the Treasurer to Ergon Energy's last annual report which made provision of $160 million for rationalisation, including for the provision of voluntary redundancy payments. I also refer to reports of a leaked internal memo from Ergon Energy which shows that this government owned corporation intends to do the following: one, lay off half its staff in the next four years; two, outsource much of its fieldwork; three, close many of its shopfronts in regional areas; and, four, move to a system of one-man crewing. I ask: how many jobs will be lost and what action does he as stakeholding minister intend to take to save the jobs of these workers? 18 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3015

Mr MACKENROTH: The document to which the member refers is an internal working document that was written by somebody within Ergon who obviously got it wrong. I have met with the CEO and the chairman of Ergon and have told them what the government's policies are. They have now got it right. Let me tell the member that in the enterprise bargaining agreement, which is presently being negotiated, Ergon has written to the union and advised it that in that agreement there will be a clause which will state that there will be no forced redundancies.

CHOGM Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: has there been any support for his efforts in establishing a mediators group in the lead-up to the now postponed CHOGM? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question. As the member knows, for more than 18 months there was a vast amount of hyperbole and suggestions that anti-CHOGM protests would lead to mass destruction in central Brisbane. A minority of protesters gained media coverage by alleging they were worried that they would be the victims of violence by police. I am delighted to be able to inform the House that when about 2,000 people marched through Brisbane on 6 October there were no reports of violence, no reports of damage and no arrests, which is a good outcome. I always had faith that the Queensland Police Service would behave in a responsible and sensible manner, as did the Minister for Police, Tony McGrady. We are lucky to have one of the finest police services anywhere in the world today. I thank it for its role in maintaining the peace during the march and meetings. I also take this opportunity to thank the groups who took part in the March for Peace and Justice and others who conducted the peaceful assemblies over the week that were scheduled for CHOGM. I also thank the officers from my CHOGM Coordination Unit who helped inform protesters of their rights and how to obtain police permits. I also thank the independent mediators who were available to mediate in any dispute between protest groups and security officials—mediators we appointed to ensure that this process went the way it should. The effort of this group and the initiative we undertook to communicate with protesters has won support. Indeed, they wrote a letter to the Minister for Police to thank him for the role he played. My office has also received supportive correspondence from civil liberties groups praising us for establishing the interactive processes with the four independent mediators. That effort has won support for its productive, sensible and cooperative approach. Right from the start we said that the democratic right to protest must exist. On 6 October, the 2,000 people who attended the rally at Roma Street Forum and the march were calling for peace and justice, an end to racism and war, attention to global warming, a reduction in Third World debt, rights for women and the gay and lesbian community, and a stop to globalisation. I repeat that my government supported their right to protest from the start and to march, and I congratulate them for the way in which they made their feelings known. They are entitled to do that. They achieved their goal in publicising their causes with widespread vision and stories in all major media. Demonstrations in other countries against important international conferences have only succeeded in publicising mindless violence and not the message of the protesters. I would like to think that this was a dress rehearsal for further protests when CHOGM is due to return to Brisbane in March. The process of advice and mediation that my government created will be retained. I invite protest groups to continue to liaise with the Queensland Police Service to jointly agree on peaceful assemblies that allow them to exercise the ideals of democracy, freedom and free speech for all people. My government will continue to work with all groups who wish to lawfully and peacefully exercise their right to free speech in Queensland. I have had discussions with the Prime Minister about the dates for the rescheduled CHOGM meeting, which will be held from 2 to 5 March.

Milton Railway Station; Lang Park Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to current discussions between Queensland Transport, Queensland Rail and the Brisbane City Council regarding the proposed upgrading of the Milton Railway Station to increase capacity to service the new Lang Park stadium because current facilities are inadequate to handle projected patronage. I ask: as the estimated cost of the upgrading of the rail station facility is between $12 million and $20 million and as the Treasurer has stated that all transport infrastructure to service the stadium 3016 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2001 redevelopment is included in the project budget, will he confirm that provision has been made for these costs to be covered by the $280 million Lang Park allocation? Mr BREDHAUER: The question should actually be directed to the Treasurer and Minister for Sport, who is responsible for Lang Park. But I can say that the— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left will allow the minister to answer the question. The member for Callide will cease interjecting, as will the member for Gregory. Mr Johnson: I asked the question, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Well let the minister answer it. Mr BREDHAUER: Just calm down, Vaughan. If he gives me a second, I will answer his question. He should have directed the question to the Treasurer and Minister for Sport. He has directed his question to the wrong minister, but if he would calm down for a second—take his pill—I will answer it. There have been discussions obviously between my department, Queensland Rail and other relevant agencies about the transport requirements for Lang Park, and in particular in relation to the Milton Railway Station. The member opposite said yesterday that the Deputy Premier is in the box seat, is driving the operation and knows what the answers are. So if the Deputy Premier is in the box seat, if he is driving the operation and if he knows what the answers are, why didn't he ask him the question? Because he comes in here trying to big-note himself! He has an FOI request and a question on notice. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I directed my question to the Minister for Transport as the question relates to transport infrastructure. The minister referred to FOI, but they shut that process down. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. You are debating the issue. Resume your seat. Mr Schwarten: Have your colleagues done CPR training? Mr BREDHAUER: I would not be giving him the kiss of life. I have some bad news for him: he'd have to die! There have been discussions between my department, QR and the people developing the Lang Park proposal about the transport requirements for Lang Park. The costs of providing the transport facilities for Lang Park were well known and have been incorporated into the total budget for the Lang Park redevelopment process. This has been through a couple of manifestations. At one stage we were making provision for light rail to be extended to Lang Park. When the light rail project did not proceed we had to review our transport requirements. But I can assure the member for Gregory and all members of the opposition that the transport requirements to make Lang Park function efficiently during the major events that will be held there have been taken into account by my department.

Suncorp Metway Stadium Mr PURCELL: I refer the Deputy Premier to statements by the member for Gregory that certain transport infrastructure is not included in the budget for the Suncorp Metway Stadium redevelopment. Can the minister outline the infrastructure that will be developed? Mr MACKENROTH: I will put on the public record what works are to be undertaken in relation to the redevelopment of Suncorp Metway Stadium. I have heard some of the statements made by the member for Gregory. One of them related to a tunnel, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Suncorp Metway Stadium. It is quite a distance from King George Square, from where he was talking about a tunnel to Suncorp Metway Stadium. I place this on the record now so that over the next year, five years or whatever when we start to talk about this project members will be well aware of the infrastructure projects associated with this redevelopment, so that every pothole that is fixed within a five- or 10-kilometre radius— Mr Johnson: Get real! Mr MACKENROTH: That is what the member for Gregory is doing. I will tell him what is included in the $280 million project. Apart from the building of the stadium it includes: the northern plaza; the southern plaza; the bus station, which will be under the southern plaza; the Milton station upgrade, which is for enhanced pedestrian and disabled access; the Milton Road works of a pedestrian walkway west to Milton station; the bridge from the southern plaza across 18 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3017

Milton Road to connect to the western walkway; the Milton Road works of a pedestrian walkway east to Petrie Terrace; the widening of Milton Road, east of Castlemaine Street, to accommodate a dedicated bus lane; the Caxton Street bridge extension to accommodate the walkway; the Hale Street plaza; the Caxton Street intersection upgrade; the pedestrian walkways along Milton Road to Upper Roma Street; pedestrian walkways through the police barracks site from Caxton Street and from Milton Road; the Petrie Terrace bridge and footpaths; enhancement to the footpath at the police barracks site; and Upper Roma Street dedicated bus lanes. That is the total infrastructure package which is included in the $280 million project. There is no more. That is what we have always said will be done. That is the project. Mr Johnson: That is all we were asking for. Mr MACKENROTH: All the member had to do was go to the documents which were publicly available. It is all there. Mr Johnson: They were not publicly available. Mr MACKENROTH: They are publicly available. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We asked for those documents through FOI and they were never made available. Mr MACKENROTH: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like me to take him and show him the model and the works, I will. I will pick him up in my car, take him and bring him back. They are the works that are associated with the development. So the member should not try to say in a year, two years or three years that there are other works which we have not done.

Parliamentary Library Mr WELLINGTON: My question relates to the future resourcing of the Parliamentary Library. Mr Speaker, I direct my question to the Premier as I understand that under the standing orders it is not appropriate for me to question you as Speaker on this matter. All members of parliament, especially my Independent colleagues and I, rely heavily on the resourcing facilities of the Parliamentary Library. I understand that one staff member with over 40 years service has recently ceased employment, and I ask: what are the government's plans for the future resourcing of the Parliamentary Library, including its staff allocation, and what opportunity will members have to continue to avail themselves of the excellent services provided by the library? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Nicklin for his question. This is a very important matter of interest to all members in the House. As all members would know, Mr Speaker is in charge of the parliament and there is a clear separation between the executive and the parliament itself. We all honour that tradition. However, the member is quite correct: government is involved in a funding role. I make it clear that the government will continue to ensure that adequate—indeed, more than adequate—funds are provided to the parliament so that the library can be properly resourced, as it has been for some time. I understand that Nick Bannenberg is on pre-retirement leave. I put on the record that he has made a very significant contribution to the library of this parliament. I join with Mr Speaker and all members in thanking him for that contribution. He has given 40 or 41 years of service. I understand that he is the longest-serving librarian in the history of this parliament. Indeed, going back to 1860 he is the longest-serving librarian. I thank him for his service and I wish him well in his retirement. The member for Nicklin raised the issue of access for Independent members. I do know, having spent some time on the backbench on one occasion—it was a terrible experience, but I do remember it—that it is important for the services of the library to be available. This parliament has the most number of Independents it has ever had in its history. Therefore, one of the important services that needs to be provided by the library to Independents is information research. Some of the things the library has done in the almost 12 years I have been here is involve a greater use of computers, ensure access to the Net and ensure availability of research material. To answer the question, I first pay tribute to Nick Bannenberg for his service. I thank him on behalf of the parliament. Secondly, I indicate that the government will continue to provide sufficient funds to Mr Speaker. The use of those funds is of course at Mr Speaker's discretion, but we will make certain that those funds are available. It is also important that the library have access to the latest technology so that a member who wants to access information can do so from his or her own electorate office through the Net 3018 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2001 and so on. In the long term, those are the sorts of things the library should be about. The library is a key function of this parliament and we will ensure that it is properly funded. If there is any other material, I am happy to provide that to the member, and I am sure that Mr Speaker would be only too happy to have discussions with the member for Nicklin. I thank him for raising the issue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Mansfield, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from the Seville Road Primary School in the electorate of Greenslopes.

Smithsonian Institution; South Carolina Sister State Agreement Mr REEVES: My question is directed to the Premier. With Mansfield State School being one of the magnet schools for the Smithsonian Institution, the people of Mansfield are very interested in the special agreements Queensland has with this institution and with South Carolina. Do these agreements yield any benefits for Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: They do. There are two issues I will refer to. One covers the Smithsonian and the other covers our relationship with the state of South Carolina. I refer first to the special agreements Queensland has with the Smithsonian Institution. In March last year I signed a far- reaching and historic agreement with the Smithsonian Institution—the first time the institution has signed such a broad-ranging agreement with a government outside of the United States. The agreement led to the awarding on 13 August of the inaugural Smithsonian Fellowship Awards. The program involves up to six fellowships each year, of which three will be funded by Queensland for staff of the Smithsonian Institution to come to Queensland. Three will be funded by the Smithsonian Institution for Queenslanders to study at the institution itself. The Queensland government will provide up to $30,000 a year for the next five years. The program fosters exchange of knowledge and is opening doors to the institution's 16 museums and galleries and 12 research facilities to our scholars, teachers and scientists, as well as schools—and I will come to that. One of the three inaugural winners could help unlock more of the secrets of evolution, another is researching how Queensland has presented itself in world expos over more than a century, and the third wants to develop a metadata model for managing museum multimedia collections. The inaugural award winners are Dr Judith Mackay, Dr Paul Hearty and Dr Jane Hunter. I table for the information of the House what they won the awards for. The sister state arrangement between Queensland and South Carolina has produced the Queensland-South Carolina tourism student exchange program. Under a memorandum of understanding signed between Queensland and South Carolina last year, we have established a scheme of eight scholarships a year to assist Queensland university students participating in the program. The program provides for an interchange of students undertaking undergraduate studies in tourism and hospitality between six Queensland universities and four leading universities in South Carolina. The scheme will provide $2,000 each to successful Queensland applicants to go toward return air travel to the United States and set-up costs. Projects such as this help contribute to the internationalisation of Queensland through the broadening of student knowledge and experience, the building of professional networks and the promotion of Queensland's unique attributes. The scholarship scheme will run for an initial period of four years and is being supported by the Office of Higher Education in Education Queensland and the international collaborations branch in my own department. The six Queensland universities are the University of Queensland, Griffith University, the Queensland University of Technology, James Cook University, the University of the Sunshine Coast and the Central Queensland University. The participating South Carolina universities are College of Charleston, University of South Carolina, Coastal Carolina University and Johnson & Wales University. This relationship is very important. There is a broader relationship between schools, as well. This is the future.

Vehicle Access, Fraser Island Mr LESTER: I direct a question to the Minister for Environment. With regard to Fraser Island and the considerable controversy surrounding the closure of its northern tip to four-wheel drive access, what are his department's plans regarding the transport and access study and/or the proposed light rail project? I further ask that the minister's answer gives consideration to the transport issues raised with him by four-wheel drive user groups and other community 18 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3019 organisations and his assurances that the closures would be reviewed with further consultation to take place. Mr WELLS: The closure of that short distance of road on Fraser Island was the fulfilment of a cabinet determination following the publication of an extensive plan. That plan was consulted on very extensively, and the elements of the plan were scheduled and slated to be implemented progressively over a period. That implementation has now occurred, and a further review of Fraser Island will be conducted further down the track now that those elements of the plan are in place. With respect to the transport study to which the honourable member referred, that is being undertaken independently. The government is not going to be indicating to the transport study the kinds of solutions that it is to come up with. It has been given an open question to answer. However, I have referred to that transport study the concerns of a number of residents of Fraser Island with respect to the particular road, and it may be that particular accommodations can be made in particular cases of need. Although the road is going to be closed, it is not going to be ploughed under or anything like that; it will remain there as a firebreak, and it will remain there for emergencies. It was used in a recent emergency. The whole point of the Fraser Island plan and the whole point of the Great Sandy Region management plan was to provide for a multiuse recreational area in that vicinity. Part of the island is available for those who wish to use it for four-wheel drive travel. Part of the island is available for five-star accommodation. Part of the island is available for backpackers. But there has to be part of the island that remains wilderness, because not very far from Brisbane we have a pristine wilderness of world class. It is a world heritage area. It is famous the world over. It is an icon for people who travel right across the world to visit Australia. We should not prejudice that asset, nor should we prejudice our children or our children's children's asset by not having a proper wilderness area there. We cannot have a wilderness area if people are driving four-wheel drives through it. We are talking about 10 or 11 kilometres of road, but that 10 or 11 kilometres of road—which is what all the fuss has been about—is a vital 10 or 11 kilometres. We have to keep four-wheel drives off that part of the island in order to preserve its wilderness status and to preserve the value of Fraser Island as a world heritage destination for us all—for our people, for our children and for people around the world.

Insurance of Events Ms KEECH: I direct a question to the Premier. Insurance issues are looming as a potential problem for Queensland's events organisers. Can the Premier tell the House whether there is anything that can be done to assist these people? Mr BEATTIE: This is a very important issue. Indeed, more than six weeks ago I called on event organisers across the state to come forward in relation to insurance issues that affect the future viability of their events or their festivals. I have asked the Events Corporation to do some work on this. I want hardworking organisers, volunteers, charity workers and the like to voice their concerns in a statewide survey presently being conducted, as I said, by the Queensland Events Corporation, which is within my portfolio. The community response to that early September request has been, according to Queensland Events, overwhelming, and now other states are following suit with similar investigations. Increasing insurance costs are clearly putting some events at risk. Significant premium hikes and availability of appropriate insurance cover are emerging as major issues at all levels right across the nation. Be it the local celebrations in regional towns or major icon events, there are insurance issues. Someone has to pay for the insurance boardroom mismanagement, and it seems events people are it for now. The issue is of concern to me and the government. I have asked Queensland Events to come back to me with an assessment by the end of next month—November—and by the time I go through it that will probably be some time in December. Events are critical for communities, especially in our regional and rural communities. I indicated a few minutes ago that I will be announcing the first round—and I want to stress 'the first round'—of the regional events outcome in Toowoomba next week. As I said, events are critical, particularly in our regional and rural communities, not only for their critical economic offering and job-creating links, but they also extend valuable unifying cultural and social opportunities. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that the state plays a 3020 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2001 role in keeping these events as part of respective community calendars. I urge all members to get event organisers in their electorates to assist Queensland Events in the survey. The best outcome is for those offering advice to put that advice in a way that the government can deal with it. I notice there have been some comments by those opposite in relation to these issues. I just want to say to them that part of the problem here has been that the Borbidge government in fact sold Suncorp Metway. We do not have an insurance company any more. That is one of the problems. It is now up to the private sector. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The member was part of the government that sold Suncorp. This is part of the problem. When we sell out a company like an insurance company, we end up with a problem like this. The member cannot have it both ways. He should not be a hypocrite. The best outcome is for those offering snide criticism to join me and ensure that there is a complete survey. The state will then be in a position to use its ability to negotiate the best possible public liability outcome for all our events organisers. As I said, I will be launching the event next week. If only the Borbidge government had not sold Suncorp Metway, we would be in a better position. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of the Redbank Plains State High School in the electorate of Bundamba.

Water Resources Mr FLYNN: I direct a question to the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines. In light of his response to the water issue in this House last night, I ask: is the minister able to reveal and expand on the reasons why no land use management study was carried out before the allocations of water were considered? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am sorry, I cannot provide the detail that the member requests because there is insufficient detail in the member's question. Given the time that was available to me in last night's debate, I might take this opportunity to finish some of the things that I wanted to say. Mr Horan interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: I would have had the member not been so rude and interrupted me. I say to the member for Lockyer that, in terms of the area that he represents, the process is that some time next year we will be releasing a draft water resource plan for the Lockyer and other rivers in that general area of south-east Queensland. That will provide land-holders in the member's electorate with the opportunity to make submissions on a range of issues that I know are very pertinent in the valley. The reality is that, in the member's neck of the woods, the level of extractions, particularly from ground water, have placed significant pressure on the amount of water and the security of that water that is available under the existing licensing arrangements. The purpose of having a water resource planning process is to actually, for the first time in Queensland, get on top of those issues so that in the future land-holders have a sustainable supply of water so that they can continue to grow their vegetables, which is an important industry in the member's electorate. So that process will start. It is often a complex and lengthy process. Nonetheless, it is necessary. As a result of that process, the member's constituents will have security of entitlements to water, we will know how much water can be extracted, particularly out of those stressed underground systems, and at the same time we will be able to protect the health of the various rivers and streams in that catchment. As I said, we will be kicking that off some time next year. In relation to what the member said last night when he called for more ring tanks to be built on the Darling Downs and other places, the reality is that there is a finite amount of water. Rivers rely on the water that falls from the sky and flows over the land. If we continue to allow unregulated development, then there is no water in the rivers and the health of those river systems and the environment that live off those rivers are damaged for generations to come. The water resource planning processes are all about finding out how much water can be used for development, how much can be used for horticulture, how much can be used for grazing, cropping, or whatever, and how much can be protected for the environment. Time expired. 18 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3021

Toowoomba Police Station Mr SHINE: I ask the Minister for Police and Corrective Services—and might I congratulate him on the impressive graph that he showed the House this morning—can he inform the parliament about the progress on the much-anticipated new police station for Toowoomba? Mr McGRADY: I would like to thank the member for the question, because as he understands, this week—Tuesday, in fact—the member and I had a very productive meeting with the mayor of Toowoomba, Councillor Thorley. She is an excellent lady. She gave us plenty—she certainly lets you know what her views are—of constructive suggestions and I think we have been able to resolve some of the concerns that some members of her council expressed. I say to the House that $10.5 million is going to be spent on the new Toowoomba police station. So far this year, $3.7 million has been spent and work will start before Christmas. It is quite ironic that some agents of the opposition are running around saying that it will never happen—we will not do it, it is all talk. Let me say this: it will happen. Mr Johnson: Who said that? Mr McGRADY: The member knows as well as I do who said it. Mr Seeney: Who said it? Mr McGRADY: The member did not say it, because he has done nothing for the past three months. The new Toowoomba police station will happen. I will be there some time before Christmas. I will have the member for Toowoomba North with me and we will turn the first sod. If Mr Horan is available, he might like to come and have a cup of coffee or tea with us to celebrate such an occasion. As I said a moment ago— Mr Johnson: He can use a shovel. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! Mr McGRADY: They are all excited about this new Toowoomba police station. It was promised by the opposition for years and years and years but never, ever, ever happened. We are delivering it. We are also delivering it in cooperation with the Toowoomba City Council. We are talking to them and we are listening to them. It is going to be a fantastic project for the people of Toowoomba. It is going to provide jobs. On many occasions Mr Horan has expressed his support for it. Today, I want to say to the people of Toowoomba that the $10.5 million new police station is going to happen. We will start just before Christmas and it will be ready some time next year.

Vessel Monitoring System Mr ROWELL: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to the satellite based vessel monitoring system which the minister claimed credit for introducing in 1998 and promoted as providing a safety device for fishermen by enabling a distress signal to be sent out. I ask: is it not a fact that the VMS has failed to alert rescue authorities during maritime emergencies with near fatal consequences? Why has the minister misled fishermen over the VMS's effectiveness as a safety device? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. The issue of the VMS and what it actually does has been around for a while. As the honourable member would know, it is new technology. It has experienced some problems. Basically, the main role of the VMS is to police but it is also there to protect. Mr Rowell: Or a distress signal. Mr PALASZCZUK: Let me just start with the first issue. In relation to the policing, there have been a number of glitches, but from speaking with the director of the Queensland Fisheries Service, my understanding is that many of those glitches have been corrected. In relation to what the honourable member has said now—and he has raised quite a serious issue—if he can provide me with some more information I will certainly take it up with the Queensland Fisheries Service to see exactly what the problems are. 3022 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2001

Department of Families Mrs DESLEY SCOTT: I ask the Minister for Families: can she confirm whether the statements made by the member for Cunningham this morning that the Department of Families is putting all of its staff training online are accurate? Ms SPENCE: I am happy to answer that question. I can confirm that there is absolutely no accuracy at all in the statement made by the member for Cunningham. The Department of Families has absolutely no plans to abolish face-to-face training with our family services officers. I think that this morning the member for Cunningham has revealed that he is ill-informed, he is lazy, and that he spreads gossip. I suggest to the member for Cunningham that, instead of listening to gossip, he does some hard work. If he wants to find out what is happening in the Department of Families, he can do a number of things. He can ask for a briefing, which I do not believe he has ever done, or he can pick up the phone and call me. I am happy to answer questions. As the shadow minister, he could even ask a question in this House. I believe that I have only had one or two questions from him all year. Instead of repeating this gossip and mischievous information, he should try to get some facts. The facts are that the Department of Families has increased its staff training budget from $500,000 last year to $900,000 this year. Obviously, we are always looking at the way we deliver training. It would be remiss of a big organisation with a budget of over $300 million not to look at online training. It has not occurred as yet, but we are in the new millennium and obviously we will see if some components of our training can be delivered online. That will not replace face-to-face training. I have to tell the House that the union is so obviously concerned about this issue that in an hour and a half meeting with me last week its representatives did not even raise it. They had a lot of issues to raise in an hour and a half, but staff training was not one of them. I would suggest to the member for Cunningham that, if he wants to purport to represent the staff of the Department of Families in this place, he should get his facts right in the future.

Health Funding Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I note that the government has agreed with the federal Labor party to a Medicare alliance. The government has also agreed to the establishment of a national health commission in Canberra and the pooling of our state's health funds with Commonwealth funds, with priorities and targets presumably to be set by some form of negotiated process. Can the minister advise us why the government has agreed to devolve decision making in relation to the health needs of Queenslanders to bureaucrats in Canberra? Mrs EDMOND: I can only suggest that the questioner follows the advice of the previous minister: get some control of the facts and have a look at what we are doing. The health alliance is trying to break down some of the barriers between funding provision and service provision. One of the anomalies we face in health—and this is not just a problem for Labor Health ministers but is a factor that has concerned every Health minister whom I have ever spoken to, from whichever party—is the fact that Canberra controls so many of the purse strings but does not actually deliver any health service. A classic example of that is the $2.7 billion that is going into boosting the profits of private health insurance companies by 170 per cent but does not take any pressure off the state health services. We believe that there would have been better ways to provide support to people that would have actually delivered some services rather than just increased the profits of the insurance companies. One issue that we have is the overlap and misinformation, et cetera, that occurs in the delivery of services by and interaction between GPs, hospitals, emergency departments, after- hours and in-hours departments, who does what, where it happens, et cetera. The alliance will smooth that process. By working together we will provide a better range of services and better access to health services with the amount of funding that we have to work with, rather than seeing duplication in some areas and a lack of services in others. That is what is happening. I hope that every member in this House would like to see every cent of health funding going into maximising the delivery of services. I get called mean and miserable and all the rest of it, but I make no apology for trying to get $1.50 out of every health dollar that comes out of Canberra. That is my aim. Getting $1.50 worth of services out of every health dollar is what I am trying to do. I am not doing that to boost my pockets or the Treasury's pockets, but to actually deliver more health services. 18 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3023

We are working together as an alliance to put together strategies that will replace the duplication and misinformation. We are working together in a cooperative way. I think it is a good move forward. We have actually tried to do this with the outgoing coalition government in Canberra, but that has not succeeded. Here is hoping that, with a change of government, it will take place.

Emergency Services, Rosewood Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister for Emergency Services to the continued growth in the Ipswich area and, in particular, Rosewood, which has led to an increased demand for emergency services. Can the minister inform the House what the Department of Emergency Services has provided in response to this growth and what is planned for the people of Rosewood and their surrounding neighbours? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the member for Ipswich West for that question, because on a number of occasions the member has discussed with me the very important needs in regard to emergency services in the Ipswich-Rosewood area. Firstly, the Beattie government is committed to providing the best possible emergency services to the people of Queensland. That has been shown by our budget allocations. Indeed, that commitment is very much demonstrated through the recent initiatives in the Ipswich- Rosewood area. Once again I congratulate the member for Ipswich West, who is on the ground lobbying ministers like myself and making sure that the service delivery in his area is the best. A new state-of-the-art joint QFRA-QAS emergency services facility was constructed at a cost of close to $700,000 and officially opened on 29 October 2000. This facility includes a joint training room for the use of both QAS and QFRA staff, fitted out with lecture tables, chairs and audiovisual equipment. As I say, it is state-of-the-art equipment. Staff amenities include relieving quarters, a full kitchen and new furnishings. The facility includes a room designed specifically for the cleaning and recommissioning of breathing apparatus. A new QAS officer-in-charge residence has also been constructed next to the station. The facility currently houses one fire appliance and three QAS vehicles. A new F250 diesel ambulance has been placed at the facility since the opening. A further commitment of the Beattie government is clearly demonstrated with a new pumper tanker valued at over $260,000 and scheduled for delivery to the Rosewood facility in November 2001. I know that the member for Ipswich West and I will very proudly see the delivery of that. I can say that the number of pumper tankers we have delivered in the south west region is testimony to what we have done in regard to new equipment in that region. This appliance will have full road accident rescue, RAR, capability and the hydraulic RAR equipment, better known as the jaws of life, is valued at more than $35,000. The commitment that we have made to the Ipswich-Rosewood area again demonstrates our commitment to the professionalism and dedication of our emergency services workers. We are looking after their needs. Again, I congratulate the member for Ipswich West in terms of the lobbying and the advocacy that he has undertaken on behalf of his area. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Mirani, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from the Undurba State School in the electorate of Murrumba.

Ambulance Service Personnel Mr MALONE: I refer to the Department of Emergency Services edict of zero tolerance in regard to attacks by the public on Queensland ambulance personnel, and I ask: in reference to attacks on ambulance staff at Emerald, Tieri and Mackay, and considering we have the practice of zero tolerance in place for personnel dealing with the public, is it not enforced within the Queensland Ambulance Service to protect ambulancemen and women against their colleagues? I also ask: why do these cases remain uninvestigated with no official action taken against the offending officers? Mr REYNOLDS: The member for Mirani may be well aware that some weeks ago now I released a statement from my ministerial office on exactly the subject that the member is asking about. Indeed, ambulance officers across Queensland do an absolutely tremendous job in times of high stress and trauma. I will give an example of that. 3024 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2001

I was in Toowoomba yesterday and I discussed my trip with the shadow minister earlier this morning. In the hour that I was at the Toowoomba station yesterday, the crews, who do an excellent job, were called out to a cardiac arrest, a suicide and a fatality that had occurred on one of the road bypasses. That showed to me the tremendous skill and commitment that the men and women of that area have. As well as that, it showed the stress and trauma associated with the job. As I have indicated in the past in this House, that is an area that I as minister have worked through carefully with the staff to ensure that the right type of counselling programs are given to members of the Queensland Ambulance Service. I worked out that, if we look at the percentage of our staff who are on leave as a result of stress and trauma, our benchmark is better than anywhere else in Australia and that we are amongst the world leaders in this regard. That does not mean to say that we are not going to keep on working in that area. In relation to ambulance officers being attacked and liable to attack when they go out to assist members of the community— Mr Malone: Between the two officers? Mr REYNOLDS: I hear what the member is saying. Firstly, in regard to those particular incidents where they are attacked by the public, I condemn those attacks and I will do everything that I can as minister to ensure that those circumstances are looked into. I am not aware of the particular incident that the member has raised with me this morning, but I ask him to please give that to me in writing today and I will answer his request at the earliest possible time.

Computer Training Scams Mr CHOI: I refer the Minister for Fair Trading to the fact that research indicates that many con men and rip-off merchants target our vulnerable seniors in a range of scams, and I ask: can the minister inform the House of the activities of a business targeting the elderly via radio and magazine advertisements by offering a consumer guide to the use of computers? Mrs ROSE: The Office of Fair Trading has investigated the activities of a fellow by the name of Wayne Steven Lewis and his two registered businesses, the National Computer Training Academy and Australian Computer Training Services. The investigation was sparked by consumers who complained that those businesses had debited their credit card with amounts of money that were not authorised, usually $385. The debit followed the purchase of a book titled Grandparents guide to understanding computers, which had been advertised on radio for $33.45 and in publications in Queensland and interstate for $38.50. Shortly after the amount of $33.45 or $38.50 is debited to the consumer's credit card, another debit of $385 occurs. It is obvious that Lewis is targeting the elderly in the community. The Office of Fair Trading previously acted on similar complaints involving Australian Computer Training Services and obtained redress for four consumers. On those occasions, Lewis blamed a systems error for the unauthorised transactions. He was told any further incidents involving unauthorised transactions on consumers' credit cards would be referred to police. Recently, Office of Fair Trading investigators contacted the National Computer Training Academy after a large number of complaints again alleging unauthorised transactions on credit cards. Some consumers reported up to five unauthorised transactions of $385 on their credit cards—losses of almost $2,000. The initial explanation sheeted blame to a staff member said to be responsible for a 'systems error' which caused the unauthorised credit card debits. When OFT became aware of the extent of the problem, it immediately notified police and forwarded all information. Police say that up to 180 unauthorised transactions have been conducted on credit cards throughout Australia. Detectives are currently continuing investigations. Lewis has left his business premises and his current location is not known. However, he continues to forward correspondence to consumers who have had unauthorised transactions on their credit cards. In his letter, he is apologetic and states 'a genuine error that occurred within our business to a select few of our clients'. Lewis also requested the consumers' bank account details, advising them that he would be happy to deposit the refund into their bank. He is after richer spoils instead. Lewis is a shameless liar and a con man without a conscience. He rips off consumers and then brazenly comes back for another bite. Under no circumstances should a consumer give their bank account details to Wayne Lewis or a representative of the National Computer Training Academy or Australian Computer Training Services. 18 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3025

Mr R. Dunning; Gladstone Port Authority Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I refer the Minister for Transport to the fact that concern has been expressed in my electorate in relation to the appointment of the chair of the Gladstone Port Authority board. These concerns include, firstly, the ability of the appointee to do this extra work given that he is currently the chief executive officer of Evans Deakin Industries Limited and chair of the Brisbane Ports Corporation. Of greater concern is the perceived conflict of interest he faces as chair of two ports which at times are competing for the same business opportunities, and I ask: how does the minister see these concerns being addressed? Mr BREDHAUER: Can I say first and foremost that there are no fundamental issues in relation to conflict of interest that would preclude Mr Dunning from serving on the board of both government owned corporations. It is not uncommon for people in Queensland to serve on the board of more than one GOC. So there are no fundamental issues in relation to conflict of interest. Mr Dunning is a very experienced person in business and management and has experiences on the directorships of a number of boards. He also has quite a significant background in business and administration, which makes him an ideal choice to chair the Gladstone Port Authority. Amongst other things, he has been the Commissioner for Railways in Queensland, in 1989. He has also been the Director-General of the Department of Administrative Services for a number of years in the early 1990s. He is currently the chief executive of Evans Deakin Industries, which is an important engineering firm in Queensland. All of these are areas which give him the expertise and experience that makes him an appropriate person—and indeed a good choice—to chair one of Queensland's most important port authorities, the Gladstone Port Authority. The Gladstone Port Authority plays a crucial role not just in the Gladstone region but in supporting the economy of Queensland generally, especially through the export of coal. About 30 per cent of Queensland's coal exports pass through the Gladstone port. And, of course, there are a number of other industries based in the Gladstone area which rely heavily on the Gladstone Port Authority. Mr Dunning also has experience in the energy sector through his directorship of Pacific Power in New South Wales. His experience on the Brisbane Port Authority allows him to develop synergies that will complement the operations of the Gladstone Port Authority. As I say, there are no fundamental issues in relation to conflict of interest. Can I say, however, that as the director of a government owned corporation Mr Dunning is aware of matters in relation to conflict of interest. If there were any specific matters where there was a perceived or potential conflict between the dealings of the Gladstone Port Authority and the Port of Brisbane Corporation, I would expect Mr Dunning would, as is done by directors of companies and GOCs on a daily basis, exempt himself from those discussions and decisions, if there were specific issues. There are no general issues in relation to conflict which preclude him from holding both positions, but if there were specific issues in relation to the operations of the Brisbane and Gladstone port boards then he would, as GOC directors and private company directors do on a daily basis, exempt himself on the basis of that potential conflict.

Fashion Industry Mrs LAVARCH: I ask the Minister for State Development: what is the government doing to recognise and encourage excellence in manufacturing in Queensland? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question. The honourable member plays a key role in helping manufacturers and business in Queensland as the deputy chair of the Small Business Council. Last night, at the RAQ Westfield Australian Fashion Design Awards I was very pleased to present an award to Driza-bone for Excellence in Manufacture. Driza-bone is in the suburb of Eagleby, which until recently was in my electorate. It is now ably represented by the member for Albert. Of course, this was part of a key night. Fashion in Queensland is a key part of Queensland's manufacturing industry. There were some great garments on display from great companies and designers. One of the finalists, Kim Scott, is the daughter of the member for Woodridge. That was an absolutely stunning garment. In Queensland, fashion is turning over $600 million a year. They are earning $143 million in exports and they have 10,000 Queenslanders in jobs. My department is supporting that. We were proud to be a major sponsor last night. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired. 3026 Brisbane Casino Agreement Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Report on Overseas Visit Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.30 a.m.), by leave: I table for the information of the House a supplementary report and material on my recent visit to Norfolk Island on 11 and 12 October.

BRISBANE CASINO AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (11.30 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Brisbane Casino Agreement Act 1992, 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) (11.30 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Brisbane Casino Agreement Amendment Bill 2001 will amend the Brisbane Casino Agreement Act 1992—the 'agreement act'—to discontinue the operation of two Henry VIII clauses and also remove all references to the application of other acts within the agreement act. These amendments are in a form similar to those contained in the Jupiters Casino Agreement Amendment Act 2000. The Bill will also give approval to amend the agreement via a schedule to the agreement act, which will— operate independently to limit or control the application of other acts to the Brisbane Casino- Hotel Complex; refine the limits and controls as to the application of other acts in respect to development of the Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex and works that can be carried out in Queens Park; refine the heritage protection measures in respect to development of the Brisbane Casino- Hotel Complex, including the creation of a heritage management plan, and works that can be carried out in Queens Park; and update and simplify the agreement. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my speech. Leave granted. Mr Speaker, I would like now to turn to the major provisions of the Bill. It is important to emphasise that sections 6 and 7 of the Bill will amend the Henry VIII provisions in the Agreement Act by removing the ability to amend the Agreement by regulation. I will expand a little on this point. Henry VIII provisions like the one in question, permit an Act to be amended through operation of a regulation. The concern is that such a provision subverts the legislative making power of Parliament thus constituting a breach of Fundamental Legislative Principles. The Chair of the Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has expressed the view that Henry VIII provisions in relation to various Casino Agreement Acts should be removed. The Government agrees with the Committee and accordingly, has taken action to amend those provisions in this Act. Therefore, Mr Speaker, any future amendments to the Brisbane Casino Agreement must be considered by this House. By way of background to the amendment of the Brisbane Casino Agreement Act 1992, I would draw to the attention of the House, the Casino Control Act 1982. The Casino Control Act 1982 provides for the regulation and control of casinos in Queensland. The Casino Control Act 1982 requires as a precondition to the grant of a casino licence that an agreement be entered into between the State and other appropriate parties. In support of this requirement, the Brisbane Casino Agreement Act 1992 authorises the Treasurer of the Day, to enter into an agreement for and on behalf of the State with Jupiters Limited for the purpose of the construction and operation of the current Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex. The current Agreement as entered into by the parties, deals with various matters including: 18 Oct 2001 Animal Care and Protection Bill 3027

processes associated with the development of the Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex and works that can be carried out in Queens Park; the corporate organisation of parties deriving an interest in the Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex; the grant of the casino licence; the grant of the liquor licence; controls in relation to casino operations within the Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex; limitations as to the application of other laws in respect to development of the Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex and works in Queens Park including heritage, land, judicial review, local government development and zoning laws; exclusivity provisions assigned to the licensee; and the termination of the Agreement. Pursuant to section 5 of the Agreement Act, the Agreement as executed takes effect as if it were part of the Agreement Act. Mr Speaker, Part III of the Agreement will provide for the heritage protection mechanisms in respect to Development affecting the cultural heritage significance of the Complex. Specifically, any Development of the Complex must comply with the Heritage Management Principles as defined in the Agreement and a Heritage Management Plan. The Heritage Management Plan is a document which is to be agreed to by the Minister and whilst this plan may be amended with the Minister's agreement, such amendment can only occur within the limitations specifically authorised in Part III. Part III of the Agreement also provides for alternative heritage protection mechanisms in the event that the Heritage Management Plan is suspended by the Minister. The Judicial Review Act 1991, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Queensland Heritage Act 1992 and Land Act 1962 will not apply to certain decisions made under the Agreement in respect to Development of the Complex and Works that can be carried out in Queens Park. Generally, Mr Speaker, the exclusion of those Acts in respect to decisions of a developmental nature for the Brisbane Casino-Hotel Complex and Queens Park is consistent with the approach adopted for other casinos and the existing limitations contained within the Brisbane Casino Agreement Act 1992 and the Agreement. Furthermore, the exclusion of Judicial Review is an approach that has been agreed to by Parliament on the basis of the significant costs and capital requirements for such developments and the need to limit the ability of third parties to unreasonably subvert or delay the development of such projects. Mr Speaker, the Integrated Planning Act 1997 will not apply to the extent that a new scheme that specifically addresses Development (other than development involving only plumbing or drainage work or major park works) of the Complex and Queens Park is to be provided for in the Agreement. This is consistent with the underlying principal that the regulation and control of Hotel-Casino Complexes is to remain the responsibility of the Department that administers the Casino Control Act 1982. Also, the Development approval process which is to be contained within the Agreement is a comprehensive one and incorporates an assessment criteria which is generally consistent with Integrated Planning Act 1997 principles. The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 will not apply to the extent that a new scheme that specifically addresses the cultural heritage significance of the Complex and Queens Park, other than major park works, is to be provided for in the Agreement. To the extent that the Agreement limits the application of the Judicial Review Act 1991, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Queensland Heritage Act 1992 and Land Act 1962, Parliamentary Counsel has been consulted to ensure that there is sufficient particularisation of those controls. Additionally, in order to simplify the relevant laws in respect to the Brisbane and Jupiters casinos, the Bill provides for the repeal of all current regulations made pursuant to the Brisbane Casino Agreement Act and the Jupiters Casino Agreement Act. Relevantly, the repeal of those regulations will not affect the Agreement or the Jupiters Casino Agreement as made. Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned.

ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION BILL Resumption of Committee Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) in charge of the bill. Resumed from 17 October (see p. 2961). Clause 50— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.33 a.m.): I move amendments Nos 1 and 2— 1. Clause 50— At page 38, lines 8 to 19— omit, insert— ' "conviction", for an animal welfare offence, means a conviction, other than a spent conviction, for— 3028 Animal Care and Protection Bill 18 Oct 2001

(a) an animal welfare offence; or (b) an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or another State if the act or omission that constitutes the offence would, if it happens in Queensland, be an animal welfare offence; or'. 2. Clause 50— At page 39, after line 4— insert— ' "spent conviction" means a conviction— (a) for which the rehabilitation period under the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 has expired under that Act; and (b) that is not revived as prescribed by section 11 of that Act.'. Clause 50 of the bill contains the definitions used in chapter 4 of the bill, which is about using animals for scientific purposes. Clause 50 defines the term 'conviction'. The chief executive takes prior convictions for animal welfare offences into account when deciding whether to register a person to use animals for scientific purposes. In subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that definition there is reference to the rehabilitation period under the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 having not expired or been revived. Section 11 of the act and the definition of 'revived' in section 3 indicates that it is a conviction, not the rehabilitation period, which is reviewed. This is based on a recommendation from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Amendments agreed to. Clause 50, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 51 to 70, as read, agreed to. Clause 71— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.34 a.m.): I move amendment No. 3— 3. Clause 71— At page 46, line 21, after 'giving'— insert— 'the person'. This amendment has been requested by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to improve the clarity of expression used in clause 71. Clause 71 enables the chief executive to amend certain minor details of a person's registration to the use of animals for scientific purposes by giving notice to that person. The amendment clarifies that it is the person whose registration details the chief executive proposes to amend who should be given notice of that intention. Amendment agreed to. Clause 71, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 72 to 84, as read, agreed to. Clause 85— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.35 a.m.): I move amendment No. 4— 4. Clause 85— At page 52, lines 10 to 11, 'to the disclosure of the information, or giving of access to the report is'— omit, insert— 'if the disclosure or giving of access is'. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has requested the amendment to improve the readability of the clause. Clause 85 deals with the confidentiality of animal welfare reports. The amendment simply removes superfluous wording from the clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 85, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 86 to 107, as read, agreed to. Clause 108— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.36 a.m.): I move amendment No. 5— 5. Clause 108— At page 62, line 4, after 'time'— insert— 'or interval'. 18 Oct 2001 Animal Care and Protection Bill 3029

This amendment has also been requested by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to improve the clarity of the clause. Under clause 108 an animal welfare direction may state that an inspector proposes, at a stated time or at stated intervals, to enter premises to check for compliance. Other powers of entry in the bill, including the power under this clause in referring to the animal welfare direction, make reference to only time. The clause has omitted reference to the possibility of an interval being staged. This amendment corrects that omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 108, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 109 and 110, as read, agreed to. Clause 111— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.37 a.m.): I move amendment No. 6— 6. Clause 111— At page 64, line 10, after 'time'— insert— 'or interval'. This amendment is the same in substance as my previous amendment to clause 108. It is in relation to 'stated time' or 'at stated intervals'. This amendment corrects that omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 111, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 112 to 121, as read, agreed to. Clause 122— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.38 a.m.): I move amendment No. 7— 7. Clause 122— At page 69, line 11, after 'time'— insert— 'or interval'. This is basically the same in substance as my amendments to clauses 108 and 111. It relates, once again, to 'stated time' or 'at stated intervals'. Once again, this amendment corrects that omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 122, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 123 and 124, as read, agreed to. Clause 125— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.38 a.m.): I move amendment No. 8— 8. Clause 125— At page 72, line 1, 'person'— omit, insert— 'occupier'. This amendment has been requested by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to correct a minor technical error. Clause 125 is about procedures for entry without warrant. The clause specifies what information must be given to the occupier for this to occur. In subparagraph (2)(C) the term the 'person' is used in error instead of the term 'occupier'. This amendment corrects that error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 125, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 126 to 129, as read, agreed to. Clause 130— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.39 a.m.): I move government amendment No. 9— 9. Clause 130— At page 75, line 20, after 'time'— insert— 'or interval'. 3030 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

Once again, this amendment is the same in substance as my amendments to clauses 108, 111 and 122 in relation to a stated time or at stated intervals. This amendment once again corrects that omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 130, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 131 to 178, as read, agreed to. Clause 179— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.40 a.m.): I move government amendment No. 10— 10. Clause 179— At page 99, line 28, 'of the matter stated'— omit, insert— 'the matter came to the complainant's knowledge on that day'. Clause 179 is designed to facilitate prosecutions under the act by avoiding the prosecution going to the expense of proving minor or non-controversial matters. The clause states— In a complaint starting a proceeding for an offence against this Act, a statement that the matter of the complaint came to the complainant's knowledge on a stated day is evidence of the matter stated. However, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has expressed concern that, in enabling a statement of a matter to be taken as evidence, clause 179 may go beyond non-controversial matters. This was not the intention of the clause. This amendment clarifies that the statement is only evidence of the date the complaint came to the complainant's knowledge and not the elements of the offence. Amendment agreed to. Clause 179, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 180 to 226, as read, agreed to. Clause 227— Mr PALASZCZUK (11.41 a.m.): I move government amendment No. 11— 11. Clause 227— At page 123, lines 7 and 9, after 'time'— insert— 'or interval'. This amendment is the same in substance as my amendments to clauses 108, 111, 122 and 130. Basically, it is in relation to a stated time or at stated intervals. Once again, this amendment corrects that omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 227, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 228 to 231, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 7 August (see p. 2253). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (11.43 a.m.): The opposition will be supporting the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Amendment Bill 2001 now before the parliament. This bill seeks to return to the situation that existed for the apportionment of contributory negligence in the case of claims in contract prior to a decision of the High Court, notable in Astley v. Austrust. As I understand it, prior to the statute being enacted with regard to contributory negligence the situation was that, when taking action in common law and if there was any contribution of 18 Oct 2001 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Amendment Bill 3031 negligence whatsoever from the claimant, the court could decide that the person bringing the matter before the court may not have been eligible to receive anything in damages. Over the last few years and longer a number of statutes around Australia have sought to clarify that situation so that consideration is given to contributory negligence and the payout to the plaintiff may in fact be reduced in proportion to their contribution to the cause of the claim before the court. It has also been taken as a consequence of legislation that similar claims for negligence under laws of contract can be reduced in proportion to the contribution that the plaintiff has actually made to the extent of their own injury. The real concern for parliaments around Australia since this decision is that there is uncertainty and concern about the potential financial impact issues of liability, such as insurance premiums, et cetera. It therefore makes a great degree of sense to move to reimpose the status quo. However, I note that from reading the bill before the House there are certain qualifications with regard to retrospective application, but by and large the status quo will be reinstated for actions that start after a certain time. There is one question I want to ask the Attorney-General. I was going to do this in the committee stage of the debate, but I do not believe there is any conflict. Later today the parliament will debate the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill, which raises issues with regard to contributory negligence and the statutory provision that exists under current law for an automatic apportionment of 25 per cent contribution of negligence for people making a claim under WorkCover for damages. I understand that that is to be taken away and the matter will be totally at the discretion of the court. I do not believe that there is any conflict between what this act is seeking to achieve and what that act is seeking to achieve. Mr Welford interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the Attorney-General for that assurance. By and large, the opposition is very happy to support the bill before the House. I believe that other Australian jurisdictions will be moving to legislate this way if they have not already done so. It makes sense to have a regime in place for the apportionment of a plaintiff's contribution to negligence in not only common law but also contract law. This bill seeks to preserve the latter. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.48 a.m.): I rise to support the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Amendment Bill before the House, and I was pleased to hear the opposition's spokesman on these matters, the member for Southern Downs, say that those opposite are also supportive of this bill. After all, the bill is a piece of legislation designed to correct, if you like, a defect arising as a result of a recent High Court decision. Today in my contribution to the debate I will briefly set out the purpose of the legislation as I understand it, the prevailing view of the law applying before the High Court decision, the finding in that High Court case of Astley and Austrust, as referred to by the member for Southern Downs, briefly set out the facts of that case and give examples of the consequences of the decision in Astley were it not for this bill. I will also touch on the question of retrospectivity and the fundamental legislative principles that the member for Southern Downs referred to. As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to restore the position as it was assumed to be prior to the decision of the High Court in the case of Astley v. Austrust Ltd. Prior to that decision it was largely assumed that the apportionment of provisions of the Law Reform Act 1995 as originally contained in the Law Reform (Tortfeasors Contribution, Contributory Negligence, and Division of Chattels) Act 1952 extended to claims in contract for damage for breach of a contractual duty of care where the duty of care owed by the defendant is the same in contract as in tort. In Astley's case it was held that prior decisions applying apportionment legislation to breaches of contract were wrong and should not be followed in this country. Thus, it has clearly established in a binding way that if a plaintiff chooses to sue a professional in contract only then the plaintiff's claim cannot be reduced for contributory negligence. The facts of Astley's case can be summarised as follows. Austrust Ltd, subsequently called Austrust, was a trustee company and had acted as trustee of 'conventional' trusts such as deceased estates but in 1983 decided to enter into a new field of activity, acting as a trustee of trading trusts. As part of its new activity, Austrust decided to accept appointment as trustee of a trust to set up a piggery on land in New South Wales. Austrust sought general advice from a firm of solicitors, Astley, in relation to a proposed deed of trust. The request required the solicitors to examine the proposed deed of trust and to 'let us have your comments on it in due course'. In May 1985 the unit-holders of the trust resolved to terminate the trust. The trust was subsequently wound up and it was found then that there were insufficient assets to meet the 3032 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 trust's liabilities. As a result Austrust, as trustee, incurred personal liability for the extensive losses of the trust. Austrust alleged that Astley was negligent because it did not advise that Austrust would be personally liable in dealings with third parties unless it limited its liability to the extent of the trust assets. Astley claimed that it had not been retained to advise on those matters. The issue of negligence turned on the scope of the solicitors firm's retainer. The issue was decided against the solicitors firm by the trial judge and on appeal by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The trial judge found that Austrust had become exposed to liability by reason of, firstly, its own failure to assess the financial worth of the trust and, secondly, the solicitors firm's breach of duty. The trial judge found that there had been contributory negligence by Austrust and ordered that the amount it recovered—that is, $1,436,837, being damages and interest—be reduced by 50 per cent under the Wrongs Act 1936 of South Australia. The trial judge held that the contributory negligence of Austrust entitled Astley to have the damage reduced where the duty of care is the same in contract and in tort, and concurrent liability in both causes of action is pleaded. So far as is relevant to a discussion of the bill before the House today, the question to be determined was: if a defendant is liable in both contract and tort—that is, concurrent liability—and the plaintiff sues in contract alone or on both causes of action, can the defendant rely on the plaintiff's contributory negligence as modified by the apportionment legislation in each state, and in Astley's case section 27A of the Wrongs Act 1936 of South Australia, as a defence to the action for breach of contract? As I said earlier, the High Court held that in those circumstances the plaintiff's claim cannot be reduced for contributory negligence. Quite unjust and unfair consequences flow from that decision. Two examples are, firstly, the very facts of Astley's case, which I have just read, in that the plaintiff's damages as a result of that interpretation of the law by the High Court were not reduced by half to reflect the plaintiff's own degree of fault or neglect. Therefore, the solicitors firm Astley had to suffer the consequence of paying the entire loss of its client, Austrust, notwithstanding that Austrust was equally at fault. The consequences for legal advisers generally and of course their insurers would be extensive and burdensome in the extreme. One could not certainly apply Ogden Nash's 1935 statement any longer. He said— Professional men, they have no cares. Whatever happens, they get theirs. Seriously, though, the original common law effective defence of contributory negligence was altered and varied by legislation to reflect the community's standards and notions of justice. So, too, there is a need now to attend to the adverse legal consequences of the High Court decision. The need to address this situation was brought home to us in Queensland when the Queensland Court of Appeal confirmed the applicability of the decision in Astley in the case of Wylie v. ANI Ltd, a WorkCover case of 2000. This in fact extended the application of the law from a professional contractual situation to a common law WorkCover type case. I will not read the facts in Wylie's case, but for the important aspects of it I will refer in part to the judgment of the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice McMurdo. The judgment states— The respondent plaintiff was injured at work first on 1 July 1994 and again on 17 September 1996. He brought an action in the District Court against the appellant defendant, his employer, for damages for personal injuries, alleging both negligence and breach of an implied term in the contract of employment. The learned trial judge found that only the first accident occurred through fault of the appellant; the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to provide a reasonably safe system of work; this failure constituted both negligence and a breach of contract; damages were assessed at $40,437; the respondent was 50 per cent contributorily negligent. As the appellant breached the contract of employment, his Honour did not reduce the damages for that breach to take account of the respondent's contributory negligence under s 10 Law Reform Act 1995 ... In other words, the decision in Astley had to be applied. The learned President of the Court of Appeal commented on that as follows— Since Astley, where an employee suffers injury in the workplace caused by the employer's breach of contract of employment, damages will no longer be able to be reduced because of the employee's contributory negligence. The commendable spirit of modern workplace health and safety legislation requires that employer and employee cooperatively work together to develop and maintain a safe workplace. It is not inconsistent with that spirit to require workers to be accountable for their own negligence consistent with their tortious obligations and apportionment legislation. The effect of Astley goes well beyond cases involving personal injury in the course of employment. But it is for the legislature, not the courts, to consider whether the law should be changed to reflect the position generally thought to exist before Astley. The effect of that judgment, of course, was to call on the legislature, in the form of this parliament, to rectify the effects of the decision in Astley. Similar calls were made throughout 18 Oct 2001 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Amendment Bill 3033

Australia. And as I understand it, the Queensland parliament is moving in line with that general trend, if not leading the trend in that regard. The final aspect on which I wish to make some brief comments in respect to this legislation relates to the retrospective application of the act. The member for Southern Downs made some reference to that aspect, as well. Retrospective legislation often has unsavoury aspects because it offends a fundamental legislative principle. However, in this instance, as I understand it, what the bill achieves in a sense is the restoration of the law to the position it was presumed to be in prior to the Astley case. Hence one could not properly be concerned about the bill's retrospectivity in this instance. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (12.02 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to speak to this law reform bill. A lot of what I was going say has been canvassed. However, it is important that we ensure that people who are injured are looked after by the courts. The High Court decision has put that out of whack a little. And to be fair and equitable, I say that what the minister is bringing in here will restore some balance. The bill will operate retrospectively, and it needs to do that. Mr Quinn: There is a reasonable balance. Mr PURCELL: There is a reasonable balance there. It is essential to correct the unintended consequences brought about by the High Court's decision. The High Court recommended that legislation could probably right the matters uncovered by its decision. Retrospective laws are generally passed to validate past actions. This is really to correct a defect, I suppose, in the legislation. This bill corrects a defect in the Law Reform Act 1995 which, prior to the Astley decision, was regarded as applying to apportionment provisions to liability to contract as well as in tort. This bill restores the law to the position that was commonly accepted as applying in Queensland before the Astley decision. The amendments are drafted so that the rights of parties to proceedings that have been commenced or decided, or where a settlement has been negotiated, are unaffected. The amendments are also expressed not to apply to claims under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Concern was expressed during consultation on the bill about the consequences for WorkCover claimants if the provisions of the bill applied to claims under that act. Few such claims have been commenced in the courts because of the extensive pre-proceedings process set out in the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The amendments will apply to any other act or omission that occurred before the amendments commenced. Clause 2 provides that the amendments in the bill are taken to have commenced on 7 August 2001. This amendment will ensure that the High Court's decision is quarantined as much as possible without adversely affecting the position of litigants—people engaged in a law suit—who have acted on the basis of the law as determined. I recommend the bill to the House. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.05 p.m.), in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill, and I thank opposition members in particular for their support for the bill. It is, in many respects, a bill of a machinery nature to restore the law which had previously existed prior to the High Court case of Astley and which I think all of us would regard as eminently sensible, that is, that the rules in relation to contributory negligence and the apportionment of damages should apply in disputes in relation to contract and disputes in relation to negligence on the same basis. That is really all this does. And in that respect I think it is a fair principle to apply in the law so that there is consistent application of it. The member for Toowoomba North gave a quite detailed analysis of the history of the law in relation to this matter, particularly the background to the Astley case itself and a subsequent Queensland interpretation by the Court of Appeal in the case of Wylie. I thank the member for Toowoomba North for putting on the record of the House some of that information which more fully explains, I think, for the record the background to the policy decision leading to this legislation. As members have said, what we are doing here is in line with other jurisdictions around Australia. This matter was on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General at which a decision was made by all state attorneys to take this step to restore the law as it was previously applied until a technicality was identified by the High Court. And that, of course, is the step we are now taking. The member for Bulimba reinforced the importance of protecting workers in the workplace and ensuring that fairness applies in the assessment of their injuries and liability and claims for damages. That sentiment is certainly reflected in the drafting of the bill to ensure that any person 3034 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 who has a proceeding commenced in the court currently—before this bill takes effect—will not have any effect of this bill deny them their claim under and in accordance with the Astley situation. So to the extent that there is a short hiatus between the original law and what we are restoring it to, anyone who may have accrued rights during that interregnum and has brought action to enforce those rights will be able to enforce them accordingly. So in that respect there is no retrospective action. The only element of retrospectivity relates to a wrong affecting an injury under WorkCover sustained before 1 July. In other words, the provisions in force before the commencement of this amendment will still apply to any injury under WorkCover that occurred before 1 July. Any injuries after that date will be subject to the apportionment principles in this amending bill. 1 July was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, that was when I announced, after cabinet's approval, that this change would be made. So although it is technically retrospective, everyone has had notice that this restored legal position would operate from 1 July and they had notice on 1 July. So no-one's rights are adversely affected in that regard for injuries sustained subsequent to 1 July. Secondly, amendments made later in this place in respect of the WorkCover Act, as the shadow spokesperson mentioned, will clarify that from 1 July the apportionment provisions of that act no longer apply. That will ensure, as I indicated earlier to the member for Southern Downs, that by removing the apportionment provisions of the WorkCover act almost simultaneously with the introduction of these provisions, there will be no overlap and no inconsistency between them. I thank members for their contributions in that regard and commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

COMMONWEALTH POWERS (FAMILY LAW—CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 7 August (see p. 2256). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (12.13 p.m.): The opposition will support the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Amendment Bill. We believe that it is a commonsense and progressive step towards facing the reality of the day. Certainly, there are checks and balances in place to preserve the jurisdictional responsibility that traditionally has been undertaken by the state minister responsible for wards of the state. This bill effectively brings under the deliberative power of the Family Court children who are in care, principally ex-nuptial children. At present, the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to make parenting orders and maintenance orders of children who are subject to an order under the Child Protection Act 1999. This bill will give the Family Court consistent power between nuptial and ex-nuptial children—something that I believe is extremely important. To date, this opportunity has not existed in Queensland because the jurisdiction has not been ceded to the Family Court and the principal responsibility for these children rests with the minister responsible, the Minister for Families. If any matter relating to ex-nuptial children needs to be determined by a court, it is dealt with under the state jurisdiction. As is indicated in the explanatory notes, the referral of powers is necessary as the Family Court of Australia has no jurisdiction to make parenting orders in relation to a child who is under the care of the act that I just mentioned. Also, the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction in relation to the maintenance of children who are the subject of an order under that Child Protection Act 1999. If the Family Court cannot make maintenance orders, then the Child Support Agency is unable to collect child support for such children. I turn now to what this bill will do. The explanatory notes on page 2 indicate that it will confer jurisdiction on the Commonwealth to deal with issues such as custody, guardianship and access matters in respect to children who are subject to child welfare law where the relevant state minister 18 Oct 2001 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Amendment Bill 3035 or authorised person consents, maintenance for children who are subject to child welfare law, and declarations of parentage for Commonwealth purposes. Over the past few years the states, the territories and the Commonwealth have sought to clarify these issues. In many cases it is very important—and I am sure that the Attorney-General would agree—that matters be dealt with concurrently in one jurisdiction. I refer the Attorney-General to one matter that was raised with me on which he might like to comment in his reply, and that is the possibility of forum shopping. I am not absolutely sure of the basis of the concern of the person who raised this issue with me. If we are dealing with ex-nuptial children who are wards of the state, any issues that are raised may be dealt with by the state jurisdiction. Under this bill, the Family Court will have the capacity to deal with matters. Probably the concern of the person who raised this matter with me is that there might be a capacity for people who want to have a matter determined to look at the various avenues that are available to them. I just seek the Attorney-General's clarification of that point. By and large, the opposition is very supportive of this bill. As I indicated, it preserves the primacy of the relevant state minister or authorised person in that they would have to concur for these matters to be heard by the Family Court. The Family Court is probably the most appropriate jurisdiction to deal with a number of these matters, particularly those dealing with parenting orders and maintenance. The opposition National Party has no hesitation in supporting this bill. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (12.18 p.m.): I am pleased to learn that on this occasion the National Party opposition will be supporting this bill. The history of the National Party when in government was that it was not so supportive of referring these sorts of powers to the Commonwealth, and I will touch on that briefly shortly. However, I now want to make a few comments about the bill. As I understand it, with respect to family law matters, the bill's intention is the referral of some more power to the Commonwealth. That power is the conferring of jurisdiction regarding custody, guardianship and access matters involving children subject to a child welfare law where the relevant state minister consents. It is also relevant to the maintenance of such children and declarations of parentage for Commonwealth purposes. The state's power in relation to child welfare laws remains intact, as does the exclusive power of the state to make adoption laws. The current situation is unsatisfactory because, after protective action is taken by the Department of Families to ensure the safety of a child and a parent is located and is assessed as being able and willing to care properly for that child, the Child Protection Act 1999 does not enable child protection orders to be made in favour of the parent as statutory intervention is only authorised when a child does not have a parent able and willing to protect the child. Furthermore, the Family Court cannot make orders in relation to children who are in the care of a person under a state child welfare law unless certain circumstances apply. Legal Aid Queensland generally refuses to grant aid to persons whose children are subject to child protection orders or proceedings who wish to apply to the Family Court for parenting orders. The objective of the bill is to amend the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Act 1990 to refer to the Commonwealth certain powers relating to children who are subject to child welfare orders under state legislation and ex-nuptial children. As I understand it, this bill attends to a gap in the practical application of the reforming legislation brought in by the Goss government in 1990. This followed years of foot dragging by the Bjelke-Petersen government because of its irrational fear of transferring power to Canberra. In those days, at least, it was more concerned with state's rights than children's rights. The effect of the 1990 groundbreaking reform by the Goss government was to enable the custody of all children to be determined in the Family Court, whether they were born inside or outside marriage. That act finally put to an end the ludicrous situation where the custody of ex- nuptial children was determined in the Supreme Court while the custody of children of a marriage was determined in the Family Court. The idea was also to overcome confusion in the application of the law. In his second reading speech, the then minister, Mr Milliner, quoted then Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs. In a 1986 case, Sir Harry Gibbs said— This matter provides another example of the lamentable results that can ensue when the limits of the respective jurisdictions of State and Federal courts are not clearly defined. Minister Milliner then went on to say— This Bill will ease this lamentable situation and ensure that the Family Law Court can deal with all family law issues involving children. It will ensure that threshold constitutional demarcation disputes will not arise and that the rights of the children of a household are resolved by one court and by the application of one body of law in a consistent and rational manner. 3036 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

Finally, as this bill deals with the topic of family law, I will make passing reference to a discussion that has been taking place in the public arena, particularly in my area of Toowoomba, following an address by Archbishop Pell on 22 August this year. He spoke about the changing place of family in our society. In an article in the Courier-Mail of 23 August 2001, Archbishop Pell said— The family in Australia once enjoyed a privileged place at law and in social and economic policy. Nothing epitomised this more than the 1907 landmark judgment of Henry Bournes Higgins, president of the newly established Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, in the case that established the basic wage, to support a working man, his dependent wife and three children "in frugal comfort". That is better known as the Harvester case. Archbishop Pell went on to say that over recent decades the family institution has come under great threat with the increasing breakdown in marriages. He raised for public discussion suggestions about what might be done about that. I for one am not convinced that his suggestions to solve the problem are necessarily appropriate, but I do support the raising of the topic in the public arena. I encourage further discussion on that matter to address the problem of the breakdown of the family in the twenty-first century. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (12.25 p.m.): I would like to concur with my colleague from Toowoomba North in regards to the Harvester case. It was indeed a landmark decision for Australian families. The courts have not made decisions like that in recent times. It is a pity that the family is not protected a lot more than it is. The Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Amendment Bill 2001 will go some way to doing that. The bill amends the Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Act 1990 to refer to the Commonwealth certain powers relating to children subject to child welfare orders under the Queensland legislation and ex-nuptial children. Reasons for the bill include the fact that the Family Court has no jurisdiction in relation to children who are under the care of persons under the Child Protection Act 1990. The Department of Families is restricted in its range of available options that can be considered while conducting an appraisal of a child's welfare. The Commonwealth has no authorisation in the matter of maintenance payments for children who are under the Child Protection Act 1990. The Family Court is unable to make maintenance orders and the child support agency has no authority to collect maintenance for such children. The bill will rectify those problems. Jurisdiction will be granted to the Commonwealth government to create laws with respect to: custody, guardianship and access matters of children who are subject to child welfare law; maintenance for children who are subject to child welfare law; and declarations of parentage for Commonwealth purposes. Similar legislation referring these powers has been enacted in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. These amendments represent an important reform of the law in relation to children subject to state child welfare orders. Unquestionably, the bill is positive for children who are subject to child welfare orders. Wide consultation has taken place on the matters covered by the bill. The winners are the children. The Commission for Children and Young People and Legal Aid Queensland totally support the bill. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.27 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions on and support for this amending bill. In addition to the comments that I made in my second reading speech, members have outlined the purpose of the bill. More than 10 years ago, the parliament passed the original act which conferred on the Commonwealth the power to allow matters in relation to custody, access, guardianship and maintenance of children to be dealt with by the Family Court. At the time, that conferral of power did not include power for the Family Court to give consideration to those matters in respect of children who were subject to a care order of a state court. They were then known as care and control orders. This legislation, of course, allows the Family Court now to be empowered under Commonwealth law to deal with issues of parentage and also to extend the consideration of what is called parentage rather than custody these days—guardianship, access and maintenance—to children who are subject to an order for care under a state court. The member for Southern Downs raised the issue of forum shopping. It is a legitimate question to raise. Although the state Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction in all matters relating to children is retained, the practical reality is that in all of those matters in respect of which power has already been conferred people are usually already in the Family Court resolving matters of 18 Oct 2001 Commonwealth Powers (Family Law—Children) Amendment Bill 3037 property or the settlement of their matrimonial relationships and so it is nearly always likely that they will deal with other matters relating to children at the same time. If parties to such a relationship have children who are ex-nuptial, those children can also be dealt with at the same time in the Family Court. That was the problem that was rectified previously. What we are saying now is that, if in relation to those matters there are children in care, contrary to the provision as it previously stood where the Family Court could not entertain any submissions in relation to those children, the Commonwealth will now be able to empower the Family Court to entertain submissions in relation to children in care with the consent of the state minister. The avoidance of forum shopping can to that extent be addressed by the state minister exercising the discretion to consent or withhold consent as to whether the matter can be heard in the Family Court. If it was not already resolved by the issues of practicality, that will certainly enable the state minister to supervise the issue and presumably address the concern that the member has raised by the exercise of consent. Again, it is a short point which we are considering in amending the existing law. It is eminently sensible that all issues relating to children which are subject to proceedings already in the Family Court are able to be dealt with. For that purpose, I thank members for their support and commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr SPRINGBORG (12.33 p.m.): The opposition does not have any problem with clause 3. However, I wish to make a comment about the contribution by the honourable member for Toowoomba North with regard to the reticence, as he saw it, and the pig-headedness inferred on the part of previous National Party governments to refer matters of state court jurisdiction to a Commonwealth court jurisdiction. In some cases, reticence is something which is extremely important, because one needs to be very sure that you are not undermining the sovereign responsibility of your state with regard to responsibility to administer certain things as set down and recognised by the Commonwealth Constitution. Also, I suppose it is very important to note that we need to be convinced that in referring things it will be for the overall betterment of the citizens of the state. I note the reticence of the state Labor government and the concerns expressed by a former member of parliament, one of my colleagues, to confer potentially responsibility for industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth—something which I personally did not share. I am not sure that it had much standing, anyway. The state Labor government, the Beattie government, was reticent about that fact, and I think rightly so. I do not think it is right to stand up in this place and say that we are pig-headed and do not want to indulge in reasonable transfer of powers because we are inherently conservative or whatever the case may be. Regardless of whether we are from the Labor, Liberal or National Party or some other party or derivation of a party of Independents, it is very important that we preserve the responsibility which we have been given. If we were so reluctant and reticent, there would not have been a National Party Attorney- General at the time who would have agreed and been a part of the negotiations for the original cross-vesting arrangements which this parliament itself amended last year to address a decision of the High Court that struck at the validity of those arrangements which were agreed to by all states and territories in the Commonwealth in the 1980s, as I understand it. I could stand corrected if the Attorney has any information to the contrary. We were never as reluctant to go forward with reasonable jurisdictional conferring of powers as the member for Toowoomba North alluded to in his speech, and I just wanted to clarify that point. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. 3038 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

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

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 9 August (see p. 2457). Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (12.38 p.m.): The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill is yet another example of the Labor Party's inability to learn from its past mistakes. When the coalition came into power in 1996, Queensland's workers compensation scheme was in a dire state. By 1996, WorkCover had an unfunded liability of over $300 million. It was close to collapse. It was a basket case. In fact, it was a disgrace to Queensland. Any government that prided itself on good government could not have left the scheme to deteriorate to the sorry state it gained under the Goss government, yet they did. When the coalition came into power, it was faced with a crisis. If action was not taken quickly, the fund would have collapsed and workers throughout our state would have been left high and dry. Bankruptcies were very high. We took the action that the Labor Party should have taken well before. The members opposite screamed and shouted when we moved to save Queenslanders' workers compensation scheme. It seemed they preferred that the scheme collapse than a sensible rescue step be taken. Yet it seems they never learn; here they are setting up a scheme for another fall. We in the National Party condemn the actions of the Beattie government and this bill. The National Party believes WorkCover is an important aspect of our society and gives workers much needed protection. We are absolutely supportive of the need for an effective workers compensation scheme in Queensland. But the operative word is 'effective'. If the system is not effective, workers eventually get hurt. We as a government must ensure the scheme's vitality and viability, and we must protect it vigilantly. We must ensure the workers of Queensland have security. Queensland must be protected against injury in the work force. The only way to offer this protection is to enforce a system of mutual obligation that reflects the principle of financial responsibility. We on this side of the House have no objection to statutory compensation rises in line with the CPI. However, rises mooted in this bill are considerably higher. Maximum statutory compensation for injury and death have increased in the order of 50 per cent. This is well above inflation. I note with some concern that there seems to be quite a lot of uncertainty in the Industrial Relations Department in regard to the present level of the maximum lump sum statutory payments. In his second reading speech the minister stated that the lump sum payment for fatal injury under the present act is $204,645. However, during the departmental briefing I was told that it is presently $194,000. To my further confusion, I then opened the bill. It lists the amended compensation amount as $164,960. Likewise for injury, I was variously told that $127,900, $121,000 and $103,100 was the compensation. I have taken the present act's level as the correct figure. If this is correct, fatal injury compensation has increased by 52 per cent and injury by 45 per cent. We in the National Party support reasonable increases in these payments. Our definition of 'reasonable' and the definition used by the members opposite do not seem to come from the same dictionary. We believe that increases in line with the consumer price index are reasonable. The ALP apparently believes that increases by half are reasonable. In our opinion, such large increases are unjustifiable and are financially irresponsible. We condemn these. We must remember that if this scheme becomes too onerous those most affected are the people out there looking for jobs, as employers simply will not be able to retain staff. As I move around this great state of ours, Queenslanders, particularly small businesspeople, comment to me that one of the greatest imposts on employment is the increasingly burdensome WorkCover scheme imposed by this government. The minister claims WorkCover can afford the changes in the bill. He claims an average employer premium rate is locked in for this financial year. That may be so, and I applaud that. No guarantee is given after that cut-off. On past performances this is worrying. Opposition members have had numerous reports in recent times of mammoth increases in WorkCover premiums: everything from very small businesses having enormously increased premiums, explained by the Beattie government's decision to double the minimum premium payable from $60 to $120, to larger businesses becoming non-viable due to considerable jumps 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3039 in their premiums. In just one example a large regional employer had its premiums increased twofold. They are now seriously considering closing their doors due directly to the WorkCover costs jump. These amendments could be the death knell of some of those communities that have concerns. I ask: who will be the worst hurt? Will it be the workers? Will they be without jobs and without livelihoods? The members opposite do not seem to understand that workers compensation is a balancing act—balancing the needs of workers against society's needs as a whole. If we get the balance out of check we do irreparable damage to both sides. I reiterate that Queensland cannot afford to have WorkCover mismanaged. Administration of this scheme must be responsible. If it is not, the whole of Queensland is harmed. The opposition wishes we could support these increases. We support the rights of the worker. We believe, however, that the best way to support the worker is to ensure they have jobs. These amendments put the Queensland jobs at risk, and that we cannot support. Moving on to other areas of the act, the opposition has considerable concerns with many clauses contained in the bill. I am worried about the provisions giving the courts discretion to award damages for the loss of consortium. Also, the restriction on the courts in the discretion of awarding damages for future economic loss and the interests will be lifted. This concerns me greatly. Experience has shown that if you give the judiciary an inch you end up losing a mile. By granting this discretion there is a grave risk of costs blowing out enormously. Courts must have some discretion. That is why they are there. It is reasonable, however, that this parliament be the one to decide what is in the public interest to be included within that discretion and what would be harmful to be included. I have called repeatedly for financial responsibility. We must protect employees under this legislation from financial irresponsibility. The worst possible scenario for workers is a repeat of the Goss government debacle. The National Party also strongly opposes changes to contributory negligence in this bill. Workers compensation must have a clear element of mutual obligation. The present act has an onus on the workers to prove that the employer did not make a genuine attempt to guard them from injury. The court no longer has to have regard on this issue. It is the same situation in determining whether the event that caused the injury was actually foreseen or reasonably readily foreseeable. Also, the obligation of the worker to inform the employer of possible harmful circumstances is to be repealed under this act. I am equally alarmed by the abolition of the requirement that the court when considering contributory negligence have regard to whether the worker did everything reasonably possible to avoid sustaining the injury. Some of the provisions in determining contributory negligence are to be repealed. As a government body, it is our duty to ensure that enacted legislation is workable and does not create an unnecessary burden on employers. Taking away these reasonable provisions for the sharing of the responsibility between both employers and employees for ensuring safety in workplaces throughout Queensland would be a serious dereliction of duty on our part. We must assume that people in the work force are thinking and responsible adults who have the ability to take reasonable steps to protect themselves. These changes will bring in a 'nanny' state. Big Brother in the form of the employer will always be watching because, if they are not, they will be liable. I ask: where do you draw the line? As I said earlier, workplace safety is a joint responsibility. Employers must provide a safe workplace. They must take all reasonable steps to protect Queensland's most precious resource, and that is Queensland's workers. Life, however, is a two-way street. Workers must also take responsibility for their actions. If they are harmed through no fault of their employer or if they contribute to their own injury, they have contributed to the harm suffered and that must be reflected in the decision. Similarly, the repeal of the onus on the worker to take all reasonable steps to mitigate their injury is a step in the wrong direction. This again goes to the need for mutual obligation. Everyone must take at least some responsibility for his or her own actions. The opposition will be opposing this bill. We support fully the WorkCover scheme and reasonable increases in compensation in the bill presently before the House. However, it is unacceptably and financially irresponsible. We must study and learn from history. Obviously the Labor Party has not studied the Goss government's debacle on WorkCover. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (12.50 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001, which provides a package of reforms which 3040 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 will make beneficial changes to Queensland's workers compensation system while still achieving reduced premium rates for employers. In addition to improved benefits and services to all stakeholders, the bill returns a court's discretion to award damages for loss of consortium, future economic loss or loss of future earnings where it is likely that the worker will sustain future economic loss or diminution of future earning capacity, and the payment of interest on general damages. The WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 currently prevents a court from awarding damages to a person other than the claimant, including damages for loss of consortium—that is, companionship, love, et cetera—as a result of the injuries sustained by the worker. The bill repeals reference to loss of consortium in this section and, in doing so, allows for judicial discretion when considering applications for damages in this regard. The bill also repeals those provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 relating to the awarding of damages for future economic loss and interest on general damages. Under these provisions, a court is currently prevented from awarding damages for future economic loss or diminution of future earnings unless the claimant satisfies the court that there is at least a 51 per cent likelihood that they will sustain future economic loss or a reduction of future earning capacity. Further, a court may order payment of interest only on items of special damages that the claimant has actually paid and for damages for actual past economic loss. The act prevents the awarding of interest for general damages. Again, the repeal of these provisions of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 will allow for judicial discretion in relation to the awarding of damages in this regard. I am also pleased to note the removal of statutory provisions relating to contributory negligence and mitigating loss. These provisions were introduced by the coalition government and are harsh and unfair. The removal of these provisions means that courts will again have the power to determine and adjust damages where contributory negligence is found or in circumstances where a worker has not taken steps to mitigate his or her loss. This is a substantial improvement that promotes fairness and equity in deciding compensation awards. Currently, there are no grounds for judicial discretion in deciding compensation awards. When deciding whether a worker is entitled to recover damages, courts are required to place an onus on the worker to prove certain matters prescribed in the act. It is also currently mandatory for a court to reduce the damages recoverable by the claimant by at least 25 per cent where there is a finding of contributory negligence on account of one or more matters. The mandatory requirement is harsh and has the effect of punishing a worker for their injury and will potentially lead to a situation in which a worker's damages award is reduce by half or, in some cases, zero, notwithstanding the fact that some fault may also lie with the employer. The bill improves this situation by allowing courts to be able to reduce damages to such extent as they think just and equitable having regard to the worker's share in responsibility for the injury. Thanks to WorkCover's strong financial performance, the cost of implementing amendments under the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Act 2001 can be funded from the current scheme finances without the need to increase employer premiums in 2001-02. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (12.54 p.m.): All members would be aware of the financial success of WorkCover Queensland. The Queensland workers compensation scheme is now the best performing scheme in Australia. It is fully funded, statutorily solvent and provides the lowest average employer premium rates of any state. WorkCover achieved full funding as at 30 June 2000, a full three years ahead of expectations. It has maintained this solid performance, and WorkCover's actuaries have projected that full funding is sustainable for the foreseeable future. This is a major turnaround from the reported $290 million deficit in June 1996, a significant amount in anyone's terms. As at 30 June 2000, WorkCover had an operating surplus of $219 million and an equity position of $519 million. Only three years prior to this, the scheme's equity position was in the red by just over $100 million. The turnaround is due to a combination of factors, including a surcharge on employer premiums, capital injections over three years and sound investment returns on the part of the WorkCover board through the Queensland Investment Corporation. WorkCover's return to full funding under the Labor government is an outstanding achievement. In addition to achieving fully funded status, WorkCover, with the approval of the Labor government, has progressively reduced the average employer premium rate over three years from a high rate of 2.145 per cent in 1998 to the current rate of 1.55 per cent in 2001. This reduction in the average premium rate to 1.55 per cent makes it the lowest of any Australian state and equates to a saving of more than $120 million in reduced premiums for employers achieved 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3041 since 1998. This financial performance is even more impressive when we consider that, during the 1999-2000 financial year, WorkCover provided insurance and claims services to 134,000 policyholders and processed more than 69,000 claims from injured workers. With the exception of 23 self-insured employers, WorkCover Queensland is the sole provider of workers compensation insurance in Queensland. Queensland has maintained a single managed fund and a solid government owned service provider accountable to the government. This arrangement was recently put under the spotlight as part of an NCP review of WorkCover legislation. This review found, among other things, that the public monopoly of workers compensation in Queensland should be maintained. This is good news for the workers and employers of Queensland. A strong, government owned service provider offers the most security and protection from the market forces and profit motives that drive the private insurance industry. The collapse of HIH Insurance should serve as a constant reminder of this. WorkCover continues to operate 24 offices throughout Queensland and has continued in its commitment towards a permanent work force. Of the 900-odd full-time positions at WorkCover, 98 per cent are now permanent positions. This is a significant increase from the 70 per cent permanent work force when the Beattie government came to office in 1998. The Beattie government acted quickly and positively in its first term to restore access to the scheme for injured workers and has already removed the harshest of these restrictions, such as the definitions of who is a 'worker' and what is an 'injury'. Today we see the removal of more unfair provisions such as the repeal of statutory contributory negligence provisions and the amendment of mitigating loss provisions of the act, to name but two. A viable workers compensation system works for the benefit of all its stakeholders. However, it is important to remember that injured workers are the reason workers compensation exists. The challenge for government is to find the right balance between the interest of employers and the rights of injured workers. The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001 maintains this balance. Employers are benefiting with the lowest premiums in Australia, and it is now time that injured workers shared in some of the benefits. Mr Purcell: Hear, hear! Ms LIDDY CLARK: Hear, hear indeed. The proposed increases to statutory lump sum benefits to injured workers and their families will mean they rate with the most generous in Australia. For common law claims, the bill proposes to return a court's discretion to make awards for loss of consortium, interest on damages and future loss of earnings. Perhaps more importantly, the bill removes the statutory requirement for workers with a common law claim to prove to a court that they had not contributed to their injury. This discretion will instead be returned to the courts, where it belongs, allowing the courts to determine each case based on its own merits. It is also pleasing to see that the threshold to access statutory gratuitous care payments for workers who require a carer will be reduced from a 50 per cent work-related impairment down to the more realistic 15 per cent, as originally recommended by the Kennedy inquiry. As the Minister for Industrial Relations outlined in his second reading speech, the amendments before the House have been fully costed by WorkCover's actuary. The actuary has confirmed that the cost of implementing these reforms can be funded from current scheme finances without the need to increase employers' premiums. These amendments are an example of the Beattie government's commitment to ensuring that any reforms to workers compensation are introduced in an environment of financial stability and wherein employers' premiums remain at extremely competitive levels. The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001 builds on the success of the Queensland workers compensation scheme and will cement Queensland's reputation as having the best and fairest scheme in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (2.30 p.m.): I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill. I reinforce the comments made by the shadow minister that the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill is a very disappointing document. It is very disappointing to anybody who knows the history of Queensland politics and has had to deal with the WorkCover issue from any perspective. It is worth recalling that when the coalition came to power in 1996 Queensland's workers compensation scheme was in a dire state. One of the biggest problems the coalition government 3042 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 had to deal with was the workers compensation scheme. In 1996 WorkCover had an unfunded liability of over $300 million. It was very close to collapse. It was a huge problem that had to be fixed, and it was fixed at a huge price to Queensland employers and workers. This Labor government seems intent on repeating the past. It seems intent on forgetting the absolute mess that was made of the WorkCover scheme during the years of the Goss government and on returning to the past. It seems that this bill is some sort of payback to interest groups for electoral support. It makes no sense in terms of administering a workers compensation scheme that has integrity and that serves the necessary purposes for everyone in the Queensland work force, whether they be employers or employees. It is in everyone's interest to have a viable scheme—a scheme that has integrity and that serves the purpose for which these schemes are set up. It is certainly in the interest of workers to have an insurance scheme that provides them with an income if they are unfortunate enough to be hurt at work. It is certainly in the interest of employers to have a viable scheme which has integrity if their businesses are to grow and prosper in the Queensland economy. The workers compensation scheme has to be able to look after workers who are unfortunately injured. All of us agree that every step needs to be taken to ensure that injuries at work are minimised. I think some tremendous progress has been made in that endeavour in recent years. Mr Purcell: With no help from you lot. Mr SEENEY: I find that interjection by the member for Bulimba somewhat disappointing and not quite worthy of a member of his standing in this House. I do not think there is any doubt that every member of this House, irrespective of the political party or electorate they represent, would support every endeavour to reduce workplace injuries to an absolute minimum. Any level of workplace injuries is too high, and I resent the implication that the only people who care are— Mr Purcell interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel): Order! The honourable member for Bulimba will cease interjecting. Mr Purcell: He can't cop it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Bulimba under the standing orders. Mr SEENEY: It is hurtful to hear the member for Bulimba claim the high moral ground, as though he is the only member in this House who is interested in reducing workplace injuries. What bunkum! What rot! What gives the member for Bulimba and other members on the government side of the House the right to claim that they are the only people who are interested in reducing workplace injuries? What an absolute joke! As I said, it is in everybody's interest to have a scheme that has integrity and that protects workers. The member for Bulimba and other members opposite refuse to even consider that it is important to have a scheme with affordable premiums. It is the employers who have to pay the premiums, and unless those premiums are affordable then the scheme will not be viable and will not have integrity. There has to be a balance. Members such as the member for Bulimba have to open up the other eye and look at the other side of the equation. While nobody denies that this scheme has to provide adequate protection for workers, there also has to be a consideration of the burden that premiums place on employers. Every cost to the scheme has to be met from the premiums that employers pay. It seems to be almost taken as given by some members in this House that employers can be continually loaded up with increasing costs and there will be no effect on anybody but the employer. That is demonstrably wrong. The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill does a number of things. It raises the statutory lump sum amounts available to injured workers from $103,000 to $150,000. It raises lump sum payments available to dependents of a worker who has sustained a fatal injury from $164,000 to $250,000. Both of those changes represent admirable objectives, but they raise the question of how they are going to be paid for. The scheme gives greater access to payment of up to $150,000 to compensate for care where a worker is permanently injured or is wholly or partially dependent upon others for care. This bill also removes the requirement for workers to prove that they have not contributed to their injury and that they took all steps to minimise the effect of their injury. It is that part of the bill I will make some detailed comment on. The bill returns the court's discretion to make awards for loss of consortium, interest on damages and loss of future earnings or diminution in future earnings. It also introduces new procedures to simplify resolution of claims. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3043

I find the amendments in the area of contributory negligence most worrying. There seems to be an effort in this bill to do away with the concept of mutual obligation. There seems to be an effort to put all of the obligation onto one party in the equation. There has been a worrying trend in recent times, not just in terms of workers compensation but in a number of facets of our society, to reduce the responsibility of the individual. We seem to have been too keen to follow the American model of getting involved in litigation and of trying to find somebody else to blame for everything. This particular amendment to the workers compensation scheme follows that model, and it is a worrying trend. This move away from the mutual obligation provisions certainly worries me and certainly does not do anything for the integrity and viability of the scheme. It is worth looking at the changes that the bill seeks to make to the WorkCover Queensland Act. It seeks to delete sections 312 to 314. Subsection 312(c) refers to deciding where a claimant is entitled to recover damages and not have those damages reduced on account of contributory negligence. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but we are not talking here about income replacement payments; we are talking about damages that are recovered as a result of injury. The types of clauses that the minister is planning to take out of the act are typified by 3(12)(c), which states that the worker did not know and had no reasonable means of knowing that the actual and direct event giving rise to the injury might happen. So in other words, the act as it currently exists requires that a court would take into account whether or not a worker may have known or had reasonable grounds to know or suspect that an injury might arise. What is being proposed by this bill is that that be taken out. The government is saying that the worker does not have to exercise his judgment—to exercise reasonable commonsense—as to whether or not an injury may or may not happen. Subclause (d), which is also being deleted from the act, states that in deciding whether a claimant is entitled to recover damages, et cetera, the injury sustained by the worker did not arise out of a relevant failure of the worker to inform the employer of the possibility of an event giving rise to the injury happening. So we are taking away the responsibility that the worker had to inform the employer that a dangerous situation existed in the workplace. How on earth can this be justified? How on earth can we say that the employer is responsible for everything and that the employee has no responsibility at all—has no responsibility to exercise commonsense, to make a judgment about whether or not an injury is likely to arise, or to make a judgment about whether or not a dangerous situation has arisen and therefore has a responsibility to inform the employer? These are the responsibilities that were encapsulated by the concept of mutual obligation which was part of this bill, and these are the concepts that the minister is taking out of this legislation. Subclause (c) states that, in deciding whether a claimant is entitled to recover damages, the court must have regard to whether the worker did everything possible to avoid sustaining the injury. Once again, that responsibility is being taken away. The worker does not have to do everything that was reasonably possible to avoid sustaining an injury. Obviously, in the extreme case, a worker could deliberately get injured and claim damages from an employer. That is the sort of ridiculous situation that this bill is creating. Not only does the worker not have to exercise commonsense and make judgments about whether or not there was a reasonable chance of an injury happening, and not only does he or she not have to inform the employer about dangerous situations arising in the workplace, but they do not even have to take reasonable steps to avoid the injury. It is inconceivable that the government could hope to gain anything, in terms of workplace relations, by taking away the provisions of one party to act responsibly in the workplace. That is what the concepts of mutual obligation were all about. They required all parties in the workplace to act responsibly. That is why it was called mutual obligation; everyone had an obligation, and the obligations were shared. This piece of legislation turns back the clock. It encapsulates an ideology that the responsibility is all with one party in the workplace and that the workers somehow have no obligation and no responsibility. We can argue about these types of concepts in the abstract for a long time, but I think that the absurdity of these things is best illustrated with some examples. Even though I am on a restricted amount of time today, I would like to give some examples about the way in which this particular workers compensation problem can impact on people in the real world. In my electorate we have a lot of intensive agriculture, and intensive agricultural operations depend on casual labour for picking and pruning and field work. One of the big issues that has arisen in recent years with workers compensation is the use of picking ladders in citrus orchards. 3044 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

Obviously, to pick citrus fruit, people have to climb up ladders to pick the fruit from the trees. Picking ladders are designed, as best they can be, to prevent any sort of accident; they are very wide at the base and narrow at the top, but still an employee has to climb up the ladder to pick the fruit. One would expect that it would be reasonable that an employee should be required to make a reasonable judgment when climbing the ladder—firstly, when they place the ladder, as to how safe it is for that ladder to be placed in that position; and secondly, when they climb up the ladder, they have to make a judgment about whether or not the particular fruit they are trying to pick is close enough to the ladder or whether they can lean further out to pick the fruit. This legislation takes away the requirement for those employees to make those types of judgments. It is almost to the stage where fruit picking ladders will no longer be used. And what is the alternative? How on earth does one pick fruit without requiring the employee who has that role to exercise some commonsense, to make the types of judgments that were encapsulated in the mutual obligations or the mutual obligation concepts that were part of the old legislation? I would contend that those mutual obligation concepts were not strong enough, and they were continually challenged in the old legislation. What this bill does is make it a heck of a lot easier for those types of claims to result in damages payments. And that, quite simply, makes those types of operations non-viable. It gets to the stage where people just will not pick fruit in that particular instance. That is only one example. There is a range of examples across a range of industries. But it illustrates the absurdity of saying that one particular party in the workplace does not have a responsibility—does not have any obligations under the WorkCover Queensland Act to act in a way that is basically commonsense, to act in a way that will protect him or her, and to act in a way that will reduce injury. What this bill suggests is that the responsibility is entirely with the employer. And that in the real world—in the real workplace out there in the field—is an absurdity. It is an absurdity because there is no way in the world that, in any workplace, workers can be supervised and monitored to that extent. There is no way in the world that workplaces can be made totally idiot proof. And if I revert to the example that I was using, there is no way in the world that we can design a picking ladder that will not fall over irrespective of how far out a worker leans, or a ladder that will not fall irrespective of the slope that it is placed on or the crazy position that it is placed in. In the end there has to be some obligation on the person in the workplace to exercise his or her judgment, and that concept of mutual obligation is an extremely important one to ensure that there is an obligation on workers to exercise that commonsense and that judgment. This legislation takes away that requirement and, as such, it should be opposed by every member of this House who is interested in seeing jobs created, not only in those types of agricultural industries that I used as an example but in a whole range of other industries. This is a bad piece of legislation. It is a retrogressive piece of legislation. It takes us back in time. It takes us back to a situation that caused huge problems in the past. It is regrettable that the minister has introduced this piece of legislation into this parliament again, but I think that the tide of history is running against this type of legislation. In the real world the concepts of mutual obligation and the concept of shared responsibility will increase rather than decrease, because I do not think Queensland workers are of such a calibre—on average and speaking generally—that they require this type of nannying and this type of legislation to take away their responsibilities to act in a responsible way. I think that this legislation will have a very detrimental effect on industry everywhere and, as such, will act to the detriment of both workers and employees. I urge that this legislation be defeated. Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (2.50 p.m.): The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill continues the reforms introduced in 1999 to help restore fairness and balance to Queensland's workers compensation system. It does so at the same time as average employer premium rates were cut for the third successive time since 1998, ensuring that Queensland employers are subject to the lowest average employer premiums rates of all Australian states. This government has listened to stakeholders' concerns in relation to workers compensation premiums and has a proven track record of consistently implementing policies to reduce premiums without sacrificing the services available to injured workers. The philosophy embodied in the WorkCover Queensland—Leading Australia Policy 2001 is to improve the current workers compensation scheme by introducing a responsible and integrated workers compensation package to give seriously injured workers and their dependants greater compensation without increasing employer premiums. The introduction of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill gives effect to this policy and is yet another example of how this state is leading the way for other states in relation to 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3045 workers compensation. The bill increases statutory benefits by, firstly, increasing the lump sum benefit on the death of a worker to $250,000—quite significant; increasing the maximum statutory benefit able to be received by an injured worker to $150,000; increasing the amount available to dependants of those fatally injured; and improving their criteria to access statutory gratuitous care. In addition, the bill also maintains full common law access, including the 20 per cent threshold test, while reducing the legal costs for workers less seriously injured; it improves the common law pre-proceedings processes to ensure that claims are resolved earlier; repeals the unjust contributory negligence and mitigating loss provisions introduced by the previous coalition government—and in my previous life as an official with the Miscellaneous Workers Union I certainly understand the ramifications of that attempted legislation—and it also allows the courts to have discretion to make awards for costs, interest on damages and loss of consortium. In developing its policy on workers compensation policy, this government always considers its impact on the premium rates for employers. When the Beattie government came to office in 1998, the average premium rate was 2.145 per cent. The new rate of 1.55 per cent represents a saving of more than $120 million for employers throughout Queensland. The most recent reduction of employer premiums came into effect when the government supported the WorkCover board's proposal to reduce the average premium rate from 1.58 per cent to 1.55 per cent—by far the lowest rate of any state in Australia. We are leading the way in WorkCover premiums. This is the third rate cut in three years and has been possible because of WorkCover's strong financial performance. I might add that it is a great achievement when we consider that workers compensation funds in most other Australian states are still in the red. The reduction of the employer premium to 1.55 per cent has also been made possible by the full inclusion of government employers in the experience based rating premium calculation system. That system applies to private sector employers. WorkCover will apply the new, lower average premium rate to premium assessments for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 as well as to next year's premium. In addition to reducing the average premium to its current rate, further improvements have been made to the experience based rating system that is used to calculate employer premiums. These improvements include changing the premium formula to help small businesses return to their original premium faster after a large one-off common law claim and striking the appropriate balance in the premium formula between statutory and common law claims. We have heard the legitimate concerns of employers and made the experience based rating premium calculation system fairer and more flexible in line with the needs of business, especially small business. Heaven help small business. They need all the help that they can get now. These revised experience based rating arrangements are sensible reforms that do not lose sight of the underlying principle of the experience based premium system, which is to encourage safe work practices and the prevention of work-related injuries. I repeat that the new rate of 1.55 per cent represents a saving of more than $120 million for employers throughout Queensland. That is a significant job-creation incentive and we continue to seek the cooperation and support of employers in working with us to develop more employment opportunities within the state. Finally, and most importantly, WorkCover's actuaries have confirmed that the cost of implementing the amendments under the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Act 2001 can be funded from the current scheme's finances without the need to increase employers' premiums. I repeat that: it is without any need to increase the employers' premiums. That means that employers may rest assured that they will continue to enjoy the lowest average premium rates in Australia, notwithstanding the amendment proposed by the introduction of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001. I feel very proud to have been able to speak to this bill. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.56 p.m.): I rise to speak to this bill and, in doing so, I commend the minister for it. From my experience, and it is certainly not from the position of minister, WorkCover is one of the most difficult areas to balance—balancing the needs of injured people, the need for the fund to survive, and the need for employers to be able to afford the premiums. That is quite a significant balancing act, and I understand in part some of the conflicting constraints that the minister faces. A couple of years ago I spent many hours trying to find a balance in my own mind between the same things. It really is a very, very difficult area. At the time that some of those changes were made, the fund was in a dire financial situation. It is imperative that the workers compensation fund survive. It is imperative that workers retain access to common law, albeit with the 20 per cent threshold that Premier Goss introduced. It is imperative that the premiums are affordable to employers. 3046 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

I think in great measure the fund came under stress when the 'no win, no pay' solicitors started touting for business. It placed an additional strain on workers compensation that in previous years had not existed. Those workers who, clearly, were injured at work pursued their workers compensation entitlements, but that certainly was not touted on TV and through other media as it is now. So it is a very difficult balance to maintain. A number of solicitors from my area have contacted me and expressed concern about some of the WorkCover processes. In common with many members, injured workers have come into my office to discuss with me hold-ups in the process with WorkCover, difficulties understanding the process, or difficulties accepting that they had been through the WorkCover process and the medical tribunal had finally decided that their injury was not work related and, therefore, they were not entitled to any assistance. I think that all members have experienced such people coming to see them. We understand that, when those people are financially stressed at the time that they come in to see us and they have the letter from the medical tribunal to say that they are not eligible for any assistance, it really is shattering for them. So it is an area that I find personally as well as professionally quite challenging. I want to read into Hansard part of a letter that I received from a solicitor in my electorate. I sent a copy of this bill to a number of people to get some feedback on it. The letter states— ... whilst the roll back of the contributory negligence provisions are commendable, the essential draconian features relating to who can claim and the pre-court proceedings remain almost entirely intact. The unaltered fundamental features which I find appalling and in some way offensive are: 1. s.253-267 The determination of who can and who cannot claim damages remains in WorkCovers hands not the courts and there is no avenue for judicial review. This power has been widely abused; in one reported case, a WorkCover employee even ignored the view of a WorkCover doctor in denying the right to a claim! If damages claims are going to be restricted, there remains a need for an independent review of who fulfils the claimant criteria. 2. s.280 The format for the pre court proceedings claims process is almost unchanged. The old criticisms therefore remain: the process adds substantial cost which the claimant almost entirely bears and delays court proceedings by about a minimum 9 months thereby delaying the claimant's rightful recovery by 9 months. 3. s.285 The time within which WorkCover is required to respond to the claim with it's attitude remains 6 months. There is no need for it to be any more than 2 months. The most condemning aspect of the entire damages claims regime is that it hasn't improved access to justice or practice in the arena for any party and has increased employer costs of compliance. It has significantly diminished claimant's recoveries. I received this letter only yesterday, 17 October. Therefore I have not had a chance to speak with the minister about the comments. I know that they come from the perspective of the legal profession, which has a slightly differing perspective in relation to the balance that has to be maintained in WorkCover. I certainly would be interested in the minister's response to this, not necessarily in his summing up but subsequently if necessary. As others have said, it is critical that premiums remain affordable to Queensland employers. Irrespective of the scheme that we have in place, it has to be funded and the primary funding for workers compensation comes from these premiums. A number of employers have already come to my office to say that the premiums have risen substantially in their area and they do not believe that the risk indicates or requires that rise. I have found it difficult, as I am sure others have, to track the real reason for the premium rises, particularly in some of the low-risk employment areas. Why can't the premium reflect that individual employer's track record? It may be a high-risk area of work, but if an employer has a very good safety record, that should in some way be reflected in a reduced premium. The bill also increases the statutory lump sum benefits. I am more than happy to support improvements to workers' entitlements predicated on the fact that the minister's second reading speech states that there has been actuarial work done on the cost of those increases and that the fund can, in the long term, sustain that increased cost. It is on that basis that I support the bill. If, in the future, it is going to put at risk the viability of the fund altogether, we will be in a situation where the clock has to be wound back and quite harsh measures have to be put in place to ensure that WorkCover, as such, can remain in place in our state. It is essential that it does. Therefore, the increase in statutory lump sum benefits, particularly for those people with substantial injuries, is welcome. Access to common law is one of the issues on which there was quite a lot of heated debate back in 1997, both publicly and privately. There were suggestions that access to common law was going to be removed. Other states were cited as examples of why access to common law had to 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3047 be substantially reduced. As it turned out, that did not have to occur at all. Access to common law is a fundamental right for workers. It is a fundamental judicial right for us as individuals, not only in this state but in this nation. Premier Goss introduced the 20 per cent threshold. That was a saving measure as far as the financing of the fund was concerned. It is intended that it remain in place, and I reiterate my view and the view of the minister that access to common law is sacrosanct. I have a question for the minister about the contributory negligence provisions. It may be that the answer is in the bill and I have missed it. Those provisions were introduced in 1997 on this rational: there had been so many instances where, under workplace health and safety, employers had made available to workers appropriate safety gear. It may have been long-sleeved shirts, but the main example given to me—not only by the minister of the day but also by employers—was that employers would issue workers with steel-capped boots and the workers would refuse to wear them. They might come to work in sneakers or Dunlop— Mr Cummins: Volleys. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Yes, Dunlop Volleys. They would sustain a foot injury. The contributory negligence provisions were intended to cover situations where an employer genuinely attempted to provide safety gear to the workers and the workers themselves refused to use it. There were one or two exceptions where workers were told that they had to wear steel-capped boots on roofs and things like that when only Dunlop Volleys and the like really work. I am not talking about that situation. I am talking about on the ground where steel-capped boots were essential, the workers did not wear them and they were injured. The contributory negligence provisions were intended to cover the employer who said, 'We tried to do the right thing, the worker refused to wear the gear, they sustained an injury. They contributed to the degree of injury.' I would be interested to hear from the minister how that contributory negligence issue will now be addressed. It appears from the notes that it is just a removal of the reverse of the onus of proof, but I would be interested in his confirmation of that. Previous speakers have already talked about compensation for companionship, loss of earnings, et cetera. Something that I have already mentioned but I would like to touch on a little further is the frustration that workers—and I am not talking about the ones who are trying to rort the system—genuinely believe that their medical issue or injury was work-related. They have been through the process of going to two or three doctors, often obtaining conflicting reports. They finally get shoved through the Medical Assessment Tribunal. Although a number of doctors for WorkCover do not even see the injured worker, they provide the report that is the basis on which the tribunal makes its decision. Such workers usually come to my office as frustrated as hornets and I do not blame them. Because of the way the act is written, the Medical Assessment Tribunal is the final arbiter. The theory is good. I understand that there has to be somewhere where the process has to stop. However, I wonder what we do for injured workers who have long-term residual damage, such as knee damage or damage to their legs, that will deteriorate over time. If the tribunal has said that the injury is not work related, they are still left to cope with a diminished work opportunity because of an injury that they firmly believe was contributed to by the workplace. Whilst I understand that the bill does not extend or remove the finality of the Medical Assessment Tribunal, I would be interested in hearing of any measures that are available to assist those needy workers. I note from the minister's second reading speech that the WorkCover board has approved these amendments. As I said earlier, I am also aware of the fact that actuarial assessment has been done on the proposals. In the WorkCover bill, in both these amendments and in the parent bill, a number of statutory time frames are imposed not only on workers and employers but also on WorkCover itself. It is my belief that those statutory time frames should not be used as the general time frame in which WorkCover can do its job. I am aware of one case at the moment where a worker has been suffering from an injury for a couple of years, and my file on him is about an inch thick now. I will be kind and say that WorkCover has been slow or tardy in dealing with the issues relating to this worker. They acknowledge that normal practice is that as soon as they get a notice from the solicitor, they engage an assessor who prepares a report on the injury. In this instance, they did not engage the assessor. They have acknowledged that it was 'an oversight'. When I challenged them on the fact that this oversight has meant that the worker will have to wait longer to get some financial 3048 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 assistance, the person at WorkCover said, 'But we're within our time frames,' and they are. They still have time to work through that three-month period. However, I do not believe the statutory time frames were intended to be the times in which to work. We should still get this done as quickly as possible, whether it be WorkCover, the employer or the employee. Whilst it is essential that we have maximum time frames, for example, the three months for compulsory conferencing, I believe WorkCover should be working on achieving as brief a turnaround time as is possible so as to assist the comfort of the injured worker and also their financial stability. The only other issue that I wanted to comment on and commend the minister on is the amendment to section 254, which specifically talks about truncating the process where a worker has a terminal condition. I know of a number of people—and I am sure other members do, too—who have lodged workers compensation claims and their employer has intentionally extended the period for the processing of that claim knowing that the highest potential exists that the worker will be dead before the claim is finally processed. I would hope this is not a ploy that employers adopt intentionally. However, the frequency of that occurring indicates that, particularly for the major corporates, it is a management tool that is used to reduce their liability. I commend the minister for recognising that in this bill. It acknowledges the need to truncate the process to ensure that as quickly as possible a solution can be found for workers who have a terminal illness. We will see more and more of that in relation to asbestos-related disease afflicted people, miners dusted from underground mines and in respect of so many other people whose work-related illness has given them a limited life span. Again, I commend the minister to the extent that with WorkCover it is very difficult to balance the responsibilities to injured workers, employers and to the fund. I believe that these changes, provided they can be adequately financed, not in the short term but in the long term, will go a long way towards giving relief to workers. I look forward to the passage of the bill. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (3.12 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill. In 1916, the Labor T. J. Ryan government introduced the first state workers compensation insurance scheme. Since that time, Queensland has seen enormous change industrially. It is important that this scheme still reflect benefits to the whole community and is fair and equitable. Last year in Queensland more than 100 people died as a result of being injured at work, and that number is simply unacceptable. In Queensland, the Labor government is committed to workplace health and safety and to a responsible and integrated workers compensation package for seriously injured workers and their dependants. The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill will increase statutory lump sum benefits to ensure that seriously injured workers and their dependants receive greater compensation, and I am pleased to say that this will be done without increasing employer premiums. Recently, the minister, the Hon. Gordon Nuttall, opened the Loganholme WorkCover Queensland office. I inspected this new office and was very impressed with the resources and in particular with the staff and their willingness and enthusiasm to provide good service. This is a facility that is providing a quality service for the people of Logan whilst also providing an effective work environment for the workers of Loganholme WorkCover Queensland. This bill will restore equity and fairness for both employers and employees. It will increase statutory lump sum benefits for Queensland workers. The lump sum benefit available to dependants on the death of a worker will be increased from $204,645 to $250,000. The maximum statutory benefit for an injured worker has increased by 24 per cent to $150,000. Where a worker is permanently injured and is wholly or partially dependent upon others for care, they will have access to payments of up to $150,000 to compensate for that care. Currently, less seriously injured workers are resorting to paying large amounts of money and waiting long periods of time to access common law processes for their injury. This bill will maintain full common law access, including the 20 per cent threshold test, while reducing legal costs for those workplace injuries that are not serious. Two major reforms introduced by this bill include the introduction of streamlined common law and pre-proceedings processes. The bill introduces measures that maintain all workers' rights to proceed to common law while retaining some control on legal costs for the seriously injured. At the same time, it repeals the complex and onerous pre-proceeding process introduced by the coalition government and replaces it with a process modelled on proven practices under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 and the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3049

The objectives of this new pre-proceeding process are to simplify procedures and to avoid undue technicality to resolve claims quickly—something that I am sure our constituents bring to us all the time and will be pleased to see; minimise costs for all parties; promote the early settlement of claims; encourage early preparation and investigation of common law claims; and ensure claimants are fully informed in relation to the possible legal costs of their claim. Once again, all of those issues I have just listed are presented to our offices regularly when people come to speak to us about WorkCover claims. The bill replaces provisions included in Chapter 5 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 which regulate access to damages. It should be understood that the bill does not increase access to common law but more clearly defines those parties who may be entitled to commence proceedings for damages and requirements to be satisfied in order for the worker to be able to commence proceedings. Currently, processes relating to access to damages are complex and time consuming and do not achieve the act's original objective of promoting the timely settlement of claims. Those parties who will be able to commence proceedings for damages include a worker who has a work-related impairment of less than 20 per cent and has made an election to seek damages; a worker who has a work-related impairment of 20 per cent or more; a worker who has incurred multiple injuries as a result of an event and has received a notice of assessment in relation to only one injury and not all of the injuries; and it also will include a worker who has not previously lodged an application for compensation, and dependants of a deceased worker who died as a result of a work-related injury. In addition, the bill creates a new category of worker to cover those whose application for compensation has been rejected and is in the process of being reviewed. This new category enables a worker to complete the appeal process without the time taken for this process causing their damages action to become technically out of time. The bill recognises that, if this were to happen, the injured worker would be unfairly prejudiced. The bill also provides clarification that a worker who has a work-related impairment of less than 20 per cent and accepts an offer of lump sum compensation will not be entitled to seek damages for an injury resulting from the same event. Currently, a claimant intending to commence proceedings is required to issue WorkCover with a notice of claim. This requirement will remain. However, the act also requires that an injured worker may commence proceedings for damages only if they have had a notice of assessment issued for their injury or they have been issued a damages certificate in relation to injuries not currently allowed for. To add to the complexity of current procedures, where a claimant has an urgent need to commence proceedings and they have not been issued with a notice of assessment in relation to their injury, the claimant must apply for a conditional damages certificate prior to commencing proceedings. This process proves to be expensive and time consuming, with some claimants being at risk of the limitation period expiring prior to commencing proceedings. The government has acknowledged this problem and has endeavoured to rectify this situation by repealing the requirement for damages certificates and conditional damages certificates. In doing so, the government has streamlined the pre-proceeding process, decreasing both legal and administrative costs as well as ensuring claimants have the opportunity to commence proceedings prior to the limitation period expiring. The amendments provided for have also gone further to promote early settlement of claims. The act currently provides that a claimant intending to commence proceedings must issue WorkCover with a notice of claim. Once this notice has been served, both parties are required to attend a compulsory conference. The bill enhances this procedure by allowing either party to request a compulsory conference. If an agreement cannot be reached in relation to a conference time, either party may apply to the court to have the matter resolved. This allows either party to be proactive in the settlement of the claim and avoids the use of delaying tactics by either party. The parties may also agree to appoint a mediator to attend the conference or seek an order of the court to appoint a mediator. The ability of either party to request a compulsory conference is not the only improvement made by the bill in this area. The bill also imposes an obligation on each party to disclose to the other all relevant documentation in their possession prior to the compulsory conference. This requirement is intended to facilitate the exchange of information to allow each party to accurately assess all offers made during the negotiation process and increase the likelihood of an early settlement of the claim. In summary, these amendments will enable an expeditious resolution to common law claims and avoid the undue delay and expense that workers and employers are currently facing. Those 3050 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 points that I have just raised are often raised with us in our electorate offices. So I am pleased to see this bill before the parliament. The repeal of contributory negligence provisions means no longer will an injured worker or their dependant seeking damages through a court be required to prove that the worker did not negligently contribute to their injury. Previously if negligence was found then the courts had to automatically reduce any damages recoverable by at least 25 per cent for each circumstance. Under this provision, the bill will no longer put the sole onus of proof on the worker or the dependant. Instead, the courts will be able to assess each case on its own merits. I know there has been some discussion on contributory negligence, but I think the fact that each case will be able to be assessed on its own merits speaks for itself. Indeed, this is a much more equitable approach to a very distressing situation. Another harsh provision introduced by the coalition in 1997 was the removal of the court's discretion to make awards for reduced levels of companionship and to award interest on damages and future loss of earnings. This bill will give the discretion back to the courts. Yet another harsh provision introduced by the coalition in 1997 was the removal of the discretion of the court to make awards for compensation for care where a worker was either partially or wholly incapacitated and was dependent on care for day-to-day living. The coalition did not even take into consideration the recommendation of the Kennedy inquiry—an inquiry commissioned by the coalition in 1996. That inquiry recommended that workers with an impairment level of at least 15 per cent and who are dependent on care be able to access a statutory lump sum payment. What did the coalition do? It introduced access to statutory payments to compensate for care for workers with a permanent impairment level of at least 50 per cent. The Labor government is listening and is acting on recommendations from relevant stakeholders. This bill reduces the 50 per cent threshold to a sensible and practical level. This bill will allow workers with a permanent impairment level of at least 15 per cent—that is 15, not 50—to access a lump sum payment of up to $150,000. The Chairman of WorkCover Queensland, Mr Ian Brusasco, stated that the charter for Queensland's workers compensation scheme is to provide the best possible benefits to workers at the cheapest possible premium for employers, and that is exactly what WorkCover Queensland is doing. Today in Queensland we have the lowest average workers compensation premium of any state in Australia and successive workers compensation premium cuts have saved millions of dollars for Queensland employers. Not only does Queensland have the lowest workers compensation premiums but it is also the only fully solvent workers compensation scheme in the country. Other schemes around Australia are struggling financially. It is no wonder that Queensland is the envy of all other states, and that envy is for a range of reasons, including our workers compensation scheme. This bill was prepared in consultation with a large number of stakeholders. They include many employer and union groups, courts, government departments and agencies, and community groups. Many were involved at different stages of the development of the bill. Being injured at work or having a loved one injured at work can be one of the most stressful times for an individual and their family. When we kiss our loved ones goodbye of a morning we expect to see them at home that night; we expect them to return to us in the same way they left. People do not need a further stress in gaining fair and equitable compensation for their injury. Reforms introduced by the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001 will ensure that Queensland continues to lead the way in relation to workers compensation by improving benefits and services for Queensland workers while keeping employer premiums the lowest in the country. I congratulate the minister and his staff on all the hard work they have done on this bill and in addressing the issues that are so often raised with us by our constituents. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.24 p.m.): I rise this afternoon to speak to this WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001. However, the opposition is not totally happy with some aspects of the legislation. I say to the minister today that workers compensation is probably one of the most responsible insurance policies that any person could possibly have. It has to be managed properly; it has to be managed in a context in which both sides are going to be beneficiaries; and it has to be managed in such a way that the government's overriding responsibility is to look after both the employer and employee. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3051

I heard what the honourable member for Springwood had to say. Whilst I agree with much of what she had to say, I think there are probably many aspects that she did not elaborate on. I do not think it is appropriate for me to stand here today and take a rise out of the government—or out of anybody for that matter. This is about making absolutely certain that we have in place a responsible policy that is going to protect the workers of this state. I can appreciate where the minister is coming from in relation to this piece of legislation. However, I believe that at the same time we have to be fair in making the change. This afternoon the honourable member for Springwood referred to the good work that the minister is doing. I read the minister's second reading speech. While I agree with some parts of it, there are other parts with which I do not. I also believe that you have to give credit where credit is due. Back in 1996 when the coalition came to power in Queensland we went through a very difficult time working through the unfortunate and unworkable situation of WorkCover in Queensland that cost this state and the employers of this state a lot of money. At the time, Santo Santoro, the former member for Clayfield, did a lot of hard yards in relation to workers compensation and the Kennedy report and also how we would arrive at fixing the problem. At the time the coalition had to inject about $360 million into the scheme. Previous to that premiums had been going through the roof and we had to put a stop to that. I read that the minister said that premiums have been reduced by some $120 million since Labor took office in 1998. That was a result of some of those very difficult decisions we had to make. If anything good can come out of this, I will applaud the minister. Nobody is here to deprive the worker of anything; I certainly am not. I believe we should be looking at this more realistically, such as looking at increases and whether they should be linked to the CPI or whether another method should be used. Members from both sides of the House must recognise exactly and precisely where we are going with workers compensation. If this is not managed properly it can become a can of worms. Back in the days when the honourable member for Keppel was the Minister for Industrial Relations in this state, with good management we were able to bring about the purchase of infrastructure around the city because the policy worked so well. I hope we can again return to those days. The Goss government endured difficult times in relation to WorkCover, and I am not here to pick on the Goss government. I point out that we had a difficult time, too. We had a correction agenda, which I believe worked well. That is one of the reasons why this policy is in a pretty good state today. The minister says that the premium rate has dropped from 2.145 percent to 1.55 per cent and that Queensland employers have been saved that $120 million. That is good stuff and I do not dispute it. However, I think the healthy state of that scheme can be traced back to two things. We have to look very closely at the situation. In his second reading speech the minister said that he was introducing a responsible and integrated workers compensation package to give seriously injured workers and their dependants greater compensation without increasing employers' premiums. That is the crux of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill. I used to employ many men and women in the shearing industry, which is a high-risk industry. In the early days of the Goss government some of those policies increased fivefold because of the changes. As the minister would know, plumbing contractors and people working in such professions work in dangerous work environments. They are at-risk policyholders. They are certainly subjected to risk more than many other people in the workplace, such as shop assistants, because they work in a difficult work environment. Even though the minister has negotiated with employers, their entitlements are just as important as employees' entitlements. If employee entitlements are far too high and the mechanisms are not properly in place for a fair and equitable system, there will be an element of employees who abuse the system. Even if only one per cent or two per cent abuse the system, that will cause premiums to go through the roof because somebody has been smart enough to rort the system, whether it is a medical rort or they say that they hurt themselves at work when in fact the injury occurred at home. We will always endure circumstances such as these. As long as the human race is on this planet there will be trickery and people trying to get the better of the system. The key here is to manage both sides of the agenda. By that I mean that a profitable business will be beneficial to the employee, because a good business will have a happy and healthy work environment and employees trying to get the better of their boss should not be on 3052 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 the agenda. From my experience as a former employer, if you have a good man working for you it is worth paying that bloke a bit extra. I always did it and I always got a return on that investment. Instead of paying him $120 a day, I would give him $150 plus his tucker or something like that. If I did that, I never had problems. They were always reliable. That is why you should look after your staff. I always used to say that if you look after your staff they are not going to try to rip you off or pretend to be crook, and in that environment you are paying your own bonus. The point I am making is that if we are fair to the cause on both sides we can keep premiums down, and I hope we can keep them down. I say to the minister today that I will work my butt off with him to ensure that we can put in place a policy that keeps premiums down. The minister is in the diving seat to make this agenda work, but as a working man himself he knows as well as I do that there will always be people who will try to rip off the system. It is this element that is making it hard for the majority. That is why we have reservations about some aspects of this legislation. Even though the legislation proposes to go back to the courts, I believe that many of these issues can be solved by proper and fruitful negotiation between the two parties in question, with or without a legal arbiter. I will give the House an example. Years ago I had a shearing team and a bloke in the team got crook with the flu. After going to see the local doctor he decided to go back home for a week to recover. When he was home the flu got worse and he went to see another doctor and tried to tell the doctor that he hurt himself pulling red-eyes working for me. We were shearing wethers, and no-one likes shearing wethers. There will always be an element that will try to rip the system off, and we do not need that. That is why I am urging the minister to watch how this works. In addition to increasing statutory lump sum payments under the scheme, the minister said that the bill will also repeal the harsh and unjust provisions introduced by the coalition in 1997 for common law damages claims. Let us go back to 1997. We had to make some very hard and difficult decisions in 1997, and I believe we made responsible decisions at that time. We had to drive that cost down. We had to get it back to a workable situation, and we did get it back into a workable situation. If we had not done that at the time, premiums would have gone through the roof fivefold or tenfold. One reason for the system being in such good shape today is because of the decisions that we made then. Under this bill, a worker or his dependant will no longer bear the sole onus of proof because the courts will be able to assess each case on its own merits following accepted common law principles. I find this very disturbing. The courts are not always going to know what happened in the workplace and there should always be someone to bear witness to the situation. If not, there will always be that element of doubt, and we have to eliminate that element of doubt. We are living in very vulnerable times, particularly in relation to small business. Most times it is small businesses that are grossly affected. Any impediments in the face of a small business today will drive that small business into an unviable and unworkable situation which will leave no other option than bankruptcy or to shut down, and we do not want that. In real terms, these increases are far too high and will take place far too quickly. It should be done slowly. No-one wants to deprive a family of a payout if they lose a loved one in the workplace. We would all hope to get workplace fatalities and serious injuries down to zero, but we all know that that is not possible. In reality, we want a fair system and a system that will allow all people to have a fair go. The minister says that lump sum payments in the case of a fatal injury will increase from $204,645 to $250,000. I spoke to my colleague the shadow minister, the honourable member for Keppel, about this a moment ago. There are always difficulties in determining such things for the widow or family left behind. The circumstances at the time should be taken into account to determine the level of that payout. Some $204,000 is not a lot of money today in anyone's terms, nor is $250,000. If the case involves, say, a young woman with three or four little kids who has to struggle for the next 20 years to educate those kids, perhaps we have to look at it from another perspective. There are aspects of the legislation that have to be worked through more closely. The bill also proposes greater access to payments of up to $150,000 to compensate for care where a worker is permanently injured or is wholly or partly dependent on others for care. This is another part of the bill that has to be looked at. Take a person who is injured at work and becomes a quadriplegic. According to the bill, there is no difference between a person who has been fatality injured and a quadriplegic. However, the fact is that the quadriplegic will need a lot more money to care for them and their family. This is where the bill is somewhat contradictory—that is, allowing payments of up to $250,000 for a fatality but only $150,000 for permanent injury. I do not say that lightly, Minister. Many of these issues can be better worked 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3053 through with legal and proper negotiation. Whilst this legislation proposes to return many of these decisions to the courts, there are other ways and means that this can be worked through. Do not get me wrong. I sympathise with those people and it is only fair that we recognise their needs. I note that the bill ensures that all workers continue to have unrestricted access to common law, while the 20 per cent threshold test has been retained. I applaud that measure. The bill introduces a direct link between the level of a worker's permanent impairment and the amount of statutory lump sum payment available. I believe that settlements can be worked through and negotiated in a fairer way. I think setting the payment in granite is not fair. At the same time, we have to be more responsible to both ends of the spectrum—the employer and employee, corporate business and small business. Most importantly, we are here to look after the workers of this state. We have to ensure that we have the best policy to assure workers and employers in this state that we are able to look after them if a person is unfortunately injured or killed in the workplace. At the end of the day, we should make certain that this is not a knee-jerk reaction. The minister's second reading speech stated that employers' premiums would not rise in this financial year. I applaud that. Certainly employers have paid a lot in the past. The minister would agree that the fair dinkum employers do not need to be penalised. By better workplace training and improved workplace health and safety standards I believe we can get a lot of these problems under control. While I have raised some concerns, I think the minister knows where I am coming from. I do not say things lightly. As an employer, I understand the issues fully and I recognise and respect the rights of employees. I have never deprived an employee their entitlements—and nobody should. We have to make certain that we have the best policy in place. I think we have to respect the roles of both employers and employees. Hopefully some of these rather huge or sudden rises can be put into perspective. I have a problem with the increase in payment for permanent disablement as compared with the payment for fatalities. One of the most important things for our state is a proper and responsible workers compensation system for the employees who work in this great state. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.42 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001. I would like to clarify the comments of the member for Gregory regarding the $360 million exposure. I correct his statement by saying that this would have been the case only if all cases were paid out on settlement to the maximum amount. I think that is an important point. The WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001 implements a 2001 election commitment of the Beattie Labor government by introducing reforms that will help to achieve equity and fairness for employees covered by the scheme at the same time as maintaining employers' premium rates at competitive levels, with no increase for 2001-02. In addition to those reforms, the bill also amends provisions of the act relating to the medical assessment tribunals in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. Medical assessment tribunals provide independent medical assessment of injury and impairment for workers compensation claims to determine a number of matters. These include whether an injury is work related where there is a medical uncertainty about the work-related cause of the symptoms or injury where the worker has an ongoing incapacity for work. This determination is used when a claim has been accepted by an insurer and there is uncertainty as to whether there is ongoing incapacity as a result of the work-related injury. Where there is an uncertainty about the degree of permanent impairment sustained by the worker as a result of a work-related injury, the medical assessment tribunal may determine the level of permanent injury. The WorkCover Queensland Act provides for the establishment of a general medical assessment tribunal as well as six specialty medical assessment tribunals, covering the medical fields of cardiac; orthopaedic; dermatology; ear, nose and throat; neurology-neurosurgical; and ophthalmology. Members of the medical assessment tribunals are all specialists in their fields. The establishment of the medical assessment tribunals seeks to provide for an independent system of medical review and assessment of injury and impairment sustained by workers. Tribunal decisions about work-related injuries are based on clinical examination, available medical information and submissions made by the worker or their representative. The bill introduces a number of amendments to the medical assessment tribunal process, all of which have been endorsed and recommended by the WorkCover Queensland board. In the first instance, the bill amends the act to provide that the medical assessment tribunal must provide reasons for decisions for each matter referred to it for determination. These amendments 3054 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 reflect a decision of the WorkCover board to clarify the intent and the role of the medical assessment tribunals. They will ensure that sufficient information is provided to all claimants in relation to tribunal decisions so that they are aware of what matters were considered by the tribunal in reaching decisions. The second issue relates to the role of fresh medical evidence and the finality of medical assessment tribunal decisions, a particular concern raised by stakeholders during consultations on this bill. Currently, the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 provides that a tribunal's decision about an application for compensation referred to it is final and cannot be questioned in proceedings before a tribunal or a court, except in strictly limited circumstances. Further, decisions made by the medical assessment tribunal are final, subject to the production of fresh medical evidence. To clarify this issue, this bill introduces amendments to make clear that the tribunal can only deal with and make binding decisions about matters of a medical nature. The amendments provide that determinations of the medical assessment tribunals on medical matters are final but that where the medical assessment tribunal elects to make a decision on a non-medical matter that decision will be reviewable. The bill further provides that the medical assessment tribunal may refer non- medical matters back to the insurer for determination. It is also the intention of the bill to clarify and confirm that determinations of the medical assessment tribunal are subject to judicial review. Undoubtedly, the entire package of reforms contained within this bill is great news for Queensland's workers and employers, as employers will reap the financial benefit of having the lowest premiums in Australia. Injured workers and their dependants will now receive fair and equitable compensation without having to resort to lengthy and expensive common law proceedings. The amendments to the medical assessment tribunal will help streamline the process and clarify the role. I congratulate the minister on bringing these amendments to the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (3.48 p.m.): I agree with the statements made by the member for Gladstone that workers compensation is one of the most difficult management issues we can face. A well-managed WorkCover scheme is absolutely vital to the security and safety of both employers and employees. As we have seen in the past how close the WorkCover scheme can come to collapse when the eye is taken off the ball, we must make sure that the WorkCover scheme is well managed and viable. I will not go into a great deal of detail on the legislation, given that my colleague the shadow minister, the member for Keppel, has done so. I agree with a lot of the comments made by the member for Gregory in terms of how we view WorkCover. I think it is timely that this debate is taking place today. Today I have written to both the Treasurer and the Minister for Industrial Relations regarding a constituent of mine. I sought their assistance with some difficulties this constituent is having. I am sure that the minister will get that letter in the next day or two. I would like to use their case just as an example, but I hesitate to do so because I know that putting their name in front of people will make them a target, as well. But I know that the minister will treat them impartially and see their case for what it is. It is simply an example of what can happen to an employer faced with rising WorkCover costs. In my view, the introduction of quite large increases in payouts combined with the abolition of the requirement for the contributory negligence clause give way to the very real possibility—given the increasingly litigious nature of our society—of some very substantial increases in premiums in the future. I know that a commitment has been given that that will not happen this financial year, but we have seen in the past how fast insurance premiums of all sorts can increase. And this week in this House we have heard statements about public liability. It is certainly true of all insurance, including WorkCover. The dramatic increases in premiums can have a dramatic effect on the profitability of many businesses. The business that I want to talk about is a company called Pittsworth Abattoirs, which is run by Jim and Mary Flood in Pittsworth. They employ between 80 and 100 employees. And obviously, in a town like Pittsworth that is a substantial employer. They have increased their work force over the last few years. Mary Flood says— The competitive nature of this business does not allow a reduction of staff to maintain low premium costs. We want to grow our business and employ more people and not the negative attitude of sacking people to keep our workcover down. We can not run this business half staffed. We either run it at full staff or else have to shut it down. I know the difficulties that this company has been going through. They have been examining all sorts of potential solutions so that they can keep operating, growing and employing between 80 and 100 people—and even more if possible—in a regional community like Pittsworth, which has 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3055 been going through many problems and is in an exceptional circumstances drought-declared area. Their WorkCover premium has jumped from $104,066.10 last year to $218,081.45 this year—an increase of more than 100 per cent in 12 months. That is a substantial increase for a company like that, and they have to find over $100,000 every year just so that they can keep operating. That is a very difficult position for that company to be in, and that is the issue about which I have written to the minister. Their premiums over the last five years have totalled $781,169.30. Statutory claims and common law claims paid out by WorkCover as at 30 June this year totalled $164,299. That leaves a surplus of $616,870. So even though there is a surplus of the premiums that they have paid to WorkCover, their WorkCover bill for this year has jumped in the order of 100 per cent. That is not taking into account that the company paid the first four days of compensation for each injury that its employees incurred. This is a very serious problem for all employers. I use the Floods as an example because they have come to me in the last few days and I have been trying to help them. As well, they have been trying to continue to operate in Pittsworth and employ a lot of people. They certainly try to do the right thing by their employees. Not long ago their business was very small. They are trying to increase it and do the right thing, but they are going through all sorts of scenarios, such as whether they should try to downsize—and they find it difficult to think that they can—or close down entirely. Given some of the changes that are included in this legislation, I believe that the very real potential exists for those premiums to jump significantly. We have seen it happen in the past. We have seen how close the WorkCover scheme has come to collapse, and we have seen how difficult it has been and the decisions that had to be made to bring the WorkCover scheme back to a viable position. I urge the minister to take into account both the rights of employees and the rights of employers. The member for Gregory said it quite clearly; a well-managed WorkCover scheme is absolutely essential to both sides, and we need to make sure that the decisions that we make are not going to adversely affect one side over the other. If there is anything that we can do to help our businesses continue and not impose upon them the current imposts so that they can continue to employ people right across Queensland, we should be doing it. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.54 p.m.): At the outset I express my disappointment at some comments made by members opposite, particularly the member for Callide. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the fundamental purpose of this bill in relation to contributory negligence, and there seems to be a lack of any understanding of the concept of contributory negligence despite some extensive comments made about it earlier today. Even further disturbing is the fact that there was a suggestion by the member for Callide that if workers deliberately injure themselves and make a claim, they will be compensated—one suspects in full. The point is that since the Ryan government brought into being the workers compensation scheme in 1915 workers have always had to prove negligence on the part of the employer. I have been involved in quite a number of cases over the last 30 years in which, unfortunately, from time to time one's client was not able to prove negligence, the case was lost and the cost had to be paid to the defendant insurer, in this case WorkCover Queensland. That is a tragic result, I can assure members, because these cases are never brought on lightly by any responsible lawyers acting on behalf of injured workers. The point is that if a worker cannot prove total negligence or negligence to the degree of 100 per cent on the part of the employer, his or her damages will be reduced by the extent of his or her own contributory negligence. That still applies—and has always applied—other than when the amendments introduced by the Borbidge government applied. In that case, they were so draconian as to impose restrictions on workers and limitations on courts which were quite akin to mandatory sentencing in the criminal law and totally unacceptable. So I express my disappointment at either the inability of some members opposite to understand what we are discussing today or, alternatively, an attempt at deliberately misleading or misconstruing the situation. I was very anxious about saying a few words with respect to this bill because of the association that I have had with injured workers over many, many years, but I feel that I am certainly qualified to have an understanding of what injured workers go through in their attempts to obtain some form of justice and redress. As I said, these rights to bring actions for this type of damage and injury go back to 1915. As far as I am aware, an uninhibited right was exercised by workers right up until the mid-1990s, when the Goss government had to address the funding problems that the then workers 3056 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 compensation scheme was experiencing. But I stress that, at every stage along the way prior to the mid-1990s, at all times the injured worker had to prove negligence on the part of the employer. Honourable members may recall that when these funding problems arose there were strong moves afoot on both sides of the House to do away with the scheme entirely, that is, the scheme of access to common law. The same result, tragically, has applied in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia, and there were strong pushes here for that to take place in Queensland, as well. At the end of the day the Goss government, doing its best to control the financial situation of the fund, brought in certain procedural fetters, including the obligation on a worker to make an election to take an offer from WorkCover or alternatively to go to court—the money or the box type of situation. I must say that those moves that I referred to earlier to do away with the right of workers to apply for redress at court—at common law—were the inspiration that personally drove me to attempt to do something about it. I felt that the best course of action that I could take was to be part of the political process. It was the final straw, if you like, and factor that caused me to join the Australian Labor Party. So the bill today brings back to me fond memories of that event, in regard to which, of course, I have no regrets. I am glad to say that I did join at that time because, unfortunately, when the Goss government was defeated it was succeeded by the Borbidge government. As we have heard today from several speakers, draconian measures were introduced by that government, and by the former member for Clayfield in particular. This bill goes a long way—as did some reforms a year or so ago—to restoring workers' rights to go to court for justice, albeit after having to go through a still fairly onerous and demanding pre-court procedure. That right to go to court is no more or less than the right of anyone else to do so for any other reason. Surely few people, if any, in this House with any understanding of the concept of fairness or a fair go could raise any real objection to the concept of an injured worker having the same basic rights as anybody else to have access to the courts for justice. Another preliminary point that I want to raise is the current attitude of WorkCover and the way in which it handles pre-court procedures. From a practitioner's point of view, in the past, along with many others, I experienced a lot of problems. I am happy to say to this House that, from a practitioner's point of view as opposed to a member of the government, over the past 12 months or so the attitude of WorkCover in trying to reach fair settlements, to earnestly and properly negotiate, has been outstanding and they deserve commendation in this place from me. I would like to touch on the amendments to the act as they relate to being fully costed and not imposing any increase in employer premiums. The bill has given legislative effect to the government's WorkCover Queensland—Leading Australia Policy 2001. The bill has achieved the government's aim of introducing under that policy— A responsible and integrated workers' compensation package to give seriously injured workers and their dependants greater compensation without increasing employer premiums. As I have said, the government's policy includes a commitment to maintaining common law rights, to improving the common law pre-proceedings processes, and to reducing legal costs as a result. In its second term the Beattie government has committed to introducing a package of reforms that deliver even greater benefits to workers whilst still maintaining low and competitive premiums for employers. The bill, encompassing these reforms, will increase statutory benefits for workers to ensure that seriously injured workers and their dependants receive greater compensation in the following ways: by increasing the lump sum benefit on the death of a worker to $250,000; increasing the maximum statutory benefit able to be received by an injured worker to $150,000; increasing the amount available for dependants of those fatally injured; and improving the criteria to access statutory gratuitous care. In addition, the reforms will maintain full common law access, including the 20 per cent threshold test referred to by the honourable member for Gregory, while reducing legal costs for those less seriously injured and improve the common law pre-proceedings processes to ensure that claims are resolved earlier. It will repeal the unjust contributory negligence and mitigating loss provisions—which I described previously, quite fairly, I think, as draconian and which were introduced by the previous coalition government—and will allow the courts to have discretion to make awards for costs, interest on damages and loss of consortium. Returning to the courts, I think their discretion on costs is something to be applauded and is illustrative of this government's commitment to the concept of justice. These improvements in statutory benefits and amendments to common law arrangements represent a modest package of improvements and have been costed by WorkCover's actuaries. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3057

They have confirmed that the WorkCover scheme will accommodate any increased cost brought about by these changes and that it will not threaten its fully funded position. WorkCover's actuaries have also confirmed that the proposed changes will not result in any increase in the average premium employer rate. That is great news for employers, especially when we consider that the Queensland Labor government has already reduced the average premium from 2.145 per cent to 1.55 per cent since it came to office in 1998. The government, now in its second term, is committed to maintaining these record low premiums for employers. These amendments have been made possible due to WorkCover's strong financial performance in recent years. I also commend the WorkCover board for its role in achieving full funding status and statutory solvency in June 2000. I look forward to seeing a similar result in WorkCover's annual report later this year. The turnaround in WorkCover Queensland's position has been achieved by sound investment resulting in positive investment returns as well as professional financial and operational management by the WorkCover Queensland board. The introduction of the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill demonstrates that WorkCover's return to full funding has not been at the expense of injured workers' entitlements. In addition to amendments introduced by the bill, this government has made a number of improvements to Queensland's workers compensation scheme since it came to office in 1998. In 1999, the government restored fair and equitable access to workers compensation for all workers, not just those who are PAYE taxpayers. At the same time, the government amended the definition of 'injury' to provide that employment must be 'a significant contributing factor' causing the injury. For technical reasons, this amendment repealed the coalition's unjust and harsh requirement that employment be the 'major significant factor' causing the injury. I assure members that the effect of that change in itself was most significant. In summary, this Labor government is providing more Queensland workers with entitlement to workers compensation as well as continuing to improve its services. This is being achieved at a time when other authorities around the country are struggling financially and limiting worker access to compensation, as I mentioned, particularly in the case of Victoria. Undoubtedly, this package is great news for both Queensland workers and employers. Employers will continue to reap the financial benefits of the lowest premiums in Australia and injured workers and their dependants will now receive fair and equitable compensation without having to resort to lengthy expensive common law proceedings. I heartily congratulate the minister on the introduction of this bill. I also wish to reiterate my support and congratulations to the WorkCover board for what they have been able to do in the management of that fund. I recognise that none of these fair, just, necessary and obvious reforms can be made unless the fund is funded properly and is actuarially sound. To ensure that that happens is dependent upon the skill and application of the people on that board. I extend to them my heartiest congratulations. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (4.10 p.m.): This is a very important bill. We on this side of the House believe in looking after workers and ensuring that employers are charged a fair price for their workers compensation contributions to enable them to run their businesses while providing protection for their employees. We need a balance to enable businesses to manage their costs and still be able to employ people in a safe, secure environment. Today we have heard a lot about the current status of the financial soundness of the scheme. In the mid-1990s, the Goss government was the Christopher Skase of workers compensation. It made the biggest financial mess one has ever seen. Just as with the secrecy that is happening now, the cover-ups were unbelievable. The member for Toowoomba North talked about a few little problems that occurred and how the Goss government looked at things in the mid-1990s. I can tell members what happened. In 1995 we went to an election, and the government covered up an estimated debt of $125 million. Minister Foley, who was in charge of the legislation at the time, covered it up. It was not discovered until the Labor party won government by a margin of one. When we came back into the parliament, the member for Mount Coot-tha received the poisoned chalice and had to take over. Seven months later, the coalition formed government and we discovered the bad news. When we checked the figures, the scheme had a $320 million unfunded liability. It was an absolute financial mess. It will remain a stigma on the Labor Party forever and a day that a scheme, which was designed for the safety and prudential security of workers, which operated through a partnership between employers and employees and which was meant to provide 3058 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 compensation, was on the verge of absolute collapse. We hear about the Christopher Skases of the world, the HIH collapses and all sorts of other corporate collapses, but this occurred right in our backyard. The Labor government drove the Queensland's workers compensation scheme almost to extinction. It is still happening with Labor governments, because at the moment New South Wales is experiencing similar problems. That state has some massive financial problems at the moment. We have to be careful that the scheme does not return to the position of financial ruin that was wreaked upon it by a Labor government. We must move carefully, step by step, to ensure that there are incremental increases in the benefits to workers and incremental decreases in the costs to employers. For that to happen, the finances of the workers compensation scheme must remain strong and continue to grow. As I mentioned, when we came to government we inherited a $320 million unfunded liability and we had to do something to fix it. It was not very pleasant. I can remember the shock and the horror that we felt when we were first presented with the figures that showed the absolute mess that we had been left. It was left to the then member for Clayfield to review the situation and to try to find ways to make Queensland's once proud and great scheme, which had been virtually destroyed by the Labor Party, a good scheme again. He had to find a way to make it a viable, well-funded, safe and secure scheme, which is the condition that it should have been in. That was the difficult task that we had. It is probably a task that many conservative governments have when they take over from Labor governments and have to fix up the financial messes that they inherit. Part of the problem was the repayment of debt, and some additional charges were put on employers as a result. Everybody had to bear some pain to try to fix a huge problem and return the scheme to a degree of solvency. The scheme now has just reached statutory solvency. There is nothing great about it; it has just reached statutory solvency. While most of the debt has been repaid, some debt remains. The purposes of the bill are to raise statutory lump sum payments available to workers for injury from $103,000 to $150,000, to raise lump sum payments available to dependants in the case of fatal injury from $164,960 to $250,000 and to give greater access to a payment of up to $150,000 to compensate for care where a worker is permanently injured and is wholly or partially dependent on others for care. The bill also removes the requirement for workers to prove that they had not contributed to their injury and that they took all steps to minimise the effect of the injury. A degree of mutual obligation is so important in a successful workers compensation scheme. It is not just about the money, it is about the associated training, the preparedness and the attachment of protective guards to equipment and machinery. It is also about ensuring that machines operate in the right way, that everybody knows how to operate them, that they are aware that unforeseen damage can occur, that they know how to lift and so on. Those things are an essential part of the whole process. There is a responsibility on the employee to adhere to directions about training and safety measures, for example, shutting down latches, putting protective guards in place and not moving a machine into a certain area until it is cleared. All of those sorts of issues are important if the scheme is going to work and if we are to reduce the potential for injury, the number of fatalities, the number of injuries and the effects that they have upon people's lives—their happiness and their future. It is important. Removing the requirement for workers to prove that they have not contributed to their injuries, so that it is simply up to the court to determine, is moving towards the removal of some responsibility from one side. If an employer is blatant in not having proper safety measures in place and, as a result of that, a worker is injured, that employer should have the book thrown at them. If the employee is blatant in not following the legitimate and correct instructions that they have been given, thus endangering either themselves or their work mates in the workplace, they too must bear some responsibility. Otherwise, we will be taking from the system one of the key incentives or key components of the partnership arrangement. That arrangement makes everybody aware that they have a part to play. They are aware that they are all cogs in the wheel and that, if they do not do their bit, the whole thing will fall down and will not work properly. The changes to the contributory negligence provisions concern us greatly. As the scheme gets back to a secure financial and prudential base, we believe that there should be a sharing of the responsibility. Once the secure funds are in place to back the scheme up forever, there should be a sharing of that responsibility, along with a gradual increase in the benefits to workers and a gradual reduction in what employers pay into the scheme. In that way, the balance is maintained. Considering the history of the scheme and the financial havoc wreaked upon it to the 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3059 extent that it virtually collapsed financially, we must remember that an increase in payouts of the order of 50 per cent would be just too great for the scheme to remain to be safe financially. I will go back a little in history. At the start of my speech I mentioned the $320 million unfunded liability. That was the position of the scheme in June 1996. The scheme was haemorrhaging badly. In July 1995, we discovered that there was a $125 million unfunded liability. The Goss government continued in power for some seven months and the scheme deteriorated at an absolute rate of knots. The Kennedy inquiry was established and anybody could see that Labor had placed the scheme in a most disastrous situation. That inquiry found that the existing scheme was a disaster in the making, rapidly running up an unfunded liability initially of $290 million but which had grown to $319 million by June 1996. Something had to be done about it. Major problems for the deficit were common law claims, money-hungry lawyers and questionable claimants. Kennedy noted that three per cent of claimants were responsible for 50 per cent of the payouts, and there were some 79 reforms put in place or recommended to be put in place to save the WorkCover scheme so that we could ensure protection for workers. Those major reforms were undertaken in order to stave off bankruptcy and they brought the compensation pool eventually back into the black. The reforms were stridently opposed by the ALP. Yet the members opposite come into this House and talk about the fund coming back into solvency. It is only those difficult reforms that had to be put in place that saved the entire scheme and finally brought it back to solvency. Statutory solvency has been gained. As I said, it is statutory solvency. It is nothing brilliant, but now that solvency has been achieved it would be timely to start to put some funds aside to build up a reserve for those times when there might be an inordinate run on the scheme, to build up those reserves for a time when there might be some unforeseen disaster that means that those reserves are needed and to build up those reserves for a time like now when investments are not running well. Recently, we heard the Treasurer speaking about QIC Investments. We saw in the budget papers that investments are not going as well now as they were some years back. That is being experienced by everybody, be it those with superannuation funds or shares. It is a difficult and uncertain time. Now is the time to be prudentially careful and safe and put some funds into a reserve so that we can build up the reserve of the scheme and continue to provide some share of that solvency to both sides of the equation—the employer and the employee. On 14 August 2001, the Courier-Mail revealed that the board of the Queensland workers compensation scheme had made enough profit to offer the state government $60 million in debt repayments just before the end of the financial year. That massive payment was halted because WorkCover discovered that state laws ban that semi-government body from paying into state coffers at times other than the first four months of the financial year. The mix-up was confirmed in a letter and I understand it will eventually be overcome. However, the issue is that we have a body that is still repaying debt to the government as part of the whole process put in place to fix up the scheme. The National Party recognises the importance of maintaining a just, fair and adequate level of benefits for injured workers, particularly for their families and dependants. For this to be delivered over the long term without causing an unacceptable burden on employment, the opposition believes that a number of key scheme designs and management features must be in place and effectively maintained and managed. The opposition is committed to ensuring that the Queensland WorkCover scheme is balanced and equitable and achieves prudent financial benchmarks. One of the things that we have to remember is that in this scheme we cannot just charge small business operators out of existence. All of us would have had complaints. I have had numerous complaints from those people on the minimum. It was $60; it is now $120. Mr Nuttall: That's the first rise in five years. Mr HORAN: It does matter. The government has doubled the price. That cannot be justified. They have to get that money out of their existing business. That $60 might not sound like much to the minister, but to someone who is struggling with a small business it makes a big difference. The minister heard my colleague the member for Cunningham speak about the massive increase that occurred. Because of the reforms that we put in place bringing about the gradual solvency and fightback of the scheme to a position of financial security, the government has been able to make some reductions in the average rate being paid by employers. But we so often hear of employers saying they have had a massive hike in their costs. It is not always because they have had accidents. There are all sorts of different reasons. The minister's figure is about the average rate of deduction, but there are also all of the changes to the categories. When people are put 3060 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 into higher categories it can mean that they are forced to pay it at a higher rate than they were before. It is all of those sorts of changes that can also make for a far higher cost of WorkCover. I think all employers realise that WorkCover is essential. But when we talk to employers about the costs they have to meet before they make a reasonable profit at the end of the day, we find that they include WorkCover, superannuation and so on. They all add up to a cost that makes it difficult to do business. At the end of the day, the greatest thing most employers would like to do, if they could do it, if they had some extra money, is to put on an extra staff member. There is hardly a small business that would not like to do that. We have to continually monitor, as a government or an opposition, what the costs and imposts are, and the benefit of it. In this case, there is a wonderful benefit of being able to care for people and provide for that sort of security that can occur from injury in the workplace. However, at the same time, we have to make sure that we do not just cost jobs out of the equation so that people end up with so many costs and charges for so many different fees and levies and so forth that at the end of the year, when they work out their pluses and minuses, they say, 'We'll have to do a bit more ourselves. We can't put on another employee. Or we'll have to put someone on temporary employment or back to half-time or we might have to do without the employee.' That is not what we want. We have the worst unemployment in mainland Australia. We have got it consistently under this government. We have to look at ways and means of enabling small business in particular to be able to employ people and to be able to employ people in a very secure way. There are a number of other concerns that I wanted to touch on in the time that is left. Employers are quite concerned about the government's apparent commitment to repeal current contributory negligence and mitigating loss provisions. Employers are concerned that the government is removing the court's ability to hold employees responsible for their contribution to their injury, if that has been the case. That is the system of mutual obligation and everybody holding true to the responsibilities and obligations that every party has to make the workplace safe. There is also the issue of the way this government has been charging stamp duty on top of the GST. That is a nice little earner and windfall. We have a tax on a tax. Quite immorally, they have been charging stamp duty on the product plus the GST. It gives them a greater amount of stamp duty and a significant increase. Some $30 million has been raised in WorkCover related stamp duty, and no doubt a part of that would be from this formula that is applied to the tax-on- the-tax system. I wish to conclude by reiterating the principles that I have concentrated on in this debate. Not very long ago, we had an absolute financial disaster in this state. The wonderful WorkCover system was almost destroyed and wiped off the map through the financial mismanagement of the Goss Labor government. It was left to the coalition to undertake the difficult task of restoring that fund. There is nothing more important to the work force than knowing that they have the umbrella of safety of a WorkCover system so that in the event of an injury or fatality there is something there to help them, their family and loved ones. That is absolutely essential. At the same time, it is also essential that we make sure this scheme is in operation and that it continues to grow as a result of the pain that everyone had to undergo during the reform process. At the end of the day, we can always be confident that we have a secure financial system. Our belief is that, if we make massive increases and if we make some of these large changes to the issue of contributory negligence before we have this scheme in a position where we have secure, substantial and large reserves so that it is insulated and safe forever from the sort of mismanagement that occurred under the Labor government in the 1990s, that is what we should be aiming at—going carefully, sharing the benefits with both the employers for a lesser contribution and the employees through gradually increasing rates in a fair, honest and reasonable manner— Time expired. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (4.30 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to talk to the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 2001. In its first term of office the Beattie government committed itself to the WorkCover Queensland-Leading Australia Policy 2001, which is intended to provide, among other things, a responsible and integrated workers compensation package to give seriously injured workers and their dependants greater compensation without increasing employers' premiums. I think the amendments that the minister has brought before the House today show that the Beattie government is intent on doing that. I would like to make some comments on what opposition members have said in some of their speeches. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3061

Mr Shine: It won't take long. Mr PURCELL: That will not take long, that is right. The opposition spokesperson said he is very concerned about the increased benefits that this bill will provide to workers and their dependants. He is concerned that the increase is greater than the CPI. He is really saying that when the breadwinner is lost, who is the husband in a lot of cases—not all cases; sometimes it could be the wife—the dependant who is left with the kids will now be getting paid too much money under this bill because the increase is greater than the CPI. The CPI rise has not been applied to lump sums for many years. We heard some pontificating from people on the other side of the House about when this scheme was in trouble, and I will come back to that shortly. They say they want to look after workers and ensure that they are looked after, paid correctly and paid compensation, but then they go off and say exactly the opposite. I think they ought to sit down and read some of their own speeches and hear what they are saying. Mr Shine: It makes no sense. Mr PURCELL: It makes no sense at all, as my colleague the member for Toowoomba North says. I will also comment on what the member for Callide had to say about workers who go out of their way to injure themselves just so they can get workers compensation. Have you ever heard so much nonsense in your life? That may be the member's attitude. He may want to do things like that. However, I do not know of any workers who would want to go and injure themselves, particularly in the industry that I used to be in. In that industry the workers take a pay cut if they are injured because they are not paid overtime and all the other add-ons that they normally receive; they just receive the bare award. They take a fairly savage pay cut. I do not see too many workers wanting to go and get themselves injured, go on compo and take a pay cut. I cannot understand the member making comments like that. It is another way of his attacking workers. He was pontificating about how marvellous the opposition was when they were in government with regards to the scheme. The Leader of the Opposition was saying the same thing. They must think that people and workers in this country live in fairyland and do not know the reality of what was going on. They think that if they come into this place and say something it automatically becomes truth. I will debate with people on my side of the House as well as on the opposition side that the workers compensation scheme was not in trouble. People have heard me speak about this subject in this place before. It involved an actuary's report that went over a nine- to 10-year tailing off period. There was over $2.5 billion in reserve in the scheme, yet we keep being told that it was going broke. I would love to go broke with $2.5 billion in my pocket! The previous Labor government put certain things in place before the Borbidge government came to power which turned the scheme around as far as the actuaries were concerned and were sorting out that 'debt'. But to then wholeheartedly—and people on the other side have spoken about this today—endorse what Santo Santoro did to the workers compensation scheme in this state is crazy. Santo Santoro was ideologically driven. It had nothing to do with looking after workers. It had nothing to do with any of that sort of stuff at all. As far as he was concerned, he was ideologically driven and he would break up the scheme so that it could be given out to private industry. That is what the Liberal Party would do. Mr Shine: HIH. Mr PURCELL: It would be nice if we had HIH looking after our scheme now! That is why other schemes in other states have problems. Parts of their scheme have been insured by private insurance companies. That is why they are in all sorts of trouble. I will remind members of some of the things that Minister Paul Braddy had to wind back when we returned to government. He had to redefine 'injuries' and 'workers'. Because of the definition of 'injury', it was nearly impossible for some people to be paid workers compensation. Under the Santoro definition of 'worker', if an employer taxed his employees under a tax scheme called PPS they found they were not classed as 'workers'. How crazy can you get! He disfranchised—and I know my colleague from Ferny Grove would agree—thousands upon thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people within the building industry, the transport industry and those types of industries because of one arrangement or another. I will not go into why they do their taxation like that. However, I will give honourable members a scenario. A builder's labourer will front up at a brickie gang. The employer would not want to worry about employees, pay compo or have any of 3062 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 those problems. These employers would be Santoro's mates. He would say, 'There is a job here in the brickie's gang if you want it.' He would be looking after four brickies. He would be working very hard from daylight till dark and he would be on an hourly rate or a daily rate and he would be taxed under PPS. Under all criteria, under the acts here in Queensland—occupational health and safety, workers compensation, industrial relations—that person is a worker. Even under the taxation act he is a worker. Therefore, he is an employee. But not under Santoro's legislation. He changed it so that that person was a non-worker and they were not covered. He disfranchised thousands of people and they knew nothing about it. The workers, their wives and their families knew nothing about it. So they would happily go off to work, thinking they were still covered by workers compensation. Then they would get injured, make an application and find out that they were not entitled to it because they were being taxed under PPS. I know what the employers in the building industry thought about that. They just about died to find that their saviour from the Liberal Party, Santo Santoro, had gone and made them have to join two schemes. They had to start up their own scheme so that they could sort out their own liabilities. The member for Toowoomba South talked about how high premiums are and how poor old employers have to pay workers compensation premiums, but he forgets what this scheme is for. This scheme is to protect the employers. This scheme takes away the liability of employers to have to look after workers when they are injured through their fault on their jobs. It picks up the common law claims for them also. Members opposite just do not understand what the scheme is about. They have no idea at all. Workers in the building industry were disfranchised. The employer associations set up another scheme to cover all those people who were being taxed under PPS in their industry because this scheme disfranchised the workers. Probably half to 60 per cent of people who work in that industry did not have any insurance. The employers had to pick up the liability. I spoke with some employers and employer organisations and said to them, 'I was just waiting for something to happen. I was waiting for a person to come to me and I will get some lawyers who will work on a "no win, no fee" basis. We will take you to court. We will take your house off you. We will put you, your missus and your kids in the street because you have no insurance. But do not think that that does not say that you have not got common law liabilities because you have. The common law liabilities are that you look after your workers and if they are injured and cannot go to work you must pay them. If it has to come out of your pocket that is fair enough.' I do not think members on the other side of the House understand what insurance is about. The purpose of insurance is to look after the person who takes out the insurance so they have no liability. How many members on the other side do not have their houses insured? I bet there would not be too many, unless it is a humpy down at the beach and they do not care if it burns or not. How many of them would take the punt? Not too many. In order to achieve the government's commitment to provide greater compensation to injured workers and their dependants, the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill increases—and this is where this government is delivering to workers—the maximum statutory lump sum payments available to workers from $127,900 to $150,000. The opposition spokesman said that that is too big a rise. That is a lot of money, isn't it! It really is not a lot of money at all. If a person got a lump sum like that, they would want to be fairly judicious in how they invested it if they wanted it to last them for very long. The lump sum payments available to dependants of a fatally injured worker will increase from $204,645 to $250,000, which is not a lot for someone's life. So I do not think we are overpaying people. I congratulate the minister on increasing these amounts, because I know how important it is for workers' dependants to receive extra money if the breadwinner is lost. There will also be greater access for payments of up to $150,000 to compensate for care where a worker is permanently injured and is wholly or partially dependent on others for care. This is very important, and I will digress again if I can. The year before last 16 people in my electorate died of asbestos related diseases, and that number is going up. I have just found out that a couple of my good mates have pleural plaques on their lungs. That is the start of asbestosis. How long or how short it takes is another thing, but the clock is ticking. The previous member for Bulimba suffered the same condition. It depends how long those people live and how disabled they become. I have friends who are fully bedridden and their wives have to look after them, feed them and do everything for them. Ms Keech: Aren't they lucky to have such good wives? 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3063

Mr PURCELL: They certainly are lucky to have very good wives. Ms Keech: And the wives are lucky to have such good husbands, too. Mr PURCELL: They have been very good husbands over the years; that is correct. But compensation of $150,000 for these people—if they get the full amount—is really not a lot of money to assist with their loved ones for the rest of their lives. That is the point I am making. Depending on when you find out, the lead time for asbestosis can be anywhere from six months to four, five or up to 10 years. So it is a very debilitating disease which causes people to suffer for a long time. The increases proposed by the minister in this bill make the Queensland scheme one of the most generous schemes in Australia in terms of lump sum compensation for injured workers and their dependants. Queensland is continuing to offer greater compensation to injured workers and their dependants while other states are limiting access to compensation. Many members in this place would remember the battle we had in Queensland with regard to common law, and I can see some members up the back of the chamber nodding. It was a battle that had to be fought, and it was won. It is intended that the increases to lump sum benefits payable on the death of a worker and payments to dependants of a worker who is fatally injured will provide fair and equitable compensation to a worker's family. This will provide the necessary financial support to assist families in their time of need without having to incur legal expenses and fees to access reasonable compensation. The increase in the maximum statutory benefit payable to an injured worker is intended to ensure that seriously injured workers have greater access to statutory benefits and provide compensation during their period of incapacity. A significant amendment provided by the bill is the increased access to compensation for statutory gratuitous care, which I have just spoken about. These payments are to compensate injured workers who are in need of ongoing specialist care after the finalisation of their statutory claim where such assistance is provided by a family friend or member. The relaxation of the entitlement provisions for this care is a substantial improvement for injured workers in Queensland. I must congratulate the minister on behalf of all workers in Queensland on the fact that the loved ones of an injured worker who looks after them will be able to do it better now with the extra funds that they will be able to access. Currently, injured workers are restricted from seeking damages in common law for gratuitous services, known as Griffith v. Kerkemeyer awards. Mr PURCELL: Such awards allowed for workers to claim entitlements to damages— Mr Lucas: How many opinions do you want? Mr PURCELL: It allowed them to claim entitlements to damages for gratuitous services of a nature that could be ordinarily provided by a member of the worker's family or household, such as domestic, nursing and attendance services. Mr Lucas: We'll send you a bill. Mr PURCELL: It won't get paid. Workers are also currently prevented from claiming statutory gratuitous care compensation under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 if they do not have a work-related impairment of 50 per cent or more. The practical effect of these limitations is that most workers are not entitled to this form of compensation as their work-related impairment is not sufficient, notwithstanding that they may still require ongoing assistance from their families and friends. As I said, people can walk around and look quite healthy when their lungs are full of asbestos. Unless they are climbing stairs or doing things that exert them, you would not know that they were crook until they start gasping for breath and need oxygen for every breath they take. Most workers who have sustained work-related impairment less than 50 per cent and who require ongoing assistance have no option but to resort to expensive and time consuming common law proceedings in an attempt to obtain adequate compensation for their injury. This bill will ensure that that does not happen. I congratulate the minister and his staff on the fine work they have done in bringing this bill to the House. I support the bill. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (4.46 p.m.): The main purpose of any workers compensation— not just in Queensland but throughout Australia—is to protect workers when they are injured in their place of employment. I acknowledge that the government's idea is to give maximum compensation to seriously injured workers and the dependants of fatally injured workers. Too often we have seen how claim proceedings have dragged on interminably, and often the perception is that the death of the claimant is perhaps the aim of the whole exercise. It is hoped 3064 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 that any legislation which can solve this appalling situation will be viewed carefully by all members of the House. After having been an employer, it never ceases to amaze me how it is always assumed that employers can be bled just because they have had the intestinal fortitude to get out there and have a go. I can assure most members of this House that that is not necessarily the case. After the last rise in WorkCover premiums, many employers did in fact state that these rises would affect their intention to replace existing employees when they left. This may equate to only one employer at one place of employment, but multiplying that across all businesses throughout the state would in fact mean that a reasonable number would have to join the dole queues. I know those opposite say, 'There they go again, saying it's going to cost jobs,' but I give them the example of one small business in my area which used to employ three people. It now employs one lone contractor, thereby eliminating many of the costs associated with employing. The employer said, 'It's just not worth it anymore. Fees and charges are killing me, and I'd rather stay small.' So those opposite should not kid themselves: jobs will be lost. It grieves me to hear Labor members continually make the idiotic statement—a statement that they honestly cannot believe themselves—that they are the only members who care about workers. In the time I have been in this House it is this government that has continually put in place legislation which has robbed workers of their employment. I do not have to name them; members have only to cast their minds back to the incredible number of marches on this parliament over the past few years. Unfortunately, most of the jobs that are going are those in rural and regional Queensland—not all, but most. So please stop sprouting that garbage, because it does not impress the people who have been tossed on the scrap heap. This government is forever stating the number of jobs it creates, whether they be full time, casual or just an hour a day. Only people juggling figures would see one hour of work a day as a job. Why don't those opposite be totally honest and give us the true number of jobs lost at the same time as they praise themselves for job creation? No-one denies that workers have to be protected. Believe me, it is every employer's ambition not to have injured workers. No employer can afford not to care. It would be a fool who did not do their utmost to protect themselves and their employees, but it must be a mutual obligation. There must be a shared commitment between employer and employee. It is almost a symbiotic relationship. Many an instance has occurred of employers being taken to court, even having supplied the various needs to protect their workers—hats, gloves, protective clothing or sunscreen—but the employee has basically made his or her decision not to wear the supplied gear. There should be as much importance placed on employee negligence as on employer negligence. Although I endorse many aspects of this bill, I do have concerns about others. I do not know of anyone who would deny that WorkCover is an essential part of looking after the welfare of all employees, and in tragic circumstances their families, but I am not so sure that this bill looks at the big picture. Unfortunately for me, I am able to see both sides of this debate. While recognising the concerns of the opposition, I acknowledge the government's reasoning behind the bill. I have been torn between both valid arguments. Although my heart would vote for this bill, my concerns for employees and employers as a whole caused me to hesitate. WorkCover as it is has its faults and this bill has its faults. It needs to be more balanced. It pains me to not be able to support this bill wholeheartedly, but I will support it with reservations. Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.51 p.m.), in reply: Firstly, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill. In particular, I thank my colleagues on the government side of the House. A number of issues have been raised in the debate, and I will address those. The bill before the House today will improve the operation of the workers compensation scheme. This delivers on a key election commitment made by us during the last campaign. In 1999 we introduced amendments to repeal the more harsh restrictions placed on workers by the coalition in 1997, widening the coverage for workers and reintroducing a fair definition of 'injury'. The honourable member for Bulimba spoke about that. In our 2001 election commitment we committed to improving common law processes and increasing statutory benefits through a second stage of reforms. These reforms have been approved by the WorkCover board, have been fully costed and will be able to be fully funded from within the existing and projected WorkCover funds. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3065

In summary, the key reforms introduced by this bill include: the maintenance of all workers' rights to proceed to common law while minimising legal costs for less seriously injured workers; the establishment of a new pre-proceedings process for common law claims; the restoration of common law principles of contributory negligence; ensuring compulsory attendance for rehabilitation for workers proceeding to seek damages claims; the repeal of limitations on damages able to be awarded by the court; the introduction of fairer and simpler provisions for the awarding of costs; and clarification of the role of medical assessment tribunals to determine matters of a medical nature only. These amendments will increase benefits to injured workers and their dependants for all injuries that occur after 1 July this year. The government does not consider the retrospective application of such beneficial legislation to offend fundamental legislative principles. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has taken the same view and has written to me advising of its agreement. These increases will ensure that the Queensland scheme provides entitlements for injured workers and their dependants that are fair and comparable with the schemes of other Australian states. I will now address some of the matters raised by honourable members during the course of the debate. The honourable member for Keppel raised a number of issues. The first related to the financial state of the fund. As I indicated to the House this morning when I tabled the WorkCover annual report, I am very pleased to indicate that WorkCover Queensland has had yet another successful year, with improved services to workers and the lowest employer premiums in the country while at the same time continuing its strong financial position. It is no secret that the WorkCover fund did face financial difficulties during the mid-1990s. Fortunately, the fund has returned from a reported deficit of $290 million in 1996 to an operating surplus of $219 million in the year 1999-2000 and an operating surplus of $191.9 million for the financial year ending 30 June 2001. This has increased the scheme's equity position from $519.4 million last year to almost $600 million this year. This has not occurred overnight, and the current healthy status of the fund is due to a number of factors, including capital injections from government, an employer surcharge introduced under Labor, improved investment returns and sound and sensible reforms to the scheme. Since Labor came to office in 1998 we have been able to return some of the successes of the scheme to its stakeholders. After three successive reductions, Queensland employers now enjoy by far the lowest average employer premium rate of any Australian state scheme—a reduction to 1.55 per cent, saving employers an estimated $120 million in premiums annually. The rates in other states are Western Australia, 2.97 per cent; Tasmania, 2.9 per cent; South Australia, 2.86 per cent; New South Wales, 2.8 per cent; and Victoria at 2.22 per cent. Ours is the only scheme in Australia that is well in the black. This strong financial position has also allowed the development of a package of improvements to injured workers benefits under the scheme contained in this bill. The amendments were developed with the full cooperation of the WorkCover board, its chairperson and chief executive officer. WorkCover's actuary, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has costed the package of improvements and advised that additional costs can be accommodated by the scheme without the need to increase employers' premium rates. The financial analysis by the WorkCover board and the scheme's actuary has factored in both a projection of increased claims costs and conservative estimates for future investment returns. Further, the WorkCover board has indicated that premiums can be maintained at the most competitive level in this country. The current premium rates have been locked in for both this year and the next assessing year. The second issue raised by the honourable member for Keppel relates to the actual amount of statutory payments available under the bill. The increase from $103,100 to $127,900 for the maximum statutory amount of compensation reflects CPI adjustments from 1996 to 1 July 2001. In practice, this updates the legislation to reflect what is currently being paid under regulation. This bill then, in accordance with the government's 2001 election policy, increases the actual maximum payable from $127,900 to $150,000, ensuring that Queensland benefits are in line with those of other state schemes. Our election policy guarantees that, like employers, workers share in the benefits of the success of the WorkCover scheme. This bill will ensure that that does occur. The next issue raised by the honourable member related to the increase in the minimum premium payable under a WorkCover policy. I will clarify it for the parliament. There has been some concern about the increase in the minimum premium policy from $60 to $120, effective since 1 July this year. The WorkCover board approved this increase in February this year—an increase in the minimum premium payable for a workers compensation policy for the first time in 3066 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001 five years, from $60 to $103.90. The new minimum of $103.90 attracts GST of $10.39 and stamp duty of $5.71, making $120 the actual amount payable. During WorkCover's annual review of the experience based rating system and associated consultation with industry and policyholder representatives last year, it was identified that in today's market the $60 minimum premium has proven insufficient to cover the administrative costs of writing and maintaining a workers compensation insurance policy. The cost of providing a workers compensation policy—regardless of the minimum premium—is estimated to be at least $120. This was the figure recommended by the Kennedy inquiry five years ago. Even without indexing this amount to today's prices, the new minimum of $103.90 is still below that 1996 estimate. The new minimum price of $103.90 plus the GST is still lower than in most other Australian jurisdictions and is not, we believe, an unreasonable amount to charge for a full year's cover. To further clarify, minimum premium policies relate only to a small number of employers in the WorkCover fund. For example, many sole traders would take out the minimum premium policy to cover the need to employ casual labour if the need arises. While the sole trader would pay only the $103.90 plus the GST at the beginning of the financial year for their policy, they would declare any wages paid at the end for the assessment of the appropriate premium. The honourable member also raised some concerns about the restoration of the repeal of the unfair and harsh restrictions placed on the courts by the coalition in 1996 in determining common law damages. The bill restores the discretion of the courts to determine aspects of common law claims, including awarding damages for future economic loss, interest on damages, mitigating loss provisions and contributory negligence on the basis of the individual case. To ensure this discretion is balanced, the bill also includes a new mandatory provision that all injured workers seeking damages are required to participate in rehabilitation. Moreover, WorkCover may make rehabilitation available to the worker and may do so without admitting liability in relation to damages. This new provision for rehabilitation is in addition to the worker having an obligation to participate in rehabilitation under the statutory scheme. The bill reinforces the mutual obligation for all injured workers to mitigate loss caused by their injury. The next issues that I wish to address are in response to questions raised by the honourable member for Gladstone. The honourable member raised some matters relating to increases in employer premiums. The current experience-based rating system was introduced in 1997. Since that time, the system has been reviewed a number of times to ensure it fairly reflects the claims experience of the individual employer and the risk of their undertaking. Workers compensation rates are set to best reflect the risk associated with the individual employer's undertaking within an industry. The variations in premium are driven by claims experience, with higher premiums for those employers with poor claims experience. Conversely, employers with improved claims experience will pay a reduced premium. Higher premiums may also result from poor claims experience within any particular industry. The member for Gladstone also mentioned that the contributory negligence provisions introduced by the coalition in 1997 reversed the traditional onus of proof in common law claims. Under this bill, the ability to consider a worker's negligence will be returned to the court when assessing their overall claim, ensuring the courts consider all of the circumstances of the individual case, including the negligence of the employer and the actions of the worker. The bill also provides examples where a court could make a finding of contributory negligence against a worker. These examples include a refusal on the part of a worker to wear provided safety equipment. The honourable member also raised issues relating to the Medical Assessment Tribunals. The Medical Assessment Tribunals are an integral part of Queensland's workers compensation system for the assessment of medical issues. This bill clarifies the powers and obligations of the MATs by requiring that the tribunal is to provide reasons for decisions for all matters decided by the tribunal and that the tribunal now has the ability to refer matters of a non-medical nature back to the insurer for determination. These amendments will ensure that the Medical Assessment Tribunals are more accountable in their decision making and that they only make decisions of a medical nature. Where a claimant believes the tribunal has erred in reaching its decision, the bill also clarifies that they can pursue the matter through the judicial review processes. I would also take the opportunity to point out recent changes which have been made to the selection processes for the Medical Assessment Tribunals. When the Medical Assessment Tribunals were originally established there were no formal or transparent selection processes for 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3067 tribunal members. This left the tribunals open to criticism on the basis that members were appointed by WorkCover and would bias their decisions in favour of WorkCover. To address this perception, a totally new selection process has been developed which is aimed at ensuring the open and transparent selection of the best and most highly qualified medical practitioners as tribunal members. The selection panel comprises people from Q-Comp, the Queensland Council of Unions, the Australian Industry Group—the employer organisation—the AMA itself and specialist college representatives. Medical Assessment Tribunal medical specialists have been appointed on the basis that they are considered to be of the same or similar standing as the medical specialists used by WorkCover and self-insurers for medical examinations. Medical Assessment Tribunal medical specialists are required to make medical assessments and decisions which take precedence over the previous assessments of their peers. This new appointment process recognises that, as medical decisions of the MATs are final, it is fundamental to the effectiveness and efficiency of the MATs that only medical specialists of high standing within their medical specialty are appointed. Further, a procedural code of practice has been developed to highlight the need for fair and reasonable management of workers in the tribunal setting. The procedural code has been incorporated as part of the appointment by Governor in Council and adherence to the code will be monitored by the tribunal secretariat. With regard to the comment from a constituent solicitor—while the bill maintains the six- month period for WorkCover to consider a common law damages claim before admitting liability, it provides a new obligation on the parties to ensure that WorkCover deals with the claim expeditiously and without undue technicality and expense to the worker. Additionally, all other statutory administrative time frames have been halved to help support this new objective. I am happy to speak with the honourable member further to address the particular concerns raised by the lawyer referred to in debate, and I will do that as soon as possible. In conclusion, I again thank all honourable members for their contributions during the debate on this, we believe, very beneficial legislation. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank members of my staff, the department of course and WorkCover who have been involved in the development of this bill. The reforms contained in the bill have undergone extensive consultation with employer groups, unions, the legal profession, self-insurers, government departments and members of the judiciary. I thank all stakeholders for their valuable input during the development of this piece of legislation. This legislation continues the Beattie Labor government's commitment to a viable workers compensation system where employers' premiums remain at competitive levels and where injured workers' benefits rates are amongst the best in Australia. Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hopper, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Pratt, Reeves, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, D. Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 13—Copeland, Flynn, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) in charge of the bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr LESTER (5.16 p.m.): When the 1996 bill was introduced, this clause was intended to provide for the mutual obligation of both employers and employees in relation to ensuring the safety of all workers. I note with concern the repealing of that clause and the subsequent changes to the mutual obligation considerations. I flag here the concerns that the National Party has with these changes to the intent of the original bill. We must all work together to make Queensland greater. We believe that the rescinding of this provision simply does not help that principle. 3068 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

Mr NUTTALL: I believe that I adequately addressed the issue raised by the honourable member in my reply to the debate. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr LESTER (5.17 p.m.): I have a question regarding the nature of the changes in the definition of 'injury'. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members, I have just been advised by the minister that he cannot hear the shadow minister's comments. Could I ask for less audible conversation in the chamber. I would really appreciate that. Mr LESTER: I have a question regarding the nature of the changes to the definition of 'injury'. Does the repealing of the definition of 'certificate injury' and 'non-certificate injury' change, in effect, the cut-off for the need to irrevocably choose between common law access and a lump sum? Mr NUTTALL: No, it does not. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8— Mr LESTER (5.18 p.m.): I seek clarification on this clause. As I stated in my contribution in the second reading debate, I have been given three different amounts for the present maximum entitlement for injury. Could the minister please clarify whether the figure of $103,100 is correct? Mr NUTTALL: That figure of $103,100 has been increased to $127,900 in line with increases in the CPI. Then we have increased that further from $127,900 to $150,000. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr NUTTALL (5.19 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 1— 1. Clause 10— At page 10, line 8, before '255'— insert— '253(3),'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr NUTTALL (5.19 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 2— 2. Clause 11— At page 10, lines 18 and 20, after 'injury'— insert— 'from an event'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr NUTTALL (5.19 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 3— 3. Clause 12— At page 11, lines 8 and 10, after 'injury'— insert— 'from an event'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3069

Clause 13— Mr LESTER (5.19 p.m.): This clause, like clause 8, raises injury payouts by 45 per cent. We have the same objection to this clause as we had to clause 8. If the WorkCover fund is bankrupted by inappropriate charges such as this one, we will hurt those whom we are supposed to protect—the workers. We want to see as much help given as possible. We just think that is a little bit much. Mr NUTTALL: I have spoken on that issue in the debate today. All these increases have been assessed by the actuary of the scheme. They have indicated that all the increases can be covered within the current fund. If we look at the sound financial position of the scheme as outlined in the annual report that was submitted today, we see that that covers the issue raised by the honourable member. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clause 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr LESTER (5.22 p.m.): Like a number of earlier clauses, this clause drastically increases the statutory compensation payable. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the National Party would love to support this clause. If the increases had been reasonable, we would have been the first on our feet to applaud and support it. We believe it is reasonable to be in line with the consumer price index. I know that the minister has answered that point. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clauses 16 and 17, as read, agreed to. Clause 18— Mr NUTTALL (5.23 p.m.): I move government amendments Nos 4 and 5— 4. Clause 18— At page 13, line 5, from 'has elected' to line 7, 'election'— omit, insert— 'has a WRI of 20% or more or, under section 255,1 the worker has elected to seek damages'. 5. Clause 18— At page 13, lines 20 to 27— omit, insert— ' '(d) the worker, if the worker has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury; or'. '(5) Section 253(3)— renumber as section 253(5). '(6) Section 253— insert— '(3) If a worker— (a) is required under section 255 to make an election to seek damages for an injury; and (b) has accepted an offer of payment of lump sum compensation under chapter 3, part 9, division 3 2 for the injury; the worker is not entitled under subsection (1)(a)(ii) to seek damages. '(4) However, subsection (3) does not prevent a worker from seeking damages under section 274.3'.'.

1 Section 255 (Worker who is required to make election to seek damages) 2 Chapter 3 (Compensation), part 9 (Entitlement to compensation for permanent impairment), division 3 (Notification of assessment of permanent impairment)

3 Section 274 (Decision not to seek damages reviewable in certain circumstances) Amendments agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, agreed to. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20— Mr NUTTALL (5.23 p.m.): I move government amendments Nos 6 to 13— 6. Clause 20— At page 20, lines 8 to 10— omit, insert— 3070 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

'(2) The claimant must discontinue the proceeding if the claimant— (a) is required under section 255 to make an election to seek damages for the injury; and (b) accepts an offer of payment of lump sum compensation under chapter 3, part 9, division 3 for the injury.'. 7. Clause 20— At page 21, lines 23 and 24— omit, insert— '(b) the claimant— (i) is required under section 255 to make an election to seek damages for the injury; and (ii) accepts an offer of payment of lump sum compensation under chapter 3, part 9, division 3 for the injury.'. 8. Clause 20— At page 22, lines 7 to 14— omit, insert— '(1) The claimant may seek damages for the injury only if WorkCover— (a) decides that the claimant—'. 9. Clause 20— At page 22, line 17, 'every'— omit, insert— 'the'. 10. Clause 20— At page 24, line 23— omit, insert— '(1) The claimant may seek damages for the injury only if any of the'. 11. Clause 20— At page 27, line 10, after '20%'— insert— 'or no WRI'. 12. Clause 20— At page 27, line 13, 'section 207,42'— omit, insert— 'section 207,4'. 13. Clause 20— At page 27, lines 16 and 17— omit, insert— 'sustained a degree of permanent impairment that— (i) results in a WRI of the worker of less than 20%; or (ii) does not result in any WRI of the worker.'.'.

4 Section 207 (Worker's decision about lump sum compensation—WRI less than 20% or no WRI) Amendments agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, agreed to. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr LESTER (5.23 p.m.): At present, there is an onus on the worker to prove that they took all reasonable steps to mitigate injury. If the court believes that the worker has failed in this obligation, damages should be reduced commensurately in order to reflect this failure. This amendment repeals that onus. This reduces the mutual obligation requirements of the act. We must work together to ensure the safety of Queenslanders. Some responsibility should be held by both sides of the equation. Much responsibility lies with the employer. This onus was not too much for the employee to bear. Mr NUTTALL: The common law duty of mitigation of loss still applies to all workers in relation to claims or proceedings for damages. There is still an onus on the worker. I beg your pardon: there is not the onus on the worker. That was a mistake on my part. The common law duty of mitigation of loss applies to all workers in relation to claims or proceedings for damages. Clause 22, as read, agreed to. 18 Oct 2001 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 3071

Clause 23— Mr LESTER (5.25 p.m.): I would like to take this opportunity to express our support in the application of the uniform civil procedures rules to WorkCover procedures. The UCPR has had great success throughout the court system in facilitating expeditiously resolutions of claims with the minimum of expense. Clause 23, as read, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 36, as read, agreed to. Clause 37— Mr LESTER (5.26 p.m.): We strongly oppose this amendment. As I stated in my contribution to the second reading debate, there is a need for mutual obligation in ensuring the safety of Queensland workers. I have a serious concern that by repealing these sections of the WorkCover Queensland Act, it will not be consistent with the aims of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. In order to provide a safe workplace, it is commonsense that the employer and the employee should work together. However, if the worker does something unsafe in contravention of the employer's instructions, the burden of liability should either be shared or fall upon the worker. We strongly object to this clause on behalf of all Queenslanders and we will have to oppose the clause. Mr NUTTALL: That is the issue of contributory negligence. I addressed that issue in my response to the debate today. I have nothing further to add. Question—That clause 37, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Hollis, Hopper, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, D. Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 13—Copeland, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 38— Mr NUTTALL (5.34 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 14— 14. Clause 38— At page 41, lines 1 to 5— omit, insert— ' 38 Omission of s 316 (Damages other than to claimant) 'Section 316— omit.'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 38, as amended, agreed to. Clause 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr LESTER (5.34 p.m.): As I flagged in my speech during the second reading debate, this clause is contrary to the best interests of Queensland as a whole. This will repeal the need for there to be a 51 per cent likelihood of future economic loss or diminution of future earning capacity before damages for such can be awarded. Therefore, the balance of probabilities will no longer apply. Instead, this will be at the court's discretion. This amendment risks such damages becoming a common addition with no real basis. The amount paid out in damages could blow out astronomically. The rate of interest paid will also no longer be fettered, but will be at the court's discretion. We have serious concerns regarding this lack of statutory oversight. On both grounds we strongly object to this clause. Mr NUTTALL: We are simply returning this to the discretion of the courts. We believe that is the correct and right thing to do. Question—That clause 40, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, Croft, Cummins, E. Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Hollis, Hopper, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, 3072 WorkCover Queensland Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2001

Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, D. Scott, Shine, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 13—Copeland, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 41 to 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr NUTTALL (5.42 p.m.): I move government amendments Nos 15 and 16— 15. Clause 44— At page 44, line 7, '273A(1)(b)(ii) or 273E(1)(b)(iii)'— omit, insert— '273A(1)(a)(ii) or 273E(1)(b)(iii) or (iv)'. 16. Clause 44— At page 44, after line 9— insert— '(4) Section 437(h) and (i)— renumber as section 437(g) and (h). ' 44A Amendment of s 440 (Reference about worker's injury) 'Section 440— insert— '(3) Also, if the reference relates to a worker's injury under section 273E(1)(b)(iii) or (iv), the tribunal must decide whether— (a) the deceased worker sustained an injury in the event; and (b) the injury caused the worker's death. ' 44B Amendment of s 442 (Reference about worker's permanent impairment) 'Section 442(1), 'or (ea)'— omit. ' 44C Omission of s 444 (Reference about application for damages certificate by dependant) 'Section 444— omit. ' 44D Amendment of s 445 (Reference about review of worker's permanent impairment) 'Section 445(1), 'section 437(h)— omit, insert— 'section 437(g)'. ' 44E Amendment of s 445A (Assessment of additional compensation for prescribed disfigurement) 'Section 445A(1), 'section 437(i)'— omit, insert— 'section 437(h)'.'. Amendments agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, agreed to. Clause 45— Mr NUTTALL (5.42 p.m.): I move government amendments Nos 17 to 19— 17. Clause 45— At page 44, line 14, after 'injury'— insert— 'if the reference is not about a matter mentioned in section 274'. 18. Clause 45— At page 44, line 15, before 'non-certificate'— insert— 'a'. 19. Clause 45— At page 44, line 17, before 'WRI'— insert— 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3073

'an injury resulting in a'. Amendments agreed to. Clause 45, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 46 and 47, as read, agreed to. Clause 48— Mr NUTTALL (5.43 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 20— 20. Clause 48— At page 45, lines 18 and 22, and page 46, line 3, '273A(1)(b)(i)'— omit, insert— '273A(1)(a)(i)'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 48, as amended, agreed to. Clause 49, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr NUTTALL (5.43 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 21— 21. After clause 49— At page 46, after line 11— insert— ' 49A Amendment of s 499 (Procedure for appeal) '(1) Section 499(7)— renumber as section 499(8). '(2) Section 499— insert— '(7) If the appellant is an employer, the appellant must also serve a copy of the notice on the claimant or worker.'.'. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 50 and 51, as read, agreed to. Clause 52— Mr NUTTALL (5.44 p.m.): I move government amendment No. 22— 22. Clause 52— At page 48, line 7, '1 July'— omit, insert— '30 June'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 52, as amended, agreed to. Clause 53, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments.

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

GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL Second Reading Resumed from 11 September (see p. 2568). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (5.46 p.m.): The opposition will be supporting the Gene Technology Bill 2001 because it seeks to establish a nationally compliant regulatory regime for the modification of organisms. We know that there is a lot of concern right throughout the world at the moment, and certainly that concern has been evident to many members of parliament throughout Australia and across Queensland over the past few years as the use of technology has increased. The capacity of scientists to manipulate genes is something which is 3074 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001 occupying the minds of many people in the community. We know that for some hundreds, if not thousands, of years the issue of breeding new organisms by cross-breeding and the available technology of the day has proven extremely and extraordinarily worth while to the advancement of humankind. However, I think the thing that is most disturbing to a lot of people in this day and age is that our capacity to modify organisms and genes for whatever purpose has become much greater with the advent of new technology. Of course, we have all sorts of new technologies which we have discovered and used this century, including electron microscopes. Our capacity to study things right down to atomic level is something that has become very obvious. The use of particle accelerators and all of their extended uses not only in medicine but also in food technology and electronics is something which we are now seeing enjoyed and employed a whole lot more. Having said that, it is extremely important that we do not seek to choke off the capacity for the advancement that does come from molecular biology—the ability to modify genes for the advancement of humankind insofar as medicine, food and disease control are concerned. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister very much for the briefing that he provided to members of the opposition and our staff the other day. His departmental officers were extremely professional and I learnt a great deal. The information that they imparted was at a level that we could all understand. In a very short period of time I was able to understand the motivation behind and the genesis of the bill that we are debating here in parliament. I ask the minister to relay to those officers of his department and also his ministerial office our very great thanks. It was a very beneficial briefing. The states, the territories and the Commonwealth are moving to ensure that we have this cooperative regime. Until recent times, in Australia we have had basically a voluntary regime when it has come to regulating the manipulation of genes. However, once something has gone beyond that to the marketing of a food or the actual marketing and sale of medicinal products, there has been a post-approval process. That post-approval and monitoring process is operated through our National Food Authority and our Therapeutic Goods Administration. The real concern, of course, in bringing this to parliament—and we can look back to the fact that it has now been on the drawing board since 1995—was to fill in the facts, to take it one or two steps back from the actual marketing and, I suppose, the general mass production of the product which is supposed to benefit our community at large. We do know that the majority of the work which does cause concern, the majority of the work which needs investment and regulation, happens at that early stage. When people are involved in molecular biology, genetic research and manipulation, it can take months or, more likely, years to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, it is extremely important to have a regime in place that ensures that regulations and processes of licensing and accreditation exist at that very early stage. I have very little doubt that the majority of people who are involved in gene technology are very scrupulous. They are involved for a range of reasons that relate to advancing our society. At the end of the day I suppose one also must concede—and I am sure the minister will acknowledge this—that there is a commercial imperative. But commercial imperatives are not really a bad thing. In a society which is about opportunity, it is about creating something better than the products that are already available to the community at large. It is important to ensure that, when people are involved in research and potentially involved in genetic manipulation, there are processes in place to regulate it. Earlier I said that cross-breeding and genetic manipulation, even though probably more by conventional means, has been going on for a long time. Mr Lucas: Tens of thousands of years. Mr SPRINGBORG: Absolutely. Take today's cattle as an example, because we only need to look at the vast difference between them and what they evolved from in Europe, Asia or Africa. It is the same with the dogs running around our houses, yards and streets in this day and age, because in many cases they came from wolves. It is hard to imagine a chihuahua evolving from a wolf, but it has got to that stage after hundreds and thousands of years of careful selection and cross-breeding. Let us also take today's high-yielding crops as an example with their very high protein levels. Many of those came from a process of observation and selection many decades, centuries and millennia ago, because modern wheat and oats bear very little resemblance to that which existed thousands of years ago. It was only by very careful observation and the fact that people learnt to understand how to cross-breed not only plants but also animals that we have been able to get to the stage we are at today. 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3075

I say this to those people who may be concerned about advancing even further from where we are now by using the latest in modern technology: if it were not for those breakthroughs in observation, selection and breeding, we would not necessarily have gone on from the hunter- gatherer society of thousands of years ago to the highly industrialised, highly commercialised and, in many ways, highly urbanised society that we are today. Thousands of years ago there was the desire to move from that hunter-gatherer existence to domesticating animals and growing crops. In turn, that freed up people to discover all sorts of other things. It allowed for the creation of ironmongers and those involved in the production of metals and a whole range of other things. Some of it may not necessarily have been for the long-term good, but the majority of it was. I think we would all say that we would prefer to live the existence that we do today, because the average age of a male is 75 and the average age of a female is 80. We also enjoy relatively good health and good opportunities, and that is because we have been able to use our brains, intelligence, technology and research. Nevertheless, this legislation recognises the need to regulate. When dealing with the issue of genetically modified organisms, there are a number of steps, and I loosely referred to them before. They include research, development and marketing. This has resulted in the setting up of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to oversee the regulations relating to the development of genetically modified organisms. As I understand it, there will be a three-stage process which will involve licensing, accreditation and certification. Accreditation, certification and licensing to varying degrees will depend upon the level of containment and the level of specific oversight required for that individual or that company undertaking the research. It is important to point out here today that we are not just dealing with multinational companies or major companies; we are also dealing with individuals and very small groupings of individuals who have the expertise to do this sort of stuff, because there are many extremely innovative people out there. On a slightly different note, at Woomera they are going to test the scramjet engine. That started off as something relatively small. Things do not always have to have their gestation in a huge company or aircraft hanger in Australia or overseas; they can start at a very small level. As I said, the job of the Gene Technology Regulator will be to ensure that the appropriate risk assessment and risk containment procedures are put in place, and that of course will depend upon the level of risk which is deemed to apply to the work being undertaken by that person that has been licensed, accredited and certified. Another very important aspect of this legislation is that it provides expert advisory committees and community advisory committees, and that is extremely important. The regulator alone cannot necessarily be expected to have all the knowledge required to make the decisions. I note that the minister will also have a role of involvement and oversight in any of these processes but is more at arm's length. Of course, he would have to be guardian of the government's interest and also the community interest when it comes to many of these matters. It is important that we have people who have expertise and backgrounds in dealing with a whole range of issues, whether they be geneticists or molecular biologists. Another important aspect when dealing with this is the issue of ethics, and an ethics committee will be involved as well. We have to understand that values change and what people feel is unacceptable today may not be unacceptable in one, two, 10 or 20 years time. That is inevitable. It is a bit like social policy, an issue that we discuss and legislate on in this parliament from time to time. The things we do in this day and age would have been considered very innovative and somewhat more than progressive 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Of course, this same situation will be the case when dealing with genetically modified organisms, experimentation with genes and some of the wonderful things to come from that. There are always debates as to whether it is ethical to transfer a gene from a mammal to a plant or from a plant to a mammal and whether we should transfer human genes to another commercial animal or vice versa. I feel a little uncomfortable about some of those issues, and I suppose it is difficult to say today if my level of comfort is based on the fact that I am inherently biased or somewhat unreasonably concerned about these things. Some people may be more concerned than I am. However, I can indicate to the parliament that on a whole lot of issues in relation to gene swapping I am probably far more progressive and innovative than a lot of people who hold far more conservative views, not in the traditional term of conservative parlance but conservative insofar as genetic experimentation is concerned. I note that over the years there has been experimentation with putting into crops genes that stop certain animals from freezing. That may provide protection against frost and may be applicable in a whole range of other areas. I think it is extremely important that we look at these 3076 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001 possibilities. Nevertheless, there are ethical issues involved. I refer to some of the other good innovations of recent times. One is the cotton developed by Monsanto—that has not occurred in this country, of course—which is designed to have some sort of resistance to the heliothis grub, which causes hundreds of millions of dollars damage to the cotton industry each year and necessitates the significant use of chemicals. We need to strike a balance. The minister is very aware of this. Mr Lucas: Spraying is a big issue in some of those communities. Mr SPRINGBORG: The minister is absolutely right. Spraying is a big issue, particularly when producers are spraying crops a dozen or two dozen times—applying a fair amount of chemical, even though there are best practice manuals. This does not apply just to the cotton industry; it applies to the fruit and vegetable industry and a whole range of others. It is not in the interests of growers of a commercial crop to harm anyone. We know that the checks and balances put in place by the government, by the Health Department and by other government agencies do protect our consumers in general. The reason for spraying is that it is the only way to produce a commercially viable crop that can get to the shelf in a condition satisfactory to consumers, even though they might have some reticence about the application of chemicals. We know what it is like: people want the best quality. They do not want any specks on their produce. The produce may look good, but sometimes to make it look good producers have to apply chemicals. I listened to the contribution of the member for Glass House yesterday on the chicken industry. Certainly vaccinations are extremely important in that industry. A lot of people might not necessarily appreciate that, but producers need to ensure that their birds are in tip-top condition in order to make a commercial return. It is also in the best interests of the animals, because the result of not vaccinating is rather inhumane. Generally we do not think twice about our own vaccination or that of our children. If we look at the development of vaccines over probably 150 years, we see that it has resulted in the eradication of small pox from the general population and the virtual eradication of things such as polio. Hopefully that disease will be eradicated in the next two or three years. That has happened as a result of a very innovative approach and we think nothing of that. We probably tend to take those sorts of things for granted. The sort of work which will be undertaken by the individuals or companies involved in this technology has application for pharmaceuticals—for the development of new across-the-counter prescriptions and for vaccines, which are extremely important as we go about facing some of the real challenges that we wish we did not have to face. We do know that viruses in particular are extremely adaptable. To date we have not been able to combat those successfully. As we advance further with technology, we may be able to do that. This technology may also be beneficial in relation to bacteria. Scientists always have to be aware of and involved in research to deal with these issues. We are lucky. The minister and the government have referred to the fact that there are people in Queensland who are at the forefront of the development of pharmaceuticals and a whole range of other things. We need to do whatever we possibly can to encourage them and not constrain them. The community is also represented on advisory committees. As I indicated earlier, ethics are extremely important, but the views of the community at large are extremely important in the consideration of any recommendation. While the Gene Technology Regulator is not necessarily bound to accept and act upon the advice provided by the advisory committees, I hasten to say that it would not be in their best interests to ignore that advice. We have a process of ministerial advisory committees, and government ministers take advice from them. They might not necessarily accept all of that advice, but generally, because it comes from a broad cross-section of people—people expert in a particular industry or field and from the community—that advice is listened to very carefully. We cannot have a system which prescribes that all advice must be taken literally, because there are policy considerations and other issues which the Gene Technology Regulator may be aware of and may need to take into consideration. I also understand that it will be possible for the advisory committees to request that a policy be developed. I think that is extremely important. Let us say there is general concern amongst all of the committees about the transferral of human genes into some other organism or about some manipulation of human genes; they feel that that is an issue we should not necessarily pursue. I understand that general policy recommending against that particular practice could be introduced. A whole range of other different scenarios could apply. I think that is important. That is how I interpret this, and I stand to be corrected if the minister wishes to clarify it in any other way. 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3077

If an individual or company wishing to undertake genetic research or modification is aggrieved by a decision of the Gene Technology Regulator, then it will be possible for them to ask for a process of internal review to be conducted. I think that is important. If they are still aggrieved by the decision, then depending upon the level of responsibility, shared or otherwise—this is a national regime—there is an opportunity for judicial review and recourse to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which is a Commonwealth body. During their briefing I asked officers of the department whether, when Queensland has its own administrative appeals tribunal in some future time—the Attorney-General is looking at that at the moment—some of that responsibility may be taken on. That is a possibility. There are significant penalties for serious breaches—as much as $1 million. I think it is important that those penalties are in place when we are dealing with the issue of genetically modified organisms and the potential for breaches and also in light of the possibility of bioterrorism, which the minister himself has talked about. It is important to have penalties in place in order to deal with people who wish to abuse the provisions of the bill currently before us. I note that at some future time there will be other issues which this parliament will have to consider. While they are not a portfolio responsibility of this minister, they nevertheless are issues of some concern. There will need to be a national response to the matter of human cloning, something I think many of us are very concerned about and have different views on for various ethical and moral reasons. I think I know the majority view of the Australian population at this time. In conclusion, it is important to have this legislation in place. We know that some of these issues relating to crops and other organisms being modified are causing community concern. I was aware a year or so ago of an organisation in the United Kingdom which I understand destroyed a research crop of genetically modified corn. People cannot take the law into their own hands. It is up to the government to decide on an appropriate level of experimentation. Just because somebody does not like what is happening does not mean they should have the capacity to destroy it. There are a lot of things that I do not like in life, but I respect the law as it exists. Concerns were also expressed with regard to suicide genes, which have been put into some plants and which make it impossible for the plants to produce viable seed. That has been of concern, and I hear about it in my electorate. What happens if there is the capacity for crosspollination? Does that mean that if the gene gets into similar plants in the wild, it will stop those plants from being able to produce viable seed? I do not necessarily share that concern but, nevertheless, we need to be aware of it. That is why we are putting a progressive bill before the parliament—something which seeks to ensure a proper national regime for the regulation of genetically modified organisms and the research that goes on behind them. No doubt we will have to come back to the parliament in the future to amend this when issues which we are unable to consider today for whatever reason—we are probably not even aware of them—come to the fore and the minister and his colleagues from the other states, territories and the Commonwealth will need to sit down and consider them. I have pleasure in supporting the bill and commend the minister for bringing it before the parliament. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (6.10 p.m.): I am very pleased to take this opportunity to speak to the Gene Technology Bill. During the development of the national gene technology regulatory scheme, Queensland played a leading role in ensuring that the scheme met public expectations and that the bill addressed Queensland legislative standards. It is vital, if Queensland is to embrace biotechnology, that the industry exists within a strong, transparent, ethical framework which addresses community concerns. This bill will establish the Queensland legislative component of a nationally consistent scheme for regulating dealings with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Queenslanders will be able to enjoy the advantages of the biotechnology revolution while being confident about the oversight scheme guaranteeing their safety. The Gene Technology Bill provides the state's component of a nationally consistent regulatory scheme to protect the public health and safety of people and to protect the environment from risks associated with gene technology. Gene technology involving scientific techniques for manipulating DNA has huge potential benefits for the health and wealth of Queenslanders, and this legislation recognises that it is vital not only that Queenslanders benefit from GMOs but that they control the process. 3078 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001

The national scheme is underpinned by an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and territories and will be established by Commonwealth legislation and complementary legislation in each of the states and territories. Through the intergovernmental agreement on gene technology, a ministerial council has been established to oversee the operation of the scheme. The council will consist of one or more ministers from each jurisdiction. In Queensland, Minister Lucas will lead the government representation. I am sure that I speak for all members of the House in saying that I have absolute confidence that the minister will provide great input to that national scheme. He is clearly very, very on top of his material and, in establishing this new department, has given Queensland a leading edge nationally. The council will settle policies and policy guidelines to guide the regulator in her decision making as well as codes of practice and standards for persons conducting dealings with GMOs. As I mentioned earlier, one of the aims of this bill is to ensure the continued involvement of the public in this process. The Gene Technology Bill establishes a framework for a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management system. This framework involves greater and broader opportunity for public input than is the case currently for the regulation of food, therapeutics and drugs, agricultural and veterinary chemicals and industrial chemicals. The bill demonstrates how the involvement of the community can shape regulatory direction. It is inclusive legislation which recognises that the Smart State is not just a slogan but a blueprint for a populace actively involved with building our society's future. All applications involving the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment will be made available to anyone who wishes to see and comment on them. This openness and accountability is essential for public support for this new industry. This information will form the development of a risk management plan by the Gene Technology Regulator which will then be available for further public comment before being finalised. The development of the national gene technology regulatory scheme has involved already extensive public consultation, and I am glad to have the opportunity to acknowledge the wide range of sectors and organisations that have contributed to the development of this world-class regulatory system. Based on public consultancy, it was decided that the Gene Technology Regulator must be independent, and the position has therefore been established as a statutory office holder with powers and independence akin to that of the Auditor-General or the Ombudsman. That power and independence will be welcomed as providing an important protection for the public. Another matter on which there was complete agreement from industry and the environmental and consumer groups was that the need for the protection of the public health and the environment was to come before all other considerations. Accordingly, the object of the bill is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment by identifying risks posed by, or as a result of, gene technology and by managing the risks by regulating certain dealings with GMOs. The regulatory scheme also establishes a centralised and publicly available database for the recording of all approvals of GMOs and GM products—the record of GMOs and GM product dealings. This database will include information about all licences issued by the Gene Technology Regulator and all notifications given to the regulator by other regulators about GM products approved for sale in Australia. In conclusion, members of the public can have a direct say in the policy direction of the regulatory scheme through the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee, which comprises individuals with skills and experience in a wide range of areas, including environmental issues, consumer issues and issues relevant to the biotechnology industry and gene technology research. The Gene Technology Bill has been formulated as a result of input from the public and will ensure that Queenslanders are well informed about, and have ongoing input into, the functioning of the Gene Technology Regulator. I congratulate the minister and his ministerial and departmental staff on the swift introduction of this important legislation to the House and commend the bill to all members. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.16 p.m.): I acknowledge the content of the bill to the extent of its safety mechanisms and its regulatory framework. However, I want to put on the record some concerns that have been expressed to me—mainly in conversation with people— about GMOs for Australia in particular. My concern in general is that any artificial involvement in human GMOs will have unintended consequences in the future. I do not say that as a fatalist, 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3079 and I certainly do not say it as somebody who wants to wish failure onto this country, but I say it because we are becoming involved in an area of science that is quite completely unknown and which—in particular in the area of human DNA—may have unintended consequences that could have future health impacts. I want to put on the record the concerns that have been expressed to me about Australia's involvement in genetically modified organisms, particularly in the horticultural field but in any field. I acknowledge that worldwide this is a sphere of science that other countries are moving into, and my comments are not intended to make Australia backward or not prepared to be the smart country or the Smart State. This is intended to be, in a global sense, a consideration of problems that have been encountered in other countries already so that, if we took a backward step and looked at the global situation, we could find ourselves—as far as marketing is concerned—in a beneficial state in the long term if we stayed outside the GMO progression that is currently occurring worldwide. I know of one instance—and I think I have mentioned it in this House before—in which a farmer in America was sued by—I believe it was Monsanto, but I do not want to malign them unjustly. Monsanto had a farm next door to a farm where GMO crops were planted. The spraying and ancillary husbandry of that crop was all covered by the GMO safety mechanisms as well as Monsanto's patent. The farmer next door had spray drift affect his crop, and Monsanto successfully prosecuted him for—I do not think they used the word 'stealing' Monsanto's gene technology, but certainly as a recipient of the spray drift his crops were affected and became modified crops, and he actually lost his court case because of a consequence in which he had no involvement; it was because of the spray drift. He lost his case and was then held financially responsible for the penalty. Worldwide GMO food products are becoming more and more prevalent, but in association with the growth of GMOs there is an increase in concern in the community about genetically modified foods, the effect of those foods on our own health, the effect of those foods on children and adults who have food sensitivities, the effect on children with autism or other already developed mental problems. Parents are having difficulty controlling those children without the added complication of things such as genetically modified food, the future effect of which is yet to be determined. I believe that the opportunity existed for Australia to stand outside the GMO protocol so as to be able, when the opportunity arose, to offer the world market products that could be certified as completely non-GMO affected. We have missed that opportunity. This bill is in part national scheme legislation. The federal government has agreed to allow GMO technology to be embraced in Australia. It is already happening with some crops in Tasmania. I express some disappointment that we did not look to the future and see the opportunity for Australia, as an isolated marketplace—an island quite removed from any other country—to be able to provide a clean, green product to the world market at a time in the future when, I believe, we will regret our wholesale march into genetically modified cropping and animal husbandry. As I said at the outset, I acknowledge that quite stringent controls are being placed on gene technology. No doubt, when the state legislation in relation to cloning is introduced, we will have a discussion about the appropriate constraints on human cloning. I hope we do not go down that track at all. Mr Lucas: The Premier indicated that we are totally opposed to cloning. I think he has made that quite clear. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is very good. I do not think that very many members of this chamber would oppose that point of view. However, I would like to put on the record my disappointment that, as a nation—and this is national scheme legislation—I believe we have missed the opportunity to consider in the long term our position in the global marketplace where we could have offered GMO-clean products. I believe that in the not-too-distant future there will be a huge demand for those products. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (6.22 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Gene Technology Bill 2001. Firstly, I would like to say that the Queensland government is committed to advancement through safe and ethical bioscience research and development. A number of people in my electorate have raised their concerns regarding the growing of genetically modified crops and food products. They have also said that they felt that there was no system of control and no safeguards. In the past, the development and use of gene technology was undertaken under a voluntary system. 3080 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001

However, this government is committed to replacing that voluntary scheme in the context of a legally enforceable national framework, hence the introduction of this Gene Technology Bill 2001. Some of the provisions of this bill will establish a Gene Technology Regulator responsible for identifying and managing all environmental and public health risks associated with this technology. The regulator will allow Queenslanders to be confident that, as a community, they will reap the broader benefits of what this field of scientific endeavour has to offer within a safe and ethical framework. To ensure the protection of public health and the environment, the Gene Technology Bill 2001 and its Commonwealth counterpart control all dealings with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The definition of 'dealings' is extremely broad and covers the entire life cycle of GMOs from laboratory experiments, growth, development, production, manufacture and the use of GMOs to the manufacture of GM products, their possession, transport, and then finally the disposal of any trash. If a GMO is imported into Queensland, it will have to be assessed. If a GMO is to be included in a food or therapeutic product, it must firstly be assessed. If a product is to be utilised in an agricultural or industrial chemical, it must firstly be assessed. The legislation establishes four classes of dealings with genetically modified organisms that relate directly to the risks associated with particular dealings. Under the scheme, the regulator will prohibit persons from dealing with GMOs unless the dealing is assessed as having no significant risks to humans or the environment. The licensing system will be based on rigorous scientific risk assessment and extensive consultation with the states, the public and the expert advisory committees—the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the Gene Technology Ethics Committee and the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee. The regulator will have the capacity to commission independent research to monitor any risks posed by GMOs and to appoint inspectors who will have significant powers to investigate suspected breaches of the legislation. The regulator will also monitor activities involving GMOs and enforce conditions, where necessary, to ensure compliance with the legislation. Where conditions set by the Gene Technology Regulator are not met, the bill allows for tough penalties. In line with the Commonwealth act, the Gene Technology Bill 2001 establishes a criminal law regime to regulate dealings with GMOs through a system of provisions and penalties. These include imprisonment for a maximum of five years and fines of up to $1,099,975 for organisations dealing with the GMO without a licence or breaching licence conditions. Individuals who beach a licence or deal with a GMO without a licence also face imprisonment for up to five years and a maximum fine of over $219,000. In addition, a broad range of enforcement powers is provided to the regulator, including the ability to issue directions, cancel or suspend approvals, seek injunctions and make reports to the federal parliament and the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. The Gene Technology Bill sets out a clear system for organisations wishing to deal with genetically modified organisms and provides appropriately tough enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the new legislation. The bill will ensure that this valuable area of modern bioscience continues to grow and flourish within a safe framework that minimises the risk to public health and the environment. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (6.26 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Gene Technology Bill 2001. I would like to refer to parts of the article that was published in the Australian on 9 December 2000 about the passing of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Bill. It states— Scientists involved in human cloning risk 10-year jail terms and protesters two years' jail for damaging genetically modified crops, under Australia's first gene laws passed by the Senate. A Gene Technology Regulator will be set up with the same sweeping powers as the federal police and the tax office to inspect laboratories and farms for illegal GM activity. The laws... make it a crime to experiment with GM crops, animals, viruses or vaccines without approval from the gene regulator. States will be able to declare 'GM-free' zones and the location of modified crops will be made public unless a regulator rules that to do so would pose a 'significant risk' to public health. But to ease farmers' fears about environmental protesters destroying their GM crops, the Gene Technology Bill imposes two-year jail terms and $13,200 fines for damaging or preventing authorised gene modification activity. All food with GM ingredients will have to be labelled from the end of next year, under separate laws announced by Australian and New Zealand Health ministers. ... The bill outlaws human cloning with 10-year jail terms and $220,000 fines. The same penalty will apply to researchers who put human cells into animal eggs, or implant animal cells into a woman's womb. 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3081

The gene regulator will have to publish details of all GM applications it receives, and contact state governments, the federal environment minister and relevant local councils for comment. The public will have at least 30 days to comment on applications for GM licences and the regulator will have to assess risks to the environment, health and safety. A Gene Ethics Committee with members experienced in law, religion, health, and environment and farming will be set up to advise the regulator. And 'gene police' will be given the power to enter and search premises to collect evidence for prosecutions. Under the legislation, companies or farmers that breach their GM licences or operate without a licence risk five- year jail terms and fines of up to $1.1 million. The article states further that there has been some criticism of the bill as being— ...'weak and dangerous' because it did not require licences for 'low-risk' GM dealings or require GM crop growers to take out insurance against the spread of mutant genes. A spokesman from the Organic Federation of Australia has said that the laws governing the use of GMOs, such as crops and GM foods, will be overseen by a regulatory body. He said that this will not work because they do not adequately regulate the handling of GM crops and, without that regulation, GM crops could contaminate other plants. It is interesting that gene technology involves the control or modification of genes through the manipulation of DNA, the code of inheritance. It alters the genetic code of an individual chromosome cell or organism. Those alterations can be brought about by changing the code within a gene and adding information to the code, which can then turn a gene off or on, move a gene to a different place in a chromosome within the same nucleus or move a gene from one organism to another. In conclusion, it is not hard to see why this is a very controversial subject for most Queenslanders as they worry about how it will affect not only their crops but the very existence of human and animal life. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (6.30 p.m.): The widespread application of gene technology has unleashed a range of emotions amongst the public. Many fear the unknown and even the known. Many people are curious while others are fearful. Some people are excited and are scrambling to be a part of the action. A solid ethical and regulatory framework is a must. Minister Paul Lucas has embraced his responsibilities. He has shown a real enthusiasm not only for the content of his portfolio area but also for the ethical standards associated with emerging industries. I commend him for bringing this bill to the House. I remind the minister of some of the fears being expressed. I ask that he ensure that this regulatory and ethical framework be given real teeth. For instance, research that was done in 1999 by Dr Katrine Baghurst found that 58 per cent of the participants in the study said that they knew little about gene technology and its use in the food chain; 52 per cent felt that the risks of genetic engineering would outweigh the benefits; and 93 per cent supported government control of GE foods. It was of concern to me that the more people learn about genetically modified foods, the less they support them. Some real issues exist, possibly as a result of a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding of how these technologies are being applied. People have some real concerns. It is important that the public has confidence in the regulatory system and the ethical frameworks that are being developed at the national and state levels. As I said earlier, the minister has a responsibility to give those systems some teeth. Some of the possible risks identified with gene technology, as outlined by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in June 2000, include increased health risks associated with allergenicity in genetically modified foods, possible unknown long-term or intergenerational consequences that may not be able to be adequately addressed once the GMO is widely used and the risk to Australia's capacity to maintain diverse farming practices because of the impact of contamination to traditional or organic crops through the use of genetically modified crops in surrounding areas. The regulator lists many other risks. Some vegetarian friends of mine have even told me that they fear that they are consuming vegetables that have been modified with animal proteins and they may never know about it. They are concerned that they are eating food that they are not sure about. Some of us have some very practical concerns. In addition, there are broader non-scientific, moral and ethical concerns about the impact of humans playing God by using gene technology. Those are very real concerns. I want to put them on the record again today. On the other hand, we have a government that is very committed to jobs growth and economic development. We have some very exciting developments occurring in these areas. Given the invitation by the minister, I went and saw the good work that is being done in cancer research at the Centre for Immunology and Cancer Research at the PA Hospital, run by Dr Ian 3082 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001

Frazer and his team. I took Dr Carmen Lawrence there a couple of months ago. It is amazing and exciting stuff that has a very positive application in cancer treatment, particularly with cervical cancer. Having raised some concerns, I put on the record that there are some very exciting developments taking place. As a government that is committed to jobs development, we recognise the very exciting emerging industries and possibilities that exist in this field. We have embraced that. We have made significant financial commitments in a number of key areas. For example, the biotechnology industries have benefited from the $15 million Queensland Biodiscovery Fund. There are many other initiatives that the minister is developing around the state to give these industries a real push along. As I have said, this is certainly an area that we can benefit from. We have to be at the forefront of this area, but that has to be balanced against the sorts of concerns and fears that the public has. A number of strategies have been proposed in order to deal with some of those concerns. The minister certainly has been picking up on a number of them. The science technology and resources group has done a fair bit of work in this area. It recommended some immediate requirements in order to restore or maintain public confidence and appease people's fears. These included strategies involving food labelling that can be trusted, adequate education programs so an informed public can make intelligent choices, and an agriculture biotechnology strategy supported by a coordinated agency and dedicated separate agencies that, with no conflict of interest, can pursue and represent competing interests. Those interests include health and consumer food and drug requirements, environmental risks that can damage our valuable agricultural industry, risks to biodiversity through accidental escapes and many other things that I know that, from my discussions with him, the minister is well aware of. I commend the minister's work in this regard. I encourage him to maintain vigilance in this area. He certainly has my support in giving this whole regulatory and ethical regime solid and real teeth. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (6.36 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Gene Technology Bill. With respect to the growing development of biotechnology, this is an important bill that addresses issues raised by the Australian community. Scientific findings and discoveries impact upon and affect people's daily lives. It is important that the legislation is designed to meet community concerns on ethics and safety. The Beattie government is committed to the advancement of Queensland's high-technology sectors through the application of safe and ethical science, as evidenced by our release earlier this year of a Code of Ethical Practice for Biotechnology in Queensland. The establishment of the national gene technology regulatory scheme through the Gene Technology Bill and complementary Commonwealth legislation will assist in this process of moving Queensland towards the Smart State. The bill establishes a transparent regulatory process that will ensure that all dealings with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, will be regulated consistently and independently of government across Australia. Biotechnology is the term used for biological discovery for the development of industrial processes and the production of useful organisms and their products. It is used in the production of medicines, foods and energy sources. It can be said that biotechnology in the form of fermentation processes has been used for decades to make cheese and beer. Biotechnology has also been associated with animals and plants in the creation of animals or plants with specific characteristics. Today, biotechnology is leading the way in plant and animal research. A single gene from a plant or animal cell can be taken and inserted into another plant or animal cell. Organisms that have had the sequence of their genes changed are called genetically modified organisms. This bill will regulate the business of genetically modified organisms, commonly referred to as GMOs. In gene technology, laboratory techniques are used to copy and transfer genes between species in order to modify characteristics. These techniques are already being used on food crops. The object of this bill is to protect the health and safety of the public and also to protect the environment from any risks associated with gene technology. All dealings with GMOs will be assessed by the Gene Technology Regulator, who will seek advice from three expert advisory committees. The Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee will replace the current Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee and will provide scientific and technical advice on each licence application, as well as provide a source of expertise or advice on codes of practice and policy guidelines. 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3083

The Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee will be a broadly based consultative committee established to provide community views. While this committee will not provide advice on individual licence applications, the regulator may seek advice from this body on particular issues arising from the applications. It is important to note that the Gene Technology Ethics Committee was developed in response to calls from the public that such expertise was needed. Under the Commonwealth act, this committee is charged with providing advice on the ethics of gene technology, appropriate ethical guidelines and any necessary prohibitive directives. A question often asked is: how safe are genetically modified foods? All food sold in Australia must pass thorough a rigorous safety assessment by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority before it is approved for sale. This is carried out through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council. Guidelines have been adopted for the safety assessment of foods that have been produced through gene technology. There are certainly no 100 per cent guarantees in anything. However, all food sold in Australia is thoroughly tested to be considered safe for consumption. This question has been asked of me several times as I have travelled throughout my electorate. Genetically modified foods have to pass two levels of scientific evaluation before being approved. I believe it is important that biotechnology is encouraged and supported by the government. I believe also that what is even more important is the fact that the government is supporting biotechnology by ensuring that there is appropriate regulation that provides for the safety of the public and the environment. These committees will provide an independent system of safety assessment and regulation, assuring Queenslanders that all GM0s have been assessed as safe. The Gene Technology Bill will provide the public with certainty that science in this state is advancing within the safe and ethical parameters demanded by the Smart State. By promoting ethically and socially responsible scientific endeavour we will ensure that research in biotechnology delivers direct benefits to the people of Queensland within a clear legislative framework. Biotechnology is used in many areas—health, environment, food processing, the marine industry, and aquaculture and agriculture. For more than a decade biotechnology has created therapeutic medicines and diagnostic tests for both humans and animals. It has helped to develop a better understanding of some diseases. It has been used in the production of improved pharmaceuticals. Biotechnology is assisting in the discovery of new and improved vaccines. Medical biotechnology has a strong research base in Australia. Australia also has an international reputation for world-class researchers in the fields of molecular biology or immunology. In the past, we have all been excited about inventions like computers and fax machines. Today we can be very excited about the research being conducted in medicine. Discoveries are being made towards identifying all genetic diseases and the potential for the development of many degenerative conditions. Possibly we will see discoveries made in the area of treatment and maybe prevention of some human illness. In agriculture, biotechnology has improved food storage, improved disease and pest resistance and improved animal welfare. These are only a few benefits that society has received. This bill provides a strong and ethical framework to be achieved through a regulatory system based on efficient and effective scientific assessment. To complement the legislation we have released a Code of Ethical Practice for Biotechnology in Queensland. This code also provides an ethical framework and reference to legislation and should be used as a guide in the development of biotechnology. Biotechnology is commonly associated with gene technology. This is a new science that is not without risks. It is for this reason that the government has recognised the need to regulate the industry. The 20th century was the century of technology. Perhaps the 21st may be the century of preventive medicine. This bill supports biotechnology scientifically, socially and ethically. The community will not support research that fails to meet agreed safety standards or those that pose unacceptable risks. This government is developing a range of legislative initiatives that will address community concerns. The Gene Technology Bill is one of these initiatives. I congratulate the minister, I congratulate the minister's departmental staff on the hard work they have done, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (6.43 p.m.): I would also like to speak in support of the Gene Technology Bill 2001. In this day and age it is not good enough just to work harder; we also have to work smarter. That is why an important part of the Beattie election platform is based on the Smart State initiative, which aims to encourage the growth of knowledge-intensive industry in this state. One of the areas this government is focusing on, with the strong leadership of the Premier 3084 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001 and the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy, is that of biotechnology. In 1999, the Beattie government announced a $270 million, 10-year Queensland Bio-industry Strategy to encourage the development of this industry. Gene technology is an important part of the biotechnology industry. This industry, if developed properly, will generate wealth and jobs for Queenslanders for years to come. But gene technology must be nurtured within a strong ethical and, most importantly, transparent framework that addresses community concerns about this technology. It should also be reactive to industry, social and environmental issues associated with this technology. The Commonwealth government has introduced the Gene Technology Act 2000, which commenced operation in June 2001. In order for this legislation to be effective, state legislation is also required to enable consistent control and monitoring of all individuals and organisations working in the gene technology sector. That is one of the key reasons why this Gene Technology Bill 2001 is being introduced. My learned colleagues have already spoken about the role of the state in this regulatory scheme, how the bill will protect health and the environment. This afternoon I would like to discuss the effect this bill has on research and development. The Queensland and Australian industry and research and development sectors involved with genetically modified organisms— GMOs—have made every effort to comply with the voluntary administrative system of control on GMOs that this new scheme replaces. Our scientists and technicians should be commended for their efforts in the past. I understand that some members of the research community have voiced some concerns that this bill and the national regulatory scheme impose a regulatory burden. Any regulation will require some degree of administrative effort, but the lack of regulation could mean risk to the environment or public health. Public concern surrounding gene technology means that some legislative controls are appropriate and inevitable. This bill establishes the transparent and ethical regulatory scheme essential to gaining public trust and acceptance of this exciting field of scientific endeavour. The government acknowledges that this new national regulatory scheme will impose an additional administrative burden on the Queensland research community. The government has therefore endeavoured to ensure that the Commonwealth act and the Gene Technology Bill were designed to limit controls to those essential to the safe and ethical application of this technology. In effect, the regulatory scheme proposed by the bill and established by the Commonwealth legislation makes mandatory what has been voluntary for a long time in the past. While this scheme does impose some restrictions and additional administrative burdens on research institutions and firms involved with GMOs, the development of the scheme was undertaken in close consultation with those bodies and the change is not unexpected. The new scheme also recognises that research in this area has been ongoing for several decades in Australia and that considerable understanding of both the science and its related risk exists. Therefore, this scheme allows for the Gene Technology Regulator to declare some classes of dealing with GMOs exempt when confident that those dealings involve very low risk. This category applies to, for example, contained research involving a very well understood process for creating and studying a GMO. This will mean that no licence is required, provided the activity remains within the specific parameters, and allows for uninterrupted continuance of research in this area. There is strong evidence of broad acceptance of this requirement of the new scheme by the Queensland research community. Under the scheme, laboratories must be certified by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, and I am pleased to advise the House that all Queensland facilities have complied fully with this request. The scheme also mandates that all institutions and corporations undertaking dealings with GMOs be accredited by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. In conclusion, the Gene Technology Bill has been developed in close consultation with the state research community and will allow their works to continue without hindrance but within a transparent framework that will ensure the Queensland public is informed and supportive of this exciting area of modern science. I commend the bill to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (6.48 p.m.): I rise to support the Gene Technology Bill. This legislation breaks new ground and I believe it is appropriate that Queensland's newest and youngest minister has carriage of legislation which will take us well into this century. Complementary state and Commonwealth gene technology legislation is considered necessary to ensure maximum coverage of people and activities. Accordingly, the national gene technology regulatory scheme and this bill were developed in partnership between 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3085

Commonwealth, state and territory governments. This bill represents the regulatory system preferred by all states and territories as well as the Commonwealth. This is not a partisan bill but rather legislation supported on a bipartisan basis by all jurisdictions. Representatives from all states and territories and the Commonwealth developed a national scheme that will regulate the research, field trials, commercial release and some post-release management of genetically modified organisms. The scheme establishes a statutory office to be known as the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, which will be responsible for managing the novel products that fall outside the scope of the existing regulators, namely, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, the national registration authority and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The Commonwealth act relies on a range of constitutional powers such as corporations and international treaties. There are some gaps and uncertainties in the Commonwealth's constitutional coverage. While most commercial applications of gene technology by private enterprise may be covered at the Commonwealth level, constitutional limitations mean that other applications cannot be regulated by the Commonwealth, thus necessitating state level legislation. These include contained research with genetically modified organisms conducted by state government agencies and contained research or release of risk-free GMOs, such as some pharmaceuticals, conducted by individuals, partnerships, research institutes and universities. Apart from minor variations, Queensland's Gene Technology Bill is essentially drafted in identical terms to the Commonwealth act and is consistent with it. As part of this process there has been significant community consultation. The Interim Office of Gene Technology Regulator has undertaken substantial consultation on behalf of the Commonwealth-state consultative group on gene technology regulation across all states and territories on both the Gene Technology Bill and the gene technology regulations. Public consultations in relation to the Commonwealth bill were held in Brisbane and Cairns during 2000, and a consultation draft to the Commonwealth bill was released for public comment. The IOGTR conducted targeted public consultations on the gene technology regulations 2001 on 8 and 9 March this year in Brisbane. Written comments on the regulations were called for and submissions closed on 16 March this year. The Queensland government has contributed to the national effort through collaboration in these activities. In combination, the Commonwealth and state legislation enables consistent application of a regulatory scheme that will apply to all individuals and organisations in Australia. While the Commonwealth act was passed in December 2000 and came into effect on 21 June this year, to date only Tasmania has achieved passage of complementary legislation. Therefore, passage of the Queensland Gene Technology Bill 2001 will place Queensland at the forefront of jurisdictions in ensuring a safe and ethical application of gene technology. Mr Seeney: Come on, Terry, put some life into it. You can do better than this. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I am pleased to see that, while the member for Callide is usually quite negative in his comments to members, he is in fact encouraging us. I accept his encouragement and his support of a government that not only can do the old things that are needed in the state but actually is prepared to tackle the new and, in many ways, unknown technologies that we face. I congratulate the minister. I congratulate those from his department and the experts who advised him. I am certain that no matter what the gene defects of the person interjecting are, this bill will have a great effect on the future of Queensland. I support the bill. Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (6.53 p.m.): I want to congratulate the minister on his maiden bill. Rather than going over the regulatory framework that many members have outlined, I want to quickly get to what biotechnology can mean for our farmers. A study by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics found that in 2000 around 40 million hectares of genetically modified crops were harvested throughout the world. These were mainly soy beans, maize, canola and cotton. They mainly came from the United States and, to a lesser extent, Argentina and Canada. In Australia the only genetically modified broadacre crops that have reached commercialisation have been an insect resistant cotton that accounted for around 34 per cent of total Australian cotton plantings in 2000 and a herbicide tolerant cotton that accounted for a further three per cent. This means a reduction in the spraying which communities in those areas found so offensive. New technology means that cotton crops are able to withstand ravages of infection by insects. I want to also mention in passing that the cotton industry, leading the charge here, also creates important business opportunities in many rural centres. For the moment it seems, however, that public opinion in most of our major markets does not favour genetically 3086 Gene Technology Bill 18 Oct 2001 modified foods. Asian buyers have indicated to the Supermarket to Asia program mainly that they want to source non-genetically modified food from Australia. Because of our relatively late entry into the genetically modified food production race, we have a window of opportunity to exploit this consumer requirement. However, we are warned that it is important to maintain flexibility and not to be locked out of any new technology. The pendulum of consumer opinion will swing as consumers see benefits in modified foods, and this will probably come from health or therapeutic advantages as foods are tailored to give those effects. We should not regard biotechnology as something new. As we have heard already this evening, it has been around in the past to produce bread and beer and to make cheese. We can build on traditional biotechnology. For example, living plant cells are being used to produce biodegradable plastics, chemicals and fuels. Other GMO technology will see efforts to improve the taste and shelf life of foods. It will help manipulate genes that control the ripening of fruit and vegetables, allowing them to be transported further and kept longer. Another wave of GMO technology that has been discussed will be in functional foods—foods that provide health benefits above and beyond basic nutrition. Nutraceuticals are foods that are genetically engineered to contain vaccines, drugs and other vital pharmaceuticals. Research is now under way to produce fruits and vegetables that express vaccines or therapies against diseases such as hepatitis B, diarrhoea, cholera, malaria and cancer. Therapeutic hormones, vaccines and industrial chemicals might be produced by molecular farming whereby plants and animals are genetically engineered to produce naturally occurring bioactive substances in commercial quantities. In the year 2000 the Brisbane Institute was told— Queensland is already a leading player in the field of biotechnology with a high rate of investment and the highest concentration of research jobs, that is more than 3,000, of any state. Queensland is also one of Australia's leaders in bio-industry services with more than 2,000 employees and is a clear leader in per capita bio-industry research funding in Australia with $33.19 in bio research funding for every person in the state. Overall it has attracted $119.5 million in competitive Commonwealth bio-industry funding. I want to make this salient point about technologies and the rate of change. The Internet took only seven years to achieve the same level of worldwide penetration that the telephone took about 50 years to achieve. With respect to agriculture, I want to finish on this point. I want to instance canola. There has been a dramatic increase in exports to Asian countries of 47 per cent. The commercial release of canola varieties that are genetically modified to be tolerant of particular herbicides in Australia will be possible in the next few years. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics estimates that the benefit of these crops is that they will offer a yield advantage of around seven per cent, compared with conventional varieties, and a decrease in weed control costs, including seed cloth, equivalent to a three per cent reduction in total production costs. It is estimated that the adoption of a GM variety would result in Australian canola production increasing by nearly nine per cent by the year 2010 and Australian feed exports increasing by around 12 per cent. In closing, I congratulate the minister. Farmers in the fields have nothing to fear from this legislation. It is complementary legislation to the Commonwealth's and it deserves the support of the House. Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (6.58 p.m.), in reply: I wish to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this important piece of legislation. Members are well aware of the government's strong commitment to the growth of knowledge industries such as biotechnology and gene technology. Gene technology will be a major driver in Queensland's economy—in agriculture, forestry, health care, environmental remediation, mining and forensics as well as in entirely new industries such as nutraceuticals, bioinformatics and biological computing, and biomaterials. Yet we know that this technology is not without risks, some of which are not fully understood at this point. That is why we need strong legislation to ensure that genetically modified organism, GMO, research is conducted safely and with proper risk assessment and accountability. This government makes no apology for being tough in its approach to these issues. The Beattie government has already released a groundbreaking Code of Ethical Practice for Biotechnology which establishes fundamental ethical principles for all biotechnologies operating in Queensland. It is compulsory for those with state funding and voluntary for others. No other state in Australia has that voluntary code of practice. In terms of our role of explaining issues to people in the community, we have also published what we call a friendly guide, which is an explanation of 18 Oct 2001 Gene Technology Bill 3087 biotechnology for the benefit of people in the general community to give them all the information. This code is supported by a range of legislation, including the Gene Technology Bill. The bill we are debating today is the culmination of many years of consultation at a Commonwealth and state level. The scheme gives strong powers to the independent Gene Technology Regulator to license dealings in GMOs, accredit research organisations and license containment facilities. These powers are strongly supported by the community, which wants assurance that the government is adequately policing the new technologies. At the same time, the legislation provides for substantial openness and accountability. There is provision for community input into all licence applications which could pose significant harm to the community or environment. There is also provision for three standing committees to advise the regulator and ministerial council on a range of technical, ethical and community issues arising in respect of the scheme. I want to comment briefly on a few matters raised by speakers who contributed to the debate. I compliment all speakers in the debate on either side of the House for their thoughtful and helpful contributions. The member for Southern Downs of course is a farmer and understands the benefits of biotechnology but also the needs for safety. He made an important point about genetic selection in that it has been undertaken over many thousands of years by farmers. That is what happens when we cross plants or animals. He made the very important point—and I think he is right—that the transition from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled society probably happened when farmers realised that by improving their crops they could remain in the one place for a period of time. So I do thank him for his contribution. The member for Gladstone raised a number of concerns about ethical issues. This legislation is drafted on the basis of the precautionary principle. She referred to a case in either the United States or Canada where there was an allegation that an individual who lived next door to a Monsanto crop farm was prosecuted for then growing genetically modified material himself. That is not my understanding of the facts of that case. My understanding of the facts of that case was that the court established that he was growing the products in an area which could not be accounted for if they drifted in the course of normal farming. The allegation was more that he stumbled across a genetically modified seed and decided to grow it himself. So I think that was more the aspect of that case rather than what the honourable member said. The member for Gladstone also mentioned GM foods. This does not apply to food regulation. In fact, there is a separate regime for that. This of course applies to things that eventually will be registered under food legislation, so it is an extra level of accountability in that regard. She spoke about GM-free crops. I think the member for Logan adequately discussed some of the economics of it. Really, the economics of it do not stack up in terms of the broad use of GM crops. But this legislation does allow for GM-free zones. Of course, it does not mean that farmers have to grow genetically modified crops. There is no obligation on them to do that if they can see a market niche for doing otherwise. The member for Hervey Bay spoke about the legislative standards set in the bill, the role of the ministerial council and mechanisms for community consultation. The member for Glass House spoke about ethical, health and safety concerns and a strong regulatory approach focusing on the strengths of penalties. The member for Tablelands spoke about the penalty clauses, the need for public consultation and issues in terms of farmers and the protection of their legitimate interests when it comes to genetically modified crops. The member for Algester again spoke about community concerns and low level awareness of the application of gene technology. That is why this government has published the gene code of ethics and other guides, because we do think it is incumbent upon people to get out there and talk about issues so consumers can make an informed choice. The member for Springwood spoke about the need for transparency and regulation in consultation and supported biotechnology scientifically, socially and ethically. The member for Capalaba spoke about working smarter, the $270 million bioindustry strategy of the state government and the fact that gene technology must always occur within an ethical framework. The member for Stafford spoke about Queensland being at the forefront of other jurisdictions, as it is. The member for Logan spoke with some authority in relation to economic issues concerning genetically modified crops and also said that it is not a new technique at all. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. 3088 Adjournment 18 Oct 2001

Committee Clauses 1 to 195, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (7.06 p.m.): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 30 October 2001. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (7.06 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Centenary of Federation Celebrations Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (7.07 p.m.): The Centenary of Federation celebrations in Atherton were held in the precincts of old Chinatown. In the late 1800s Atherton consisted of many Chinese inhabitants who had earlier arrived in the Far North looking for gold. An influx of Chinese arrived in the Cooktown-Laura area and later came to the Atherton district to settle. They made a huge contribution to the area and were some of the first farmers of maize in the tableland area. The focus of the celebrations centred around local Chinese heritage with a very full program of events taking place. The festivities were in the vicinity of the Hou Wang Temple, which is the only one of its kind left in Australia today. The temple has been partly restored by Friends of the Temple group and drew a lot of interest from visitors and locals in the area. Guided tours were conducted, with some 3,000 visitors passing through the joss house. The day's festivities were many and varied. Local markets were incorporated into the activities of the day, with an estimated 4,500 people in attendance. A local swing band played popular music to greet people in the morning. The historic Savannahlander train delivered visitors from Cairns via Kuranda and Mareeba. Passengers were then ferried by bus and horse-drawn carriages to the festivity area. A great bush poetry recital was heard from the main stage. The poet who was in attendance is well known locally and was also responsible for the working dog displays throughout the day. One of our local national youth envoys also gave a very informative speech on her activities for the year, a speech which made one very proud of our youth of today. Performances by the Tableland Dance School and the Atherton Performing Arts Group were well received by the audience. The Cairns and District Chinese Association performed traditional Chinese dancing including the lion dance and the dragon dance which were also a highlight of the celebrations. In recognition of the Chinese Year of the Snake, a large serpent from the TALL, Tableland Artists Larger than Life, artistic group was on display. An Asian cooking demonstration using foods that would have been available at the time of Federation was conducted, drawing enthusiastic onlookers. A well-known Cairns artist showed his skills at Chinese ice carving. I was very pleased to officially welcome the Federation Trail horse riders, who proceeded by horse-drawn carriages and drays. Federation scrolls were presented to the riders, who then collected the mail which was to be delivered to Chillagoe. Historical photographs and Chinese artefacts, including a split mural depicting the history of the Chinese in Atherton from 1885 to 1920, were on display at the old post office gallery. The celebrations were a resounding success and a fitting tribute to our bygone era. 18 Oct 2001 Adjournment 3089

Mr K. Paweloszek Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (7.10 p.m.): Our government proudly advocates the Smart State. It seems that the more contact I have with the constituents of my electorate the more I realise that this goal can be achieved. In my electorate of Gaven I have had the pleasure on several occasions of meeting with a highly intelligent person named Kaz Paweloszek. Kaz is an engineer, formerly educated in Poland in the field of hydraulics, who has spent many years in that capacity working in Australia and other places in the world. Kaz Paweloszek has developed a method to simplify the hydraulics of and water supply to high-rise buildings and other large structures. This method involves a single water source to supply water throughout a building. Presently buildings must support at least two systems—one for emergency fire systems and one to supply potable water for human use. Mr Paweloszek's invention makes it possible to use the same pipes and supply for both purposes. It is controlled by a computer, and faults can easily be detected by a monitor and isolated for prompt repair or adjustment. Presently fire hoses must be checked regularly, and this practice wastes water and manpower. With a single source system, the water is always being monitored and comes from the same piping. With this invention there are massive savings on construction, electricity and pumping, but the main carrot to induce a developer or builder to use the system must surely be the space made available for other purposes. Under present systems the storage tanks must be located on the higher floors, but this will no longer be the case as under this system the tanks can be relocated to other, lower areas. This enables extra units or a penthouse to take the position that normally would have been reserved for storage tanks. Mr Paweloszek has patented this invention in many countries. It is now up to Queensland and especially Gold Coast developers to be smart, take up this initiative and implement his single source technique. He has patented this invention in North America, and he has told me that he would allow this invention to be used in the rebuilding of New York and that the savings would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Any earnings by the way of licensing fees would be given back to the community that suffered at the hands of the terrorists on 11 September. I feel proud to know this man.

Patient Transfers; Natural Resources Personnel Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (7.12 p.m.): I rise to speak about two very contentious issues in the Central Highlands region. The first issue relates to the attitude of the Health Department to the transfer of patients requiring surgery or specialist services from the Central Highlands to Rockhampton or Brisbane. On numerous occasions patients from that region have been denied patient transfer by clerks within the Department of Health. This is a totally unacceptable situation. Some patients are being denied specialist treatment. Some are cancer patients and others have other serious ailments. They should not be denied this service because departmental people make a decision without fully understanding the medical problems of the people in question. Just last Saturday evening one young lady who had broken her arm was turned away from the hospital in Emerald without even being given an X-ray. She returned to the Emerald Hospital the next morning, by which time it was necessary for her to go to one of the hospitals in Rockhampton for surgery. This is a totally unacceptable situation. I urge the Health Minister to personally investigate this deplorable situation. I will continue to monitor the situation and I will expose it for all it is worth. The other issue I raise relates to Natural Resources personnel in Clermont. Clermont is not in my electorate but is only 100 kilometres to the north. While these officers have been an integral part of the landcare operation in that region, that service has now been wound down and the personnel have been taken away from Clermont. I think that is a despicable act. The removal of those people flies in the face of what land-holders in the Central Highlands region are trying to achieve. They have been custodians of their land and they have done a great job. This is another directive of this government to cut back resources in that area. I call on the member for Charters Towers to stand up and be counted on this issue. I also call on the Minister for Natural Resources to replace as soon as humanly possible the two personnel who were removed, in recognition of the great work they have done there in the past and so that the region can benefit from the great work they will continue to do in the future. 3090 Adjournment 18 Oct 2001

Pine Rivers State High School; Schools Conflict Resolution and Mediation Program Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (7.15 p.m.): Last Friday I, along with the Minister for Environment, the Hon. Dean Wells, and the honourable member for Clayfield, Liddy Clark, had the pleasure of attending the state finals of the Schools Conflict Resolution and Mediation Competition, hosted by the Queensland Law Society. Of the 23 Queensland schools that participated in this year's competition it came down to two teams—Clayfield College versus Pine Rivers State High School. I think members can guess which team won. It was Pine Rivers State High, of course. As someone who has trained and worked as a mediator, I can say that both teams demonstrated very impressive problem-solving skills, using both negotiation and mediation techniques. More impressive is the fact that they are all year 9 and year 10 students. I congratulate the members of the Pine Rivers State High School team—Ashleigh Turner, Sara White, Melissa Milne, Travis Bell, Isaac Braiden, Adele Osborne and Latisha McKee. They are a credit to their school and a credit to themselves. I also pay tribute to and congratulate their coach and teacher, Joan Trueman, who, incidentally, is a recipient of a national education training award. Pine Rivers State High will now compete in the national finals, which will be held here at Parliament House on 2 November. They will be competing against South Sydney High School and Damascus College from Ballarat. I know that all members will join with me in wishing Pine Rivers State High all the best, but I must say that, from what I saw last Friday, these southern schools will have to be exceptional to come close to Pine Rivers. I also take this opportunity to commend the Queensland Law Society and its solicitor members not only for developing and sponsoring this great program but also for giving their valuable time on a volunteer basis to adjudicate the competition in all areas of the state. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend Education Queensland and the Attorney- General, the Hon. Rod Welford, for supporting the SCRAM program.

Mr J. Manhken Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.18 p.m.): I rise to speak on behalf of an elderly resident in my electorate. His problem is certainly not an unusual one. Mr Manhken was born in 1929 and is now 72 years of age. He is suffering from advanced dementia and is being cared for in a secure dementia unit at Alchera Park. Mrs Manhken lives in Monto and visits whenever possible. When she does visit she stays at the Crossroads Motel for one to three nights per visit. She has no family support either in Gladstone or in Monto. She wishes to relocate to Wellington, near Dubbo in New South Wales, as soon as possible to be near their son and his family. Mr Manhken has been accepted for care by the Bellhaven Nursing Home in Wellington and a bed is available now. His GP, Dr Railton Russell, has approved this transfer. The nursing home contacted the Queensland Ambulance Service to talk about options for the transfer of Mr Manhken. He obviously cannot be transferred in a private vehicle—Mrs Manhken cannot drive and he is a secure dementia patient for medical reasons. The upshot of the approaches to both the Queensland Ambulance Service and the Royal Flying Doctor Service is that they will not transfer him, even to the border of New South Wales where it is hoped that a transfer across to the New South Wales Ambulance Service can be arranged. So we have a situation whereby Mr and Mrs Manhken have an opportunity to transfer to be near their family so that Mrs Manhken in particular can receive essential support. Mr Manhken has a nursing home placement that is suitable to his medical needs, yet they cannot find suitable opportunities to transfer into Dubbo in New South Wales. One of the suggestions that was put forward to this couple was that they organise private facilitators to arrange the transport. This is out of the question because both of them are pensioners and the cost of private transfer is beyond their means. The RFDS and the QAS appear to be unwilling to make interstate transfers even though the New South Wales air ambulance service is prepared to make that connection, providing they can be assured that the cost of his transfer down to their connection can be guaranteed here in Queensland. This is a specific case in which a couple can have their future care needs addressed by a caring family member, but that critical link to get them transferred into appropriate care facilities is missing. I implore the government to have a look at those situations. Mr Mahnken is not the only one, but certainly he is the one who is highlighted in this incident in which some thinking outside the square has to be done for these circumstances where a vehicle transfer is impractical, unsafe 18 Oct 2001 Adjournment 3091 and medically unsuitable, yet the result of a swift and timely transfer is that both Mr and Mrs Mahnken receive their necessary support. Time expired.

International Year of the Volunteer Awards; Mrs P. Hartmann Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (7.21 p.m.): I recently had the pleasure of distributing 20 state government medallions as part of our International Year of the Volunteer celebrations. Each of the 20 recipients was nominated by a non-profit community-based organisation in the electorate of Pumicestone, which I represent. Criteria were set by my dedicated and valued electorate officer, Ralda Reid, and myself, and we asked four respected members of the community—Mr Bill Hinte, JP and voluntary youth worker; Mrs Joan Tomaisello, volunteer community worker; Mr Col Matthews, retired president of the Bribie Island Community Voluntary Help Association; and Mr Rick Thornton, Bribie Island senior computing club volunteer—to form a steering committee to find the 20 medal winners. I would like to express my sincere thanks to those four judges, as it was a hard task to pick 20 out of 430 nominations. I would like to list the 20 recipients because of the years of service they have all given: Lynda Gregory, Reg Devenish, Lois Baker, Frank Bigg, Debbie Dunn, Cheryl Thornton, Val Goodwin, Heather Patterson, Mr Edward and Mrs Sharon Pearse, Joan Finch, Arthur Richards, Allan Dimmick, Betty Montaut, Colin Moane, Laurie Dickson, Mr Cliff and Mrs Mary Jones, Vi Hall, Donna Cromar, Marie Astill and Margaret Guthrie. As I have lived in the community for nearly 17 years, I can honestly say that the steering committee has done an exceptional job in selecting such worthy recipients, and on behalf of a grateful community I would like to extend our thanks for their tireless efforts. Margaret Guthrie was nominated by the president of the Bribie Island community arts centre, Mrs Patricia Hartmann. Pat also would have been a worthy medal winner/recipient but she never wanted to be singled out. She always believed that everyone else did as much as she did to keep the community arts centre running efficiently—that is, except Margaret. She highly respected Margaret's commitment to the centre and valued her friendship of many years. Sadly, Pat passed away only a few days before the medals were awarded. I would like to pay special tribute to Pat Hartmann. She was sincere, honest, hardworking and every bit a lady. I met Pat when she was involved in fundraising for the local community arts centre from the very beginning when it was a bicentenary project. She took on more and more responsibility as the project grew, becoming a member of the committee and then president in 1995—a position she held until her death. Pat regularly worked in the centre's front reception desk, even on Sundays, and would often fill in for other volunteers if they were unable to make their roster. The Bribie Island community arts centre is a credit to Pat Hartmann and all the volunteers who continue to devote their time and effort to ensuring the shire has the finest arts centre. I recommend it as a must-see for anyone visiting Bribie Island. Pat will be sadly missed by her surviving family members and the many friends she made in her 29 years of living on Bribie Island.

Monto Coal Project; McArthur Coal Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (7.23 p.m.): I am delighted to take this opportunity to warmly welcome the exciting announcement yesterday by McArthur Coal of the development of a new coalmine at Monto. As the Premier said in this parliament earlier today, this is about jobs investment and opportunity. However, for me this announcement has a particular significance. Monto is not just in the Callide electorate; it is my home town. I was Deputy Mayor of the Monto shire before being elected to this parliament, and I know how much this project will mean to Monto. It is a community that has had a doubtful future in recent years because of a range of factors, many of which are affecting many similar rural communities. In Monto's case, those factors were multiplied by the recent closure of the dairy factory and the deregulation of the dairy industry. I believe Monto can now plan for a new future and a great future as a major producer of high environmental quality coal with the acquisition of a controlling interest in this project by McArthur Coal. I know that McArthur Coal is a very successful and an enormously respected company with an unquestionable track record in the Queensland coal industry. It has built its success to date on 3092 Adjournment 18 Oct 2001 an ability to identify a niche market in the coal industry, and it has identified a growth market for more environmentally friendly coals. The Monto project will produce an ultra low nitrogen coal with the lowest nitrogen level of any coal on the Australian market. It will also have low ash content and will produce fewer emissions and higher efficiencies for coal customers. The project has been advanced to date by Burnett Coal, and McArthur Coal has advised me that it will acquire a 51 per cent stake in the Monto coal project and commit a further $15 million to stage 1 of a two-stage development. Stage 1 will involve the development of a mine with a capacity of up to one million tons per annum. The company has also advised me that it anticipates lodging a mining lease application this financial year, with production to commence in the 2002-03 financial year. The company has also advised that stage 2 of the mine has the potential to produce 10 million tons per annum and create up to 500 jobs. I am enormously thrilled at the involvement of such a major respected company in the development of the coal deposits at Monto. For some time now much effort has been put into ensuring that Monto has an economic future, and this project could not be more welcome in that regard. With production predicted to start as early as 2002, I believe the community of Monto can now be optimistic about its future and begin to plan for some major changes in the local community. This is great news for the Central Queensland region and it is an opportunity for which Monto has been searching for many years. I look forward to seeing this project become a reality. I look forward to seeing the support of the government and all of the government departments that will be necessary to make this project happen. This is a great project for Queensland, and it is a great project for Monto.

Proposed International Airport, Jacobs Well Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (7.26 p.m.): Jacobs Well is a beautiful boating and fishing bayside village located south-east of Beenleigh. Not for long, however, if developers of a proposed international airport have their way. The proposal for a 24-hour, non-curfew international, domestic and air cargo airport would destroy the very quality of life which is the area's greatest attraction. There is absolutely no need for an additional airport in south-east Queensland given the imminent extension of the Coolangatta runway and the Brisbane international airport operating nowhere near capacity. The region is currently very well served by the Brisbane and Coolangatta airports, which are leased from the Commonwealth government by private corporations. The master plans of both of those airports indicate more than adequate capacity to meet regional needs for at least 30 years. The 4,000 hectares of freehold land required for the airport are, in the main, currently being used for canegrowing. Thus, major earthworks required for the construction would have a significant impact on the environmentally sensitive acid sulfate soil in the canegrowing area, as well as the flood plain itself. In fact, Gold Coast City Council sources predict the massive earthworks required would lead to flooding of many parts of Beenleigh, Mount Warren Park and Yatala. The 50-kilometre area around the proposed site is one of the country's fastest growing residential and industrial areas. Therefore, any proposal for a new airport would mean that noise would be a major concern to residents. I do not agree with the airport's supporters that all take- offs and landings from the airport could be done over the ocean to minimise noise impact on local residents. Wind factors determine which way planes land and take off, so any suggestion that all aircraft movement would be over the ocean is not right. Aircraft are getting bigger and bigger. The larger planes begin their descents 100 kilometres away from their landing sites, so that will mean plenty of low sweeps over Albert's growing residential areas and, therefore, plenty of noise. I can only describe this proposal for an international airport as a flight of fancy. For the sake of the people of Albert and their unique quality of life, my promise to them is that I will continue to fight to ensure it stays that way.

Esk Streetscape Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.29 p.m.): I table 404 letters of protest and one letter of congratulations to the Esk Shire Council. I have had several letters of complaint on this issue and a petition signed by 404 people against the Esk streetscape out of the entire population of Esk of 992. That 992 figure includes children, teenagers, adults and elderly persons. 18 Oct 2001 Adjournment 3093

Originally when the consultative process on the Esk streetscape began, the importance of tourism for Esk now and in the future was discussed. However, what eventuated is a lot different from what the residents of Esk supported and thought that they were getting. The reduction in parking space along the main street now makes it difficult for visitors to stop and patronise local businesses. People passing through Esk need to be able to pull up and park easily. When it is made too difficult for them, they will just not bother. With Fernvale and Toogoolawah in such close proximity, travellers with a map and those who have been to the area before will simply move on. Whether or not the main street traders of Esk are disadvantaged may not be of paramount importance to those whose wages are not directly affected, but for those whose incomes have been affected, this situation is unacceptable. Visitors who say to each other as they continue on down the road—and this was reported at Toogoolawah—'Esk is a pretty town, but what a pity we couldn't see anywhere to pull up in a hurry,' do not help businesspeople pay their bills. All of the centre parking has been removed. Yes, there were concerns about the safety of the centre parking. It is illegal to back out of centre parking and that practice should be minimised by signs. Blocked vision from bigger cars parking beside smaller cars can be alleviated by the use of appropriately placed mirrors. However, since the placement of the new gardens, the number of reports of near accidents has risen dramatically. It may be the Brisbane Valley Highway, but in reality to the children, parents, the elderly and all the other folk of Esk, it is their home's main street, their main shopping area, not just a highway. People travelling along this section of the highway need to be forced to slow down in recognition of the fact that they are driving through a children's, parents' and elderly people's main activity area. The centre parks may not have been 100 per cent safe, but they were better than the dangerous fiasco that has been reported to me to exist now. The people watch in fear every day. I ask that the Esk Shire Council review what it has done. Although there are problems that it has overcome to accommodate the people's concerns, I ask that it please consider very carefully returning centre parking in Esk.

Burnett Water Group Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (7.31 p.m.): I take this opportunity to place on record my support of the Burnett Water Group. As members would be fully aware, legislation was passed in June this year to create a company to become the proponent to prepare environmental impact statements for the Burnett region. Its role is to investigate the feasibility of developing water storage infrastructure in the Burnett River catchment. Burnett Water Pty Ltd has, in its short life, created a reputation of sound professionalism that has gained the respect of all major stakeholders. The time frame allowed to gather the necessary EIS documents to satisfy both state and Commonwealth governments is, in itself, a major challenge. The directors and staff have impressed stakeholders with their resolve to see the task complete. The development is by no means without its critics—and I will not name them here. Suffice to say that there are a variety of lobby groups who have concerns, whether they be environmental, economic or social. I believe that in a development of this magnitude every elected body or individual small businessman whose livelihood will be directly impacted on should be given the opportunity to voice their concerns—and voice their concerns they have. Recently the Burnett Water Company has conducted an extensive information campaign. From the first week on the job the standard was set, with personal meetings between land-holders and stakeholders. A free-call phone service was initiated, along with a web site containing all pertinent documents as well as public displays and meetings in all shire councils and also advertisements were placed in the local paper. Added to that, the company has kept a fairly high media profile since its inception. I believe that all the concerns that have been raised by the major lobby groups or concerned individuals have been answered. I also believe that every group had ample opportunity to voice their concerns during the EIS process. Of the 250-odd submissions lodged with the company, 91 per cent were favourable. The facts speak for themselves: 1,200 construction jobs and 7,500 more jobs in agriculture. I also ask members to consider all the follow-on effects for business— earthmoving contractors, concrete suppliers and the like. 3094 Adjournment 18 Oct 2001

It is estimated that $850 million of economic growth and stability will flood into my region. For us in the Burnett, this is big business. The only thing that seems to be in our way and the Beattie government's way is the federal government, which has refused to give us a commitment to this project, which has been going on for some 30 years. It has been only over the past 12 months that the people of the Burnett have felt that some sort of finality will be achieved. The procrastination of Senator Robert Hill and his government on this development is to be deplored. The federal government has been keeping the people of Burnett in a state of mystifying disillusionment as to what Senator Hill has in mind for us. Election campaigns are good opportunities for governments to make commitments and I say to Senator Hill that the time is now. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.

G. A. NICHOLSON, ACTING GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2001